Is it? Getting improvements?

I read the summary and yeah, it uses that word but... what - specifically - does it mean? The code was "cleaned up" and "restructured". So... were any bugs fixed? Is there any real-world performance increase? In what way has this driver improved?

This is elderly code which likely has had any impactful errors discovered and corrected. Any major changes at this juncture risk introducing new problems regardless of if they're made by a human or an AI coding tool. While restructuring the code may make it easier to maintain, at this late date there shouldn't be much maintaining.

Unless there is concrete, measurable improvement, this is just PR AI cheerleadership.

A foreign company buying output from an American company is profitable to America. Selling the company itself isn't.

Let's simplify and imagine a Hollywood studio that produces say... sitcoms. Money comes in from viewership... either from advertising income or streaming subscriptions. Money goes out to the employees that create the sitcoms and the profit pile.

If the company is American-owned, the profit says in America and is spent on (mostly) American stuff. Sure, the C-suite folk may buy some yachts made in other countries, but mostly they'll buy mansions and whatnot where they live: America. If the company is foreign-owned, the profit will be spent (mostly) on stuff where its owners live.

Imagine if the Americans owned those oil companies in the Middle East. Imagine if they owned TSMC and Samsung. Foreign investment can be good, to produce liquidity allowing projects that you can't fund yourself, but in this case, Warner Bros could have remained domestically-owned.

"Paramount maintained that the merger would strengthen competition rather than diminish it, creating a media company better positioned to compete with streaming leaders and deep-pocketed technology rivals."

They'd otherwise continue to struggle to compete. This time they only had* $111 billion dollars available to buy a massive collection of Hollywood properties, out-bidding the streaming leaders they will finally be able to compete with.

*"Had", as in "don't actually have, so need to sell lots of shares to Saudi Arabia despite the current America-First agenda that has slapped massive tariffs on almost every former ally.

Hahahahahaa. That's so funny.

How about congestion pricing, which 1) provably works better than anything else and 2) actually generates revenue instead of costing money?

Nah, let's just blow 30 million on a system that will, if anything, make traffic worse.

Your puny 120kW is fine for you and it's fine for most people, but you have to understand that flash charging isn't about the consumer demand, and it's not about road trips. It's happening way faster for that to be the case. Flash charging is about making more money for charge point operators and the car companies.

There are two reasons for hyper-fast charging, and neither one is for road trips:

1) People who live in apartments. If your car has 5-minute charging, you can sell EVs to more of these people.
2) Charge point operators. Charge point operators make a lot more money off of faster chargers than they do off of slow chargers. The economics of running a charging site strongly favor faster charging. Faster charging means fewer stalls needed, less land and queuing space needed, more people stopping because it's more convenient, more people stopping because there's less chance of a queue. Since you charge money per kWh, basically the rate you can make money off of charging is directly proportional to how many Watts you can push out. And it's more economical to push more Watts with flash charging.

In the early days, I expected companies to charge more money for faster chargers. I expected there would be slower chargers, fast chargers, and "premium" hyper chargers that cost more. But in fact, it's going to be the opposite. We will probably see lower rates for faster charging. In fact, this already exists now...some chargers begin charging idle fees once your car gets to 80% and starts charging slower. You pay more, if you want to charge slower!

This is why flash charging is being pushed so hard. It's profit incentive both for the car companies and for the charging companies, not value added to most customers.

Hyper charging is emphatically not needed for road trips. This is why Teslas still charge slow as fuck. Tesla charging speed has actually gotten worse over time. It's because their customers live in America, they tend to own houses and charge at home, and even "slow" fast charging is totally fine for road trips already. That's why Tesla "super"chargers are not even fast. Because for road trips, which is the Supercharger use-case, it doesn't matter that much.

I have two gas cars and an old Kia Niro that charges at 80kW on a good day. I need to drive between Boise and Portland every so often. Most people assume I drive the electric around town, and take one of the gas cars to Portland, but it's the opposite. I only drive my gas cars around town, because the miles are low and gas consumption is basically insignificant. I take the Kia on road trips because it's slightly cheaper (I get the same reimbursement from work) and electric cars are nicer to drive. I just put it on cruise, and it climbs all the mountains with no shifting, no noise, and it goes down the other side perfectly in cruise control, no brakes needed, just put it in cruise and drive.

