America's economy is in fully schizophrenic mode. It simultaneously recognizes that corporations can be too big to fail because if their jobs went away the economy would crash, yet continually seeks to destroy jobs as rapidly as possible without any consideration of whether it's sustainable. So we're keeping out foreign automakers by any means possible (including taxes and tariffs that make them become quasi-domestic automakers) in order to preserve those jobs while also trying to automate them out of existence.

The ruling class has no concept of what underpins all of that automation, and how it depends on humans, and will for the foreseeable future. They think they're going to get a fully automated production chain that builds them yachts and cooks them dinner without any plebes involved.

It also comes from not wanting more gearing, every stage of which costs efficiency. To have less gearing you need more motor. The efficiency cost of having a bigger electric motor is very small compared to that of having a bigger ICE.

Same reason we aren't doing anything about housing insecurity due to unavailable housing units, it's called capitalism. California may lead on those things, even by a lot, but it's not enough. As long as money runs everything, everything will continue to degrade, because money doesn't have a heart.

Look at what happened in Paradise, CA. PGE skipped their contractual maintenance obligations regarding both equipment maintenance and brush clearing, a literally 99 year old hook failed, and 85 people died in the resulting fire. PGE wound up being allowed to pass the costs of their handslap on to us, and though the fire did $12.5b in insured damages alone, they had to pay only a little more than half a billion in damages.

Money rules. We're slaves.

Effectively a license for a number of connection attempts instead of for a number of connections? That's magically incompetent.

We're removing the veneer from ICE that hid the fact that they were brownshirts and SS agents.

That's the plan, all right.

These days, perhaps. But who do you think has been forced to run Windows?

Whether they do that is up to them and their laws, not us and ours. And yes, of course they should do that, and they should have their own UNIX implementation, or Linux fork or whatever. Why would you trust someone else to supply you with an OS when you are so large as a national government? It used to be that there were dozens of companies which had "their own" BSD or System V port (which was just a port to their platform, with maybe some platform-specific utilities to set nvram values or what have you) and governments should be able to at least get that accomplished. It's bad enough having to use commodity hardware, but it's obviously not practical for most nations to build all their own computers.

Running your government on Windows is bananas for lots of reasons, but having it be American is a good one if you're not the USA.

If it was so very trivial, it seems like it would have been done by now. It's not trivial to build a car which is stable at those speeds, no matter what your powertrain looks like. On the other hand, a high voltage motor-per-wheel system with a high motor RPM can react to undesired yaw about as quickly as you can sense it, so the car can pretty much drive itself under human direction. Some of the old coots that can afford these things might pass out from the forces involved, though.

Going this fast in a street legal car is impressive, period. I prefer handling to speed myself, but that doesn't make this not an achievement. That these cars are so crazy cheap for what they can do is a real paradigm shift. The big down sides to hypercars have always been sales price and maintenance costs, but EVs have far less maintenance. If these unprecedentedly high-speed motors don't explode or something, this is not only the fastest but probably also the lowest TCO hypercar ever.

I ignored it because it's not relevant to my argument. If they're going to make the device more expensive, whether it's worth it or not, then the least they can do is care about getting you some decent switches. Had the same experience with an ajazz keyboard, boy their switches suck. Just ship it without 'em FFS.

I've written about this before, and now I will write about it again, because I don't save links to my old posts — when they scroll off the history, the fart smelling stops. I read several papers about this subject specifically because the "question" comes up here frequently, usually in the form of someone insisting that young trees sequester more carbon than mature ones. This sounds perfectly logical, but in fact it is mostly false.

The trees of most species can use considerably more carbon in their old age than when they are young. There are multiple reasons for this, but the two most important ones are as follows: Photosynthesis is what's driving the use of carbon, and larger trees can do more of it; and all growth occurs in a thin layer below the bark called the cambium, which is larger in mature trees.

The other major factor in forest carbon sequestration is whether decomposition is aerobic or anaerobic. When it is the latter, most of the carbon is lost into the air during the decomposition process. When it is the former, most of it goes into the soil. This in turn is based on the presence of water and the rate of growth. Rainforests tend to have both lots of water and high growth rates, so they build deep layers that tend to decompose anaerobically.

Forests are not closed systems, so they don't have to be in equilibrium. And in fact, they generally are not. Because the byproducts of their decomposition tend to produce arable soil, and trees have evolved mechanisms for surviving or regrowing after fires, they tend to grow until something happens to them. Usually, that's us.

I don't know what hardware security features you mean. If you do, maybe you could spell them out, because it's not immediately obvious and I'd rather not go hunting.

There's been several Linux distributions which you could do all that stuff with.

I didn't say they didn't. Read the comment again, if you like.