You mentioned Tesla only, and you talked about "if" everyone had their thumb on the scale, rather than the fact that they do. And you didn't explain why Chinese OEMs should be obliged to enter the market unsubsidized while US OEMs have, by your own admission, received subsidies.

Your lack of perception is irrelevant.

And now we see what it stems from, a total lack of logic. Run along now.

It’s crazy! Here in London, UK, there’s a massive jumble of cars, everything from a Citroen Ami (very rare) or Smart car (pretty common) through to superminis (ten-a-penny), saloons and a bunch of SUVs of varying sizes. But the largest we have is something like a Range Rover, and the smallest SUVs are things like my own car, a Mercedes EQA, which is only 4.4m long. Pickup trucks are super-rare.

Yes to all of that!

But instead we have a 100+ comments focused on bullshit about engine reliability which affects a small % of people, as opposed to the costs of poor fuel economy, which affect many more.

Again, people with no experience maybe.

Subaru do a lot of things well - they're masters of all-wheel drive - but this is nuts.

I bought a VW Taos earlier this year with the usual trial subscription to Sirius XM. I was going to pull the plug when it expired but Sirius XM offered me a steep discount if I re-upped, so I did. They did it so readily that I wonder how many people are paying full price...

The bulk of my listening is two channels, Hits One and The Pulse.

...laura

What you said was dumb because what we need is to reduce emissions further than our weak targets. Also automakers do NOT have any trouble meeting the targets. They could have met those targets years ago, but they would have had to make less exciting vehicles. You're putting your excitement over sustainability. This explains why you support a child molester's tampering with the future.

You cannot make a market freer by removing all regulations. That's a total misunderstanding of how markets work.

"R&D is a sunk cost, especially if it was subsidized. Nobody's going to try to recoup it"

Wat

The demand is all coming from AI data centres. We had data centres being built for years without this massive spike in demand.

It boggles my mind that no policy maker seems able to turn the AI demand for energy into an opportunity. Historically, where there's a surge in demand from wealthy industrial customers for a service, governments have been able to extract additional value. The obvious thing to do is to turn to the data centres owners and say "we are happy to give you grid connections, but we're going to charge you at twice the current market rate to fund infrastructure and lower bills for householders". It's such an obvious populist move, I don't understand why it's not being pursued, at least in the UK where we don't have the complete batshittery of US politics.

I'm one of the 18 people in the world who don't live in the US.

(etc.)

That's all true if your goal is to serve customers, as opposed to spying on them.

This is exactly end to end encryption, and the so-called "security researcher" appears to have no idea what he is talking about. So:

It's happening now. There are serious effects now. And there is mostly a lot of thumb-sitting going on.

Yes, for profit.

AI is chewing through NATURAL RESOURCES faster.

We don't have to pretend, we can see it happening right now. Or rather, not happening.