Exactly. Your choice of car style is far more important for weight than whether it's EV or ICE. A big ICE SUV or truck is going to be heavier than most EVs. In the UK say, a Range Rover Sport is heavier than all but the beefiest EVs.

As it happens, I went from a Skoda Octavia to a Skoda Enyaq. It's a bulkier car (longer/taller/wider), and funnily enough it's heavier, but it's kerb weight is remarkably similar to the ICE Skoda Kodiaq, which is only a little physically bigger.

In denser countries like the UK, you need to wean people off the idea they need 500 miles of range, as with current battery tech, we waste a whole lot of weight lugging around bigger batteries than we need. But for now, with people overly bothered about ra

Shame that's not even in the slightest bit true. You can get a 960Gbyte SSD cheaper than that from Dell in their servers, even on web prices, which are often considerably higher than the prices you can pay via other routes.

No, it could charge Full Speed. But Full Speed meant slow speed, not full speed. Full speed at the time was High Speed, not to be confused with later SuperSpeed, which is faster than both Full Speed or High Speed. But SuperSpeed can be faster than SuperSpeed too, and SuperSpeed+ is faster again, unless it isn't, because SuperSpeed can be faster than SuperSpeed+.

They definitely stuffed up the nomenclature of USB, even if you ended up in a much better place than you started out before USB.

Although if you have faith in there being a decent vaccine at some point soon, you can do as New Zealand have and be strict and highly responsive to outbreaks, and have less restrictions than countries that sat back and did very little until they had a widespread outbreak. If a vaccine does emerge quickly, countries like New Zealand end up looking rather good. If a vaccine is a long time coming, then they probably are fighting a battle they can't win, but do note that in general they've had fewer restrictions than other countries that have had large numbers of deaths. I find it hard to criticise their approach as things stand.

It's far from good research, and they didn't release enough of the data, but the summary spreadsheet is at least partially helpful. Still, they're not assessing which plans are used, just which ones are available.

I know this is uncouth even doubting you, but you did read the article, right?

"Denmark, Monaco and Italy all offer packages below $2."

Actually, no. I'm online for reasons of being contactable, so I can share my realtime location with people, and so that I can access the Internet when I need to. That 5Mbytes a day 100% satisfies that requirement.

I have no great need to watch Netflix on my walk to work.

I pay a penny per megabyte, and in a busy month I hit ~150Mbytes, even if I include a bit of tethering. I have wifi at home, on the bus, at several places on my walk to work, and almost everywhere in the city. I don't make a measurable number of calls/texts, and pay no fees on top of that.

I can live with less than £20 a year for a mobile service.

You really need to unpick this research though, as £44 for 1GB would be quite a challenge to hit. If you can go contract free and pay £10 for 1GB (charged per MB), then I can't imagine many people will be signed up to plans that are £44.

To be honest, I don't think mobile plans are actually that badly priced in the UK anyway, it's just lots of people sign up to crap deals, and blow silly amounts of money on buying phones on credit. You can haggle deals massively, but even if you don't look at something like plusnet mobile, where you get 1.5Gbytes, unlimited texts, unlimited calls for £7pm. Pick a random other supplier, Three, and you hit 100Gbytes a month for £21, and unlimited for £27, which lines up with the cheapest figures in their data.

That really explains why Monaco is so much cheaper, nor the other 15 countries in western Europe.

Prices reflect what the market will bear, and if multiple providers aren't competing with each other to lower the prices, you have to question why not.

It could just be that bureaucracy is so bad that it costs a lot more to provision masts, or that the bidding process for spectrum rights was so flawed that it's encumbered them with debt mountains. I haven't a clue.

I've had zero problems since putting a WAP within two feet of a 2nd gen Chromecast, but did have some of this before with a weak signal.

You really think it's plausible that the Conservative and Unionist Party could take a position to break up the union?

48% *did* not want to leave the EU, when the terms of leaving weren't defined.
52% *did* want to leave when the terms of leaving weren't defined.

It's not for the electorate to agree on the terms, because they voted (in a non-binding referendum) to leave the EU. We've no idea what the public wanted or wants now. There is no need for public agreement, we have the House of Commons to sort that out.

It's for the politicians to negotiate the terms of what leaving the EU means, given they have a (weak) mandate to do so, given the guidance the public have provided the politicians on their views. The public guided the politicians, and then it was they who invoked article 50 to begin the formal process. Until article 50 had been triggered, nothing of legal relevance had happened.

It's also for the politicians to choose say that the deal they've negotiated is terrible, and it's in the UK's best interests to stay within the EU. They have no requirement to put that to a second referendum.
"No deal is better than a bad deal" unreasonably removes from the table the option of staying within the EU.

*Did* they ignore it? The wonderful thing with intelligence is you don't get to hear what they did or didn't do. They might have investigated him and found him to be mentally unstable with an interest in terrorism, but the evidence may have fallen short of proof of criminal activity.

If that was the case, we can do what the US do and intern people without trial, or we can let them remain free in society. If there are enough people like this, you can't effectively monitor them all, so you have to accept that sometimes people will slip through. How much of your activity you redirect towards internal security is a choice your government has to make, and there's no right answer.

You could end up concluding that the UK is spending a reasonable amount on security, they followed the procedures, and the procedures were reasonable.

Have it apply to all countries that cooperate? With the US govt having collected together all the necessary patents for a global standard, I think you'll find other countries rapidly disengaging with US patent law. I don't see how that can work, at all.

I think you should be asking what's different between the process used to create the WiFi standards, and the process used to create the 4G/5G standard, as it's not like WiFi is patent free.

Companies choosing to use MediaTek because they're so much cheaper is exactly what should be happening, so I don't really see the problem there.

How do you think every other country in the world would react to this idea? I don't see how this is in the slightest bit workable.

This is what FRAND works well for. If Qualcomm hold the patents, and you want to use them to develop your standard product, it's fair that they get a reasonable amount in return. If Qualcomm don't think the amount is fair, they can withdraw from the process, and you can solve the problem another way. If you can't solve it another way, you're likely to revisit what exactly is fair. I have no intuition as to what is or isn't fair, as to an extent, it's what the market will bear.

If you've already come to an arrangement, and then part way through you say that it's unfair, then you're in a spot of bother. Until you've renegotiated, you need to carry on paying under the old terms, or stop doing it.