To me, it just looks like you're shoehorning your own interpretation into an otherwise stupid joke. There was no context for them to even mention Kelvin, so why would one assume the use of degrees was implied when the statement as a whole wasn't really in context.

They didn't say "degrees Kelvin" they said "Kelvin".

I've seen that too, but the vast majority of the laptop users I deal with only have one so they can move about the house.

Sure, but that ultimately isn't overly important to how most people use their computer. That is, it's generally better for the computer to keep itself up to date in the background than to expect them to ever take the time to do it themselves. Having them restart the computer usually has less friction than having them run updates.

Ultimately, adding the option seems like an overall benefit. Leave it up to the distro for the default, or have a setting on install.

That is your preference, and nothing wrong with it. However, a lot of people would have a different opinion. From my experience providing support to the public, most people just hit the power button and let the computer figure it out. I'm not saying there wouldn't be exceptions or problems, but for the average person it works well enough and they can't be bothered to care.

As for power usage, I don't have first hand numbers to go off of. However, consensus is that modern standby is much lower than idle. The internet seems to tell me "idle" would be anywhere from 10(30)W to 50(100)W. I'm seeing modern standby in the 2-10W range. One person's anecdote for their Dell XPS 15 9530 was 40W idle with screen off, and 10W on modern standby. It's up to the individual to decide if they care, but local power costs would likely factor in. I have fairly cheap power, though the price does keep creeping up.

The average person probably wouldn't see too much difference between the two, in terms of what they're used for. I'm not saying it's ultimately worth it to me, but I can see the general appeal (potential issues aside) of having everything updated in the background. It's not a "linux purist" feature, but a feature that is probably beneficial for user adoption.

Like anyone cares about some "no-name" manufacturer!

It was only a theoretical construct for me as well. I only meant to convey that further adding to the list of things affecting the free market moves it further away from the core concept of a free market and not closer.

In my original message I mentioned Tesla as a directly comparative example for EV. At the point where you joined the conversation, I had already mentioned they're not the only company receiving subsidies. Specifically, " It's not a situation unique to them."

I never said they should, or shouldn't, be allowed to enter the US market... subsidized or not. In fact, my very first sentence specifically said I wasn't expressing a stance on it. The only point I made is that the free market isn't operating as a proper free market due to subsidies, and that adding yet another subsidized player wouldn't suddenly fix it.

Are you going to ignore the fact that I mentioned it happens with US auto makers as well?

BYD is subsidized. They're far from the only company that is. I don't CARE that they are. I never said they were subsidized into beating domestic manufacturers. My point was of there not actually being a true free market in general because of subsidies in general.

I never said it was part of the production price calculation. However, it will absolutely factor into what pricing would be needed for it to be viable to maintain or grow the business. Those operating expenses have to be paid somehow.

You say that like R&D doesn't affect the cost. However, the point is that they are subsidized. And to be clear, I'm counting indirect subsidies. It's not a situation unique to them. I'm not saying it's a problem that they are. I'm merely pointing out that when subsidies are involved it's not as free of a market.

I'm not going to argue about the merit of allowing BYD or not. This is only about free market economics. BYD is heavily subsidized, and their entry in the market would skew any possible free market economics. That said, it isn't like Tesla didn't directly or indirectly receive subsidies. It might look closer to a free market if everyone has their thumb on the scale, but it wouldn't be.

The link in the summary to the CAFE standards specifically mentions it includes light trucks.

Their question was "What choice do they realistically have?" The key word is realistically. Yes, there is a choice. There just isn't a viable reason to say no.