Hey Mr Sour Chips, maybe you should reread what the EU is doing: "would set up a "super grant" program aimed at offering "a longer-term perspective to the very best" in the field". The EU are not offering to take any researchers who were "political activists, nothing more".

I get it, you guys are pretty fucked right now, but don't shoot the messenger, you guys chose the path you are on so don't now act surprised when you find where it has taken you.

You appear to claim, in another post, to be in the USA, yet you are using Asian currency formatting?

A win win situation. The EU gains some people to help it develop and the USA gets rid of some trouble makers who ruin government arguments by using pesky facts.

Your background is showing. You are approaching this logically with common sense. The problem is people making choices will have bias from their work history, their influences and incorrectly perceived priorities. This makes them easily influenced by subpar solutions offered by companies that promise to make their life easier.

It is sad to see but all to common if you don't have smart people at the top with the public good at heart.

Most Chinese products come with a near useless lip service single page manual.

However this is more than you get with most products coming from big brand USA companies. The trend seems to be a 10 page booklet on how it meets compliance and sometimes another 10 page safety booklet what you should no do with it.

Instructions on use, if any are provided, are usually "Turn on and follow the on screen prompts". Those prompt will be to provide your personal details and credit card number.

With such a big population the Chinese government likes to keep control of its population. The negative aspects of this are well known, but there is another side to controlling people, keeping them happy. Where it feels it is safe to do so the Chinese government likes to do things to keep its population happy, as a happy population is easier to control.

While there will be many reasons for the "Made in China" plan one of them will be to ensure the population has access to technology that makes their life better, but in a way the Chinese government can control and keep free of foreign influences.

Note Grahn is not saying data was not transfer to China. There is this deliberate misconception that the Chinese government requests data from Chinese companies and the Chinese companies provide the data. What really happens is the Chinese government demands backdoor access to companies' data and takes that data whenever they desire.

So Grahn is not lying, he is simply misleading people. Go back and look for any statement from any company accused of sharing data with China. The words always used is they "did not provide data", but nothing about if the Chinese government can simply take the data.

To be clear by 'better' I meant fairer. As a BEV owner I would far prefer they paid for roads out of taxes on petrol, but I could not claim that is fair. In the case of RUC here in NZ they are checked when your vehicle has it WOF (road safety check) but it is a hassle having to keep an eye on them and buy miles every so often. It is the same system that our diesel users have had for many years so many people are used to the idea.

Companies making ICEV sales to California probably should treat this as a temporary win and plan accordingly. Given there is elections before 2035 I suspect California could at the very least say that the plans for 2035 remain and will be reinstated should the balance of power change in future to allow it.

The flame bait comment is this assumes that you guys will actually be allow to have votes that are counted in future, as it is pretty high up the GOP list to ensure they stay in power without the need to worry about what the population actually wants.

I think the weight limit is not a priority, it should be focused on moving petrol vehicles to same system so everyone is paying the same way. The weirdness in the NZ system is PHEV paying 50% rate because there is no way of telling if their mileage was on petrol or electricity. Bringing petrol users under the system removes that weirdness.

Asking EV owners to pay costs related to roading is fair, but this proposal is not. The charges should be based on mileage and axle weight and be the same for all vehicles. Where I live it is almost that way, BEVs pay road user charges at under the same scheme used for diesel vehicles i.e. based on mileage.

Yea, but a better way to do this is RUCs, Road User Charges, where you pay per mile with rates related to the weight per axle i.e. you pay based on how much wear you put on roads. RUCs are then charged equally on all vehicles, BEVs, hybrids and ICEVs. Of course the related taxes should then be removed from fuel as ICEV owners should not be paying twice for the same thing. I note that HFCVs where left off the list, which is fair, since they are mythical vehicles, I have never seen one IRL.

While this is the fairest system I would imaging it would not be popular with many ICEV owners as from what I understand the average ICEV owner in the USA is forced to drive an ICEV as there are no BEVs that handle their daily 1000 mile commute, in to a head wind and up hill both ways.

Unless it was from Apple, where it was a small "i".

I think you would need a switch based loader to write code without any software.

Might be ok as Starlink probably benefits from having robust distributed accurate time references, of which this is part of.