It's most likely the case here. Some jurisdictions mandate real-time blurring (prior to storing in non-volatile storage), or blurring before the data leaves the vehicle (must blur before data transferred out of the car, or storage device removed from the car). Once a company has such a solution developed, might as well use it everywhere.

Is this general availability, or just demos? There were demos last time Apple Intelligence was announced too.

For rural just install Level 2 home charging, will give you 200-500 miles of range every day charged overnight depending on which EV you buy, and at a fraction of a cost of gas (think 3-5 miles per kWh, so if your kWh is $0.15, that's $0.05 per mile or less). People who have home charging don't need any fast charging near their homes, so even the one 20 miles away you will likely never use. I've been driving EV's for well over a decade, only charge outside of the house while road-tripping, and have done coast-to-coast in different EVs multiple times without any issues. My wife has charged outside the home maybe 5 times in the last 10 years she'd been driving it (she doesn't drive more than 300 miles a day), the closest one to home was 60 miles away.

Granted, if I was load balancing 9.6kW between all cars vs 19.2kW between all cars, yes, the peak load is different so grid might care (my grid doesn't, mostly hydro-electric, with some nuclear IIRC, they won't even offer a discounted rate in the evenings). However, before I upgraded to 19.2kW, I run ran two separate EVSEs 9.6kW and 11kW (non-load balancing EVSEs), so the peak load was actually a little higher, though maybe for shorter amount of time (only during the overlap when both cars charged).

As for modular DC on-board-chargers, only Tesla did that, and even they haven't done it in about a decade (2015 Model S still had 1 40A or 2x40A charger, 2016 Model S had a single 48A or a single 72A charger - same physical size, just some more components populated inside). AFAIK nobody does this stackable EV on-board-chargers today.

I hope you're right about the costs of DC chargers and installation. When the time comes and my car's warranty rejects replacing the 19.2kW charger with 9.6kW one, I hope they offer replacing my 3 load balancing EVSE's with 3 19.2kW load balancing DC chargers. I don't have solar, so they just have to load balance between each other.

Since you seem to know about this a lot, care to post a link to a reputable 20kW DC charger which can load balance with 2 others?

My 3 19.2kW EVSEs load balance together, so the total draw on the grid is never over 19.2kW. When 2 cars are charging, each is only allowed 9.6kW. When I need faster charging, I just unplug all but the EV that needs to charge faster (or make sure the other ones are not charging via a phone app). The grid doesn't care if I charge 2 EV's at 9.6kW each, or 1 EV at 19.2kW.

The argument on the weight is just silly. The on-board-charger is the exact same size and the weight is listed the same between the 2 parts, I suspect the sizing up of the MOSFET transistors, or maybe adding a couple, doesn't add any significant weight. I'd be willing to bet that you can't tell the difference between the 11kW and 22kW versions by just weighing them, especially if you just took it out of a live system so it may have some liquid coolant in it left.

Offering to replace my 3 AC EVSE's with set of load balancing HVDC chargers, installed, it not going to be $3K. $3K is a cheap Chinese hardware only. Higher quality 20kW HVDC run $10K+. I say replace all 3 plugs because the car is connected to different plugs at different times, but even if I was to agree to just one, it will not load balance with the other AV EVSE's. That said, for my specific usecase, replacing the AC EVSEs with 20kW DC chargers would be acceptable, since 19.2kW on-board-charger is primarily useful for me at home (there is one place outside of the house where I used to charge at 208V/80A, so 16.6kW where I'd be reduced to half of that, but there is a new HVDC charger now available nearby I prefer to use anyways as its way faster). That said, even just one DC charger installed at home costs would be significantly higher than $3K, probably at least $20k all inclusive.

I know at least 2 EV owners with solar who use their 19.2kw (and 22kW, as one is in Europe) to charge the car from solar, and halving the charging capacity makes the car unable to use solar during its peak production, so they would also require DC chargers (which interoperate with their solar) or perhaps a battery storage system installed and paid for my the car manufacturer to store the excess solar and then transfer it to the car later.

Try Slate https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You are generalizing everyone to your personal usecase. Someone who lives in hot climate could argue heated seats and steering wheel are useless, so manufacturer should be entitled to just disable them at will to reduce their warranty costs? My house has a triple 19.2kW charger in the garage and all our home EVs can charge at 19.2kW. It's a nice to have, and a must have 1-4 times a year (for example when doing back to back pickup drop off of relatives from/to airport), though had a year or so where it was needed once a week (or else my wife would have to waist time and money going to DC chargers to keep-up with the day's driving demand). Other people have work chargers, travel chargers, and yes, even home chargers in EU that can do 22kW.

