Seriously. Long overdue.

They are. Show me they are not.

Care to elaborate, professor?

CCS will probably remain standard in the EU, as even Tesla uses it both in their cars and superchargers. There is no point in changing all that. the US will slowly adopt NACS. Japan will probably wait and see (as they are about 5 years behind).

European manufacturers could follow suit. In fact they could have been the first to adopt NACS. This is about providing your customers with a reliable charging experience, something non-Tesla charging companies have miserably failed to provide (starting from VW-owned Electrify America). If nothing else, VW never believed in their charging infrastructure (Electrify America) beyond being forced to do it (dieselgate), and again failed to recognized that the strength of your EV platform is in the ecosystem. This is mainly a failure of the european manufacturers in innovating in the EV space than else. We'll see how they react, probably with lots of complaints to finally adopt NACS just to remain competitive.

Absolutely. Besides, try to do an interview at less than 3Mbps up. You will be hard pressed to justify why the quality of the transmission is so incredibly poor in a civilized country. I mean, it happens to me very often, and I am in the suburbs of Munich, Germany, where in the local neighborhood internet is still relying of old ISDN lines (yes, you read that right). The interview is awkward when i am proposing high tech projects and yet it looks I am dialing in from the 90s.

Frankly we are not talking about 100MB/s up. We are talking about at least 10, which is very much sustainable even with subpar equipment.

The problem isn't 25 vs 100 down. It's 3 vs 20 up. Having a conversation online with 3 up (advertised, it can be lower), or uploading anything takes forever if at all. You can only live with that if all you do is light emailing. if you are a business, you are basically not going anywhere.

This is a bit unfair, as Python isn't really where the criticism comes from. Anybody with same barebone knowledge would know that Python isn't designed to be a low-level language and frankly it doesn't even pretend to. Heck, it relies on C for speed. (Nobody in their sane mind would, say, propose to write kernel code in Python). I think the grips come from languages that do pretend to be as good as C (Rust, primarily). I won't discuss the merits of their claim, but just say that Python isn't the one you should pick on.

This is the only way this can work. Coal is barely economically competitive, but it becomes largely uncompetitive once carbon sequestration is accounted for. So, at the end, this isn't a win for these states, but the usual bailout for an uncompetitive form of energy generation. Might just as well subsidize horses as a "sustainable" form of transportation.

I just love the "who want to live in a dessert..." I know it's a typo, but it takes the whole "you want thee cake and eat it too" to the next level...

Efficacy is only one metric. Establishing long term antibody count is another. mRNA vaccines need a second boost not to significantly increase efficacy (which is already ~80% after 1st dose), but to have a substantial long term antiviral load. This is particularly important with the variants, where it is such high antiviral load that acts against the virus (it i the reason a third shot is in the work for mRNAs, to increase antiviral loads even higher). Now, the reason the J&J still needs one is not publicly known, but I would suspect it's not a matter of efficacy, but that first and only shot is also good enough to generate a sufficient amount of antibodies. It's not a matter of mRNA vs viral vaccines either, as AstraZeneca is a viral vaccine and it requires 2 doses.

It's worse than that. It's unethical, and frankly quite disturbing when someone is doing research on you or your project without your consent. Heck, I am an academic myself with PI status, and I can't literally move a finger until I signs off a statement where I declare the intent of my research when involves humans subjects or behavior. This is either a rogue group at UMN or one has to question UMN practices. GKH stance is absolutely the right move.

It's not just algorithms. It's the complexity and efficiency of the CPU. Comparing the CPU to the brain is preposterous. Let alone that training a human takes years (legally, 16-18) before they can drive, and it's not something that can be done by cutting corners. There is a reason children cannot drive. It's the overall training on ethical choices. Focusing on sensors and algorithms is looking at a tree, and missing the complexity of the forest.

No, I am not. Expected is a better word.