ICE carbecues are somewhere between 20 and 400 times more likely, depending on how (and when) it's measured. For instance, the 400x figure comes from measuring per-mile-driven, not just fleet sizes. Meaning... (numbers for example only) if you had 10 EVs and 100 ICEs and in a year only one of each burned, you'd conclude ICE were safer because 1% is better than 10%. But what if the EVs each drove 200,000 miles that year while the the ICE cars each drove 200 miles. Suddenly the real-world frequency would flip the interpretation of the results.

Point is... you can capitalize SCARY WORDS to MAKE PEOPLE WORRIED but pretty much everywhere you go to get the facts, it turns out BEVs are INSANELY SAFER.

Here's one for you. Are Catholic priests more - or less - likely to molest children than non-priests? Seems like every time you hear about some inappropriate touching that doesn't involve a sitting president or his friends, it's about a priest, right? Only... that's what you hear about. And that's what you notice because it confirms a pattern of what you've heard in the past instead of refuting it. It's what you remember. But wait... why does the press pick those stories? Do they hate the church? No. It's just that when a reporter is given two options... a story about a priest and a story about an accountant, they'll pick the story about the priest because it draws attention... because it tweaks their statistical bias too. Turns out it's dramatically, absurdly worse to let your kids be around their own family than a priest, if your goal is to protect them. But facts are hard. Confirmation bias is strong. Cognitive dissonance is real and it hurts.

So hey, statistically-speaking, with regards to vehicle fires, EV cars are way, way less likely to harm anyone than ICE cars. Any "but factor X" in the mix is just printing a priest story; misleading regardless of truth.

So...

1} Aside from some Teslas, there's nothing preventing an EV driver from getting out of a car that wouldn't also prevent an ICE driver.
2} Basically nobody extinguishes an ICE fire either.
3} ICE are more prone to burning than EVs are.
4} Just as EV SUVs exist, ICE sedans exist. The height of the hood isn't tied to powerplant.
5} Dashcams typically point out of the vehicle and rarely record audio (though many can).

To be fair, there's (to my knowledge) no evidence that driving a larger vehicle causes distracted driving. While it's nice to imagine that's the case, it'd have to be studied. As much as I'd like to assume drivers of those massive vehicles are less attentive drivers, we don't know that's the case. Anecdotes don't count.

I mean... maybe. Taking a look at the recent and current Ontario projects they're all remarkably rapid and under-budget. The Darlington project has been issued permits that work out to completion in just under 14 years since initial proposal. You may be thinking of other countries, but Canada is doing this stuff exceptionally well.

First up, you're mixing up two dates. The summary references ten reactors that are to be online by 2040, which is 14 years away. The 2050 date is the target to double the capacity of the grid. Only part of that is this nuclear project.

In a word, no. Our capacity is currently such that we have reasonably-priced electricity all the way down to the consumer. While we do project ever-increasing demand, we're not - in general - in an undersupply situation. In fact, we sell quite a bit of power to the US.

This whole project is about ensuring that it stays that way.

The way things are headed, the only way people are going to be able to obtain money to pay for those widgets is via social welfare programs.

Off the top of my head, maybe RCA. Root Cause Analysis.

Say a guy gets depressed and murders his family. RCA finds underlying history of depression and pressures of work led to the event. Maybe mandatory anti-depressant treatment and monitoring, and he's never allowed to have a high-stress job.

Say someone keeps doing B&Es. RCA finds it's because they're homeless, poor, uneducated, and drug-addicted. Maybe shelter, basic food, and mandatory education can break that addiction.

Basically, people do what they do for a reason. Remove the reason and behavior can change.

I'm not sure the "justice system" takes any interest in the why of a crime.

strncpy() was not intended for null-terminated strings at all. It should have been named copy_null_padded_buffer(). Then its operation would have made sense to almost anyone. People wouldn't have minded the longer name much either, because hardly anybody uses null-padded buffers in modern software.

Note that a null-padded buffer that is completely full doesn't have any nulls in it at all. That's why strncpy() doesn't necessarily add a null termination. It also fills the entire destination buffer with nulls after the end of a short copy, which can be very inefficient when used with null-terminated strings.

TL;DR: don't use strncpy(). It doesn't do what anybody thinks it does.

It was easy: Turn the hue knob to the left for purplish skin, to the right for green skin, and then carefully center it for purplish-green skin.

Not to mention the most '70s guitar riff ever to grace the small screen!

Awesome effects, awesome sets, awesome props, awesome music. All they needed were some awesome screen writers, which they unfortunately didn't have.

You're complaining about HP Inc's business practices. Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP Inc. parted ways 11 years ago. (Hint: the latter's name is a pun on "ink").

There is no way the whole payment is taxable. Only certain *profits* are taxed, not all cash flow, and corporations have accountants who make sure any such profits are minimal.

Let's do the math:

($Fox + $Payment) + ($Roku - $Payment) = $Fox + $Roku

That's a zero-sum transaction. No $400M savings there.

I would really like to understand "can't read". Does this mean if I gave them something to read in front of the class that they couldn't read it without stopping / stuttering? Does it mean they can't read for comprehension? I'm assuming it's that they are not functionally illiterate. I assume it means can't read at their education level.

Is it? Getting improvements?

I read the summary and yeah, it uses that word but... what - specifically - does it mean? The code was "cleaned up" and "restructured". So... were any bugs fixed? Is there any real-world performance increase? In what way has this driver improved?

This is elderly code which likely has had any impactful errors discovered and corrected. Any major changes at this juncture risk introducing new problems regardless of if they're made by a human or an AI coding tool. While restructuring the code may make it easier to maintain, at this late date there shouldn't be much maintaining.

Unless there is concrete, measurable improvement, this is just PR AI cheerleadership.