Never wanted to see the money shot in reverse?

Ok, admit it, who let the door open? You know that all sorts of riffraff will come in, look, this time it was a priest.

What exactly is harmful about drawn pictures (because last time I checked, the kind of anatomy depicted in animes or mangas is ... well, close to if not entirely impossible)? Who exactly is the victim?

What? My mother was a saint!

Easier said than done, one should think it's not that hard considering how many there are, but when you need one to hug...

The grid is not made of copper. You thought it was? Copper is for home wiring, if that. Up to that point, it's alumium, bundled with steel on major lines for tensile strength. Does it look like copper to you?

As for the article: grid operators don't build out grids on a lark. They do it to sell power, because they make money selling power. If people want to buy more power because they want to charge an EV, then that's more money available for them. EVs are a boon to grid operators. They're almost an ideal load. Most charging done at night, steady loads, readily shiftable and curtailable with incentives, etc. Daytime / fast charging isn't, but that's a minority. And except in areas with a lot of hydro, most regions already have the ample nighttime generation capacity; it's just sitting idle, power potential unsold. In short, EVs can greatly improve their profitability. Which translates to any combiation of three things:

1) More profits
2) A better, more reliable grid
3) Lower rates

    * ... depending on the regulations and how competitive of an environment it is.

As for the above article: the study isn't wrong, it's just - beyond the above (huge) problem - it is based on stupid assumptions. Including that there's zero incentives made for people to load shift when their vehicles charge, zero battery buffering to shift loads, and zero change in the distribution of generation resources over the proposed timeframe. All three of these are dumb assumptions.

Also, presenting raw numbers always leads to misleading answers. Let me rephrase their numbers: the cost is $7 to $26 per person per year. The cost of 1 to 5 gallons of gas per year at California prices..

to patch the metastasis out of the system and actually own it?

I have experienced it first hand. Never again.

Just because people are useless they won't lie down and die quietly.

Twice so in a country that has more guns than people.

You sure you're responding to the right person?

I'll sign it without hesitation. Non-competes are illegal in my jurisdiction, and illegal clauses in contracts are void.

Startups around here get hoovered up including the former owners as "consultants". Basically that means you get money for doing nothing, at least as long as you don't try to start a competitor because guess what "consultation" is no longer needed should you try that...

C'mon. Please. When has the free market ever tied the hands of corporations? If that ever happens (and yes, there is indeed that nonzero chance that we're heading into an employer market, at least in some fields), rest assured that the game will be rigged some more in your disadvantage.

The only reason that corporations were fine with government letting "the market" sort it out was that until now, they had you by the balls. Let's wait what's gonna happen should this change.

Here's the thing, though: I am needed. But unfortunately, I'm one of the few.

But that's besides the point. What matters is that the replacement rate of young people vs. old people is only at about 80%. And that's not gonna change in the near future. For every 5 people leaving the workforce, only 4 will join it. Save immigration, of course, but let's face it, you only need so many goat-herders...

And that's the point. It's not just the burger flippers and shelf stockers that retire. It's also the researchers and doctors, the finance gurus and the engineers. Yes, there has never been a shortage of unskilled idiots. And that shortage sure isn't in any danger of growing, considering that the bar to enter the workforce sure rises yet again with AI taking over more and more unskilled jobs. So I don't fear for the low level jobs that they may go unfilled.

What I fear is that high level, senior positions will be hard to fill. For two reasons: First, the aforementioned 80% replacement rate. But even with 100% replacement rate, if we replace our juniors with AI, where should they get the experience to become those hard to find and highly sought seniors?

How about this one?

Funny that to you, "Israel" and "Jews" are synonymous. As if all Jewish people unconditionally support all actions of the state of Israel, even those which are highly controversial within Israel itself.

This false synonymy creates an extremely harmful backlash. Stop doing it.