I understand the law suit. The car was sold to you as the future of movement, and without a steady hydrogen source, you don't get the movement.

A car is a tool to move people and stuff from A to B, and without fuel, it ceases to fulfill its promise, on which it was sold.

If we don't manage to use electricity to merge neutron stars, it's probably not feasible. Until then it's like making gold from lead by nuclear processes: doable, but the price per atom is not market compatible.

Exactly that's what rating is for: To know how much you can tow.

You can say out it loudly (or post it publicly, as proven right now.

We wait for the patch^B^B^B^B^Bconcrete sarcophagus.

See? In the U.S., many small cars which would be able to tow some serious loads, are not rated at all for towing. If they were, people would not use that argument very often. But apparently, in the U.S. mind, non-trucks are not able to tow.

If you can't sell off your old car at a decent price (and your car dealership also has the lot full of them), your calculation for the next truck has to include a higher deterioration, which makes buying your next truck more expensive. And financing the truck with a loan also might get harder, because your bank might also look into the resale value of your truck, because if they impound it, they don't want to sell it at too much of a loss.

Statistics. If you see a work trailer only on 1% of the trucks out there, you can be statistically sure that only 1% of all trucks are actually using their towing capacity.

I never understood the towing capacity argument. My tiny compact with a 1.6 liter Diesel engine has a towing capacity of 3400 pounds.

The conservation laws are statistical, at least to a degree. Local apparent violations can be OK, provided the system as a whole absolutely complies.

There's no question that if the claim was as appears that the conservation laws would be violated system-wide, which is a big no-no.

So we need to look for alternative explanations.

The most obvious one is that the results aren't being honestly presented, that there's so much wishful thinking that the researchers are forcing the facts to fit their theory. (A tendency so well known, that it's even been used as the basis for fictional detectives.)

Never trust results that are issued in a PR statement before a paper. But these days, it's increasingly concerning that you can't trust the journals.

The next possibility is an unconsidered source of propulsion. At the top of the atmosphere, there are a few candidates, but whether they'd impart enough energy is unclear to me.

The third possibility is that the rocket imparted more energy than considered, so the initial velocity was incorrectly given.

The fourth possibility is that Earth's gravity (which is non-uniform) is lower than given in the calculations, so the acceleration calculations are off.

When dealing with tiny quantities that can be swamped by experimental error, then you need to determine if it has been. At least, after you've determined there's a quantity to examine.

I don't know about real Macs, but I have a Hackintosh that's ... um, OSX 10.8, on a midrange i7 with 8GB RAM and a fast SSD, and even doing nothing much (file manager, system settings and the like, no browser) it was sluggish to occasionally painful. Gave the system 32GB and suddenly it was much better.

If a version of OSX however-many-years-old is that bad with 8GB, I can't imagine current-OSX being pleasant.

Wrong. It is not the cause of Global Warming, and it is not caused by Global Warming. So far you would be right. But it is a problem whose consequences get worse due to Global Warming. So yes, it has to do with Global Warming.

iPhone users don’t have to care, they’re not using the RAM overconsumption shit sandwich of Android+Chrome.

As is so often the case, the non iPhone users wrongly consider their pachydermic use cases to be EVERYONE’s use cases.

8Gb is more than enough for my mother’s MB Air. She only uses Safari, iMessage and Pages. That’s many tasks as Apple correctly said and she does not need a pompous self entitled PC Gamer “journalist” with slovenly multiple tab habits to tell her that she should have paid $200 more for her Mac.

My Mac’s have more memory, but then I run multiple VM’s and don’t need the advice of a pompous self entitled PC Gamer “journalist” to know how much RAM I need either.

So are Stanford researchers:
https://youtu.be/HaaZ8ss-HP4