Don't you have a choice of energy suppliers in the US?
In the UK you can pick. Obviously they don't hook their cables up to your house, they just sell you energy that they buy from generators and contribute some fixed amount towards maintenance of the grid. You can pick ones that, for example, only buy from renewable sources, or you can pick the cheapest.
It's far from a perfect system, but it does mean that if your electricity supplier tries to jack up prices to cover some costs they have you can switch to a better one.
You are just being obtuse now. Obviously I don't mean the internal space, as that has nothing to do with efficiency. Are you denying that the Kona is significantly taller than the Model 3, or that it has better EPA rated range?
BTW, Tesla also admits that it is losing money right now... oh, except Hyundai didn't say it isn't making money at all. That's not what the quote said, is it?
Come on Rei. The Model 3 is a good car, no need to get insecure and start lying about it.
Tesla may have lied about the retrofit. They promised that anyone who bought Full Self Driving would get it if required... But they have since tried to redefined Full Self Driving as some level 2 driving aids.
Still, if they don't people will sue them for the price they paid plus diminished value plus punitive damages.
The Model 3 is much smaller than the Kona though. The Kona is 1570mm tall, where as the Model 3 is just 1443mm. And even so, under the worst possible conditions it's only 14% worse.
And of course you selected the most favourable conditions for your favourite car, where as if you use the headline figure of 120MPGe for the Kona and 130MPGe for the M3 (from your own link) it's down to about 7%.
Also if we are talking about rear space, because of that sloping roof the rear seats in the Model Y are only really suitable for children. They may have difficulty getting them type approved in the EU because they need to have headrests, and as you can see in the prototype doesn't and there isn't much room for them.
Also don't forget that for the same price the Kona has a 35% larger battery, resulting in considerably better range than the similarly priced Model 3. I'll take that over the greenhouse roof.
My guess is that once solid state lidar becomes cheap and small enough they will retrofit for people who already paid for full self driving, like they promised.
They already have to retrofit the new revision 3 hardware to those older cars anyway.
Ditching that would mean about 25% less highway range, 25% longer charge times on road trips, and 80% the battery lifespan. Not worth the tradeoff.
That's ridiculous. For example the Kona is not 25% less efficient than the Model 3. You would likely see a difference of 5-10 miles over the claimed 300 mile range.
It is a hatchback. Including a power liftgate.
Slightly different meaning here I think. The problem with that shape door is that it both lets rain water in and reduces the overall available height considerably. A vertical door would be much better.
I'd assume that other intelligence agencies already stole them from the NSA long before Snowden did, and these journalists probably have better opsec on their copies.
Anyway, they should just throw a.torrent of it on The Pirate Bay at this point.
So you really not understand the difference between reporting someone's explanation of their actions and "trying to spin it"?
The reason that the BBC is so reliable is that they don't pass judgement, they don't give an opinion. They give you the facts, what people said, what the video shows, and then you can decide for yourself what it means.
You are actually demanding that they be more biased, just biased along your preferred lines.
I was thinking that they could make it so that the status bar area was transparent. "Full screen" photo display would just not use that area. Most of the time it's black with simple icons anyway, so you wouldn't notice the reduced quality compared to the main app viewing area.
You will never create the perfect, unbiased source of news. Compared to commercial offerings though, the BBC is better than most. In fact I can't think of a commercial operation as good as them.
Write what people want to read and what people want to pay for.
That's the exact opposite of good journalism. That's just creating a bubble that people will pay to inhabit. That's just provoking people to anger so they buy your newspaper or watch your channel.
LG have demonstrated a semi-transparent OLED display. It's not as good as a normal one and doesn't pass all the light through. Given Samsung always have the best screens on their high end phones I can't see them using that option.
I wonder if they might fold the display somehow. Like roll it up at the edge a little, enough for the camera to be exposed.
This phone already exists, it's called the Nubia X. Full front screen, and a secondary rear screen with camera above it.
Kinda sucks because the rear screen means it's difficult to put a decent case on and you can't have wireless charging. And of course there are two screens to crack now.
It's hardly new, cameras have had selfie timers almost since the invention of the compact.
As someone who occasionally takes a group selfie I much prefer capturing a memory of that event myself than handing my phone over to someone else or mounting it somewhere and using a timer.
They have all the same kinds of services that Android offers. App store, AV protection, cloud sync, voice assistant, account and payment management for families, OTA updates etc.
