It's marketing. I live across the Baltic from Germans, and "fiber DSL" has been a thing here too. But here they at least would immediately admit that it's not fiber if you asked. It was just a marketing term.

Reality take: 46 minutes more actual productive work can be gained from this. Invest in the system and increase the workload accordingly.

All others are "I have no idea how reality works/I am a horse pulled cart affectionado and I hate new technology that improves efficiency so I pretend I don't understand how efficiency improvements work".

The best part is that at this point, AI isn't limited by model quality. It's limited to people knowing how to integrate it into their workflows. And this is going to get better all the time, as people learn more and more of what AI can do, what it can't do, and how to get it to do things it can do, while having it do what it can do to assist you in doing things it can't do.

This is why while 46 minutes is average, people who have integrated AI properly are almost certainly massive outliers pulling the number up for a lot of people who haven't integrated it at all yet. And it's going to get better as this knowledge propagates through workplaces from people who know how to use AI to those who don't.

And a few remaining horse cart drivers who have no idea how to drive a car in the end of this process will have to find another job.

One of the big reasons to get a PHEV is if you want the ability to have cheap short drives, but do a decent amount of longer drives where EV is unsuitable due to lack of range.

I.e. people use the feature just fine. Just not as often as price conscious people would. Because turns out if you can afford to buy an expensive car, you probably don't care enough about price difference between gasoline and electricity to bother much of the time.

This is the same nonsense as EV stans pretending that EV charging is going to be a gas station bonanza, with them selling coffee and food while car is being charged. Reality is that it's a lot of city folk with no home charging playing/scrolling on their phones in their Teslas while they're charging.

People do what they prefer.

This fully depends on how that specific PHEV is set up.

A fairly common older setup is ICEF + MGR, (internal combustion engine front, motor-generator rear). Those can run full EV mode at highway speeds no problem, through you will have ICE kick in when you ask ECM (engine control module) for rapid acceleration (accelerator pedal position high enough for ECM to conclude that you want more power than MGR can provide). Essentially ICEF has a normal gearbox, so it will just switch into neutral and shut down the engine, driving on MGR only.

More modern are on the expired Toyota patent that allows fully combined hybrid drive train in front. This eliminates a lot of complexity (no gear box, no starter motor), but does require the power pack to go into energy re-circulation mode at speeds that exceed efficiency rate of MG2 (power pack has two motor-generators and an internal combustion engine all sitting on the same planetary differential, and MG2's output is connected directly to wheels) Notably this is why gen 4 (iirc) onwards, Toyota hybrids have additional planetary differential between MG2 and wheels to reduce MG2 RPM related to front wheel speed. It makes these hybrids retain full hybrid efficiency with no need to go into re-circulation mode at even higher speeds.

Finally there's the all wheel drive option where it's both power pack in front, and MGR in the rear separated from the power pack. Those can also do EV only at highway speeds with way more power, but at somewhat reduced efficiency in MGR + MG2 EV mode (either with additional clutch between MG2 and rest of power pack, or MG1 just spinning fast enough to maintain ICE at zero RPM).

All I did was use your emotional write up as an example of an excellent average data point of an observable pattern in this and many other similar projects.

I even explain why this pattern exists, and why it's probably necessary for it to exist. I even take your own observation as to why this specific thing is entirely unsuitable for larger audience, and note that extreme disagreeability (in psychometric terms) such as you express is not just normal, but unfortunately required in such projects. "Fuck you, I got mine" is an old expression that outlines this attitude and personality profile, and unfortunately as I note above, it appears both necessary to build these sorts of projects, and all but guarantees that projects will never go anywhere beyond the tiny niche of similar individuals.

The funniest part is that your emotionality has blinded you so badly to the point I'm making, you even managed to miss me simply accepting your argument at face value, and proceeding to put it in context of the larger point I made, where it slotted in perfectly at a fitting data point. You made my argument for me.

For those who wonder why small time privacy conscious OS projects never make it big, this user explains it very well with his attitude.

