Easy, replace them all with AI! :D

An assumption, and an incorrect one at that. I don't carry it everywhere. Except when I'm on-call, which means the location data is somewhere within my 35 acres anyway, which tracks the same as if I leave it at home. And it's a librem 5, so when I want to carry it but don't want to be tracked, I flip some switches and I'm offline. Physical disconnect. Not everyone trades their basic privacy for a bit of convenience. Your asaumption tells me what side of that you're on.

The assumption you can't have a quality car without tracking is ignorant. 2015 WRX STI, no onstar, no tracking, 47k miles in perfect condition. 2019 RAM 3500 Tradesman package, 55k miles, no onstar, no tracking (original owner custom ordered from the factory, the dealership apologized for the lack of lojack, I told them that was great). In other words, do your homework, shop around, take care of your vehicles, and you don't have to be tracked.

I do not, and cannot, understand how a supposedly tech-savy site like slashdot (obviously not what it once was) misses this point in every discussion of the subject. For some people, the issue isn't charging, or range, or quality, or any such thing. There is the major issue of privacy. Do you WANT to drive around in a metal box that spies on you at all times? Do you WANT to park a car on your property that has cameras facing 360 degrees around and inside of it? Is no one concerned that, as I predicted, this "private" footage is accessible to tesla employees so they can have a private slack channel to share videos of people screwing in their cars? Show me an EV with no internet connection. Show me the EV that works when you pull the sim card. Show me the EV that's fully functional in an entirely offline state. Show me the EV that I can troubleshoot and repair without permission from the manufacturer. You can't. Because it doesn't exist. Christ on a goddamn cracker, this used to be a tech community that rebelled at the very notion of persistent and pervasive tracking and monitoring, but when it comes to EVs, no one even mentions the complete and total lack of privacy. Even if it was viable where I live (it's not, the temps get so cold the thing would neither run nor charge in the winter, ignoring the fact that there are like 5000 people in my county and maybe two public chargers within 75 miles), I would not park this invasive spyware at my home, much less drive around in it. And no one EVER mentions this issue. If this was MS Car, would you trust MS to protect your privacy and let them slurp up every detail of your every movement, and put cameras all over the place? No, of course not. Or at least I would hope not. So, why is no one here concerned about the invasive nature of every EV on the damn market?!

Per the article, the government is spending $913,000,000 for schools to acquire 2,463 busses, "95% of which will be electric." (Side note, I'd love to know why 5% of buses purchased under this plan won't be electric.) That's $370,000 per bus. Enough money to buy a whole electric bus, so I assume that's what they're doing. This is typical moronic "the government is Santa Claus" spending. Those very few districts - 389 - get this massive windfall of completely free (to them) new busses. Everybody else gets nothing. Mountains of school districts across the country are replacing mountains of busses every year already, and most of those replacements are going to be gas. If they'd spent their same $913M on incentive vouchers for schools to buy electric bussesâ"ie, whatever level subsidy it would take to spur adoptionâ"they'd have made the program both more equitable (way more recipients of the funding) and had a much larger impact (way more electric busses purchased for the same amount of program money spent). That is, vouchers for say $92,000 per electric bus per school probably would have still had applicants use all the money, but 4x as many schools would benefit, and 4x as many electric busses would end up on the roads. Some economist could have surveyed schools and estimated the best voucher amount for them to optimize their objective.

Agreed, I'd definitely support non-DST, it's just a little closer to natural damn time. Virtually all of the EST zone west of New England is already pretty much on DST anyway. On DST, where I live, the sun hits zenith around quarter of two in the afternoon, it's just ridiculous.

I agree. So many posters think it's absolutely clear that we're better off without DST... here's a comment of mine on the topic from several years ago https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11840443&cid=56242171/ which I'll repost: I agree the shifts are a disaster. We're not really saving energy anymore with DST, and it's killing people, causing depression and economic losses, etc. But... I'm near the eastern end of EST. Near the summer solstice, with DST in effect, it's light out from about 4:30 AM to 9 pm. Honestly, I'd be better off if there were a 2-hr DST shift - I don't get up before 5:30 AM, 5:30 to 10 pm would be much better, which is what they get at the western end of EST and what I grew up with. WIthout DST, we're looking at it being light out from 3:30 AM to 8 PM. To me, a 3:30 AM sunrise with the modern fixed work/school/daycare schedule is just inhumane. And what a waste having all that daylight waaay before time to get up, and then get dark at 8 PM. OK, so getting rid of DST makes summer suck. So we could just do DST all year like Florida wants to? Well, Russia tried permanent DST, and depression and morning traffic accidents is winter went up. Near the western edge of EST, winter solstice sunrise is already 8:20 AM. Permanent DST would make the sun come up at 9:20 AM - about two and a half hours after most people get up for work/school. That is depressing. I remember waiting for the school bus on frozen, dark snowy days well before civil twilight even began, but with permanent DST, we'd be talking about getting to school and classes starting way before civil twilight. So people get depressed and have accidents now for a week on either side of the time change... but if we get rid of it, I'm not sure we aren't just trading it for another set of problems - insomnia in summer, less summer sports and exercise, and trading two weeks of depression and accidents in the spring/fall for three months of depression and accidents in winter. A single world time zone doesn't help with any of this. It's not like everyone will just run a nocturnal schedule in the part of the earth that gets midnight at what's now noon and vice/versa. If you have to call someone around the world, the question would just shift in semantics from "what time is it there" to "what time do people get up there?" And having a single time zone with no DST doesn't help with it being light too early in summer or too late in winter. Companies, schools, etc could be free to shift the time on their own, but for anyone with complicated schedules, having different organizations make different decisions about whether to shift or not just makes everything worse.

Thanks ttfkam for your post, /. is so often just tiresome now but I had to laugh. +1 Painfully funny but true.

That can't be right, where is Seamonkey in this list?

Sure, it works now, but can you buy it? Still pretty cool that it works. So does vc.com, the first killer app.

Just seeing "strncpy" makes me feel young again. I thought compilers flagged that as insecure more than 16 yrs ago, but am not a real coder so don't know. Laser C forever!

Man, I wasn't too excited about moving to Win10 but now, boy howdy! Also a good reminder to install Resource Hacker, and mess around with shell32.dll

Two addendums: 1. greytree's comment that papers using more technical terms may tend to be in more specialized subjects and thus receive less citations is a good third hypothesis to add to the two I listed. 2. I'm not suggesting that unnecessary jargon is fine, I'm actually highly opposed to it and think papers should be as clear and jargon-free as possible. I suspect the observed effect is due to a combination of at least all three hypothesis, and that appropriately rating their respective contributions would be exceedingly difficult.

It's not a controlled study, it's a correlation.

The correlation supports at least two hypotheses:
1. People are turned away by papers that are more jargon-filled and are less likely to cite them.

2. The kind of people who unnecessarily fill their papers with jargon are the same kind of people who aren't doing very good research, so readability aside, these papers aren't worth citing.

They don't acknowledge this in their actual paper.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.2581

They conclude that their analysis "clearly emphasizes the negative effect of jargon on the success of a paper." But I suspect a correlation between jargon and paper quality, so the lack of citations may be dependent on the "quality" variable, with "jargon" just hitching a correlative ride on quality.

Of course, this would be very difficult to decorrelate because you'd need some measure of the quality of the science in the paper... and the only measure typically used for that on a large scale is citations...
But their findings do not necessarily imply that if the same poorly cited papers had less jargon that they would have performed equally to the other papers.

Well, I've had two deer just sprint directly into my car from off the side of the road, and after the second one I have no sympathy anymore at all! These deer went out of their way to ram me at full speed.