Oops, s/he did. Sorry.

nealric didn't claim it was every year. It is in fact $400 to register an EV in Texas for the first two years. Thereafter, it's $200 per year. pdf alert:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/de...

Texas does not charge a sales tax for gasoline. However, it does collect a federal tax of 18.4 cents. Another pdf:

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tt...

Per the second pdf, the math shows that the average driver pays $9.52 per month to the state, or $18.28 per month including federal tax. That comes out to $114.24 per year to the state, or $219.36 including federal tax. So, EV drivers pay more to the state, but ICE drivers pay slightly more overall on average.

I think you're confused. I'm not saying EVs shouldn't be taxed in general. I'm saying they shouldn't be taxed due to the oil crisis. Governments should encourage, not discourage, the use of alternate energy-sources when one of them has supply-chains that are threatened.

And I made no claim that treating EVs (tax-wise) like ICE vehicles is "punitive"(*). But taxing EVs more than ICE vehicles because of the oil crisis certainly seems to be so. But see below...

You make a good point about road taxes, but not much else. The virtue of taxing gas consumption is that at least it correlates somewhat with road use and environmental impact. Perhaps we need something else for EVs, but I can't think of what it could be right now.

(*) please note how it's spelled.

Good points. Execpt for one that confuses me:

We may be living in upside-down-world right now, but I can't imagine that even the current government would punish the use of non-oil sources of energy during an oil crisis. Maybe for some other reason, but not "due to" the oil crisis.

The topic was intelligence. Not your false anti-female invective. Take it somewhere else, it's not welcome here.

Yes, that is in fact what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

You'll rightly be modded Troll soon enough, but for the record: research has shown no significant difference in the average intelligence of male and female human beings.

However, there is some evidence that genders are better on average at certain kinds of tasks: females on average are better at verbal and memory-intensive tasks, whereas makes on average are stronger with spatial and mathematical reasoning. But of course, the two populations overlap significantly: we have plenty of outstanding female scientists and male lawyers, for example.

And ChatGPT is not necessarily correct here. Neither was George Carlin when he said:

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

ChatGPT and Carlin are confusing mean with median. The latter divides a population 50-50, the former not necessarily so.

That would indeed be an interesting study.

Religions generally accept wisdom from sacred texts. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.) So one would presume that those who are ready to accept information on the authority of sacred texts would accept it from an AI that is perceived as an authority.

On the other hand, those same religious people could recognize that AI is distinct from their religious texts, and apply a different standard to it.

Michelle Obama was not in a position to drive government policy. Nor did she want to be then. Nor does she want to be now. She has stated repeatedly that she has no interest in serving in a policy-steering public office, elected or appointed. First Lady was her contribution.

It's all well and good to identify contaminants in drinking water, and try to filter them out. It's another to address how they got there in the first place. Per TFA, it seems the current administration is focused on the former, but not the latter.

It makes the mission relatable to the general public. Kind of like the Mars rover Curiosity sending its own tweets.

Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and Outlook; egg and Outlook; egg bacon and Outlook; egg bacon sausage and Outlook; Outlook bacon sausage and Outlook; Outlook egg Outlook Outlook bacon and Outlook; Outlook sausage Outlook Outlook bacon Outlook tomato and Outlook; Outlook egg sausage and Outlook, that's not got much Outlook in it.

My experience with Microsoft Office is that often it is not even compatible with itself. Documents not looking the same after reloading, font sizes changing on their own, printed copies not looking like what's on the screen, and so on.

Which one?

Since you apparently think everyone knows the answer already, you have illustrated the problem that OnlyOffice, Euro-Office, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, and other freeware office suites are trying to address.