I think you are wrong about this. 3/4 ton diesels are in this same price range now. The EV's have the weight to provide effective stopping power in the 3/4 to 1 ton truck range, and the power is WELL beyond most diesels and more on demand. Ford just screwed the pooch on 329 miles being the max range and for a truck that tows in all weather conditions, the towing when combined with cold weather is just not on par with EV truck offerings from GM and Rivian.

As I said above, Rivian and GM EV trucks have enough range for my needs and meet my minimums of being able to go a minimum of 2 hours at 70MPH while towing in cold weather. I absolutely refuse to go back to ice in any form. I refuse to ever change engine oil in a car ever again and I also don't them problems and maintenance of both ICE and EV in the same vehicle.

Oh, I think the Silverado EV's are adequate. 480+ mile range in best conditions still puts me way over my bladders ability to drive even in the absolute worst conditions of that tow + cold weather. That thing will still be 200'ish miles of towing in cold weather.

F-150 lightning in its form would have been my choice, but it just did not have enough range for my truck needs. It is also very slow charging for the battery size. Both Rivian and GM trucks outperform on those. For me, the absolute minimum range I would settle for is one that has enough base range that it can still go a minimum of 2 hours at 65-70MPH highway speeds while also in the worst conditions possible, namely both towing while also in cold weather. I don't need 400+ mile range when in the best conditions, but it takes that to keep the worst condition range above my minimums. And the Ford just never had it. 329 mile range in the BEST conditions would barely get out of my driveway before needing a charge in single digit temps while heavy towing. I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but still when you calc that the coldest weather can hit you to the point where you only get 60% percent, then lose another 50% on top of that when towing and it just isnt enough.

This is about getting wholesalers to pay them to take the data about where they source their stuff and who they sell it to at what rates so Amazon can replace their step in the chain as well.

If you have one that has cellular connectivity and an infotainment system, espeically EV's, the only way that I have found is to track down the telematics module for your car and locate the antenna connector and put a resistor on it to disable it completely. Just disconnecting the shark fin is not enough since the wire itself or even just the connector can function enough that it can still get signal through when it is in areas with very strong signal. But then you use something like a mobile 4G/5G hotspot with true firewall capability and connect the car to that through its ability to use external wifi. Then you block access to GM and onstar sites while still letting things like google maps through for nav so that you don't brick your entire infotainment system. This is what I do on both of my GM EV's.

When are people going to insist that cars are owned by the owner? Security should have no component of trust. Locking out a manufacturer from a connected thing should be something that is enshrined by law. Zero trust is the gold standard worldwide and there should be no trust involved. If something is connected, the owner should be able to force verify what is being sent over that connection and should be able to do it in a way that does not tip off the device that it is being watched that would allow it to change behavior. Manufacturers are not trustworthy and never will be and the owners should always have the ability to lock them out unless there is a documented need for them to communicate with the vehicle. And that means without bricking things like navigation, EV charger finding etc. In other words, the connectivity should be 100% in control of the owner of the device up to and including the law enforced ability to load owner certs on the device and inspect all traffic in and out and block any traffic that does not work in the owners interest. For EV's especially, these things are connected to the grid for God's sake... WHY are the owners not allowed to sandbox these things and only allow them to be communicated with (other than nav or audio video streaming) when there is no documented need for it to happen? Leaving them permanently open to the internet is patently ridiculous from a security perspective. And trusting the manufacturers to do the right thing is just as ridiculous from the privacy side. Trust is not a security or privacy model. Owners should have the ability to ENFORCE it.

Better hope someone other than the police find him first. If he doesn't present ID despite doing no crime he likely get beat to death.

Almost all replacements for passwords are not implemented as a way to prove you have access. They are implemented in a way that forces you to uniquely identify as a specific human being. There is a difference. I will continue to use passwords until there is no other option because a password does not compromise my identity or tie my account to a named human.

I hate how certificate pinning is a thing. It does NOT increase security from the end users perspective. The ONLY thing certificate pinning does is allows weaponizing of devices against the owner where they can not inspect their own traffic to confirm what is being sent. Without certificate pinning you still have full end to end encryption and man in the middle attacks are still secured as long as the 2 endpoints are secured because the caveat is that you have to have physically secured endpoints. But you should have that anyway. Certificate pinning only allows companies to secure the traffic in a way that keeps even the owner of one of those 2 endpoints from being able to confirm what is being sent. That should never be allowed to happen. When security is gauged on the ability of a company to secure traffic against one of the participants, then there is something bad wrong.

If there are any other arguments - real arguments - pay attention to them, but the equity concerns should be filtered out of the conversation and their advocates seen as having wasted people's time.

The idea that ideas can be owned is the defect. It's an idea you had. It's not your idea.

FSF was founded by idealists who believe code should be as free as speech rather than owned. Spoiler alert: they're right.

They were built on principle and likely will stand on it.

Exactly, next people are going to be doing legal discovery on levi's jeans because the jeans helped the shooter keep his balls from flapping during the shooting. Stop trying to blame tools and keep the blame squarely on the human that does the evil thing.