That's a weird claim because they are using median lifespans of each type of vehicle in the US. Are you not in the US? In case it slipped your notice, if your vehicle had more than one owner then you are only using it for part of it's lifecycle.

An interesting perspective but that would mean the batteries would have to be destroyed, not merely the car. Short of a carbecue, wrecked EVs have their battery cells taken for reuse in larger grid battery systems and their motors taken for reuse or recycling. A totaled EV still retains a LOT of value.

The article is explicitly about the US, I'm not sure why you would be looking at China.

Because the study is about the lifecycle of vehicles. Altering the length of the lifecycle would not be reflective of their research.

No, I simply mark people as such to indicate that they make bad faith arguments.

Points of notice:
* You dismissed the the entire study and claiming "the whole thing is irrelevant to [you]"
* You made a baseless claim "Presumably they don't want it to ever show an ICE is cleaner than an EV".
* Your focus is on energy generation in a location that is expressly coal based.
* You have tried to drag China's energy generation when this entire study is about the US.

This study uses statistical data that you are dismissing in an effort to "prove" they are "wrong" because you claim to have some absurd atypical routine. It's such a classic trope on Slashdot that I made a satirical comment about it.

I would love to but I'm will waiting on that 110% pay. Everyone should take a pay positive attitude because we're worth it, right? Hello? Are you still there?

And? Coal has been dying off because it's not competitively priced.

I thought we were talking about ICE. Anyway, "almost as low" means that emissions are still higher, for ICEV, HEV, and PHEV even when powered by coal.

You literally just told me that the most inefficient BEV with the most inefficient electrical source still emits fewer GHGs than any other types of powertrain. Literally all BEVs are less emitting than all other powertrain. That is a binary proposition.

It makes no sense to sell of parts of the radio spectrum because it's conceptual and extremely limited. The government should have only licensed parts of the radio spectrum for X years, not eternal ownership. The problem is how extremely limited the market is and as a result we already have an entrenched owners that are now gatekeepers of wireless which definitely stifles competition. Furthermore, as technology advances, the RF boundaries should get tighter and the cost per MHz should increase. Selling parts of the radio spectrum with unlimited ownership is absolutely stupid.

If you drive more then ICE emissions will be even higher but unless you drive a new vehicle for less than one year before having it crushed (not sold) then an EV is always going to be the cleaner vehicle. That is not an exaggeration.

Take a look at the graph b (emissions excluding fuel) and graph b (emissions including fuel) on page S21: https://ndownloader.figstatic....
It will show you how much ICE cars emit from merely being used.

Then you fundamentally do not understand how businesses operate.

No, don't be silly! Per wikipedia, it was "COLT Telecom Group S.A." aka City Of London Telecomms Telecom Group but they have renamed it to Colt Technology Services Group Limited.

You're not even wrong. The issue for companies is paying for energy. The energy for humans is included as part of the wage/salary of the worker. The comparison to be made is the amount of energy that must be paid for. As such, paying for a human worker is competition with the cost of the energy for running computer systems.

n/t

Presumably, it's specifying how to the use the tax code rather than a specification of the tax code itself.

Pros:
* No changes are needed when the tax code is updated. (You just grab the latest version of the tax code)
* No need to pay legal experts to analyze the tax code.
* Interprets the tax code in a consistent fashion.
* Clients can ask how doing XYZ would impact their taxes later.
* Should be trivial to adapt for tax codes in other countries.

Cons:
* Likely not as accurate as experts
* Uses more energy

I think it would be smarter to use AI to create machine interpretable rulesets and then have legal experts review them before using them them as part of their tax software. This would minimize development time, energy use, and the need for legal experts while it could also being interfaced with an AI agent for client interaction.

The issue isn't that North Korean actors were making attempts but that they were successful but then were discovered. If not then they received a nastygram from law enforcement letting them know they would be legally liable for failing for failing to take proper precautions. Companies run by MBA cryptobros are not about to spend money they don't have to.

Yeah, it's North Korea's army.

If by "tiny portion of the system", you mean the entire firmware, then yes.

This is the present condition when it comes to the hardware.

It is always favorable to reduce the attack surface, which is what such a scheme would ensure. I'm not sure why you seem to object to this notion.

No. For a hardware-based scheme you simply need one memory chip that is for system software (hardware read-only) and another for configuration, applications, and application data. The system software chip doesn't need to be anything fancy either because it can be a compressed partition that is copied into RAM upon boot for maximum speed or utilize execute in place (XIP) if access speed is not an issue. This isn't a unique scheme either because this is how consumer-grade home routers operate, using flash memory for system storage and EEPROM for configuration storage.

Except the company's use of the software is entirely voluntary. They can replace your project is with something else. Nobody is entitled to anything more than your source code.

Not at all because the software is still 100% free for them to use and modify. The issue at hand isn't the software, it is software support. You are free to have the software, share it, fork it,, report flaws, or submit patches. Meanwhile, the author is free to ignore you entirely or simply abandon the project.

What you are entitled to is the source code. No OSS license specifies that you are entitled to software support.

I think the argument about the "spirit of open source" lacks the proper context. The spirit of open source exists in the open source community. Being part of a community means give and take, helping and being helped. The problem with extending the spirit of open source to a businesses is that businesses are not communal in nature, they operate in a "take only" fashion. They want to be helped but they do want to help which is highly antisocial and destructive to any community. I think this what the other user meant when they referred to a tragedy of the commons. They will monopolize your time if you allow them and then the community of worse off for it while only the takers benefit.

This is true up to the point where the user receives the software and what they license specifies. Beyond that, it's up to the author. For example, I wouldn't want to help someone that used my software to spam people.

Any user that imposes a burden on a project can be freely ignored if the author/maintainer so decides. This is true of all users.

Except that's not what I wrote. I wrote that they should be de-prioritized. For-profit users (businesses) that don't contribute should simply be less important than non-profit users (normal people). Why? The simple fact is that non-profit users care about the software and improving it because they use it while for-profit users only care about making profit from the software. If they aren't going to share the profits that would support the project then you are better off serving normal users who want to see the software improve. even if it's not in a way they expect.

If a for-profit user has a suggestion/report that impacts non-profit users as well then it's all good.