We have an EV car (and multiple electric bikes), and over 15 years ago I had an experimental EV enclosed motorcycle (Sparrow) which was my daily commute vehicle for a couple of years.

For the most part, charging at home (and optionally at work) is optimal not because its cheaper (it is) but because it is more convenient! If I go to work, I'm typically there for multiple hours. When I go home, I'm typically home overnight. So charging effectively takes no time (viz. it happens when I'm doing other things).

I have never done a coast to coast drive, nor do I intend to. What fraction of drivers do?

Spending billions to solve a problem for relatively few people is suboptimal. Getting AC Level 2 chargers into apartments/condos/workplaces would be a much more effective use of the same investment dollars. For many people, building codes can require pretty major rework (mostly bringing an older building up to current code) "just" to run a 240v circuit or two. Some still safe, but effective carve outs to allow adding 240v (built in or NEMA 14-50) and standardizing protocols (as I understand Tesla has, and Wallbox documents) to allow for chargers to communicate with one another (so they can usefully share a circuit allowing more people to plug in and leave their vehicles plugged in and charge without exceeding the circuits capacity).

Fast chargers have a place, but they aren't the bit of infrastructure necessary to bootstrap a mostly EV transportation system. No doubt it *eventually* becomes an issue, as we have too few gas/diesel vehicles to maintain the network of gas stations. But that seems far enough into the future that some substantial technology changes are likely between now and then...which would almost certainly drive different investment choices in fast chargers (and their placement).

"25 years ago, 25mph was good mileage on a small sized car."

Not really. We routinely got close to 40mpg from our 1976 Honda Accord.

"...raise their standard of living while staying in their own country"

Of course, that is the opposite of the situation cited here. The migrants come to the richer countries and mostly take the money back home. With the robots in the richer countries, the migrants will remain home and impoverished. No one is going to invest in robots in impoverished countries..leaving the people there stuck in poverty.

Working to overly minimize one results in increasing the other. That just simple statistics. Your (and the Government's) bias is strongly towards minimizing one). Yes, six people suffered a complication, and one really unfortunate person died (although that may well be more to the use of Heprin where contraindicated).

The huge number of people who are now protected from serious COVID complications (several million thanks to this J&J shot) have benefited.

Should anyone be forced to take the J&J shot... probably not. Should people capable of rudimentary understanding of statistics and relative risks be DENIED access to this lifesaving vaccine ... no, they shouldn't. But now are.

This is hardly unique to this vaccine. Our regulatory framework increases costs and time to get treatments to those who need it. Yes, it is highly visible when someone is harmed by a treatment, and no one is surprised when folks die from disease ... so it is so much easier to focus on the few harmed ... rather than the many helped.

"I am also assuming you'll only get the vaccine once in your lifetime"

Given what we know about corona viri (most common colds) chances are this will become a yearly ritual, like flu shots. So well worth figuring out *why* some vaccines seem to be increasing the odds of _unusual_ blood clots.

Also, the same technology is likely to be applied widely to other needs (faster flu so more targeted, possibly cancer, etc.) so it's a real issue.

That said, you have a point about the relative risks, getting more folks vaccinated faster would likely save more lives than are at risk from this particular failure mode.

From what little has been published, I'd hazard a guess that the issue is part of that cytokine storm that the illness itself triggers, ... since the vaccine intentionally triggers an immune response, tuning it to be just enough to protect, but not enough to cause unintended side effects is challenging in ways that we probably don't fully appreciate yet.

But I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on the internet.

Reading the dissent carefully ... Justice Thomas makes good points. As much as I agree with the sentiment, and the result ... Congress really should fix the law ... not have the Court interpret it as it should have been written.

...fucking pi to pointless numbers" I don't know what color the sky is in your world, but the typical performance figures HPC folks have long pursued are real calculations (e.g. LINPACK for solving systems of dense linear equations). There are various other benchmarks, but I've never seen anyone in HPC publishing figures about computing pi.

NVIDIA committing to build such a system clearly is intended to help UK officials believe them when they say they aren't planning on shutting down the UK team and organization.

Putting aside meta issues such as "all students suddenly realizing that a liberal arts degree isn't worth $N K in loans", let's assume students are somewhat rational (albeit uneducated) actors. Given that COVID constraints include all or mostly remote classes AND a cessation of their favored social events (sports, large parties, etc.) why would they borrow money to not get either an education or fun?

