No one is actually pulling out. The U.S. has made it harder for foreign companies to import them. But there are still domestic manufacturers of EVs, like Tesla, Ford and Stellantis. This is something very else: For the last decade, one big argument against EVs was "bad resale value", because EVs were seen as a novelty, and fear for dead batteries, fueled by the problems with first gen Nissan Leafs, made buyers wary of used EVs. Additionally, there were not many used EVs on the market to begin with, fleet operators did not have many young EVs to sell, and prices did not really average out yet.

Now, demand for EVs is rising due to high fuel prices, and a good public charging network making EVs a viable alternative for many people. And also people looking for bargains are hitting the market, and with used batteries not being the problem they were thought to be, used EVs have its own value proposition. We have here the normal effect of demand rising more than the available supply.

I don't have much more to say about it, except that if I was a billion-dollar AI company I wouldn't try and pass off my flaws as brilliance.

Tim Waltz is a criminal mastermind. He's been hacking other states' water so that he can keep all 10,000 of his lakes topped off at the expense of hard working Americans.

Changing out running code on the fly probably increases the number of corner cases by an order of magnitude.

What could possibly go wrong?

A late reply to your comment:

Yes, overall structure is a problem. I generally give it hints as to how I would like the architecture to be, and for larger projects I mention that future ability to expand/extend is important, which then makes it construct more robust "frameworks".

But generally you need to know what the bones of your solution should look like and push it in that direction otherwise you end up with nicely commented spaghetti code.

I got Google Play Music for my family back when that was a thing. It was the same price as Spotify, had the same catalog, and included any music on Youtube as well. The fact that it included ad free Youtube was just a bonus. These days that has morphed into Youtube Premium, and I still pay for it. I am mostly there for the music, but the ad free Youtube is not terrible.

The interesting thing is that it is pretty clear that most people just watch the ads. Youtube had $60 billion in yearly revenue last year. More than Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and Warner Brothers combined. Roughly $20 billion of that is credited to Youtube Premium which is bigger than any of its Hollywood competitors.

There's a reason that Peacock is being included with Youtube Premium and not the other way around. Youtube is worth something. Peacock, not so much.

Things have changed dramatically since the heyday when everyone had a cable subscription. I used to work for SlingTV (and then Dish), and I had a front row seat as the whole industry imploded. Every year the television networks and movie studios would sit down and renegotiate their contracts. Despite the fact that viewership was always down at least 10% year over year they always wanted price increases. If the cable providers pushed back (as Dish often did) they would lose access to channels, invariably during football season when it mattered most.

You see, as technology started allowing people to purchase their entertainment piecemeal it soon became clear what parts they were willing to pay for, and which parts they weren't willing to pay for. Hollywood thought that people paid for cable subscriptions to watch their scripted television. It turns out that, for most people anyway, the part of television that they were willing to pay for was live sports.

That's why Disney won't sell you ESPN unless you bundle it with everything else that they sell, and that's also why Disney is suing SlingTV for reselling access on a daily basis. SlingTV's "sports pass" allows you to pay for just the games that you want at a ridiculous price. Disney should be stoked, but instead it has sued because it wants to force sports fans to continue to pay for their other channels.

Almost no one is watching traditional scripted television these days. The few hits that the networks do have tends to be reality TV stuff like "Dancing with the Stars," where the audience can watch people compete in real time. Youtube (not YoutubeTV) has at least half again as many viewers as their next highest competitor (Netflix), at any time during the day, on traditional 10 foot devices (your living room TV). That's not counting people watching Youtube on their phones or their computers. Youtube is killing scripted content on living room televisions, during prime time. During the day its an order of magnitude worse.

Take a look at nielsen.com and take a look for yourself. It's absolutely grim. Look at the shows that are doing relatively well, they are all either sports or sports commentary. That's literally the only reason that anyone watches anything besides YouTube and Netflix.

Apple spent over $20 billion building up a content catalog. At their height they were spending nearly $5 billion a year making shows. They made some great shows and got rave reviews. Amazon spends $1 billion a year for the rights to Thursday night football. That is arguably the worst football game of the week. However, Prime generally gets as many viewers for a single game as Apple has total subscribers, including all of the free subscriptions that Apple gives away. It's not just Apple that is shifting away from scripted television either. Take a look at any of the streaming sites (including Netflix) and you will see that all of their recent moves have been to try and compete for the sports market. That's definitely what YouTube is doing by bundling Peacock.

Hollywood is currently circling the drain. Everyone is up for sale right now. No one is watching scripted television. They certainly aren't paying for it.

The factual reality it ignores is that mistakes by the judicial system in cases covering petty crime, family court, domestic disputes, civil torts, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with mistakes made in capital cases. Asserting that mistakes made in a local municipal court, which would never see a capital case, is grounds for banning capital punishment is like saying that worms in avocados imported from Mexico means the sale of all fruit grown in the US should be banned.

