Hey, how do *I* get paid to shillmod for big oil? I could use the cash rn.

I'm so non-gullible I didn't let anyone guilt me into breeding.

It's false that LFPs can't be ignited. They are much, much harder to ignite, but they can still burn. They are also much, much easier to put out because NCM electrolyte releases oxygen when heated and LFP doesn't (which is also a large part of why they are less likely to combust) but they are also still toxic when burning and non-trivial to extinguish. I am very pro-LFP because they are better about all of these things than NCM, and support more and more EVs being made with them, but I do still hope for superior batteries to replace them as well.

Making the only means affordable mobility unaffordable is not the answer. Making an unsustainable means of attaining mobility unaffordable is, however, necessary. The obvious answer is to make some other means affordable before making the current means unaffordable.

You are seriously arguing we should not look at history to determine what we should do next? I think you need to work on that one for a while.

They are arguably not even complying with the letter of the ruling, and are definitely not complying with its spirit.

The kind of thing they are doing now is the kind of thing they did before that the EU did not look upon favorably. How is that "careful"?

It's exactly what we need to do, but as usual we aren't providing the alternative before doing it so we're screwing people big-time. We need to expand public transportation (especially rail) BEFORE making cars unaffordable, not AFTER. But that would take the will to do the right thing, and that is prevented from existing by big piles of lobbying money.

That argument doesn't hold up because what that shift does is take profit out of the hands of dealers, and automakers would like dealers to go away so they can sell directly. They can't do that because of protectionist laws which won't go away until the dealers are too poor to lobby.

The manufacturers are dragging their feet because change costs money. If there is anything nefarious going on (which is hardly a stretch) it is kickbacks from big oil. They are the only major industry that stands to lose vast sums of money if we ditch the ICEV. Engines are made by automakers, if they can stop doing that then they can close a lot of plants where they employ a lot of people that they'd like to stop paying.

I'm a bit confused here. We are already using the next generation of battery after NCM. It's LFP. The only problem is, we haven't stopped using the NCMs. But even ~50% of Teslas (whose original batteries were made of clusters of cylindrical NCM cells) made in the USA use prismatic LFP cells... supplied from China. Whoops, Joe just increased the tariff on those from 25% to 100%, guess Tesla will stop using them and just do all NCM from now on.

Perhaps you want the next "next gen" of battery? Me too. But LFPs are here already. Prismatic LFPs about the same energy density as cylindrical NCMs with all their wasted space, and yet are still less fire prone even without using the cylindrical packages (which can help prevent thermal runaway of full battery packs vs. prismatic packaging.)

Accurate. Military use is the primary driver of funding for new technologies and the military saw little benefit to electric vehicles vs. diesels. Quiet doesn't mean stealthy given modern sensing technology, so that wasn't enough to do it. Honda sold their NiMH EV battery to Chevron, who refused to license it, and lithium batteries weren't realistic at the time (too expensive and flammable) so this set back EVs at least a decade. As usual it's Big Oil to the opposite of the rescue.

They are, albeit much more slowly than they think.

Why should people who don't need the credit get the credit? Why should automakers be allowed to advertise the price with a credit the customer might not be entitled to?

And it won't, because Biden is putting a 100% tariff on EVs from China, preventing competition from the only place that might provide it. This tariff is openly protectionist because it doesn't offer any provision for any Chinese manufacturers willing and able to demonstrate that they're not behaving anticompetitively. Such a thing may not exist, but without being willing to allow them to prove it one way or another, this tariff is arguably in violation of the same WTO rules that we accuse China of breaking. (And, to be clear, which I do believe they do break.)

The fact sheet on the tariff also complains that Chinese EVs are unfairly supported by subsidy, but we have both the EV subsidizing tax credit that we're discussing and also massive indirect subsidies for all fossil fuel vehicles through the massive subsidies to the oil industry, so that's frankly as hypocritical as possible.

You want a cheap EV, but you'll buy a hybrid instead? They're inherently expensive, unless they are mild hybrids. Most people use the go pedal far too carelessly to get good mileage out of those.

It's important to whether your comment was relevant.

Is it dedicated to being a music player?

Whoops. I mean, Trademark. That's what I get for not using Preview.

Derivative works contain recognizably copied elements. There are many uses which don't meet that standard. Just looking like the thing doesn't suit, either, it has to be obviously directly copied (though possibly manipulated) and not recreated.

The concept of copyleft was literally created because open source wasn't open enough for its creator.

"Open" meant "documented and interoperable" in UNIXland for many years. Open Source's origins are in the security community's use of the same phrase to mean an intelligence source anyone could get information from. The first programmable computers came from military efforts, and the bulk of computers were military until they became inexpensive, so this relationship was well-established and fundamental, therefore influential.

BSD and MIT are absolutely, positively, 100% Open Source licenses. They (and other code sharing licenses) were referred to as such before Christine Petersen ever claimed to have invented the phrase, which is why the OSI doesn't have the right to define it and also why their lawyers told them that they couldn't copyright it, and also why you're wrong.

It helps if you know what Open Source means. It means you can see the source.

If you can get access to the training data and the code that turns it into a model, it's open source regardless of what you're allowed to do with it, or whether you can afford the computer time to build the model from the data. If you can't see the sources, then it's not open source. Not even every definition of Free Software ensures that you will actually be able to use the code in question. That's why there is a GPLv3, with an anti-Tivoization clause; GPLv2 wasn't Free enough. But even the GPLv3 doesn't mandate that you be able to make meaningful use of the code for reasons beyond artificial restrictions, like not owning a supercluster.