Speaking as an American here.

I have questions. The calculator feels like a massive oversimplification, even if the model is complex. For instance, does it take into account how the electricity is generated? We're very proud of EVs "tailpipe emissions" but all we're really doing is concentrating the pollution at fossil power generation sites rn. Not good for the people living there, and have there been studies about concentrated carbon emissions?

An EV running entirely on coal produced electricity can't have this much more of a beneficial carbon cycle than an ICE, can it? Especially given our current administration's stance on how we're going to use fossils in the near future. Doesn't concentration of CO2 emissions due to a centralized power grid model create problems?

EVs always felt like the last step to me. Right after massive changes to electric power generation and distribution, finding a magic bullet battery that is better than what we have (better charge/discharge rates, appropriate to the application), and a complete rework of the entire transportation grid (ie: Just get off personal vehicles as much as possible. Far more carbon savings there). There is some benefit to personal EVs, but there are systemic and infrastructure issues that aren't solved.

Intuitively, I feel like the rush to EVs is like our previous rush to CFLs. Have to do. something. NOW. Despite all the mercury we put into the environment with CFLs because nobody bothered to think up a disposal plan. A few years later, we're all using LEDs. It matters when and how you make changes to a system.Those kinds of mistakes are often costly. Tackling the hard stuff is not as gratifying, but we have to address those items or we're not going to beat carbon.

I am sure we are not going to beat carbon with EVs alone. Is there a systemic element here that's not being addressed?

Asking genuinely. No troll here.

Internal Combustion Engine raids. We're a couple of decades off from that I hope.

They can have my ICE when there's national charging infrastructure built.

If you get to the peer review process, and don't cite a reviewer's work, they will often insist that you include their work in the paper anyway. Why didn't you mention this? Even if it has little to do with the methodology or focus of the paper.

So, lesson learned. Academics are really into their own head space, as to be expected.

Print is dead.

No. Really. No one under the age of 35 reads much printed material any more.

No. The plural of anecdote is not data. You are what is called a "statistical outlier," and what he said is essentially correct, not a lie. Stop throwing around the word lie anyway. At best it's a poor representation, a mistake, or a sweeping generalization. None of which are lies.

You lose debate club.

Untrue. They have been operating at a loss for years because they are product dumping. This is "3. ???." I don't think it will result in "4. PROFIT!"

It will result in piracy (yaar!) and service hopping (*yawn*). And then they'll take away the pause your subscription feature. Because, of course, it is our responsibility to make their stupid business plans work.

Looks like I forgot to close that italics tag. The only thing that was supposed to be tagged was a la carte.

Mod Parent Up.

You are not entitled to the benefits of the cable model. You no longer get everything all at once at an enormous price tag because monopoly. You now have the option of one service at a time. Eat up the catalog, one catalog at a time. Wait for them to refresh.

Cost: $20/month. Much better than cable.

The problem is us. We are soft, lazy, and entitled and expect to get the benefits of the cable model and a la carte at the same time. Repeat after me. You are not entitled to a smorgasbord, and there is a good choice available to you. Piracy is an unethical response in that context.

Thank you Guardian, for your usual contribution to "social justice." Entitlement does not lead to justice.

Only if you accept the premise if you need them all available all the time. Otherwise, you can a la carte one service at a time, which will bankrupt these assholes.

Reject your entitlement to "57 channels and nothing on." Nothing's on.

Actually it's quite affordable. Subscribe monthly to one service at a time; watch what you want on that service. Cancel. Rinse. Repeat. Do you actually need access to everything all at once whenever you please? First world problems.

But, since service hopping is the only economically sensible strategy left given all the fiefdoms, we are back to tired, old "it's a pain in the arse, better to pirate." The pirates do offer everything all at once, and people in the Western world are soft, lazy, and entitled. So yay! Raise the Jolly Roger! TFA spends little time discussing the problem, and more time as a tacit apologetic for "just piracy." Lazy and entitled is not a justification for anything. Enshitification is as much a problem of our learned behaviors as the malfeasance of conglomerates.

Meanwhile, streaming services are losing revenue (I don't think it's "profits") supported by the previous inertia of "I forgot I had that account" or "it's cheap enough to sign up for all the services." Since it's no longer cheap enough, people are remembering they have the accounts. Now that the cat's out of the bag, even ad-based pricing won't restore that model. Too late, and people became accustomed to "no ads" cheaply delivered. Since services started clamping down on subscription sharing and raising prices at the same damned time (what MBA thought that one up?), this is what they get. Piracy (yaar!) and service hopping (*yawn*).

