That's why most forward-looking states have passed laws requiring new apartments to have adequate charging spaces.

Not really. EVs are actually slightly less likely to be totaled in a wreck than ICE cars, and because they're more likely to have advanced driving assistance features, they're also less likely to get in a wreck in the first place, assuming all else is equal, ignoring minor parking lot mishaps, which are largely vehicle-agnostic.

Repairs can be more expensive, however, and that, coupled with the insurance companies' perception that EV drivers can afford more, is why insurance rates are going up.

Not significantly. The difference between getting hit by a 4,000 pound Model 3 and a 3,500 pound Camry is negligible. Velocity has a far greater impact, to such a degree that getting hit by a Model 3 at 35 MPH would cause roughly the same damage as the Camry at 38 MPH. The weight difference is entirely lost in the noise.

Also not true. EVs don't weigh enough to have a meaningful impact on roads. A Model 3 with a single driver weighs as much as a Camry with three or four extra passengers. Anything below about 6,000 pounds isn't worth worrying about.

Agreed. The incentives are set up in such a way that they're not so useful in practice, because the people who can afford EVs can't get the credits, and the people who can get the credits can't afford the cars, with or without the credits. The income limits should be abolished. Either you're trying to promote EVs or you aren't, and if you really want to promote EV sales to lower-income people, the way you do that is by creating a thriving used car market as all the wealthy people replace their cars, aided by those tax credits.

They actually can't. The costs to build them are higher, and the margins are lower. Tesla makes about $8.5k per car at current prices, which means the manufacturing cost starts at about $34,000, which is more than the retail cost of a Camry.

Well, that's true for everyone. The point is that all it takes is the right person pushing the right buttons and making them see that their elected officials are bought and paid for by big business, and a whole lot more of them will vote.

The purpose of a minimum wage is to guarantee a certain standard of living by forcing companies to pay more than they want to pay for labor. As soon as you water down such a law in response to "pushback" from giant corporations, you have failed to do your jobs. Everyone involved in that decision should be looking for a new one. Remember, those delivery drivers vote.

Yeah, it's borderline.

Clarification: Physics doesnt "allow" anything... ... if anything, it is just the science of measurement/observation of cosmic occurrences.

(corrected typos)

... of anything, its just the science of measurement/observation of cosmic occurrences.

I thought so, too, on the first read. Turns out only one of them was. The other was just confusing as heck. The first one was the vacation sentence, which I commented on earlier. The other one was this one:

Which is a terrible sentence, but not run-on. It's bad because "of all sorts" breaks the flow. It should be rewritten as "I grow all sorts of berries, lemons, limes, radishes, and lettuce in my garden," or "I grow all sorts of berries, lemons and limes, radishes, and lettuce in my garden," if you have some strange desire to make "lemons and limes" a thing.

It's also unlikely that you grow lemons and limes in a garden. It would prevent the other plants from getting light. That's more an orchard thing. So "in my garden" doesn't seem to connect to that part of the sentence.

I would go with "I grow radishes and lettuce in my garden, along with lemons, limes, and berries of all sorts." Now you have something readable, and it doesn't strongly imply that the trees and bushes are in the garden.

They were trying to show that semicolons shouldn't be used to separate lists that don't have commas in it, but to be honest, my immediate reaction was to assume that if they had already done something as abhorrent as a semicolon before a coordinating conjunction, they probably were expecting something nonstandard like semicolons around phrases with "and". :-)

Either way, that sentence was so irredeemably bad that the comma versus semicolon question wouldn't even get asked. In general, if you're having to ask whether to use a semicolon in place of a comma, you have already failed to write a coherent sentence, and you're just doing damage control. Go back and rewrite the sentence.

In one of those, I would argue that the MLA style is wrong. Question four was a painfully long sentence. They suggest using a semicolon before the coordinating conjunction. Nope. The sentence overused commas where em dashes are more appropriate. They considered this to be correct:

If I had read a sentence like that in a book, I would have set the book on fire long before I got to the point of seeing whether the author used a comma or a semicolon before the coordinating conjunction. So for question 4, the correct answer is "neither".

The problem with their use of semicolon is that "but, to her surprise" is not really related to "she was only taking a few days off", making a semicolon joining inappropriate. The author wasn't trying to say, "She was only taking a few days off, but to her surprise, she managed to fit everything in." Rather, what was actually meant was that "She thought she wouldn't have time for all three activities, but, to her surprise, she managed to fit everything in." The "she was only taking a few days off" was basically a parenthetical assigning a reason for why she thought she wouldn't have enough time.

A much better punctuation is this:

By using em dashes (or parentheses if you prefer) to set off a parenthetical clause instead of commas, the sentence becomes eminently more readable/parseable.

