Imagine being stuck with only one option and then those developers do something you dislike and you can’t switch 🤷
Imagine being stuck with only one option and then those developers do something you dislike and you can’t switch 🤷
“A bomb going 80 mph on the highway exploded.”
Doesn’t give the right information.
And if we’re being pedantic, when a bomb explodes, so does everything around it. Exploding doesn’t require a chemical reaction. It’s the act of tearing apart quickly. So yes, the car exploded.
That’s in English though. Other languages may be different.
Removed by mod
Surely. But let’s be realistic. If you’re poor and sick, you’re broke and have no free time.
You’ve gone to a malicious website. Now you’ve died.
See, the risks of surfing the web incorrectly are slightly different than the risks of creating medicine incorrectly.
Of course. The pork industry in NC is exactly the same. Tobacco as well.
NC has a strong Republican majority in the government with a fairly weak Democrat governor. They make bad decisions. I’m not sad I left.
230 miles on 98 kWh capacity = 0.4260 kWh per mile
Vs
300 miles on 131 kWh capacity = 0.4366 kWh per mile
Is that significant? Eh… But at the same time I wouldn’t throw 500 lb weights in the back and drive around claiming it didn’t impact performance.
I stopped at 90% ish. Couldn’t get the timing and got annoyed.
Watched the ending and it’s great. I’d recommend it for anyone with more skill or patience than me.
206 up, 20 down.
The nerds have spoken.
I agree with you though.
No more than any random objects.
Think of it like a solar panel. Yes, it blocks light from things behind it, but it doesn’t suck light from nearby.
If it were any other company I would be thrilled. With Samsung, this is going to be internet enabled, you’ll need an app to turn your car on and off, and it’ll probably play ads at high volumes constantly while driving.
If they’re swiping failed QA chips, it’s easy to swipe a couple boxes at the same time.
Decisions should be made by whomever or whatever is most effective. That’s not even a debate. If the tarot cards were right more often than the judge, fire the judge and get me a deck. Because the judge is clearly ineffective.
You can’t privilege an approach just because it sounds more reasonable. It also has to BE more reasonable. It’s crazy to say “I’m happy being wrong because I’m more comfortable with the process”
The trick of course is to find fair ways to measure effectiveness accurately and make sure it’s repeatable. That’s a rabbit hole of challenges.
That’s the spirit! Anyone excited about voting, and not treating it as a horrible civic duty that we must endure, is psychotic.
Any real change will come from voting for local candidates that support ranked choice voting. Then we can push for real change.
We have a first past the post voting system. You never vote FOR anyone. You vote AGAINST who you hate most. A vote for a third party, or not voting, is literally identical to voting for who you hate most.
You can rage against that all you like, but that’s the reality of our current system. So even choosing to do nothing is a positive action on your part.
Now, you can say you hate them equally. But that just means you care ZERO about things like DEI, women, abortion rights, etc. Can you honestly say you care zero about those things?
It’s obviously causation. That’s why there are so many depressed people in Hawaii and so few in Alaska.
Wait …
So it’s basically a talk show.
Quick, someone throw a chair
Friends and dragons. It’s a bit like easy chess with d&d style classes and species. It has transactions, but you can easily do well for free. I’ve been free playing for years (though I did throw them $10 around year 2 because of how much entertainment I got from it)
It’s when appointed officials side with the people, and the people are educated and thoughtful.
Or so I’m told. I’ve never actually seen one. It’s like a unicorn.
I too have an anecdote. If only someone had done research on the topic and we had a way to search for it.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022AV000732