<woosh>

I have aphantasia, you insensitive clod!

No, really. I do. :(

The airplanes that have captivated the world are not a path to avian flight, two bird experts asserted in separate remarks at the National Audubon Society.

Who says I didn't have the money to do so? I didn't go into that at all. But since you're curious I'll explain: Yes I had the money to buy one outright, but an interest-free loan was available and I took advantage of it. Had I purchased it outright, then had an expense outside of that like a car-repair, THAT would have had to come out of my interest-charging credit card and ... while I didn't actually check on it, I'm pretty sure Apple/Goldman would not have given me a similar payment plan for the car repair.

I went to an Apple Store purchase an iPad with an Apple Card last year, I wanted to take advantage of paying it off within a year no interest. At the moment of checkout Goldman declined me and wouldn't tell me why. After two days and several scattered phone calls they claimed that it was unusual activity on my account. I pointed out to them that I had successfully purchased and paid off 3 other items on the same payment plan, and that their assertion that my activity was unusual was absurd.

I'll spare you the blow by blow because I know it's boring, but ultimately Goldman Sachs held to their position that they did the right thing, and Apple had to come to the rescue. They talked to each other a bit and I finally got my device on the payment plan I wanted.

I'm greatly looking forward to Goldman getting out of the picture. They really did try to spin it to me like the inconvenience they caused me was somehow something I should be happy about. "This happens because we're diligent about catching fraud!" "But, you didn't."

This impacts virtually everyone, indirectly.

Relative to the center of the "Cosmic Owl" galaxies, where it likely originated before being "kicked" out.

R.I.P. old, dead, antiquated word

The shift toward massive trucks and SUVs in the U.S. is not a conspiracy as you stated, but it's not purely consumer preference either. It's a direct, documented, and mathematically verifiable consequence of how the U.S. government rewrote fuel efficiency regulations in 2011.

Prior to 2011, CAFE standards were simple: a car company’s entire fleet of "light trucks" had to average a certain MPG number (e.g., 24 mpg). It didn't matter how big or small the individual trucks were. The Obama administration reformed these rules to close loopholes... but they inadvertently created a new one. They switched to a "footprint-based" standard.

And the curve is very steep. If you build a truck or SUV with a small footprint (like the old Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10), the government mandates an incredibly high MPG target, often close to what a high efficiency sedan would get. As the vehicle gets bigger, the MPG target drops significantly.

This means that if a manufacturer tries to build a small pickup or SUV today (about the size of a 1990s Ranger), the CAFE formula might mandate a target of ~40-50 MPG. Achieving such a high MPG requires expensive hybrid technology and advanced lightweight materials. This adds at least $10k to the cost which makes those vehicles virtually unsellable.

Why the U.S. government didn't fix this issue 10+ years ago is a mystery to me. The result has actually been hugely increased gas consumption and CO2 emissions, rather than the desired effect of lower gas consumption and CO2 emissions.

Signed, someone who would love a small AWD SUV, but they're just not economically justifiable (in the U.S.)

Of the dozens and dozens of anti-consumer and terribly damaging mega-mergers over the last 40+ years, this is the one that people absolutely lose their shit over.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Brawndo!

It's What Code Craves!

+1

I switched from iPad to Chromebook and couldn't be happier.

No, this is wrong. There are, probably more often than not, multiple people using the same source IP address, from the point of view of the website.

Don't rural folks, who live in far cleaner and greener areas, typically overwhelming vote conservative?

And it's the pollution-heavy urban areas that typically overwhelmingly vote liberal?

Even when their motivation to suddenly redraw electoral maps is to distract from shielding high-ranking sex-traffickers from justice? Okay, Groomer.