Well some of those resources at least can be recycled, even if that's more difficult than mining. But yeah, they're not going to have all the convenient fossil fuels we do. Oh well, I guess we'll have to tack on an addition 10k or 20k years.

Well if you're going to use that argument, by the same logic, *every* diode passes current in both directions, and there's no such thing as a diode that blocks current in any direction, which renders the original statement nonsensical.

A correctly-operating diode only blocks current when reverse voltage is lower than the breakdown voltage. There are diodes which block current in both directions in this state.

A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.

Absolutely wrong.

There's TVS protection diodes that use the avalanche effect which do exactly this.

so that we can focus on bigger problems, like keeping planet Earth habitable in the latter half of the 21st century and the 22nd century. Unless this is done, humanity is very unlikely to experience a 23rd century.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Humanity will surely live to experience the 23rd century. It's really hard to completely wipe out a whole species with this many members, and which has intelligence and technological capability.

Now, of course, the 23rd century will probably look a lot like "Max Max II: The Road Warrior" or "28 Days Later" or "The Walking Dead", but I'm sure there'll be at least a few humans still running around.

Don't worry; humanity has had setbacks before, and recovered from them. The Roman Empire fell, for instance, causing Europeans to live in darkness and squalor for 1000 years before the Renaissance. So we'll probably have to wait until the 33rd century before we build a base on the Moon or Mars, but we'll get there eventually, after conquering the zombies and rediscovering antibiotics.

PostgreSQL, and the companies that contribute heavily to it, are doing just fine.

The BMWs that are sold in Europe probably have their turn signals used quite faithfully. It's the stupid American BMW buyers who don't.

So you listen to shitty 00s/10s Top-40 pop music, or worse, redneck rock (aka "country")?

There isn't anything else on the radio in most places.

Germans tend to over-engineer things and jump on all the latest tech, and Japanese tend to be very conservative and wait a while. So the Japanese cars usually aren't as cutting-edge as the German or even American cars.

The main problem with Japanese cars is that their infotainment tech is usually behind the others. Mazda and Toyota don't even have CarPlay or Android Auto available on their systems. The Germans have probably been doing infotainment longer than anyone else, so their systems are usually touted as the best.

But, they shouldn't be charging for the software upfront like that.

Why not? If you don't like their fees and policies, then don't buy a BMW. There's absolutely no shortage of other automakers out there to buy from, and they don't do this.

I say, more power to them. BMW buyers are likely to not care much about a $80/year fee, so BMW might as well soak them for whatever they can get out of them.

I can talk on my phone while driving just fine, with both hands on the wheel. They invented this thing called a "speakerphone" ages ago, along with something called "Bluetooth".

So what? They can pony up the fee if they want CarPlay and a BMW. If they object to the fee that much, they can opt against buying the car. Their choice. If this is really that much of a problem, then BMWs will take a hit in the used market, and not hold their prices as well. There's plenty of other cars on the market, and they don't charge this fee.

I think this move by BMW is just fine. If it works out, they'll make more profit. If it doesn't, they'll learn the hard way. Considering the people who buy BMWs, I suspect it'll work out well for them.

Policy for who? The GOP-controlled government? It's not government's job to engage in risky business endeavors. Companies run by GOP sympathizers? If they want to buy up toys and resell them for more, they're free to do that.

The main problem with doing this is risk: you might profit a lot if the toy is really hot at the moment, but on the other hand if it's all bought up and resold at too-high prices, it might just lose its attraction (or for other reasons), and now you're stuck with a giant pile of toys that no one wants.

Personally, I think this stuff is silly. If people want to buy up stuff and resell it, it's their right: it's called First Sale Doctrine. If mfgrs want to avoid the problems that could cause, they're free to institute sales policies, to try to prevent any one customer from buying too many. I'm personally not going to be saddened by some parents "forced" to spend $1000 on some stupid little toy; no one's forcing them to buy this crap instead of something else that isn't so popular.

Want pizza? I can raise you many local places that sell the real stuff.

Only if you live in a pretty decent city. In a lot of places, Domino's is the best available.

Maybe he was testing the Domino's App's accuracy.

Doesn't sound like any did, so I guess Apple got exactly what they paid for: nothing. They should have grabbed some loot while they were at it.