Conflating capital cases with non-capital cases works against your cause, not for it. If you don't understand that, then you are less likely to achieve your goals. Zealotry -- which is fundamentally a political pose -- is not an efficient means to create change.

That is the most politically saturated comment I've read on Slashdot in years. It completely ignores factual reality in order to push a specific agenda.

Here's a hint: if you want your cause to be taken seriously, don't become blinded by zealotry. In this case, there are plenty enough things wrong with the death penalty that you don't need to make this sort of off-putting overgeneralization, and, by doing so, you are harming your cause, rather than helping it.

The barrier to AI cheating is ridiculously low, though.

RIDICULOUSLY LOW.

It tool me about 20 seconds to paste your comment into Claude and get this back out:

Quick take, then the rebuttal itself:
 
The comment's "cheaters gonna cheat" logic dodges the actual point. A few counters:
 
Ease changes behavior, not just outcomes. If AI cheating is dramatically easier and lower-risk than pre-AI alternatives (crib notes, bribing a proctor, memorizing leaked exams), it doesn't just help existing cheaters - it recruits new ones who wouldn't have bothered with the harder, riskier methods. Frictionless cheating scales.
 
"Someone would've cheated anyway" doesn't mean the tool is blameless. That's true of almost any enabling technology (fake IDs, counterfeit currency, doping). We don't shrug at those because determined bad actors exist regardless - we still try to close the specific hole.
 
The "other tests exist" point is the real concession. If proctored, in-person, or oral exams resist AI cheating better, that's an argument for changing how we test, not for waving away AI's role in why the change is suddenly urgent. The heart surgeon example works against the poster here - we'd absolutely want to know an AI-era certification exam let someone through who couldn't do the job, because the failure mode (unqualified surgeon) is real regardless of how they cheated.
 
So the response isn't "AI is uniquely evil," it's "AI meaningfully lowered the cost of cheating, which is exactly why testing methods need to adapt" which is compatible with, not contradicted by, the original comment's own second paragraph

I loved the book, read it several times, and I can say that every single fragment of the trailer, I can place PRECISELY in the book... I can't wait to see it.

There were a few different questions in the feedback popup before I finally answered.

One of them was "How delightful do you find the new home page layout?"

Oh yeah, DELIGHTFUL.

Look Mozilla, I don't get any delight out of opening a browser tab. Maybe, about 1994 or so, I had some delight in just getting NCSA Mosaic to open, so that I could connect via Trumpet Winsock to this crazy new thing called the World Wide Web, and look at some page that some guy at CERN built, and check out how full a coffee pot was with Netscape Navigator 0.9. Nowadays, it's a very small step in my task of "get out on the internet and find something", or "Open browser so I can click on a bookmark in the bookmark bar". Get out of my way and stop wasting CPU and bandwidth on stuff that I don't look at,

Over the last few weeks started getting increasing numbers of shortcut icons underneath my search bar on my default page - Amazon, Temu, etc,(with tiny "sponsored" text) and a couple of my most visited sites.

Then I started to get the mini-apps exhorting me to play this or look at that.

And then I went to FireFox's settings and set my new tab option to "blank".

There was a feedback popup when the tab loaded and I spent a little time telling them not to repeat the mistakes of other browsers cluttering up their landing pages. One of the few times I recommended taking a cue for Google, home page is clean, you hit it and jump off somewhere else, job done.

Other reports on this say that it had access to a proxy for a package manager for installing tools, which it then hacked to become a general proxy, and then off it went on it's cybercrime spree.

All of which is completely inexcusable for its owners, because all that shit doesn't happen in a blink of an eye.

OpenAI's PR approach to their security debacle seems to be "Oooo our models are so powerful and scary, that's awesome! We didn't notice that it did this over the course a few days, didn't notice suspicious network activity doing a whole lot of connections to a package manager proxy, didn't notice it churning though a bajillion tokens in it's little sandbox, it just got out and did all of this itself!"

If I have a car and I park it on a hill, and I don't set the handbrake and turn the wheels towards the curb, and then it rolls down the hill causing mayhem and destruction, I am held responsible.

Is there any good reason why OpenAI shouldn't be held responsible for the mayhem caused by it's unattended machine?

Another option is to use software like VeraCrypt to encrypt sensitive data into a file on your PC. Make it look like an innocuous system file and put it in the system folder somewhere. Don't leave VeraCrypt installed - it will run installer-free, download it at your destination and remove it before traveling again.

There's a double level of security if you use the option where it has a second dummy decryption container in the same file that you can give away.

But yea, if you can securely download what you need, the ultimate choice is to not have the data with you at all.