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 pay a fitting tribute to the man, I'd drop the coin into a dish of acid, but then instead of saving it while there was plenty of time left, I'd leave it to be slowly eaten away while occasionally dropping in healing herbs and drops of organic fruit juices, and then only try to rescue it once it was far too late

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.

As if that's different from any other "Sponsored Item" search results?

I really look forward to more widespread adoption of AI search in listings. I hate spending hours having to manually dig through listings to see if the product listed *actually* meets my needs or building up spreadsheets to compare feature sets. This should be automatable. We have the tech to do so now.

This is exploit they used.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hertzbleed.com%2Fgpu...

This is their link to pre-print of their paper talking about details.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hertzbleed.com%2Fgpu...

To get an SLS-equivalent payload to the lunar surface, it will take 8-16 Starship launches

You're extremely confused. SLS cannot land on the moon in the way that the (lunar variant) Starship can. It can only launch Orion to the moon. Orion is 8 meters tall and 5 meters in diameter. Starship is 52 meters tall and 9 meters in diameter. These are not the same thing.

SLS/Orion missions are expected to cost approximately $4,2B each. If you fully disposed of every Starship, the cost for 8-16 launches would be $720M-$1,44B. But of course the entire point is to not dispose of them; the goal is to get it down to where, like airplanes, most of the cost is propellant. The propellant for a single launch is $900k. Even if they don't get anywhere near propellant costs, you're still looking at orders of magnitude cheaper than a single SLS/Orion mission.

By far, most of SpaceX's launches are for Starlink, which is self-funded.
Nextmost is commercial launches. SpaceX does the lion's share of global commercial launches.
Government launches are a tiny piece of the pie. They don't "subsidize" anything, they're just yet another minor revenue stream.

The best you can say is that they charge more for government launches, but everyone charges more for government launches than commercial launches. You can argue over whether that's justified or not (launch providers have to do a lot of extra work for government launches - the DoD usually has a lot of special requirements, NASA usually demands extra safety precautions, government launches in general are more likely to want special trajectories, fully expended boosters, etc), but overall, the government is a bit player in terms of launch purchases.

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.

In my experience it is, how effective it is is directly proportional to preexisting project complexity when the commands are run. The bigger the project, and the more parts that are interfacing together, the worse it performs. But for small, simple projects and creating frameworks, it can be amazing.

I'm not sure what "Building the Metaverse" is supposed to even mean anymore. Is he still obsessed with Ready Player One fantasies?

I mean, if he's just talking about generating 3d assets and the like, then maybe? AI 3d model generation is pretty useful if you don't care about every tiny detail matching up to some specific form. For example, I used an AI tool to make an image of an ancient mug with cave-art scrawled around its edges. It got the broad shapes of the model right, but had trouble with the fine engravings, making a lot of them part of the texture rather than the shape, but overall it was good enough that I just left off the engravings, had it generate a mug without them, then re-applied them with a displacement map. It got all the cracks and weathering and such on the mug really nice, and the print came out great after post-processing (cold-cast bronze + patina & polishing).

(I ended up switching from cave art to Linear A, because I also plan to at some point make a Linear B mug so that I can randomly offer guests one of the two mugs, have them rate it, and thus conduct Linear A-B Testing)

It's a cute "attack", but not practical in the real world. The "poison" stands out like a sore thumb on your loss graphs.