Maybe just a quarter mega-buck.

But, regardless, far into the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" realm.

Then there is the noise factor and the fact that the homeowner may need more electricity (electric car, pool, hot tub, etc).

I built my house. My builder pushed back on me when I asked for a 400A service. He said I'd never need it since I didn't have plans for a pool. Gave me a 200A service.

Now with 2 electric cars, a finished basement, and patio lighting I have two subpanels in addition to the main panel.

I know they must be peeing into bottles and just doing isometric stretching to prevent leg clots, but those guys must really have it rough if 30 minutes every 10 hours is not acceptable.

On the other hand, these fuel consumption numbers assume appropriate temperatures. You make it a little too cold and the fuel consumption goes up dramatically. Tesla car batteries don't like the cold. Source: I drive Tesla since 2014 and have two of them currently.

You ask **THIS** question in 2026?
How long were you in that coma? :-)

I'm under the impression that the way they solved that in German is to have the devices be equipped with a regulator that prevents feeding the grid during a power outage.

If it works in German, it should work in the U.S., right?

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead!

At least they are trying.

Hopefully next time they will closer to the 'right' solution.

Science is all about making hypotheses and testing them. Mistakes happen all the time. It's part of good science.

I am a physician. In particular, I am a cardiologist.

Not a (work-)day goes by that I don't get a new consult for someone who got a CT scan of the chest for screening for lung cancer (because they have a smoking history) that shows calcification of the arteries of the heart. Or maybe it's a self-pay coronary calcium score. Or maybe it's an elevated Lipoprotein (a).

These tests lead to unnecessary consultations and increased anxiety. Not with me, but a lot of other physicians will then order stress tests compounding the unneeded testing.

I spend (waste?) my time explaining to them that the best thing they can do is regular exercise and diet and be on the watch for exertional symptoms. Sometimes it clicks with the patients. Other times they come with the mindset that they need a stress test or need a heart catheterization and will give me a poor review or even try to report my to the hospital network I work for.

A total waste of resources.

The problem with this is that some states want to tax not just the cars that are registered in the state, but all vehicles that drive through the state.

That being said, whatever rule goes into effect for EVs should be for all vehicles.

You want to do it by weight * miles driven? Great! Do it for all vehicles based on weight * miles driven. Make it payable every time you renew your car's registration.

Easily done.

... Our National Nightmare is OVER!

Well noted.

Your (or any other "employee's") health (mental and physical) or death is of no concern to the oligarchs.
Your corpse will be pushed aside, and you will be replaced by another moist robot until it, too dies.
You are not valued by your owners^w employers beyond their ability to become richer through your exploitation.

Does that sound about right?

Except the conditions that the trials were done are different than now.

Back in the 80s no one was getting a stent in the first 120 minutes of a heart attack (or the first 90 minutes of reaching a hospital). Now it's considered standard of care. This one change has rocked the world of cardiology and has reduced mortality from heart attack dramatically.

Heart attack trials done before this have to be re-done in a more modern era.

No one has recommended beta blockers as a first line therapy for hypertension for decades.

This article isn't about the treatment of hypertension. This article is about the treatment of the acute phase of myocardial infarction.

Also, blood pressure lowering (regardless of the medication used) absolutely lowers the risks of heart attacks, strokes, and other hypertension-related problems. It's just in the acute phase of a heart attack we have to be more careful of which agent to use and other agents have added benefits over beta blockers.

I'm not much of an economist, but I know that since beta blockers have been generic for decades, there are a lot of players on the market. Profits on generic beta blockers are razor thin. It's not even a blip on the radar in terms of profits for any large pharmaceutical company.

As I said earlier, the price per month is somewhere between $4 and $10. You can't extract more than that in profits in a month. And if you try to extract more profits, the pharmacy will find a cheaper generic pharmaceutical company to supply them.

Compare that to other heart medications and it is a drop in the bucket. Like Jardiance for heart failure. $600 a month.

Yes, it's $10 billion in sales. But not $10 billion in profits. It can't be at $10 per month per patient. If it was, there would be 1 billion Americans on beta blockers. I don't think there are that many Americans out there.

I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not.

There has been discussion in cardiology circles for the past decade that beta blockers likely should play a smaller role in the post-MI (myocardial infarction == heart attack) care.

Beta blockers were initially prescribed post-MI to reduce the amount of arrhythmias post-MI. That being said, with the advent of early revascularization post-MI with patients going to the cath lab earlier rather than later (or never), the paradigm has shifted. The early revascularization is also associated with the preserved EF that is being teased out in this study.

Data science has evolved dramatically in the last couple decades and there are great discussions about these studies as they come out on Twitter, various blogs, and podcasts. Good studies are hard to do, and excellent evaluation of the results of the studies help guide us towards better outcomes. A shout out to the This Week In Cardiology podcast -- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/... -- , which is a great starting point for the discussion of how trials should be interpreted in the real world.