Why would a BBC staff member need tiktok on their work phone in the first place?

Actually depends how far they have to go.

If each vehicles does 50 miles, at 2 miles per KwH (likely they will do a LOT better than this) - each vehicle requires recharge of 25 kWh over 12 hours. A standard outlet would cover most of that (even a US one at 120V),

Many industrial/commercial properties (in the UK at least) have 3-phase electricity ... so we are talking many vehicles drawing 3kW over the night ... and if you have to use local renewables (sun doesn't shine at night) then ... there's batteries ... and the grid is getting better all the time.

Your question is a valid one, but researching just how far you can go in a BEV and what that actually requires in energy will allay your fears.

You could do that ... except the vehicle telemetry (including precise location) is carried back to the server on a regular basis (eg: every few minutes) so if you steal it from somewhere at sometime the when and where have already left the vehicle before you even got it into the foil box.

It is true that you cannot make a car impossible to steal (without a trace) - especially in Johannesburg - but you can make it a lot harder to steal than the car it is parked next to - expecially if it has EV-levels of power avalaible to it at all times (that is: without running an engine).

And, in one of life's great ironies, the increased availability of recycled material for EV batteries will lower the cost of EV batteries significantly (and even more than current trajectory) ... so lowering the return for the risk of doing something that is becoming increasingly difficult.

Subtly, this post and the article aren't about relative engagement levels between remote and on-location workers - even if they phrase it badly in the summary.

This is an (imperfect) attempt at understanding trends in engagement levels amongst remote workers. This is not an attempt to suggest remote or in-office working is (in either direction) somehow superior.

One thing that the in-office-focussed community have sometimes alleged: that remote workers will slowly become less engaged.

This is not evidence-quality anlysis since the data used is so limited in scope (and engagement (or not) is a subjective thing, and there is only specific scope even for control) ... but it does suggest that the fear mongering around WFH being the slow decline to disengaged employee hell ... is maybe not as simple as it was first presented.

Nuclear not bad. Nuclear just requires big installations that can't be individually managed, have to be centralised, have to be managed for safety, and entrench necessarily-big corporates being in controlling positions in the energy market.

Rather the alternatives, myself.

Toyoda is talking to dealers about how (one of) their biggest income sreams isn't about to dry up. No surprise there.

The "surprise" will be when the dealers find out the truth ... and not just about Christmas.

... batteries ...

So much simpler than firing tons of deliate stuff into space ... and messing with nature in soooo many ways.

So ... folks steal the car, leave their phone at home (or use a burner - lol ... ironic term that one), and then hit several fuel stations in series syphoning the fuel out of the stolen vehicle between each theft and sell it on ...

Fuel theft has been a significant problem for a long time (in the UK at least) and all the ANPR and enforcement (threats) have long since proven to be of limited effect. 1 easy to find (probably biased) source: https://certasenergy.co.uk/new...

And that was before the price of fuel nearly doubled.

At least one source alleged this wss because the balance of offence to probability of investigation (and then, eventually, prosecution) was considered out of whack.

So it might be stupid, but it is lucrative and folks aren't getting arrested for this (despite how they -as you point out- are relatively easy to find).

And the thing with fuel is it can be syphoned out of the vehicle used in the theft and sold off ...

Chemical energy in battery .. not so much ... and certainly not as easily. And then the nominal cost of the energy is much lower.

The GOV.UK domain and sites are independent of any specific political party?

Been around for many years ...

And surely removing unused dependencies from web access only adds to the accessibility/servcies for all thing, not detracts?

Clean safe nuclear energy is already here. Others might endlessy debate this ... but those delivering nucelar energy solutions are not idiots ... something the detractors seem to start with as a base assumption.

BUT is it the simplest, most manageable, most flexible and least (organisational) risk way of capturing or generating energy? Categorically NOT.

So why bother when simpler, lower-management, and more flexible solutions are at hand already?

And other energy solutions are already cheaper anyway ... especially when you remember that a large high-volume installation in 1 place assumes society will always want to be in, near or around that place ... nuclear power has to be decommissioned at some point ...

The engineeers behind the nuclear energy solution have solved the problems with nuclear power - or, they are well on the way to having done so. But the laws of physics are truy infelxible.

So, unfortunately they are solving problems in a space that is quickly becoming irrelevant and more and more niche to the post-modernist exconomies.

And if you think nuclear power in central africa will be delivered with the same cost, safety, efficiency, and political stability ... as opposed to solar solutions that can be delivered in modules in manner appropiate to the people in situ ... and without big directives of western ideas of how civilisation should be run, and accounting principles that just plain don't make sense outside of the world(s) of big corporate government lobbying.

Nuclear power involves large installations with massive lead times.

And we don't have to use nuclear to supply the world's energy needs.

And big single energy sources lends itself way to easily to manipulation and corporate machinations. Aside from the fact that it is just vastly inconvenient.

All the debate about cleanliness and safety are important but secondary to the 1 unavoidable fact: clean safe sustainable nuclear power requires big installations ... and big installations means big lead times, big management efforts, and huge opportunities for less-than agalatarian corporate behaviour.

Why the heck does everyone want to use complex solutions when simpler alternatives are at hand already?

Maybe we want to build complex, hard-to-manage, and hard-to-maintain power trains for our personal transport systems ... and burn lots of stuff in the interim ... yeah ... I didn't think so ... that didn't end well either.

Who gains from all that centralised and commercially opaque shenanigans? Hints: not the end user; not the environment.

In South Africa cash handling fees were a big thing (sometimes pseudo-justified by the extra secuty required around cash) "vs" the card transaction fees which are essentially an insurance against fraud (or, at least, that's what they said).

To the point about:
"Those big companies are the public enemy of booksellers" ... clearly not wrong. Just in some countries the big companies are the banks charging fees on cash ... or punitive interest rates anyone? ... in other countries the big companies are the online transaction processors.

But maybe, just maybe, it is that cash and money and currency and transactions are handled centrally by organisations surrounding by a regulator-enforced moat(s)?

<quote>
<p>Autopilot has no navigation features. It can hold the lane and avoid crashing into stuff. It will happily drive right by the exit the hospital, much less deliver you to the ER.</p></quote>

Navigate on Autopilot (NoA) is a thing. Has been for years. Published and working long before the Full Self Driving (Beta). I personally NoA in a Tesla Model S (2017) model for several journeys (at least in terms of motorway interchanges). And in the UK, and it is known for working better in the US than here.

<quote></p><p>This story is less than truthful.</p></quote>

Based on your "knowledge" of the facts (which are just patently wrong)? Thin ice, sir, that is what you are on.

Having said that there is not mention of whether it is a Model 3, Model X, or Model S that is used here. And no sign of which versions or features of Autopilot are in use/available to this driver (various versions available on various models and model years and significant feature differences). And, no I know enough not to confuse Autopilot (in it's various forms or feature levels) with Full Self Driving (Beta).

Pease don't spout off about things you don't know anything about.

The guy was using all the technology he had available to him to move his wife closer and closer to a controlled space with professional clinical care quickly and safely.

And you jump to the assumption that he wasn't paying any attention to the road?

Without autopilot his only option would have been to pull over and stop in a horrible environment and wait for the professionals to battle the whole route to him (or, more likely, triage the case from a distance and just make him wait till the traffic cleared).

He's not the one being woke here ... you are. And your choice of words for woke people in your signature is your own choice, not mine. Just saying.