I just read on that car because it's not available in my region. According to Wikipedia, it will have either a 38 or 56 kWh battery. The 38 kWh battery likely won't have that 450 km range. This is most likely with the large battery, and even then, they must be using the very optimistic WLTP test cycle to get those numbers. I expect more like 300 km real-world range in ideal summer conditions.
and gets out of whack for others when fuel prices swing (because road maintenance cost doesn't swing with fuel prices; and the tax doesn't change, it is just a percent per unit of fuel, regardless of the fuel price).
You can have a fixed tax, let say $0.5/L. Problem solved.
But it doesn't work at all with EV's, and less effectively with HEV's
EVs tend to be subsidized one way or another. So you may remove other subsidies and keep this one (not having to pay for gas tax). With about 1% EV on the road, this is far from a problem anyways.
What we want is for those who drive the most to switch to EV, so that we can have cleaner air.
But we can put a separate yearly distance tax on EV at some point.
Actually it is very simple. Drop the gas/diesel tax completely, and tax based on annually-collected odometer readings instead, adjusted by vehicle weight. Problem solved. Most states collect the readings annually already with vehicle inspection. What I very much oppose is the government forcing people to put spy devices in their vehicles (in any form) that can monitor ANYTHING except distance.
Gas tax is far less easy to cheat compared to odometer reading, however. So as long as there are less than 10% EV on roads, I think gas tax is the best solution.
It's far from a perfect system. It's not as if people had the choice being a toll road and an alternative in most places.
Some roads have tolls, and some don't. And it's quite arbitrary and unfair.
Two persons pay the same amount of tax and drive the same distance per year in the same model of car, but person A has a toll road between his home and his job, while person B has a free road supported by taxes. Why does person B deserves a free road and A doesn't?
Sure, person A could avoid the toll by making a detour but it's still unfair. The more you drive, the more you should pay for roads. Gas tax is quite a good proxy for that. And there aren't enough EV yet for it to be a problem.
Those deals also exist in some countries who banned SIM-locking. So again, there is no good reason to allow SIM-locking of phones.
Not it's not a good way. Unlocking them is easy, and developing and maintaining the SIM-lock feature also cost money.
Also it prevents legitimate uses cases. Just because I am leasing a phone from a carrier doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to swap the SIM card when I travel, or say, because I want to continue my current plan on a different phone and give that phone to my kid which has a plan on another network.
Overall, SIM-locking is a net loss to society. A text-book market failure. In a true competitive market, there wouldn't be any SIM-lock because all carriers SIM-locking phones would lose all their customers to the competition. Just like any car manufacturer that only allows you to use half of the roads during the first 2 years would go bankrupt.
Sim locking makes sense as long as there in is Phone deal such as they give you a $1200 phone for "free" as long as you promise to pay their inflated service pricing for 3 years.
No it doesn't. You can still stop paying for the phone and sell it to someone else who will get a cheap plan on the same network. Or even better, will unlock it for free or for $10 (which won't go into Verizon's pocket).
It's not as if society needed that we finance cell phones from carriers. Just like you don't finance your computer from your ISP.
But anyway phone financing plan are gong just as strong without SIM-locking in many countries. So using that excuse is lame.
No they don't. Just look at the countries who banned SIM-locking.
Just because you use your phone elsewhere doesn't erase your debt.
I think people in other countries generally buy their phones outright, rather than via provider payment plans, often at a discount, like in the U.S. and I think SIM locking is to prevent people from switching providers before those phones are paid off - and so the providers don't have to sue to recoup that money.
Not really. At least not in Canada. "Discounted" phones are a thing just like in the US.
Phone thieves have always been able to unlock phones anyways, so it brings 0 security to the carrier. It's just hassle for the consumers.
That's probably reasonable
No it's not. I got my phone heavily discounted. I'll have to continue to pay the bill even if I terminate my plan. Just like I still have to pay my credit card each month.
It's the same kind of business and risk.
I guess it depends. Is the phone "discounted" if you do this?
It may or may not be "discounted". It doesn't matter. Canada banned SIM-locking and "discounted" phones are still a thing.
SIM-locking should be banned, period. Works well in many other countries. There is no valid reason to SIM-lock a phone, even for 60 days or 60 days of active paid service. It's a net loss to society as a whole. Even though I understand it can benefit Verizon in one case, it also prevented someone else to switch to Verizon from a competitor.
Disappointing, because in theory filesystem level cache should be quite simple. It could be that all writes go to SSD and then in the background files are slowly copied to HDD. There could be some rules such as never cache large files (no point in having movie library on SSD, and I would say even pictures and music as well). Frequently accessed files could be kept in cache.
yes but this is block-level cache which has many flaws compared to filesystem-level cache.
exactly, even if ZFS was re-licensed to be GPLv2 compatible, it wouldn't be included in the Linux kernel as is, for many good reasons.
> To be able to use a SSD as a cache for hard drive (RAID) array is a very useful use case
Why does this need to be implemented as part of a file system though?
Because it's much more effective this way. So you can get simple rules such as "do not cache files larger than 10MB" or "do not cache *.mkv". Or that the cache remains consistent after defragmenting the disk. Block-level cache solutions have many flaws.
No, just make the file systems manage files. Let the RAID controller that's already part of Linux handle RAID. Let the volume manager that's already part of Linux handle allocating disk resources. Do one thing well. Stop reinventing the fucking wheel all the time.
Nobody forces you to use those filesystems. ext4 works just fine if you don't need these features.
It may not be in the kernel, but you can do all of that with ZFS.
Well that's the whole point. People use ext4 or btrfs because they are in the kernel and well supported.
zfs sucks for its licensing. They basically designed it on purpose to be GPL-incompatible. At this point it's better to let zfs die and work on replacements.
"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg
