How much does it cost for, say, a small business in Argentina that ships to the EU to comply with article 27 GDPR by hiring a representative?

Article 27 GDPR, as I understand it, requires businesses outside the EU to hire a representative firm in the EU if they get even one order in a year with a shipping or billing address in an EU member state. It also requires businesses outside Britain to separately hire a representative firm in Britain if they get even one order in a year with a shipping or billing address in Britain. This has caused small businesses without the budget for an article 27 representative's annual fee to comply by removing EU member states and Britain from their list of valid countries. How is this not a geofence?

That's the thing, dealers make a lot of money on service — not just parts, but also labor. Dealers, therefore, have a perverse incentive to discourage people from buying EVs. The more they sell, the more the manufacturers will build. If they convince buyers that they really don't want an EV, then they never have to deal with them, and don't have to worry about that future loss of income.

So the answer to the original question is "No, car companies aren't sabotaging the EV transition. Car dealerships are."

For a few miles, anyway. And then they're back to being as noisy as an ICE car.

Almost half could potentially have charging just by installing it or having their apartment complex install it, statistically speaking. If you live in a place where "most people can't even get a parking spot", you should consider either A. moving or B. not having a vehicle, because charging is the least of your problems.

What the heck are you talking about? Key fob hacks happen on ICE cars all the time, and ICE cars have 24/7 tracking, etc., too. And no EV has to "approve" your trips. And no, the battery isn't an integral part of the frame. It's the floorboard. It is structural, but it is also pretty well protected against collision impacts.

To within the margin of error, ignoring the pre-Model-3 period when Teslas came with free lifetime supercharging, free charging has never really existed except when provided by specific employers to their employees. It isn't "getting less and less" common. The employers that provide it are generally still providing it, and in greater and greater quantities.

Umm... if it is doing everything an EV does (e.g. driving silently on electrical power), then you're putting strain on the grid.

So can EV chargers. Tesla temporarily deploys superchargers in certain places for big festivals, and those can either use diesel generators or giant battery packs, depending on how long it is going to be there.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This seems like an incredibly bad idea to me for multiple reasons — high fuel consumption per watt, limited amount of power availability, extra wear on the car's battery, etc.

A lot of folks like to fantasize about situations like that, but having driven across the country multiple times in an EV, that just isn't reality. The places where there are long lines outside of charging stations are basically all in areas with incredibly high EV deployment, and the superchargers are filled up by locals. The superchargers on major interstates outside of the major cities are approximately never full, with the exception of one on I-10 south of Phoenix (and I can't find that one anymore, so maybe when they opened the bigger one across the street, perhaps they ripped it out).

A few hundred bucks to bore under the sidewalk, and it will be. That's an excuse, not a reason.

Is that measured or estimated range? My VW diesel estimates that it puts out no pollution at all.

Posting several time is just a way to backup the flow. That way, if Slashdot were to lose a full day of stories, nothing of value would be lost.

You really don't get it. ChatGPT is free. If you want to test it, just do. You won't give details to anyone. Free emails are a dime a dozen these days. But if you have no interest in it, shut the fuck up and don't give your opinion as to the quality of its responses as you have never ever tried it. You don't know.

I'm not advocating its use. I'm not saying it's great. I was just answering a comment claiming it cannot write code. It can and it does.

How about you stick to posting about stuff you have at least a shred of knowledge firsthand ?

Not anything about that statement is simple. Is it shared only if the user consents every time the company sends that data, or is it enough to issue a blanket consent for all future sending to a specific site? If the former, you're going to break an awful lot of things that the user might want to do. If the latter, then tapping "I agree" to a data sharing agreement once (which the user probably forgot about years ago) is still consent.

Sorry, but that phrasing absolutely is vague, and there's no way that such a simple statement could ever not be vague. A sufficiently clear explanation would be that they share location information only in an emergency or when the user has explicitly authorized them to share information with a specific external partner by establishing a link between the user's online account and that external partner. That's unambiguous, because it tells what users had to do to grant consent, which gives you at least some idea about whether they understood what they were consenting to and did so deliberately, and makes it clear that they do not share that information in response to any form of boilerplate consent.

This part raised red flags: "except in the case of emergencies or with customer consent." I'm not saying that's the wrong policy, so much as that it is so vague that it could be anywhere from a perfectly reasonable policy to an absolute privacy disaster or anything in between.

Reasonable would be a car company allowing the customer to authorize a specific third-party site to access car data (e.g. TeslaFi).

Unreasonable would be a "By using this navigation system, I consent to data sharing with [car company]'s partners" dialog with an "I agree" button that you have to tap before you can do anything with the car nav system.

Both of those would at least ostensibly count as "customer consent".

Asking me to prove some piece of code cannot be found anywhere is disingenuous at best. Proving something doesn't exist is impossible, and I suspect you know it. Nice trolling.

Why don't you provide an example of ChatGPT spouting more than a line of text verbatim from anywhere? If what you claim is true it should be trivial. And countless lawsuits would be cast by now.

What I suggest is for you to go play half an hour with ChatGPT. While severely limited in many aspects, it is clearly more than what you suspect.

I'd hardly call $15 competitive. After the demise of Google Domains was announced, I started looking around, and discovered that Cloudflare offers domain registrations at cost (i.e. you pay the TLD registry price plus the ICANN fee). Zero markup. Unless you're getting some sort of bulk discount or credit towards hosting from some other provider, you're not likely to beat that.

For example:

• .com: $9.77
• .org: $7.50
• .net: $11.84

Even the most expensive of those is still less than the Google Domains price used to be. YMMV, obviously.

The irony is that just a few years after their lawyer made that comment, Apple renamed iTunes to Apple Music like a moron in a hurry. :-D

This. The way I interpret what they said is that they found something that should have been a P1 block-ship bug during late testing, but they decided that hitting an arbitrary release date was more important than not breaking the user experience. That right there tells me that they don't care about quality, and that we should expect these sorts of problems to happen again in the future. That's not a good look for a tech company.

I assumed the point of that bit was "with cellular turned off to prevent cell tower triangulation or cellular carrier detection," in which case the fix for the additional "Wi-Fi triangulation is still a problem" limitation is to not use that, either.