He probably knew to always stay on the ground floor of buildings that have bars on their windows.

This is pretty much what went wrong. It’s a legit problem when google presents a search result by parsing through an article, providing their own summary, and prevents a click. You can even see this on non news searches. You might search for something like what’s the largest river in eastern Europe, and it’ll return a result from a webpage half way down the webpage and show it as an excerpt (totally made up example). Now I don’t need to visit the website, preventing ad revenue.

When you simply post a link on something like Meta, the news organizations themselves are providing the summary you see when you post it. If they’re so damned worried about people not clicking links because their provided summary prevents you from reading the article, that isn’t Google or Meta’s fault. Change the snippet, or don’t provide one.

It’s insane that the media groups are now trying to say it’s anti competitive for meta to not allow people to post news articles now and are trying to force them to allow it. You must allow people to post links, and you must pay us if they do. It’s crazy talk.

I’m big on the hate Meta bandwagon and I despise using their service and rarely touch it, but this is all our governments fault. This didn’t have to turn out like this.

daaaaaaamn. That’s brilliant.

Was just thinking on this more and had a laugh at someone saying this out loud

Them: “Did you see my X last night, i ripped them a new one!”
Friend: “You did what to your ex last night? Does your wife know!?”

I wonder what term will replace tweet… it worked so well. Oh I tweeted this last night…

People aren’t going to say I X’d that last night. Sure you can say I posted something on X or I dunno, but I don’t think they’ll ever get something as good as tweeting on twitter.

The CCS system for the US was finalized well after Tesla had a lot of cars on the road, and is pretty inferior to Tesla’s NACS and CCS2. It’s not a direct comparison to what happened in the EU.

Maybe they were worried about forcing an inferior standard too soon, and wanted to see how the market would play out?

Do you want to be in a lawsuit over standards with, at the time your only 100% EV car manufacturer, and only manufacturer that even thinks its possible to do 100% EVs, over an inferior standard that early on?

The GOP talks nonstop about not doing stuff like that, and the DEMs would be fighting against the only auto manufacturer company fighting climate change and pushing things forward.

The longer the other OEMs dragged their feet, and the more cars Tesla pumped out using NACS probably made the fight harder and harder to have.

Maybe if they did though, they could have pushed Telsa to open theirs much sooner as well though?

It looks like it’s happening on its own now as everyone now moves to NACS but ya, it would have been nicer sooner.

Edit: maybe even just talking about forcing a standard could have convinced Tesla to do this sooner as well?

Ya, the locking mechanisms would be a big part of it.

I’ve had people unplug my car to charge theirs when I use an adapter out in the world. It’s impacted me trips before :(

The adapter can’t be stolen as that’s locked to the car, but in this case you wouldn’t be able to unplug the car now.

Headline is a bit sensational, but having a single charger that can charge any EV at home without an adapter is really helpful and could convince tesla and non tesla owners, as well as businesses that provide charging for customers to consider it over other options.

Edit: I often see a mix of Tesla and JS1772 chargers at l2 spots, now they could all be just this.

I still charge my car off 120v as it’s all we need, but our land lord was considering getting a wall charger at one point. Even though I drive a Tesla, they were still thinking of installing a non Tesla one so it would work for any other EV we purchased, or new tenants in the future. This is a welcome change.

deleted by creator

These LFP batteries just keep getting better and better and I love it. Give it more time and they’ll even get the wh/kg up and these will replace all but the longest range or weight sensitive applications.

Producing an EV does create higher CO2 emissions though. Not even Tesla argues against that one. It’s estimated to be ~20,000 km, but can be more or less depending on your source of electricity. So between a year and two years depending on how much you drive, but could be less if you drive a lot.

Edit: Also, we have so much excess energy at night. We just need to set up and incentivize charging at night and the grid can take on a ton more.

The main battle against the robots at earth, but one of the other ones as well was really good.

The earth one was exceptionally long for a space cgi battle.

Whatever you think of the show, it gave us one of, if not the most, epic CGI space battle. It was so damn long and intricate.

Please find me a post by Elon where he supports people jailbreaking his cars to get features for free that isn’t about a white hacker hacking competition to expose bugs.

We don’t pay for phone updates, but there is software out there that’s a buy a version and get all updates to that version, but not a new version.

E.g buy 5.0, get 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3 etc but not 6.0

Usually that kinda software stays on a version for years.

My Jetbrains IDE is a subscription fee like that. Yearly fee gets you all major version updates, but you keep it as is if you stop paying.

Phone updates don’t come for the life of the car phone either.

Would you pay a yearly fee to continue getting updates for your now no longer being updated but perfectly fine otherwise phone? I would.

If your problem with my statement is that Tesla shouldn’t even be allowed to charge them for it in the first place then we’ll have to disagree. They can sell whatever product they want with features locked away. If people don’t want to buy a SR because it doesn’t have heated seats without a fee then don’t buy it.

Trying to make heated seats a subscription is where I’d draw the line and say regulators should step in.

And again, no qualms with people jailbreaking heated seats

See my original edit which was before this reply, and my follow up to another person on the same post replying like you.

I’m not objecting to unlocking heated seats. I do object and consider something like FSD entirely different though.

You left with the hardware, and accepted that it was locked. You didn’t pay for access to it.

In my edit which was well before your reply, I explicitly stated I’m okay with you bypassing a lock like that to gain access to heated seats. You have a right to modify your car and tough luck if tesla didn’t protect it well enough. That’s not your problem, that’s theirs.

FSD is another matter though. It’s actively developed software that’s pushed to the car if you paid for it. Software that will in the future push liability onto Tesla if they are successful. Tesla doesn’t have any obligation to provide that software, updates, or access to it regardless of any hack that’s done, and I imagine the NHSTA would even require them to devise a way to prevent access due to liability issues that might arise.

Edit: one is accessing something you own but don’t have access to through a hole they left open. The other is piracy/theft

You didn’t pay for it.

Tesla includes it at loss because it’s cheaper than making you a special version without it, and it opens up new sales by reducing the price (e.g the originally locked batteries let them sell a substantially cheaper car than they could have otherwise)

Subscriptions for that should be banned, but including heated seats and making you pay once to access them is fair game.

Manufacturers dont owe you anything for free.

Edit: also, short of something like FSD which depends on future work from Tesla, I don’t think they have a right to prevent you from bypassing a lock and accessing those heated seats if you can