Larger battery is still massively expensive if the goal is occasional towing. The increased energy demand for towing today makes it less a question of expense and more one of being able to make the trip. One idea I've had is placing extra batteries I the trailer.
Right now batteries are still expensive and production limited. A hybrid actually conserves more gasoline and oil for a given amount of battery.
Same deal with Semis, really, get the in city daily drivers where stop and go traffic gives them the best competitive advantage over diesel. As familiarity spreads and people accept them for longer range operations, just keep expanding.

American rewards with money what it truly values, and it truly values war.

A stint in the Space Force, Air Force etc can open DoD and many other doors via the human network officers naturally acquire. It's an instant career or a useful stepping stone. The security clearance won't hurt either.

The Guard and Reserve are options for those wanting to hold civilian employment but active duty retires much sooner. An officer makes enough to fully retire at twenty years and never need to work again.

I've read of games doing this, and other things.
1. Cheaters get lag. 500ms ping equivalents make things hard.
2. Cheaters get banished to cheater specific servers, all the cheaters get to play other Cheaters
3. Public execution and account deletion.

AFAIK, it doesn't matter who serves the ads. It's a low-quality page.

Games are mere toys freely adopted and freely abandoned. There is no "prison" and such hyperbole is absurd.

Of course your comment on Palladium is correct, but games are mere trifling amusement with no involuntary physical constraints like a prison cell.

To be fair, they probably asked Copilot to create the ad for them.

These are only yet more things that are Microsoft's fault.
False advertising is not the solution.

Did OpenAI do the false advertising? If not, then they're not to blame.

Follow-up:

I asked claude.ai about this question and it agreed with the position that the GPL not only doesn't impose any obligation on the seller to the buyer, but actively disclaims any obligation (except the obligation to offer source code).

Claude was more thorough than I was, though, and actually looked up the details of the judge's tentative opinion and found that SFC's theory isn't that the obligation arises under the GPL, but that an implicit contract under California law was formed when Vizio's TV's License menu option offered the source code, and Paul Visscher accepted that offer through live chat with Vizio's tech support.

SFC's theory is that this offer and acceptance constitutes the formation of an enforceable contract under California law, and that the court can, therefore, order equitable relief, i.e. order Vizio to provide the source code.

This means the ruling isn't about the GPL at all, and also seems like a really reasonable argument that Vizio needs to cough up the source code to everything their license menu offered. The GPL's only role here is that it motivated Vizio to make the offer through the license menu.

That accords with my understanding, and undermines dskoll's argument that the buyer has standing. The SFC probably needs to pull a copyright owner into the suit to have standing. Unless the SFC is a copyright owner, which is entirely possible. I know they've asked owners of GPL'd code to assign copyrights. I assume some have.

Sounds good to me. Thank you. I still have love in my heart for you, but you are definitely an enemy. I would rather trust my fellow citizens than give all authority to government. I fully support you giving up all control in any country different than the one that I live in... but not in my country. Governments throughout history have been shown to trample all over their citizens for nor really good reason, so yeah, I am not willing to agree to let them do that without resistance.

I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights. It says the buyer has the rights, and it obligates the seller to distribute source code to the buyer, and it says if the seller is under some restriction that prevents them from complying with the terms of the license they may not distribute, but I don't see any obligation to ensure the buyer can exercise the rights separate from the obligation to distribute code to them. But I think that obligation is to the copyright holder, not to the buyer, which means we still have the issue that only the copyright holder has standing to sue.

Your suggestion that the seller be responsible for "fulfilling" the rights might have been a nice improvement to the GPL if it could be written so it achieved your goal of giving the buyer standing, and without creating unacceptably-broad obligations on the seller (a stupid and contrived example: What if the buyer were unable to exercise their right to modify the software because they don't know how to program? Is the seller obligated to train them, or make modifications for them?). I think this might be possible... but in any case it doesn't seem to be present.

If there's some part of the license text I'm missing or misunderstanding, please point it out.

That would have no effect on the fact that the owner of the copyright (which is the original author) is generally the only person that has standing to sue for infringement of that copyright. You would own whatever code you contributed, but since you're saying the result would be an exact duplicate, you apparently didn't contribute anything.

When people are paid enough to care, they will. If people are not paid enough to care, they won't. We are currently operating in the "not paid enough to care" area across the entire Western World... so this result is entirely expected and is the norm as various tests have proven. *shrug*

Of course, some folks won't care, even if they are paid, and some folks will care, even if they are not paid, but the general idea still holds true.

Give it a break bro. The Democrats are a fully own subsidiary of the Military Industrial Complex. They aren't fixing shit; they are merely not doing as bad of a job as the Republicans. (in some ways, they are even worse than the Republicans because they pretend to be your friend sometimes)