I just got a battery installed. There is almost no fire risk. We're far more interested in the real risks like brush and electrical fires.

The government squashed the satellite dish thing, so you can fight that if you feel like slapping your HOA around in court a bit.

Chuck didn't even build the plane himself. So it doesn't count.

If someone wrote some code without test cases in a regular nightly build, that's not enterprise level. But Linus was nice enough to write some tests for FREE.

With taxes and withdrawing of subsidies the retail price for fuel may very well go up significantly. But that has nothing to do with EVs. That's the reverse of supply-side economics. (actually, I'm not convinced supply-side economics works in the forward direction. but it does seem to work in reverse)

Overall I think PHEV are the best compromise for people. They have flexibility and range because they can run gasoline, and save you money and reduce emissions because you can potentially charge them on a home solar system. And PHEVs are not any more expensive than EVs, and there are more models available on the lower end. For those of us that need a car to get from point A to point B, and aren't looking for a Tesla-like performance experience from an EV.

I think if city dwellers and commercial fleets switched to EVs, that you wouldn't really need to worry about it much right now. Demand for oil might go down a bit and make gas cheaper for you in the short term. But long term your fuel costs are going to get pretty serious. Hopefully BEVs are better by then.

The Owens Corning factory near the airport used to make my throat hurt when I worked in Santa Clara, that's closed now. A lot of industrial sites have closed up in the last 10 years to make way for more office buildings, and the air quality has noticably improved in the South Bay.

There are 13.3 million households in California according to a 2022 economic census. While running 680,000 homes should be able to bridge short interruptions in a region it doesn't necessarily offer much for power interruptions that cover a larger portion of the state.

Except you can't actually confront them in armed conflict and live. So there's a bit of a flaw in your policy making.

I prefer meetings where the team isn't kicked out of the room when we go 5 minutes over. There is just one too many people to get through a 1 hour status meeting and I'm the extra person since I'm the most recent.

Allow nuclear armed powers to violate international law and invade and claim the territory of their neighbors. It a terrible option. Ukraine would unfairly be under the thumb of Russia (again). But it's the option that doesn't run us into a nuclear conflict. Without NATO membership, the is not really anything overt that we should do to aid countries against a nuclear armed nation.

We had a Cold War for the last half of the 20th century because we desperately did not want to have a Hot War. And were willing to exchange just about anything to avoid it. We gave up a lot of our principles and ideals in that conflict. But that you and I are here today means it was a success, despite the cost.

As appealing as it would be to run in there like action heroes and sort out the problems with a solid right hook to Putin's face. But sadly our world's geopolitics are not nearly so satisfying to our sense of fairness and rightness. Crushing Russia is not an option. Even letting Russia grind its own military on Ukrainian resistance is a rather dangerous game.

I can't been this alarmed in decades. We're in serious doo-doo and half the people around me haven't realized it yet. For those of you in democratic nations: vote like your life depends on it.

Let's give civilian police departments some chemical weapons that are banned by the Geneva convention. Oh actually, never mind, it looks like they have those too.

NATO risking nuclear war with Russia is the actual short-sighted strategy. Russia is an unstable country that can collapse from the inside pretty easily, and when they face another existential like they did in 1991, there's no guarantee that they won't try to use some tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine in order to delay that collapse.

China is unlikely to do a nuclear first strike. So we don't have to hold back with them quite so much. A conflict between China and the US is likely to be limited in scope and there are multiple venues where the two sides could arrange for cease fire and peace talks in any case.

There's no actual journalism on most of these sites, especially Yahoo. Instead they have people writing marketing Copy, and it only has to be good enough to get your attention and have you click on something.

Additionally in media you can't aim for average intelligence and average education. You have to aim a bit below average in order to capture the largest possible market. This is why I believe modern media seems incredibly moronic. A big portion of articles appear to be written for adults that aren't comfortable reading at a high school level.

I'm hoping to live with Jeff Bezos on a floating city in Venus's atmosphere. I'm going to Old Mans War this and get a new body in my 80's so I can join Bezos' space marines and we can invade and destroy Elon Musk on Mars.