IF enrollment remains dramatically lower AFTER the COVID restrictions are widely and generally lifted, then we can reasonably speculate that there's been a fundamental change in mass student behavior (willingness to take out loans, etc.). But at the moment it seems like it takes either someone very close to graduating or a masochist to not take a gap year or two.

Weren't the Brits a year earlier? https://www.britannica.com/tec...

Easy doesn't mean good.

As many have noted, the appropriate time for the UK government to have drawn a line was before the sale to SoftBank. Not because they were Japanese, but because banks invest for a time, expect growth/earnings, or can be counted on to sell. There's no "invest because it's critical to our government, our educational institutions, etc. its a bank.

Dropping the equivalent of financial nuclear devices will have long term unfortunate consequences.

As for Nvida being Good or Evil that's probably missing the point as well. While I can see some logic in their wanting ownership for ARM as it stands, getting an all singing and dancing license would probably have been cheaper...so as the cynics are saying its either to pull others strings .... or they are deeply committing to an integrated ARM/GPU future, want to jumpstart what would be several years of hiring and institutional learning and having to replicate much of the infrastructure that ARM already has (as well as people with the institutional knowledge, etc.)

If the latter, it would be insane for them to move the folks from where they are (its not like Silicon Valley is cheap, and moving all the expertise would probably fail, and that would destroy the point of acquisition).

By now, Google, Amazon, Fujitsu and Apple probably have all they need wrt rights, skills and tools. Softbank probably doesn't foresee a huge upside to holding on, and needs the cash. Nvida probably wants to be on a par with the aforementioned list ... and this is probably the cheapest *fastest* way to get there.

If I were working for ARM, I'd probably view this as a good thing. Nvida has $$. They understand the value of technology, and in long term investments in tech.

This is probably the worst news for Cray, and perhaps FJ, as Nvida integrating GPU/CPU/Networking might make for some very nice super computing.

I don't see any upside for Nvida killing off the ARM licensing for other players, it probably won't be as much a focus but growing the architecture installed base and toolchains only benefits their primary efforts to ship more silicon.

So while its possible this is a BadThing, and could eventually mean cutbacks in the UK, I'd bet that's far off (unless Nvidia somehow has a train wreck, is short of cash and sells them back to a financial giant).

Seems like we are collectively unable to learn from history. Google Marchetti's constant. For those too lazy, data from the time of early Rome thru the modern era make it pretty clear that people tend to elect a favored commute time (30min where possible) that determines city size. Changes in technology (from walking to riding horses, bicycles, cars, rail, etc.) causes the city size to grow. Then congestion makes the commute worse. Iterate.

Rail (light or otherwise),bus, subways, all follow the same pattern as well.

Those that want centralized planning solutions continue to push them even when the evidence shows it's a bad idea (whether that's COVAD or steadily *decreasing* ridership). That isn't to say building more roads is a good or better solution. Focus should be on what gets people from where they are to where they need to be in the shortest time. That seems to almost never be what we design for; but it's what people self select for.

FWIW, I live near Denver where for the last 20 years there's been serious investment in light rail. However, for any commute within a 20mile radius, I routinely get there faster on my ebike than by rapid transit (car may or may not be faster, depends on the commute, when I started full time ebike commuting it was a near wash). For a fraction of what we've invested in light rail, we could have subsidized ebike's for those who can't afford the up front investment. For a fraction of what we've invested we could have adjusted the infrastructure (fix intersections to be safe, instead we build miles of recreational bike trails, that often don't help people commute or shop).

Public health should also be factored in,

For the pedantic, yes the original statistical/historical analysis was done by Jacov Zahavi; but Marchetti's formulation is what stuck and has most of the literature linked to it.

Well one key difference is that SQL is an ANSI standard. I donâ(TM)t recall if that occurred after Oracle or before. But certainly once published as an official standard (indeed even during deliberations) suits to prevent other implementations wouldnâ(TM)t be for game.

Given it took this new satellite tech to measure this â"- how good is our baseline ?

"but a user name and password were required to access sensitive data."

Sounds quite secure to me. "Guest/password" ... how much more secure could it be?

*sarcasm mode off* for the clue impaired.