> That's a shitty analogy (not to mention, that doesn't seem to be forbidden by any regulation.)

I mean, there *are* laws regarding standardization of payment methods. The original analogy still sucks though, just not as much as your counter-proposal.

If we want to talk about reliability, then the single largest source of the woes is lack of standardization mandate. In Europe, they rather quickly passed a law saying that all public charging stations must have CCS2 plugs (they can also have other types, but CCS2 must be included). The result is every vehicle made for the EU market uses CCS2, because by law it's guaranteed that all public charging infrastructure will have at least some capacity - and as a natural result, *all* EVs sold in the UE market - including Tesla - use CCS2. (You can thank the ability to use TeslaCCS1 adapters to the EU law too, since it de-facto forced Tesla to put CCS hardware into their North America market vehicles)

In the US, no such regulation was created. We got CCS1, we got Chademo (briefly), and we got Tesla. The industry was left to figure it out themselves without a mandate to work towards, and predictably it's been a fucking nightmare with everyone rolling their own solution to a poorly enforced standard.
=Smidge=

I'm glad someone remembers how Gates has tried to whitewash his ill-gotten money. There is a long list of companies destroyed by MS and Gates from very early on in the 80s. Once a scum bag always a scum bag and no amount of "charity" work will buy him into the pages of history as a "good guy"

> The ChargePoint chargers at the local Whole Foods, though? Both of them have been broken for months.

FYI; That specific Whole Foods location is responsible for the maintenance. Chargepoint's business model is only selling and installing the equipment, and offering payment processing subscriptions on the back end.
=Smidge=

A tiny fraction of biodiesel is made that way, and almost all by DIY enthusiasts. As far as I'm aware, no recycled cooking our is sold commercially as vehicle fuel. Unsurprisingly used cooking oil has a lot of contamination in it...

Regardless; as much as Americans love deep fried everything, there is not enough used cooking oil to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption. We would have to dedicate large portions of farm land and water resources to the task even if we went with the algae route.
=Smidge=

> Biodiesel is moderately easy to produce

Biodiesel also gels in the cold and is subject to growing bacteria and mold.

Not to mention we are still using arable land and dwindling water supplies for making fuel to burn rather than food to eat, so a blight or drought would be doubly devastating.

Biodiesel is a good stopgap tech that fills some important niches but it is not a solution in and of itself.
=Smidge=

18%. Slightly lower than the ~23% for the city as a whole but roughly 1 in 6 people who live in Manhattan are below federal poverty level.

People who've never been to NYC forget that Manhattan doesn't stop at Central Park North...
=Smidge=

> If you killed off everyone that lived in between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, you would destroy far more people than Thanos did with "The Snap".

This region makes up 36% of the Earth and holds roughly one-third of the Earth's population.

Pretty sure Thanos dusted more than a third of the population. Turns out the majority of people live north of the Tropic of Cancer because that's where the majority of the habitable land mass is.

=Smidge=

> application of law(s) used in the case and whether those laws are compatible with the constitution

What laws, exactly? Plaintiff is accusing defendant of being responsible for the death of a family member through negligence. What is there to interpret the applicability of law for in a lawsuit that does not allege any laws were broken? Are you suggesting that they appeal all the way to SCOTUS on the idea that it's unconstitutional to settle grievances in civil court?

We are definitely not saying the same thing...
=Smidge=

> The second part of that is correct, though the first is not.

Article 3, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In simpler terms, the SCOTUS power applies to:
- Questions regarding the constitutionality, validity, and applicability of laws and treaties
- Lawsuits involving government officials and employees
- Lawsuits between states
- Lawsuits between citizens and the government
- International lawsuits

So no, not "any case" could come before the Supreme Court, only cases that are characterized by one or more of the above. A person or group of people suing a private company falls under none of them.

=Smidge=

They kept moving employees around. I've met the CEO in question and to this day he's sure he was in his good right to do this. What an asshole.

> t'll get shot down at the supreme Court and everyone involved knows that

SCOTUS only hears cases that related to either lawsuits involving the government or government officials, or matters of law/legality (including constitutional/civil rights).

The defendants would have to try to argue they have a right to pollute or that it's illegal to sue them or something, which would actually end up as a different case all together, meaning this specific case will not end up before the Supreme Court.
=Smidge=

>Half a million from heat... ">4.6 million from cold

Do you suppose these numbers might have some underlying context? Like... I dunno... the majority of the global population being in colder climates?

Regardless, if you read the report and not just the summary, the major concern is property; buildings, land, vehicles, crops and livestock, etc. You know, the things that actually cost insurance companies money. Dead people generally don't cost much, though sick people do and heat is more a problem than cold when it comes to health.

Make no mistake; This is an actuarial concern, not a humanitarian one.
=Smidge=

That is a fair point, and the sane among us (that includes you) have to wonder why the change?
Mozilla is generally viewed as the underdog and a change like that, I wonder if they are pulling a Google with their "don't be evil" motto being removed.

I recently switched to Firefox, for a number of reasons that really aren't relevant to this post, but his arguments (at least in the summary) don't hold water in my experience.

(1) Pocket: One of the first things I remove when customizing FF. I've not seen anyone suggest it, and seen a fair amount of dislike for it.

(2) Memory Use: Perhaps valid prior to 2000, but c'mon, every system I've worked with (both at home and at work) have a minimum of 16GB of RAM, the days of a 4GB system with a spinner drive are long long gone. Pop on some, quite required actually, ad-blockers, and use isn't any worse than Chromium or Safari browsers.

(3) Failing to load websites: Name one. In point of fact, since Chrome and Edge are built under the same structure, I often use FF to troubleshoot website weirdness to see where the problem really is. Sure, experience of one here, but I've not seen any site (from private, individual user, to public corp to gov't) mis-load under FF.

(4) Personal data for sale: Okay, I'll give him that, if he can prove it's happening.

(5) Low browser marketshare: So? Does FF stop working because it's got a small number? Quick, better let Linux know this!

This guy sounds like he's whinging just to put out some clickbait article. Not buying it.

> Every roadblock you have mentioned is merely a prejudiced perspective that needs to be overcome

I'm very certain that physical compatibility is more than "prejudiced perspective." Fuck man it took twelve years to decide on a connector standard in North America and that doesn't even impact the size and shape of the vehicle like a battery format would.

> Battery swapping *IS* the way forward until the tech changes

You know that even among vehicles that are swap-capable, the most common form of recharging is like, still plugging in same as non-swap-capable vehicles, right? Swapping is just one solution to an edge case.
=Smidge=