Oh wait, they said genocide-*supporting*. So the stances they claimed it's a hotbed of are "right, right, middle, hard right", and then they said it's far left. Baffling.

(As a side note, far-left supporters of Russia, aka internet commies who still think of Russia as the USSR, are some of the dumbest people on Earth)

Racism is a classic right wing associated political position (far right: immigrants, minorities, deviants, and the far left cause all our problems; far left: rich people and the far right cause all our problems). Anti-muslim racism in particular is associated strongly with the right (including, one can mention, there are 4 US representatives who are Muslims - all Democrats). On China the divide isn't as stark but is still pretty strong, with the right usually more hawkish and the left more dovish. On Russia, it used to be strongly hawkish on the right, dovish on the left, but these days you have both the far left and far right liking Russia and the centre hating it.

Genocide, I can only assume they're talking about Israel. Parties used to both be pretty pro-Israel, but these days Republicans are nearly evenly split, while Democrats are increasingly strongly against Israel (but there's still a very large minority of Israel-supporting Democrats). While opposition to Israel is now majority in the US, on the specific question of "Has Israel committed genocide", it's still a minority view, but growing, with about 3 in 10 Americans (and 5 in 10 Democrats) saying yes (interesting to note, 3 in 10 Jewish Americans also said "yes"). It's a policy viewpoint that's in the process of segregating in the US by party but which didn't use to be that way, and still has a long way to go to reach a fully partisan split.

In short, their statement describing Fark as left-wing but then saying it's a hotbed of "left, right, middle, hard right" made no sense.

Just the opposite. The court ruled that Claude had the rights to train using books that they bought. The standard now is buying used/surplus books and mass scanning them.

From a nominal flat-panel perspective, yes (gets as high as 6,5x in some parts of the desert southwest). But this isn't a flat panel, it's curved, so your 0-degree-angle values get depressed and your tangential-light numbers get boosted. 5 mi/h and 40mi/day are quite reasonable for the desert southwest.

Obviously you won't get that in, say, Reykjavík ;)

I do agree that for whatever use a simple left-right axis is (obviously politics is vastly multidimensional) "left vs. right" is a circle, not a horseshoe. You look at people like Greenwald, Assange, etc and it's easy to see how people loop around the back end.

Basically toward the centre you tend to have the attitude of "the fundamental system is not wrong, but we need to fix X and Y" (just with disagreements over what is right, what is wrong, and what the fixes are). Whereas the more polarized you get to the left and right, the more convinced you are that everything is wrong and it doesn't just need fixes, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt in some new glorious utopian form. So as you approach the backside, you have some unifying attitudes of hating the country and global systems, more prone to supporting demagogues, anti-democratic tendencies, militarism, demonization of the centre (usually under the mistaken belief that the centre actually supports them, whereas actual centrist views are represented only by oppressive minority), etc. The enemies of your country get treated as heroes (for example, the like of both the far-left and far-right of Russia), even when they not only want to see your country destroyed, but are actually ideologically quite different from you. Also, misogyny often starts to creep in through the backdoor of militarism and demogoguery.

Certain sides may be more prone to certain aspects - for example, the right, with its love of guns, is usually an easier slide into militancy, whereas the left, coming from having been in the opposition during the Cold War, usually has an easier route into hating the country, for example. But there gets to be enough unifying aspects on the backend between the far-left and the far-right that some people can swing all the way around.

It sounds like you said it is simultaneously far left and far right?

This is so weird. I haven't visited the site the early Afghan War, maybe early Iraq War era, but I remember it being rather US-jingoistic, pretty right wing? And the site tilt was pretty heavily "white American male" not a famously left-wing demographic.

Meh, I knew of Fark back when all that was at the site was a single photo of a squirrel with large genitals.

I used to play on the mud Three Kingdoms in the mid '90s, and Drew was a Wizard (admin) there (named "Cletus"). When Fark became a link aggregator, I used to visit for the Photoshop contests (then ended up drifting off to Worth1000 when that became a thing). I'm not surprised that he ended up launching a porn site, because, well, Drew, but they launched a TV service that ended up getting gobbled up by Adult Swim? Weird.

Crazy to see all of the stuff that's happened with the site since I left; it entirely dropped off my radar.

Potentially, but not necessarily more than they're going to spend on the work.

Maybe Apple sees it as just the right thing to do. Apple has access to enormous volumes of data that they could monetize if they wanted, but they don't. They jumped through a bunch of hoops to make Lockdown Mode that, if the user screws it up, means that everything is lost. They are unlikely to be making money on that, especially since it limits some app installations and functionality, and they're not going to get fined by anyone for not having it. There is, in fact, a real risk that someone is going to fine them for being unable to recover the data.

What are we going to use to handwave all the 'officer involved shootings' now that the claim that you feared for your life in the face of an imminent threat is no longer plausible? We can't really put these to work until we've decided on suitable legal cover!

It holds a legal and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Tim Cook rather famously told off an Apple shareholder who asked him to commit to pursuing only programs that would be profitable, saying, "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI."

That's just one small example by a powerful CEO after a shareholder initiative was shot down 98-2, but most companies spend money on things that reduce profits or are not profitable. Look at the sprawling HQs with fancy buildings that are set up by so many companies when they could have gone with simple brutalist architecture. There are companies that pay well because it promotes long-term stability even at the expense of short-term profits.

I get that these big companies don't deserve blind trust, but understanding what their obligations are is much more helpful than oversimplifications.

the vehicles start looking more like a wingless airplane than a car.

And what does the company's name mean? ;) (Hint: it's Greek)

It adds up to 40 miles per day, not 5. 5 would be a cloudy day.

I used to be anti-solar-panels-on-cars back when solar panels were expensive, and ones of reasonable efficiency were even more expensive - the argument was, "put it on your roof where it belongs". But that's just not the case any more. Adding solar is just not that much of a cost to the car. It adds some complexities, but mainly in the design / early manufacturing phase.

Also:

The average American drives 37 miles per day.

1) So if you're in a sunny climate, it covers all of said average-driver's driving. Otherwise, said average-driver has to plug in occasionally, but not nearly as often.

2) Most people drive less than the average (the average is skewed by a long-tail - small numbers of people who drive very far every year). What you actually should be meaning is the median US driver; the median drives 23 miles per day. Most Europeans, even less.

3) Even for said "average american", their daily average is skewed by long drives (e.g. road trips and similar). Wheren of course you're plugging in, you'd be plugging in even if the car was adding 80 miles a day. But when not on road trips, their daily average is lower.

4) Surely you can see the appeal of the tangential benefits, such as being unstrandable - where even if you run out in the middle of the desert 20 miles from the nearest town, you're still going to get there, just delayed (remember that EV ranges, if you drive very slowly, increase like 2x, so 40 miles a day becomes 80, so a 20 mile shortfall is only a ~4h delay on a sunny day).

5) Nobody is saying, "One car for everybody". Of course appeal varies by person and by location. Here in Iceland for example we have three problems. One, very little sun at all for a good chunk of the year. Two, even in the summer, when the days are long, the sun is mainly low and circles around you. Solar power just kinda sucks here in general. And three, the three-wheel config would mean that the centre wheel wouldn't align with tracks in the snow from other cars (although there is a slight advantage, in that it also wouldn't align with road ruts from studded tyres, which often fill with water in the rain and become hazardous).

But somewhere in the southern US, it's a great option.

I'm glad to see that we have moved past the era of 'bugs' or 'defects' and are now anthropomorphizing undesired behavior as 'honest mistakes'. Truly progress is glorious.