The problem with journalism being profit driven, especially in an age where news is basically a commodity that everyone gets for free, is that it corrupts it into a toxic mixture of outrage and hyper-partisan opinion.
When you look at the least biased, most reliable source of news and analysis they tend to be the ones that are not dependent on getting views - the BBC, and agencies like Reuters and AFP.
Maths and "talky" subjects are more similar than you think.
At least back when I was at school you had to show your working in maths. If you didn't you couldn't get half the marks on the exam, you had to demonstrate you were using an appropriate method to solve the problem.
Same with English Literature. No good just parroting the notes for that Tom Hardy novel, you had to demonstrate some grasp of the techniques used to tell stories and explain how the different elements were constructed.
Part of the reason for that was to prevent kids bullshitting their way through in the manner you describe.
Maths is often singled out because it's so important, one of the basic skills you need to learn lots of other stuff successfully. It's widely seen as both difficult and something that people have an innate aptitude for, and conversely an innate ineptitude for too.
I learned long division, but it's not been very useful in later life. Far more useful is the ability to estimate the answer so that I know when I use the calculate that the result looks right. Of course just through repetition I can do a lot of divisions in my head without much effort anyway.
I don't know what the modern technique for teaching division is but as someone who does a fair bit of maths for work I find this, and a good understanding of algebra, to be far more useful in everyday life. Maybe we should teach kids that and some solid calculator skills.
Same as learning to type well is probably of more practical use than learning cursive handwriting now.
The solution can only allowed to be a political one, it can never be an economic or technological one.
Cleaner energy sources are destroying coal in the US because they are cheaper, despite politicians trying to stop it. The solution very clearly can be economic.
Nuclear can't be part of the Green New Deal because the economics don't work. Too expensive, too few jobs created, too little financial benefit to anyone but the plant owners, and too many socialized costs.
The Green New Deal has to fix things like former coal miners needing jobs, and nuclear doesn't do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you have a choice of energy suppliers in the US?
In the UK you can pick. Obviously they don't hook their cables up to your house, they just sell you energy that they buy from generators and contribute some fixed amount towards maintenance of the grid. You can pick ones that, for example, only buy from renewable sources, or you can pick the cheapest.
It's far from a perfect system, but it does mean that if your electricity supplier tries to jack up prices to cover some costs they have you can switch to a better one.
You are just being obtuse now. Obviously I don't mean the internal space, as that has nothing to do with efficiency. Are you denying that the Kona is significantly taller than the Model 3, or that it has better EPA rated range?
BTW, Tesla also admits that it is losing money right now... oh, except Hyundai didn't say it isn't making money at all. That's not what the quote said, is it?
Come on Rei. The Model 3 is a good car, no need to get insecure and start lying about it.
Tesla may have lied about the retrofit. They promised that anyone who bought Full Self Driving would get it if required... But they have since tried to redefined Full Self Driving as some level 2 driving aids.
Still, if they don't people will sue them for the price they paid plus diminished value plus punitive damages.
The Model 3 is much smaller than the Kona though. The Kona is 1570mm tall, where as the Model 3 is just 1443mm. And even so, under the worst possible conditions it's only 14% worse.
And of course you selected the most favourable conditions for your favourite car, where as if you use the headline figure of 120MPGe for the Kona and 130MPGe for the M3 (from your own link) it's down to about 7%.
Also if we are talking about rear space, because of that sloping roof the rear seats in the Model Y are only really suitable for children. They may have difficulty getting them type approved in the EU because they need to have headrests, and as you can see in the prototype doesn't and there isn't much room for them.
Also don't forget that for the same price the Kona has a 35% larger battery, resulting in considerably better range than the similarly priced Model 3. I'll take that over the greenhouse roof.
That's what gutters are for
Yes, shame they don't work very well.
https://youtu.be/hCv_Ha0oWjE
https://youtu.be/E8aUUmybjEg
That's why other manufacturers mostly stay away from that design for anything that is supposed to be practical.
My guess is that once solid state lidar becomes cheap and small enough they will retrofit for people who already paid for full self driving, like they promised.
They already have to retrofit the new revision 3 hardware to those older cars anyway.
Ditching that would mean about 25% less highway range, 25% longer charge times on road trips, and 80% the battery lifespan. Not worth the tradeoff.
That's ridiculous. For example the Kona is not 25% less efficient than the Model 3. You would likely see a difference of 5-10 miles over the claimed 300 mile range.