So no semicolons before coordinating conjunctions, please. If you ever get to the point where you're about to add a semicolon before a coordinating conjunction because the first part of the sentence is too long or complex, the first part of the sentence is too long or complex. Find another way to say it.

For example, I would suggest reordering it, dropping the "although", and splitting it into multiple sentences:

And boom. You've just taken a sentence that is painful to read and turned it into a third-grade-reading-level sentence.

But that's just my opinion; it's not the first time I've disagreed with MLA on things, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

It's way worse than that.

• Small fish grow into big fish. Without the small companies getting bigger and eventually buying your high-end packages, why would anyone switch from somebody else's software over to your high-end packages? No. They'll find a way to work within the limitations of whatever they were using before rather than deal with the pain of the migratino. So now you don't have feeders, and as big companies die, they don't get replaced. The very thing that keeps your big fish from leaving now prevents you from acquiring new big fish.
• When growing companies run into the limitations of the other technologies, they push those other technologies to find solutions, and now the other solutions can do everything that your high-end packages can do, but they're not you. I think this part is what you were describing.
• The other vendors provide competition, and likely undercut your high-end packages. Companies start to switch, and now you start losing revenue. So you cut costs to match. And they cut costs further. And you end up in a race to the bottom with the dozen companies that evolved to fill the gap left behind by your company's mismanagement.

So this behavior is very short-sighted and stupid, in my opinion. But if they want to crater their business, that's up to them.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a captive big fish. The biggest companies might be captive in the short term, but they also can throw money at the problem and make it a short-term problem. The bigger the dollar amount, the more they'll be willing to spend to move away from an extortionate vendor. There's really nothing that they do that other companies can't do.

Also, the whole point of VMWare is to save money off of buying the hardware. If the price gets high enough that it's cheaper to just buy the hardware, what's the point of using it at all?

That said, Broadcom only has to make $61 billion off of VMWare for that to not be a loss on their balance sheets, and is earning just shy of $4 billion per quarter, so even if they only keep most of those fish for four years, when the last sucker leaves, they can shut the whole thing down and still probably be slightly ahead.

In theory, nothing stops someone from writing a FireWire Audio PCI driver using PCIDriverKit and AudioDriverKit, but I'm pretty sure nobody is going to do it unless I magically find myself with a lot more free time. You'd have to start by writing a FireWire OHCI card driver, and then write the drivers for the actual devices on top of that. It would be a huge pain in the you-know-what.

It would be easier, in all likelihood, to just keep Apple's (open source) FireWire drivers working, so long as they don't rip out any critical hooks in xnu, with obvious caveats about probably having to disable SIP.

Sorry, thanks for playing. Apple supported FireWire even in current Macs using the Apple Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter (though you also need a Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2 adapter on any Macs built from 2016 onwards). I used multiple MOTU FireWire audio interfaces with my M1 Mac (still running Sonoma) just a couple of months ago.

Apple also supports FireWire PCIe cards in all versions of the Mac Pro, and in Thunderbolt PCIe enclosures attached to any Mac.

Yes, this impacts people. No, Apple doesn't care about pro audio folks. They demonstrated that long ago, and keep doing so over and over again.

Not really, no. The iPod stopped supporting FireWire data transfers with the iPod nano (2005) and the fifth-generation classic (2005). They continued supporting FireWire charging up through the original iPhone (2007), and phased it out beginning in 2008, a full four years before they dropped the 30-pin connector.

Everybody who still has FireWire audio interfaces. I've been trying to get MOTU hardware to go from large quantities of ADAT inputs to AVB for almost a year now, and the hardware is completely unobtainable. I will not be able to move to Tahoe for the foreseeable future because of this.

Yup. This right here is why I don't own an iPad, even though I own an iPhone, a Mac, and a Vision Pro. My only tablet (other than a first-gen iPad Mini that we all got for free when they first came out) is a cheap Kindle Fire 7-inch that I use for watching Netflix when I'm in the middle of something at night and don't want to stop to take a shower. Oh, and a 21.5-inch Android tablet that I use as an electronic music stand for my electronic organ, but that's a tablet in roughly the same way that an iMac is a tablet. :-D

If I could actually use an iPad to do everything I can do on my Mac, even if it weren't as good at it, I would own one, because you can use an iPad during takeoff and landing on an airplane, which would be at least two extra hours of getting stuff done every trip across the country, and that adds up. It would take an extra couple of minutes to transfer files across, but it would be worth the extra couple of minutes to be able to effectively have my Mac for an entire flight.

But as long as the iPad is a toy that can only run about 15% of the software that I use on my Mac (and only the 15% that is least useful in that environment, such as Safari), the entire product line is useless to me.

Apple is leaving money on the table with that decision. Craig, please think back to when Steve said that a company that doesn't cannibalize itself will get cannibalized by other companies, and take that to heart.

But even more useful would be a proper USB-C port and Mac app support on Vision Pro.