Depends on whether the spite hurts them in some way or makes them look like idiots.

Even in the case where you have the money, as long as you are careful not to get into debt over your head, there's absolutely no rational reason to turn down an interest-free loan. Anything else you do with that money in the interim other than spending it is pretty much guaranteed to be a better use of the funds.

Even if all you do is keep the money in your bank account for that year, you've earned interest on the money (or at least a diminishing portion thereof) over that whole year, so you are better off than if you had paid the money up front.

Basically unless you have no self control when it comes to not spending yourself into the ground, you'd pretty much have to be an idiot to pay for Apple products up front when interest-free loans are available.

+1. Amazon card is already Chase. Now everything is Chase. That's a little bit too all-my-eggs-in-one-baskety for my taste.

There's no such thing. Certs for code signing are issued by Apple and have a fixed validity period. Timestamping proves when the code was signed.

Actually, both the summary and Logitech's FAQ clearly say that Windows users are not affected.

Unless Logitech did something very weird, this is likely to be a *major* bug.

The whole reason for Apple requiring app signing to use a timestamping service is so that bulls**t like this doesn't happen. Unless revoked, an app's signature is supposed to remain valid forever, so long the certificate was valid when the app was signed, even if the certificate has since expired. If that isn't happening, then Apple needs to fix the regression in its code signature validation.

There were troops on the ground. They just left already. Presumably what Polymarket intended the word "invade" to mean is "occupy", i.e. invade the country and then continue to keep troops there long-term to stabilize the country. However, as a general matter of law, the word "invade" does not require occupation, but rather occurs when you have two factors: entry and enmity.

Entry: The presence of foreign troops on another country's soil. Clearly, U.S. troops were on Venezuelan soil, because they captured Maduro.

Enmity: This means the intent to act as an enemy of the the country in question. Clearly U.S. troops had hostile intent towards the government of Venezuela, because they arrested its leader. And as a general matter of international law, having hostile intent towards a nation's government is generally considered to be hostile intent towards the country (except if the actor is part of that country, e.g. in the case of a civil war). Therefore, this military action appears to involve enmity.

Now folks can certainly argue that the intent was to rescue Venezuela from that government, and argue that the troops did not intend to act as enemies of a country, but only of a specific individual, but as the head of state, this argument is problematic at best.

So the question is whether Polymarket provided a definition for "invade" ahead of time that is different from the traditionally held legal definition, in which case they might have ground to stand on, or failed to do so, in which case they will likely be forced to pay out.

The definition that they provided as their justification — “US military operations intended to establish control” — appears to still be problematic for them, as the clear intent of that military operation was to establish control. Our president literally said that the U.S. would run Venezuela until a new president could be elected. So the control over Venezuela being temporary doesn't change that the intent was to establish control. Additionally, he made it clear that part of the intent is to restore U.S. corporate control over Venezuela's oil fields, which is also a form of establishing control, and is likely *not* temporary. So whether you use the legal definition or their own, Polymarket's conclusion seems dubious at best, and potentially outright fraudulent, depending on whether they have skin in the game.

Also, about two weeks after I first got my Model X, it sprang a coolant leak because somebody didn't fasten something together properly in the back end of the car.

So I wouldn't call it maintenance-free. It is complicated enough that things absolutely can go wrong. They even used to recommend a coolant flush after a year of ownership, though at some point, they stopped doing that.

Until it isn't. One part of that coolant system (some sort of crossover valve or similar) failed on my Model X and damaged the front motor just a couple of weeks before its drivetrain warranty expired (so I only paid for the valve).

No, they don't. They have massively less brake wear than a traditional ICE car. But that's also true of a plug-in hybrid.

You're right about the fuel filter. It doesn't get changed often, but it does get changed.

But EVs have a massively more complex cooling system than ICE cars, because they have to have coolant flowing through multiple motors on opposite ends of the car and through the battery in addition to the HVAC, and you have a heat pump instead of just a simple radiative heat exchanger. And most people do not ever replace the coolant in their ICE cars.

You pretty much have to use the middle button, because they've made the scrollbars so small they're difficult to hit.

EVs and hybrids shoudln't have significantly different brake wear. Factored in oil changes, which includes the oil filter. I've never needed to add any other fluids in any car I've owned other than wiper fluid, which an EV also requires. I guess I left out the air filter, but that's such a tiny maintenance cost compared with the other stuff that it almost isn't even worth mentioning.

Belts and transmission do wear out eventually, but that's not an issue unless your car is outside of its warranty period, and an out-of-warranty EV can also have things go wrong. The only straightforward comparison is between two in-warranty cars, because it's impossible to predict the costs for an older vehicle reliably. It might go 300k miles or it might blow a head gasket 10 miles out of warranty.

Jiffy Lube in the Bay Area. And while cars are under warranty, if you don't do an oil change at the recommended interval, it can negatively impact your ability to get engine problems covered under the warranty, so most people do so.

Of course, they also charge you more for your heat and air during the day. With a whole-home time-of-use plan, they're likely to get their money either way.

I'm pretty sure the only way you're not going to get screwed with your pants on is to have a separate meter on an EV-B rate plan. Totally worth $1.50 a month. Too bad I'm not currently eligible because of where I live (because PG&E doesn't own the meters). Then again, I have unlimited supercharging, so I guess I probably wouldn't use it anyway. :-)