It is a hatchback. Including a power liftgate.
Slightly different meaning here I think. The problem with that shape door is that it both lets rain water in and reduces the overall available height considerably. A vertical door would be much better.
I'd assume that other intelligence agencies already stole them from the NSA long before Snowden did, and these journalists probably have better opsec on their copies.
Anyway, they should just throw a .torrent of it on The Pirate Bay at this point.
I'm not a fan of the curved roof and rear door. Would have been much better as a hatchback.
So you really not understand the difference between reporting someone's explanation of their actions and "trying to spin it"?
The reason that the BBC is so reliable is that they don't pass judgement, they don't give an opinion. They give you the facts, what people said, what the video shows, and then you can decide for yourself what it means.
You are actually demanding that they be more biased, just biased along your preferred lines.
Seems okay.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...
Can't you just google it yourself though?
Or, you know, instead of pissing away billions of Euros if income from the EU market out of spite, just comply with the fucking law.
I was thinking that they could make it so that the status bar area was transparent. "Full screen" photo display would just not use that area. Most of the time it's black with simple icons anyway, so you wouldn't notice the reduced quality compared to the main app viewing area.
You will never create the perfect, unbiased source of news. Compared to commercial offerings though, the BBC is better than most. In fact I can't think of a commercial operation as good as them.
The BBC is accuses of bias by all sides of the political spectrum, by the government and the opposition. I take that as a good sign.
Write what people want to read and what people want to pay for.
That's the exact opposite of good journalism. That's just creating a bubble that people will pay to inhabit. That's just provoking people to anger so they buy your newspaper or watch your channel.
LG have demonstrated a semi-transparent OLED display. It's not as good as a normal one and doesn't pass all the light through. Given Samsung always have the best screens on their high end phones I can't see them using that option.
I wonder if they might fold the display somehow. Like roll it up at the edge a little, enough for the camera to be exposed.
This phone already exists, it's called the Nubia X. Full front screen, and a secondary rear screen with camera above it.
Kinda sucks because the rear screen means it's difficult to put a decent case on and you can't have wireless charging. And of course there are two screens to crack now.
It's hardly new, cameras have had selfie timers almost since the invention of the compact.
As someone who occasionally takes a group selfie I much prefer capturing a memory of that event myself than handing my phone over to someone else or mounting it somewhere and using a timer.
They have all the same kinds of services that Android offers. App store, AV protection, cloud sync, voice assistant, account and payment management for families, OTA updates etc.
The problem with journalism being profit driven, especially in an age where news is basically a commodity that everyone gets for free, is that it corrupts it into a toxic mixture of outrage and hyper-partisan opinion.
When you look at the least biased, most reliable source of news and analysis they tend to be the ones that are not dependent on getting views - the BBC, and agencies like Reuters and AFP.
Maths and "talky" subjects are more similar than you think.
At least back when I was at school you had to show your working in maths. If you didn't you couldn't get half the marks on the exam, you had to demonstrate you were using an appropriate method to solve the problem.
Same with English Literature. No good just parroting the notes for that Tom Hardy novel, you had to demonstrate some grasp of the techniques used to tell stories and explain how the different elements were constructed.
Part of the reason for that was to prevent kids bullshitting their way through in the manner you describe.
Maths is often singled out because it's so important, one of the basic skills you need to learn lots of other stuff successfully. It's widely seen as both difficult and something that people have an innate aptitude for, and conversely an innate ineptitude for too.
I learned long division, but it's not been very useful in later life. Far more useful is the ability to estimate the answer so that I know when I use the calculate that the result looks right. Of course just through repetition I can do a lot of divisions in my head without much effort anyway.
I don't know what the modern technique for teaching division is but as someone who does a fair bit of maths for work I find this, and a good understanding of algebra, to be far more useful in everyday life. Maybe we should teach kids that and some solid calculator skills.
Same as learning to type well is probably of more practical use than learning cursive handwriting now.
The solution can only allowed to be a political one, it can never be an economic or technological one.
Cleaner energy sources are destroying coal in the US because they are cheaper, despite politicians trying to stop it. The solution very clearly can be economic.
Nuclear can't be part of the Green New Deal because the economics don't work. Too expensive, too few jobs created, too little financial benefit to anyone but the plant owners, and too many socialized costs.
The Green New Deal has to fix things like former coal miners needing jobs, and nuclear doesn't do that.