And like I mention above, this sort of cult mentality is unfortunately pretty much a necessity to handle a project this big while being as much under fire as you get when you build something like this. It's an inherently cultish endeavor that requires a very specific psychological profile, as you need to constantly reject attacks from the outside while building and building and building.

It inevitably leads to this sort of closed in, "I got mine so fuck you if you care about doing basic things like paying with your phone" mentality. It's a prerequisite for success in this specific niche it seems.

You appear to be confusing security and privacy.

To be fair, being a paranoid schizophrenic at least to a some degree is something of a given in that extreme end of "protecting privacy" space. Normal people don't go quite as far as building a phone OS with as strict rules for privacy as Graphene. As at least some of those rules make phone borderline unusable for things most people use their phones for. This really isn't a phone you can give to anyone other than a very privacy conscious power user who knows and wants to fuck around with settings to make things work, and expects that some things just won't work.

And with that personality issue on developer side come paranoid claims of other open software project being out to get them in addition to phone makers. It takes people who really don't trust anyone to have the motivation for enormous effort needed to build something like Graphene. Because many parties probably are in fact out to get them. Just nowhere near all of those claimed.

So yeah, you have to take the bad with the good.

This is exploit they used.
https://www.hertzbleed.com/gpu...

This is their link to pre-print of their paper talking about details.
https://www.hertzbleed.com/gpu...

Indeed. This seems to be a very limited vulnerability. Even in optimal conditions, this isn't likely to be able to "steal 2FA from Google Authenticator" because as GPU.zip site itself plainly stated in their FAQ:

>I am a user. Should I be worried?

>Under most circumstances, probably not. Most sensitive websites already deny being embedded by cross-origin websites. As a result, they are not vulnerable to >the pixel stealing attack we mounted using GPU.zip. However, some websites remain vulnerable. For example, if a user who is logged into Wikipedia visits a >malicious webpage, that webpage can exploit GPU.zip to learn the user’s Wikipedia username (as we demonstrate in Section 5.4 of the paper).

So I'm not sure if their claim of being able to steal secure website credentials holds against GPU.zip people claiming it cannot do it.

I really hit a bullseye on this, didn't I? Replies are everything from "this is a conspiracy theory" to "this is bipartisan (and vaccines because why not)" to "I will DARVO you for this!" to "doctors can't be activists, and certainly don't want to have their thing get more money, and there's absolutely no historic precedent otherwise (please ignore massive amounts of precedent to contrary!)"

This is indeed a "conspiracy theory" in that it's a fact that is unpalatable for activists. It is indeed bipartisan in that activists included everything from "dollar signs in their eyes" doctors to soccer mommies who got a reason their Billy is not just SPECIAL, but SUPER SPECIAL, which makes her way more important than other soccer mommies at their next book club meeting. To the political activists who assumed that the more fake grievances they can generate in people, the more votes they can grab for their cause.

Yes, because "right wing conspiracy" stands for "facts left wing doesn't like".

Have a gander at a list of other "facts left wing doesn't like" presented in another reply.

"Look at data (which I choose to call "facts" because I'm very smart). Don't look at context".

I award you "redditor on slashdot" award.

It's pretty well understood that current "let's get everything under the same umbrella so activists can claim they have more support" has been modus operandi for far left activists for a while now. Autism is one of those things: they bolted together "being quirky" and "can't be toilet trained, can't speak, constant random bouts of uncontrollable rage and violence" under the same umbrella. This enables former to claim victimhood and ask for political changes and resources based on the latter's situation.

When in reality, they have nothing in common. This isn't even diabetes kind of a situation, where causes are completely different but treatment is partially similar. This isn't even hepatitis like situation where treatments are different, but at least the illness is in the same place.

It's many completely different things, many of which aren't even an illness, all being grouped together for political reasons.

"Some" does all the heavy lifting in this one. Because tens to hundreds of thousands is not "some" by any reasonable measure, and internet is choke full of them now that bodycams have become ubiquitous, and youtubers know how to request them.