You assert: "EVs are heavier and generate a lot lot lot more tire particulate". If the cause of extra tyre wear, and therefore particulates, is the weight of the car, then excess tyre wear is unavoidable according to your theory.

The way I see it, a single case can disprove your theory. You're asserting that "all swans are white" equivalent scenario. Finding a single black swan disproves your theory.

So in that spirit, my EV has significantly less tyre wear than all of my previous ICE cars (performance cars, family cars, and everything in between). I drive on Michelin Pilot Sport 4, considered an Ultra-High Performance tyre. Generally considered to get around 20k miles. I replaced my first set of tyres at exactly 35k miles, and only because I got a bolt through one of them. My second set have about 50% wear on them at 27k miles. I drive my EV like I drove all my previous cars

Yes, my single anecdote disproves your theory. So I'm going to call you full of shit on this front, Anonymous Coward.

You're not wrong about walkable cities and public transportation, though.

So it's exactly like the great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020. Ahh, good times.

As an advanced civilization, we sure suck at logistics...

Ahh, and forgot to add that Dear Leader also doesn't believe that the US (taxpayer) should do the heavy lifting on world affairs. When he's cut funding for WHO, USAID, Paris agreement, etc, it it would be extraordinary if he committed taxpayer funding for this initiative to the world's benefit (even if it actually worked).

Yeah, I agree that there's less altruism and more greed in this initiative. But I think they have an uphill battle there.

The plan only works if you think that global warming is a problem. And Dear Leader believes that it's a hoax...

If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product.

Ads are the next "frontier" for those nice big shiny screens in all these cars. Think about it, what screen do you own that is not infested with ads? Well, the one in your car.

Imagine location-based ads popping up when you pass a McDonalds. They can absolutely do this, because you sign away very permissive rights to GM in the car EULA... such as GPS location, etc.

GM needs full control of the screen to do this, which is why they want to claw back all that real-estate from Apple and Google.

Adding my +1.

I've had my EV for 4 years, and I'm still living off my 240v (2.4kwh) mobile charger. Never felt the need to install a wall charger. I drive a lot, too. Easily 70+ miles every day.

I get the desire to get there asap. But after owning an EV, I noticed a few things:

• On my long trips, I found I am fresher at the end of my trips (rather than dog tired), when I spend a few more minutes taking a break in the middle of the trip while charging. So I have more energy to do stuff once I get there. This more than makes up for the time lost on the road.
• I tallied up how much time I spent through the year at a gas station, and it was 10 minutes every week. This is 520 minutes per year I previously spent filling up with gas. So what if I spent an extra 15 minutes on a long road trip a few times a year? I am lightyears ahead. And coupled with the point above, my quality of road trips is way better with an EV.
• Bjorn Nyland performs long-range (1000km) tests to see how total trip time compares to gas/diesel cars. The model y Juniper almost matched his diesel benchmark. And the Zeekr 7X is only a few minutes off - he did 1000km in just 8:55. He found the charging is now faster than a pee break.

You call people a moron (in your post below), and yet it is you who has not crunched the numbers. Also from your quote above:

And yet this guy at https://x.com/DavidOsmond8, who has run the numbers, says national grids need just 5 hours of storage to buffer renewables to keep stability and meet demand. Not "days and weeks" of storage.

At the moment, some very large costs are externalized for the fossil fuel companies. And it's the concept that the fossil fuel companies are getting a free ride, profiting without bearing any costs of the impacts, that is the common element with the tobacco companies.

Although not the specific goal of this lawsuit, I could easily see that an end goal is to build a carbon price into the economy to make sure that the costs of the impacts are appropriately assigned.

I don't mean to quibble, but I think you're conflating particulate emissions from the 2-stroker with CO2 emissions from the Dodge. One causes smog, with many associated respiratory illnesses. The other causes a greenhouse effect that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Neither are healthy for humans.

Just to clarify, you're claiming that when scientists attempt to correct themselves based on observable evidence, that the observable evidence seems to always be above the predictions, implying that scientists chronically under-predict. Correct?

If they were chronically over-predicting, would you not be exclaiming: "Wow, these guys are always predicting the sky falling!?". Tell me I'm wrong here. I don't think I am.

So I'm guessing that no matter which way they end up predicting (under or over), you would have a problem with it. Am I right? Have a serious think about whether that exposes your bias or not.

Can you point out where the article expresses absolute certainty? Here's a small snippet from the article to help you: "It’s important to emphasise that both of these issues – [pollution cuts] and climate sensitivity – are areas of deep scientific uncertainty,” he said."

It would help your case if you learned to read before expressing an opinion. It might help avoid other people dismissing you as "full of shit". Not me, of course. I think you're completely onto something here...

The Gartner hype curve is, of course, in massive full swing with AI. But as with a lot of tech, there might be something good come out the other end. Can't blame companies for trying to find what that could look like. And it's open source, so it should be easy to change out the desktop if it doesn't turn out good.

Geez, I never thought I'd ever be a Musk apologist, but you seem to have an inordinate amount of hate that doesn't seem justified from the facts.

• a) This was a test flight to shake down the massive amount (thousands) of changes on Starship
• b) There were no astronauts aboard the vessel

I fully support Indonesia's stance to require more local input into products. Most USians want the same, and to be honest I want the same for my own country, too.

Being realistic about it, though, if every country required 35% of locally made components in their phones, then the major brands would need a factory in every single country. And that's just not going to happen. The supply-chain management would make the entire endevour unprofitable, resulting in China, the US, and maybe India getting phones, and the result of the world missing out. Technology progress would slow to a crawl.

So instead, we compromise. I make the phones, and you make the AirTags. Supply-chains work. Everybody wins.