Fixed that for you.

An important fact about the expansion of EV infrastructure is that most of it is happening separate from EVs. Our electric infrastructure was aging and terrible but is being made more reliable every year. As parts of the country (and world) gain population, it turns out that we need to add better grid infrastructure for the new residences as well as for the EV charging stations. While Texans may think that region-wide outages every year or two are fine, most of us expect more from power to our cities.

So the powerline capital expenses cannot be completely or even mostly charged to EVs. 80% of it was going to happen even if we only had internal combustion engines. We're moving to HVDC connections because we want a reliable grid, home solar panels feeding the grid, and more power for homes, factories, and data centers. And, after all that, some public EV chargers too.

You make an excellent point. If most people can plug in to a private outlet at home each night, we should need a lot fewer public chargers than public nozzles.

These are not really comparable. Fueling via electric is slower, but many people have home chargers so rarely need public chargers. But I'm glad that the idiots who used to complain "we'll never duplicate our gas infrastructure so electric is bad" will now shut up. Yeah, yeah, of course they'll just whine about something else, but I can dream.

"Mature technology" can mean different things. Batteries hold a LOT of energy which can usually be released very quickly if the battery is damaged. We want batteries with more energy and less volume, so pack that energy tighter. And as time goes on, we get companies which... don't follow every single safety precaution (because that's expensive) in design and manufacture of the batteries, especially because the components of the batteries are made by many companies, then assembled by other companies, then sold to other companies for use in products which were ordered by Apple, Samsung, etc for sale to us. A few battery issues are hard to track back, and companies which ignore safety are usually happy to fold and reform with a different name when lawsuits appear.

News sites have been able to do this for decades; a simple robots.txt file will do this. But no news sites wants this. They want Google to send traffic to them (and only them, but not their competition). And they don't want Google to add any value. And, oddly enough, that's not what consumers want. If consumers wanted to read "nothing but Daily Mail" they can do it... but they don't do it.

There are a lot of problems with the profit model for news sites. The sites are part of the problem; consumers are a large part of the problem; Google is part of the problem. But sites like the Daily Mail have helped create the world that they find themselves in by pushing political narratives and avoiding facts, so I'm not feeling bad for them.

To be fair, when I see a verbatim paragraph on multiple news sites (usually meaning that none of them wrote it), I'm not really feeling bad about their copyright on their "borrowed" content. This happens a lot. And the term "victim" is debatable.

As opposed to being deported to a death prison in El Salvador when you're not from El Salvador with no legal recourse?

Look, I'm not interested in a game of "there exist shittier people in the world, so I'm completely justified in being a piece of shit". The point is that many places have decided the visitors (both legal and not) are EVIL and treat them badly. And nowadays, the US is one of those places. Sure, there are even shittier places, but you have not expressed any problems with our current behavior which implies that you support the US being "shitty, but less shitty than the worst places". You and I have different desires for the Land of the Free.

Nobody cares about idiots wearing a billionaire's branded merchandise. The problem is that a number of people traveling to the US either for tourism or business have been stopped by border control for utterly pointless reasons and sometimes deported back home. Why would you visit a country for a vacation when there was a reasonable chance that you and your loved ones will be stuck in a "holding facility", then sent away, your vacation plans ruined?

And while the SCOTUS won't allow it yet, there are plenty of voters which would happily vote for "a death penalty for homosexuality". Remember when we were the "Land of the Free"?

They've clearly been doing it incorrectly forever. The unemployment should be 2.1% whenever a conservative is president, and 80% whenever a liberal is president. Anything else is clearly, by definition, ipso non-facto, inaccurate!

Put another way: if reality disagrees with Trump, then reality is incorrect. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

The person Trump fired reported the data; they did not produce it. But that data has been accurate. Perfectly accurate when you compare the collected data with the reported data. And still quite accurate when you compare the collected data with data measured a year or so later.

But a problem with blockchain is that all of the problems it solves can be solved in other ways. Provably unchangeable data existed for decades before Bitcoin. And unchangeable data isn't really a GDP-generator. This is a "rah rah cryptocurrency is SO COOL BRO" story, not a "this is how the administration has improved the country" story, and the only people excited about it are the "Trump is SO COOL BRO" people.

This will give Waymo experience with more weather than Arizona and California provide. Though NYC taxi drivers will be cranky. Overall this is good IMO.

I wish more companies were as good at self-driving. Competition will make everyone better, but there is not much true competition.

Yes, this. All communications should be secure. All official communications should be recorded, just like all officials who interact with the public should have those interactions recorded. Those communications should NOT be controlled by those who would be embarrassed by them, though this is a hard problem without a complete solution (and may be unsolvable). We should be able to approach a good solution though this requires pissing off officials and powerful/rich folks.

The current US administration has decided to protect police no matter how corrupt they become (executive order from April), so if you voted for the party in power, well, you now have the police state you wanted.

Many years ago, on the Stargate SG-1 TV show, an advanced race (non-human) found that one of their leaders had killed someone and had messed with official records to hide this. Another leader mentioned that messing with the records was considered a far worse crime than the murder or possible treason. THAT is the world I want to live in.

Do you have a reference for that? All I've seen is visas for the ultra-rich.

Besides, since trump has been happy to cancel student and work visas for people who say things he doesn't like, more visas would not help.

Both can be true, actually. As an aside, Russia truly lost in Ukraine in the first six weeks; most of their goals failed. Even if they were to take all of Ukraine, it would be so Pyrrhic as to not be a "win".

But, for the two statements: First: Russia cannot win in Ukraine. "Winning" is defined by history. There are lots of ways to end the war that will have Putin apologists claiming 100% victory, the best victory, everyone walks up to him and talks about his great victory, he's so powerful! So Russia is unlikely to take large amounts of Ukraine now; they have already taken the easy parts and are stuck on the medium parts. But if you change the "win" condition, he can easily win just by claiming victory (and having enough gullible fanatic to parrot his lines).

Second: Russia (well, Putin) will not want to stop at Ukraine once he declares victory and finds a few more Georgian votes. That seems likely, but he may have to stop, since Russia's military and economy is in terrible shape (as always happens after a long war). Putin is old, his allies in Russia are unhappy with the war, and his ability to wage war is far less than it was before he invaded.