After 13 years, I'm back to paying the same I did for cable if I sustain every monthly subscription, even if I do annuals. Luckily, I'm not a millennial or zoomer, so I have enough disposable cash to ignore that. But boy I started tracking it, and I can assure you that it costs just as much or more now. Cable cutting is a bust, because it was encouraged by product dumping designed to entrap people. We're right back where we started. So we have to ditch the cable model. One service at a time will do fine.

Which I think is what is being (barely) recognized by TFA. They quote Gabe Newell once. The TFA seems more focused on a tacit "just piracy" apologetic. Trust me, not getting paid for your hard work sucks. Fuck that. There is no justification for that behavior. Do it and you suck as much as they do.

Service hop. They'll get the message and regroup, or go under. Support society. Don't feel entitled to its rewards without your support. Consumer behaviors can affect change. Don't give them the excuse of "piracy." This is what they asked for. They were dishonest by running at a loss. Give them what they need, not what you want. The latter is just as morally bankrupt as they are.

New computers were sold 5 years ago using your "10 year old product." The fact is, Microsoft releases new versions. It has, essentially, model years. It is not a 10 year old product if a computer was installed with the latest Windows 10 5 years ago. It is 5 years old.

Look at the release dates for Windows 10. It is a 3 year old product. 22H2 released in October of 2022. If I bought a computer in 2022 with 10 on it, I don't know why I would do that (except that 11 has a reputation like Vista to some), but it would be running a 3 year old OS.

Literally no one uses build 10240. It is not a thing. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is using a 10 year old product.

Why does anyone accept this talking point? It's like saying a 2025 Nissan Pathfinder is a 40 year old product. OSes have model years, just like cars. They should be treated as such.

I think you're measuring psychological distress. Your body's processes can be quite stressed and you might "feel" even keeled. Please, for your own health, do not personally assess possible persistent stress levels by your state of mind. A lot of people die right after saying "I feel great, why should I go to the doctor?"

The risk, naturally, increases with age. I'm guessing you're on the younger side. As a privileged person in little danger of starving, use your privilege and engage the medical system as you get older. When you're in your 50's like me, and feel fine, you may find out that you really needed that colonoscopy.

Hmm. I wouldn't "live by" any consumer appliance, but fact is, they read something, which is not described in the article or abstract and which the commentator, Mr. Fried, glosses over.

He says:

Unfortunately, that's a straw man or an oversimplification. That's not the stress monitor tech on modern watches, of which I assume HR monitoring is a component. Heart rate is an entirely separate function on my Samsung Watch6. HR on my watch is also accurate (it correlates with medical devices). But HR is not being used to determine stress on my device. Reported stress levels on my Watch6 do not correlate with my heart rate. I can be at 85 bpm, working lightly, and the "stress" will go up and down. If Mr. Fried wanted to tell me something useful, he could assess the actual data being collected and the methodology employed to determine "stress." Apparently, that takes too much time for both him and whomever wrote this up.

The technique in question, if you RTFAb (Read the fsking abstract) is Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA); the details of the data by which an EMA is performed is not clear from TFA, nor TFAb, but the upshot is it's real-time monitoring. What is very clearly described in TFAb, is that it studies one device: the Garmin VivoSmart 4 watch, whatever the hell that is, which is discontinued. What is also clear is that the abstract, in summary, says it might not be reading the right factors because it doesn't correlate with traditional methods of determining stress. Ones that take more time, data, and effort.

Not exactly surprising. I guess what we're really assessing is the quality of real-time monitoring, with a device development pace that traditional studies can't keep up with, because that device is already off the market.

Here's the TL;DR: One product, by Garmin, is (maybe) doing a half-assed job. Real-time monitoring is new, and probably not reliable when compared with a detailed panel.

The important fact is it is not "Smartwatches." It is that particular Smartwatch. What does that say about the models most people are wearing? Nothing.

This article is misinformation and clickbait. You can safely ignore it, as you have likely already figured out that you should treat any consumer device reporting health data with a base level of skepticism. You'd have to be really pretty naive not to.

That's news to me. Bias is always possible in a person, and that may result in poor observations, the accuracy of which is the lifeblood of science.

What's impossible is for a body of science, writ large over years and multiple experiments, to exhibit bias. It takes a lot of science to remove bias by a process. It takes a whole bunch of time to reach bias-free, settled science, however.

But scientists are biased as much as anyone else. I think he was either misquoted or misspoke. I believe "settled science" is what he's referring to.

Because that's not how language works?

Decimate no longer means "kill one out of ten men." It means to mostly destroy something. Yet it used to mean cut down 10% of something.

That's why everyone's jumping on it. If you use language this way, you are not communicating with the living language. You're communicating with your own preferred language and others will not understand.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter that you "like" that a word means something that it doesn't actually mean.