Communism didn't save the world and is now out of fashion.

Surely this popular belief (with or without factual basis is irrelevant, see "religion") could not be exploited by those with ulterior motives. Humanity are too virtuous for that. Elections prove it.

It doesn't need to be. There are other reasons to wean off x86.

Sure. If you completely ignore the context that it is only intended for automated crawlers and misread it as referring to everyone then, yes, I agree that would be ridiculous...

(It's also kind of ridiculous in these days to have an essentially-voluntary anti-bot system and expect it to do anything, but that's another topic.)

Yeah, but not the old Delhi.

Ok bot.

No monopoly is required for them to violate the law.

That's true even in the US, not that we enforce antitrust law here.

And you've made your own non-anonymous coward comment. You're afraid to not be a cuck for corporations.

I come from the future to second.

If they decreased their population by tens of millions of people, I'm certain the pollution level would also decrease.

I already hate getting Teslas for my Uber drives and I do quite a bit of Ubering, so to speak. If the number of these Tesla vehicles goes up significantly and I feel like throwing up during *EVERY* Uber drive, I will no longer use this method of transportation. Teslas make me absolutely nauseous, especially when going up or down the hill.

Because there are eight billion people on this rock. The words "smart" and "bed" both exist, so of *course* somebody made a "smart bed", and of *course* there were people who bought the silly thing. Presumably there are also internet-connected toothbrushes, can openers, pencils, cutlery, and socks. Why wouldn't there be?

Are these *popular* products that *lots* of people own or want? Well, no, but that's an entirely different question.

The Luddites didn't want to ban technology.

They wanted The People to share in the benefits, not just the capitalists (who have all the investment capital.)

You are still falling for and propagating anti-Luddite PR over a century old.

You will eat nothing and like it.

Or, you know, starve.

> No one who is just getting by is going to do it out of the the kindness
> of their heart for the environment.

Almost no one, in that demographic, yeah. And I think that demographic
(just getting by) is going to include the overwhelming majority of ride-share
drivers, because it doesn't pay well enough to raise someone out of that
demographic, and it's not really a highly regarded "dream" profession that
a person with other means of support would do because they think it's
important (like teaching school or medical work) or just plain love doing
it and don't want to do anything else (like art or music), at least not for
most people.

The price gap between traditionally powered vehicles and electric ones
is narrowing, but it's narrowing fairly gradually, and I don't know that it'll
necessarily be down to zero by 2030 (for the new vehicle market), and
if you want drivers of older used vehicles to all be using electric by 2030,
the deadline for that price gap to narrow to zero is more like 2010, and
that ship has sailed.

With that said, superficially, a $4k subsidy is substantial enough that it
might *sound* like a real windfall to some people, and fear of missing
out on that deal (especially if it's advertised with a prominent and
imminent expiration date) might potentially motivate some people to
try to stretch for it. Dunno.

(Presumably there will be car dealers who will go out of their way to
provide financing that allows people to overextend and buy a more
expensive car than they can really afford, with a loan term so long
they won't be able to afford the maintenance on the car by the time
it's paid off. It's a sleazy practice, but it would neither be new, nor
unique to EVs.)

Now do the calculations with a non-swasticar.

Tesla is worst at service of all US automakers, who wants to be chained to them?