Even though it charges at a pathetic 80kW, I never really wait on the car. I just plug in when I stop for pee/coffee/cleaning off bugs from the windshield breaks. I probably spend less time charging the Kia than I would filling up a gas car once or twice, because I don't have to stay with the car while filling gas. And that's at a "pathetic" 80kW car. I now understand why American car companies keep putting out cars like the Equinox, that only charges at 150kW, or the Toyotas, that also charge at less than 200kW. I used to think the 250+kW charging speed like the Hyundai's was going to be some big unlock. But now I realize it doesn't matter because most Americans that can afford newer cars live in houses, and we are already at the zero-time-cost point for road-trip charging. The next bottleneck will be when enough people start using EVs that queues start to form at the highway fast chargers, and since land is cheap in America, the response will probably more like what Tesla already does...just put in a fuck ton of stalls so people can charge while they pee, rather than a few hyperchargers that people have to keep moving their cars through.

What if, indeed?

I suppose they'll continue to revise and refine their models, teaching, and textbooks as information arises. As science does.

You and I are as Bonobos weighing in on if the guys who designed the SR-71 are right about this flight thing. We're no more equipped to weigh in on quantum physics than my cats are to opine on the efficacy of mRNA vaccines. Science is a process and that process involves peer-review, and constant checking for flaws. This isn't multi-level marketing or religion where we just take it on faith that the invisible sky-man is why seasons happen. Many tiers of experts test the veracity and plausibility of the work of those above and below their own level of expertise.

This is all my way of trying to politely saying the question is not useful. Come back when you are a physicist and a mathematician and wax poetic to us.

First up, I need to preface this with conceding that I absolutely, positively do not claim EVs are suitable for all use-cases, all drivers, and all trips.

That said, am I understanding the invalidating scenario here is:
Father drives ~500km round-trip to and from the cabin, draining the battery.
Father is concerned about a medical event that he'd have to drive to hospital for, where the hospital is more than about 50km away, and this medical event is happening within an hour of returning home:?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. Because many EVs have around 500km range these days and a level 2 charger will get you to 10% in an hour no problem. This just seems an odd worry for someone who's willing to drive 250km away from civilization in the first place. And willing to live somewhere that you'd drive to the hospital in a life-threatening circumstance instead of waiting for ambulance service.

I'm not criticizing or even arguing. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the parameters of this particular "an EV can't work for reason X" scenario.

Which is very similar to how SSDs work. They all include buffer capacity so as the NAND blocks die off, the user never notices. So the 1TB SSD may contain 1.5TB of NAND inside, but you don't know, and you don't need to know, as long as it keeps delivering 1TB of storage.

Different companies have different levels of transparency about battery state-of-health, and there's no standard right now to make sure you can compare between manufacturers. Tesla tends to report state-of-health that drops from 100% relatively quickly into the 90s in the car's life, but then stabilizes at a slower degradation rate over the long term, which is close to the truth about how batteries actually behave. Ford tends to report 100% state of health for a long time. It's easy to assume that Ford thinks the consumer expects their "new" car to stay new for a long time, so they want to show 100% state-of-health to avoid spooking customers and reduce warranty or trade-ins. In reality, Ford just programmed in a certain amount of buffer capacity into the life-o-meter so the customer THINKS the battery is at 100%* health (where 100% is defined as e.g. "above 90%"). Ford doesn't have better battery technology than Tesla, they just have better marketing.

Nope. Doesn't work that way. You get to cite your references. LLMs scrape the Internet at large, including FUD and troll content and assemble plausible responses based on linguistic probability, in addition to be being biased by whatever prompt they're given. They aren't primary sources.

They won't be involuntarily celibate. In fact part of the point is that they - in sheer numbers - cuck the existing, fertile male population.

Now.. if you'd made a joke about there being so many of them running a train on the unsuspecting females and maybe mentioned your mom, that might've been funny, if only speculatively more accurate.

... so the person you send it to can eat 20% of their battery life to inaccurately summarize it back into one sentence?

To be fair, nobody ever should think "we lost the election so everything the winners do should be accept unopposed no matter how much harm it does." As long as the opposition means are legal, they shouldn't be scoffed at. Some are deliberate checks and balances against abuse by the elected. On-topic, why datacenters - which contribute nothing but tax money to a community - should be enticed with... a tax break is questionable at best. It's almost like building a landfill solely to accept someone else's waste at a discount under the rate your own waste costs to dispose of. Vacant land won't remain vacant forever.

How about recognizing that (many) people will do enjoyable things even if they have long-term negative consequences?

There needs to be a word for "the fear of making a typo while insulting someone online." There probably already is one in German.

That you included the word at all is what makes you a racist.

If you want to have a discussion about if First Nations people should have special treatment, that's a path to constructive discourse. But just throwing out sarcastic hyperbole when nobody else in the thread has is revelatory. And you know it. It's why you did it.

Good job dodging the entirety of my reply with a red herring.