They've been trying to hire software engineers to write code as training data for them. I don't know how successful it has been, but I admit I would write code for them if they paid me enough.

What kind of code coverage did you get from your tests?

While true, Microsoft has a long tradition of only showing the numbers that make themselves look good..

As an example, when Windows Phone 7 was released, they cited several millions of downloads of their IDE, instead of declaring the total number of phones sold. That is why we are up to WindowsPhone 17 today.

Ok, I'll let you email the authors and tell them they are wrong. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear from such a smart person as you.

I don't think there was ever a time when most of these weren't true. You might as well add the sunday comics, if you're going to complain about non-news in newspapers.

There was no "rise of soft news." It was always there.

With "AI"? Hahahaha, no. You have listened to too much hype-propaganda lies.

Yep. LLMs can do one thing well: bureaucracy. Making that cheaper means getting more of it and that is the last thing anybody sane would want. Because it ultimately kills everything.

Which is really not rational. There are always enough sadist scum that are willing to beat people as long as they are not held accountable for it.

Sure. And on the minus-side, everything stops working after a short while. Not feeding people is something even an authoritarian asshole like Xi (or Trump) cannot afford.

It is. When the orange rapist talks about how "we are winning", that "we" does not include you.

A great many things needs to happen for the plug-in EV to be considered the default option for every driver in the USA. I have doubts a healthy infant born yesterday will live long enough to see that day.

We will need a large expansion of electricity production. Presumably electricity production based on something other than fossil fuels or we are just shuffling the problems around than gaining ground on air pollution, energy independence, and CO2 emission reductions. We've certainly seen large gains in wind and solar power but that's easy when they effectively started from zero up until a decade or three ago. When did the push for wind and solar really take off? I can remember hints of this in 1980s era TV show re-runs, some of those hints weren't exactly subtle, so maybe I'm off a bit on the start of this all.

We will need large expansions in mining for all kinds of minerals that electric vehicles depend on. Rare earth metals aren't rare but they are difficult to refine. All rare earth metals, at least in the USA, is something of an afterthought on mining for copper, gold, silver, uranium, thorium, or so much else. We can already dig the metals out of the ground but we need refining and manufacturing to turn those metals into motors, batteries, inverters, or whatever. That will take time. Much of the same applies to other minerals, and to the materials needed for electricity production.

I'm likely missing some other dependencies on adopting electric vehicles in the USA. We will need some changes to rules, regulations, and legislation but that's something I'd believe is not time limited. The same may apply to infrastructure, we have wires and such already in place that may be sufficient and so not likely a limiting factor.

If there's still issues on overnight parking and charging once the matters of materials and manufacturing have been worked out then we screwed up somewhere in a big way. One mitigating factor on this is that we already see people reporting to be able to complete their daily commutes with a once per week recharge. This can mean some piling up of people at public recharge stations on weekends but I would expect some shifts in expectations, habits, and so forth to mitigate against the worst of that. One outcome might be some kind of renting out private EV chargers if there's some kind of seasonal shortages, much like people renting out their front yards for parking when there's big events in the area.

People expecting wide adoption of BEVs will have to moderate those expectations to real world limits. People expect their cars to last 15 years for one. Then is infrastructure changes which can take decades. Shifts in manufacturing and mining can also take decades.

Decades. Potentially many decades. This transition will take decades, assuming we don't come up with some other option like synthesized fuels to derail the shift to battery powered transportation.

Exactly.

Does anyone else remember when not having a place to plug in the hybrid was considered a selling point? I suspect those adverts aren't aging well right now.

If there is an inclusion of hybrids that can't be plugged in for motive power to the battery then it is marketing. I don't know why anyone would much care on sales of a hybrid vehicle as some indication of the popularity of electric vehicles if there's no simple means of recharging the battery from a NACS port. I'm adding the adoption of NACS to the definition of EVs I should care about since if I need to buy extra hardware to recharge the EV battery then that could still leave a hybrid EV driver burning fuel than running on electricity. Automakers could have a "mulligan" up until now on their choice of charging but not after years of agreements to sick to NACS. Well, in the North American markets anyway, other nations/regions/whatever will have their own standard to define what it means to have a plug-in EV.

As bad as Fox News may be I have my doubts on that. Is this any worse than competing news networks showing a "White Hispanic" as someone accused of a crime? I guess that I knew there was some racial distinctions among Hispanics but why the need to point it out after showing his photo? I'd expect people would pick up on this racial distinction without being told. Every news source will have biases, it's only a matter on if they own up to them or not. I choose news sources that own up to their bias than claim to have no bias at all. I don't want to make this about race or news reporting but I felt it makes a useful setup for bias in energy.

Of course those that produce petroleum will have a bias against wind and solar. Do you believe wind and solar don't have a bias against petroleum? Perhaps not as I've seen wind, solar, oil, and gas get friendly with each other as the wind and solar power producers know there's little hope of competing with coal and nuclear without natural gas (and to a lesser extent fuel oil) for backup power.

Wind and solar power producers are also looking to make a buck, you think they operate at a loss out of the goodness of their hearts? Or maybe operate as a nonprofit organization? Maybe some of them do operate as a nonprofit like the NFL (in)famously did until shamed to do otherwise. People can profit while operating under tax rules that define nonprofit status, its that the profits are to the individuals as wages than showing as corporate profits.

We need to see wind and solar "make a buck" if we want people to invest in it. T. Boone Pickens had a TED Talk or three on this, ending up as an advocate for natural gas as a "transition" shortly before his death. He knew we can't just jump into wind and solar with both feet and expect to come out ahead. He learned that the hard way by seeing millions of dollars in losses on his wind power investments.

Profit isn't bad, or good, but it is required for "sustainable" energy. I don't mean "sustainable" as having some shared meaning with "renewable" but rather as something that can exist without consuming finite resources. Money is a finite resource in that people can put only so much money in until they see a return on that investment. Wind and solar must give a return on investment, and do so at a rate comparable to other options or people will lose interest. I see onshore wind power as able to give a reasonable return on investment but solar power is still lacking. Solar is great for off grid use, but on the grid the returns are not there. Government subsidies won't fix that, it just obfuscates the lower rate of return in complicated accounting.

this is just the economy cratering. Mostly because of the uncertainly from Trump's idiot trade wars. We're a ways off from AI slamming into the economy.

If you've seen any of the videos about EVs on the Technology Connections channel then you'd understand.

He's a bit over the top on his advocacy on EVs. He lives in the Chicago area and several times made videos on how to make the best of driving a BEV in cold weather among other issues of BEV ownership while living in a Midwestern apartment. He must be really into BEV ownership, to the point that he's clearly not enjoying winter driving in a BEV but he grins and bears it regardless. Maybe the summer driving in a BEV makes up for it somehow?

Or maybe he hates the idea of risking a mugging at a filling station like that seen in other comments posted so far. Did I mention he lives in the Chicago area? I've driven through several parts of Chicago and there are plenty of "shady" areas. This makes me wonder why he'd live where he does as it appeared he had a decent job and long commute as it was so I expect he had options, options like a small house in the "burbs" where he would not have to coerce property management to allow him to install his EV charger at his parking spot.