All that said, it really doesn't matter. Plenty of people buy SUV's capable of going off-road without ever actually going off-road. I know for a fact that most people never use the full feature set of the smartphones they buy. So what? It doesn't entitle the manufacturer to take those capabilities and features away. If customer pays for a product with certain capability, that capability should be covered AT LEAST while under warranty. I would simply have not bought the Taycan if it didn't have the 19.2kW charging option (as proven by the fact that all my EVs have had this capability, and that I passed on a car with a $30K discount primarily because it was missing the high charge option). So if Porsche downgrades me to 9.6kW next time my 19.2kW charger fails, according to their own EU laws, do they owe me a full refund for the car, as it's not longer fit for function that I bought it for?

You only think EU is better. I'll give you an example of an EU product - Porsche Taycan. Porsche recently decided they will no longer honor the warranty on the 22kW on-board-charger. They are replacing them with 11kW chargers (half the performance or speed) and telling customers "nobody needs it that fast" (which is hypocritical too, as they offer this speed upgrade as an option on the new Cayenne EV). There are pissed-off customers who bought the car specifically for the faster charging usecase, even paid more for this option, but Porsche doesn't care, nor is EU going "diabolical" (as you call it) on one of its own companies forcing them to buy back the cars unfit for the purpose they were sold for. Heck, in North America Porsche further downgraded even the 11kW chargers to 9.6kW via an OTA update, to reduce their own warranty costs (use it slower, will break less) - again, no government doing anything about it.

A lot of mainstream app EULAs contain this language allowing the app to collect all kinds of data, including things like "collecting ambient noise" which means turn on your microphone at will and record. I remember seeing the ambient noise recording clause in Google Maps EULA few years back, might still be there, unless it got reworded for better obfuscation.

I beg to differ. Acts of rebellion like this can clearly expose vulnerabilities of using AI, so that they can be patched before someone takes advantage of such exploits for truly nefarious purposes. Stories like this should make all users of AI thing twice about securing their development environments, rather than blindly surrender to a fad.

It may be expensive, but once we're talking safety, sadly society may need to restrict itself to expensive solutions. A similar thing like cars, only deep pockets can produce cars allowed on public roadways. Just like with cars, where you can still buy a car and retrofit your own body panels on it, software may end up the same - you must build on stable base, skin it any way you want to. Wild west of software development may be coming to an end as industry matures, at least software with safety/security implications.

The only difference than before is that everyone has the capability to find those vulnerabilities, not just nation state financed hackers. On the other hand, the software makers also have this capability now, so at least they know what holes exist in their software. I know, I know, ignorance is bliss, but really?

The existing software, with people slapping together 3rd party components such that hello-world app ends up being 800MB in size due to dependencies for modularity and future proofing, has been getting worse and worse. Software functional reliability has been going down every year, people learn to put up with it. Now that people can actually see security holes, not just the fact that the software only works most of the time, we finally panic?

I personally hope it brings back purpose programming, not slapping together 90 open source dependencies to do something that could be written in 10K lines of code and run on less 200KB of RAM. Companies started to accept "works most of the time" as the pass bar for quality. Well, "secure most of the time" simply means insecure, as it only takes one attack vector to fail. Wake up software world!

iPhone 16 had great Apple Intelligence ads, that is what Apple is good at - marketing. Of course, anyone who bought an iPhone 16 series phone based on those ads knows the difference between Apple marketing and Apple reality. Oh yes, they got $25 from the class action lawsuit to help offset the $1,000++ price they paid for the phones.

I'm sorry Apple, but enough already with Elon FSD like sales pitches. Show us general availability features instead of advertisements, then we'll believe you. Until then, you might as well show us how an iPhone will mint $1,000 a night in crypto while on the charger next to the customer's bed overnight (maybe make an Elon like claim that each iPhone will be worth $100K, so it's an investment, like every Tesla with FSD since 2016 will be worth $220K+).

It seems hard to believe that fuel cost per mile is the biggest operating expense, which would mean higher than all other expenses, like human driver pay, vehicle depreciation and maintenance. Does anyone have any cost breakdowns proving the above claim?

Back of the napkin calculation: even if I assume 3 miles per kWh (more than double this consumption, already achievable by other EVs), and say $0.11 per kWh, and average car speed of 30mph, that would mean one hour or driving the car consumes 10kWh, so $1.10. Is the driver cost less than that (that would be less than $1.10 per hour average costs, including pay, administration, etc)? Are maintenance costs and wearable parts less than that? How about insurance?

If you run a family, non-commercial domain, inform Google of it. If their ignore it or whatever appeals process fails, switch to a different, paid vendor, then sue Google in small claims court every year for the few hundred dollars you paid the other vendor. If Google doesn't show up, default judgement against Google. If they do send lawyers, present to the judge evidence it's not a commercial domain, judge rules, Google pays, re-instates the lifetime service, and flags it internally so they don't have to pay lawyers to show up the following year. The cost of the lawyers will be greater than lost money for Google. Small claims court does not require you to have a lawyer, and it's not super expensive to sue (costs you can include in the suit while staying under the small claims limit).