I think Apple should have converted to ZFS in the first place, APFS kind of feels like they decided to re-invent the wheel and missed out on some important stuff (like block checksums) in the process. I still think it's reasonable for them to drop HFS+ encryption support and tell people to convert the drives to APFS if they want to keep doing it, though.

What's stopping users from converting the drives from HFS+ encrypted to APFS encrypted? They have a process to do that in-place. People can keep using their existing drives, and can still have them encrypted.

Legacy systems aren't going to run macOS 28, since the last release to support Intel processors is macOS 26. This will only affect legacy archives, so, older external disks. Assuming they didn't use exFAT, but you didn't get native encryption in macOS with that either.

They're not removing encryption support, they have a modern filesystem that you can use with encryption. They're only dropping it from their deprecated 1990s-era filesystem. They're telling people to move to the modern filesystem if they want to use encrypted drives.

HFS+ was introduced with MacOS 8.1 in the late 90s. It doesn't even support dates past the year 2040. It makes sense for them to start phasing it out.

Dimensions 591 × 461 × 392 m

LFP, NMC, and NCA are the three main types of lithium ion batteries you'll find on roads today. LFP have lower density (they store less power) but are cheaper, safer, and last longer (more cycles), so they're gradually taking over the market, at ballpark 50% market share these days, and growing.

The next likely chemistry will probably be sodium ion batteries (which are not another lithium ion chemistry, though they're similar). From a specification and performance standpoint, they're largely similar to LFP, but better tolerate very cold temperatures, and are expected to be modestly to moderately cheaper than LFP (though they aren't yet).

The first link doesn't show linear degradation, it seems to show an initial sharp dropoff followed by along steady state of range (the graph of various Tesla Model 3 variants). The second link does show a linear degradation, but at such low rates (~2% health per year) that the battery can reasonably be expected to outlive the car for most consumers.

My understanding is that rising car costs has pushed US typical replacement terms to ~13 years for cars. At 2% per year, that means your 13 year old car will still have a 74% state of health by the end, which is pretty good. The battery also isn't useless at that point, even if you decide to keep your car longer than that, and have to replace the battery, the old used ones still have significant resale value, helping to defray the replacement cost.

I've been seeing a LOT more ebikes and small (250cc and lower) motorbikes on the road lately. I live in a state where summer is oppressively hot (winter is bike season) and most riders appear to be commuting to low-posting jobs. It seems to be the k-shaped economy manifesting on the road.

Not to mention these vehicles are a huge pain to work on. I changed the spark plugs in a 150/1500 class truck recently and had to lay down on to of the engine on a chunk of old mattress to reach any of them. And needed a 2-step stepladder to get up there. I've since changed to a Ridgeline and you can reach anywhere in the bed and most of the engine without a ladder. The interest in the Slate and recent sales of smaller trucks suggest that this is a growing market.

Most of the carbon used in steelmaking is consumed reducing the iron oxides to iron in the smelting process. That job can be done with hydrogen, if you have excess energy to electrolyse it from water.

Then you can use a small amount of carbon as an alloying agent - likely from coal but it could be from CO2 of we were working to capture it at the time.

This all doesn't make sense now, of course. Iron smelting is one place that coal use remains logical.

There's trillions of dollars of investment wanting to be thrown at datacenters and the power is part of the package. If tech bubble money can be used to help with nuclear economies of scale and building institutional experience, I will not turn it down.

Montreal and Toronto do get around 26% more sunlight than London, in terms of hours per year, but London doesn't really have winter either. They don't get 85 inches of snow per year like Montreal.

Canada's power already comes from renewables as a strict majority: 57.4% from hydro, 9.1% from other renewables. For the clean-but-non-renewables, you've got nuclear at 13.5%. The vast majority of the rest is natural gas. But hydro can be difficult and expensive to expand (even if it's cheap in the long-run), and many renewables other than hydro struggle to serve base-load applications.

It's probably so they don't have to go fetch hundreds of cars if the update goes wrong. Same reason I don't update software when I have something important tomorrow.

Recent legal cases have been on the basis that the services are/were defective by design and, as a result, presented dangers which were independent of any specific post on the platform. It's not a specific post or set of content which was the issue. It's the whole system.