apparent

I looked into this and discovered that most EVs don't support it, and the ones that do require even more electrical retrofitting to make it possible.

The people I know who are afraid of outages/EV usage are ones in CA, where an earthquake could knock out power, and they'd need to go a very long distance to get somewhere safe/stable.

But some people here claim that you don't need a charger at home to have an electric vehicle. That's equally silly, but in the opposite direction. If you don't have a charger at home or work, your experience with an EV will generally be quite subpar.

Yep, the only thing I love about newer cars are dynamic cruise/lane keep assist, blind spot monitoring, and memory seats. Cars from 20 years ago had better controls and were likely cheaper to repair in most cases.

True, and it's especially interesting since Toyota I think offers some vehicles only as hybrids/PHEVs. For example, the Camry and RAV4 fall into this category, I think. It's deceptive because it makes it look like the RAV4 PHEV isn't that much more than the base model. But since the base model is already more expensive than an ICE would have been because it's a hybrid, this isn't the true differential between ICE and PHEV.

It axed the F150 Lightning. They might have later announced that they're going to bring it back as an EREV (pretty much PHEV), but that seemed like a separate decision. If it were the same decision, they would have announced it at the time of the cancellation announcement, to make it seem more like a pivot.

Yeah Toyota's PHEVs are quite nice, but the price premium is too much. It basically makes no sense unless you can charge for free at work, and even then you'd have to drive 50,000 miles before it pays off. If you're like most of us and you pay for electricity at home, the inflection point is even further out. How many people even keep cars for that long anymore?

> I've been on 18% fuel tank and wondering if my car will actually make it home or stall out on the road. I've been about to go somewhere and realized my car isn't fueled and and called a taxi or a Lyft as faster than the detour to refuel my car.

Ridiculous, since there are gas stations all over and you can get 50 miles of range in 30 seconds, or 350 miles of range in 120 seconds. Even the fastest EVs (which are expensive and therefore not likely purchases for people who are on the fence about EVs in general) do not even come close.

The fastest are maybe 18 minutes from 10-80%, but most are 30-45 minutes (and that's only for 70% of the total range of the vehicle, whereas an ICE can be fully tanked up in 2 minutes.

> You don't need a home charger to enjoy driving an EV. A home charger is a bonus to driving an EV.

I know precisely zero people who have EVs and do not charge them at home. The cost differential is enormous and completely changes the economics of cost per mile.

> Trickle charging doesn't get you to 100% overnight, but no one drives on a 100% full gas tank every morning either.

Sure, but a full gas tank gets you further than a full battery. We have friends with a long range Tesla that takes them days to charge on 120. Despite living in a city with many Teslas, and having an expensive home, apparently it would have cost too much for them to upgrade their panel to be able to charge faster. They are retired so can make do (and they have other cars that use gas).

America, where they are pulling models. I have PHEVs and enjoy them, but I am aware that many people are not going to buy EVs with their current specs. Either they live somewhere cold, where range will fluctuate and not be sufficient at times of the year, or they live somewhere that has power outages frequently enough (or at times of emergency) that they do not consider pure EVs. This is especially true for people with only one car. Families that have multiple cars are obviously more open to having one car that's an EV.

I was surprised to read the headline because this is going in a different direction than most car companies. For example, VW, Ford, GM, and others have been axing electric vehicles that they started selling a few years ago. They discovered that most people who wanted EVs had already purchased them, and the rest of the market wasn't interested enough to pay the price premium.

Then I read the key quote and realized that Toyota isn't transforming the Corolla into an electric vehicle. They're simply going to offer an electric option. That's much less of an interesting headline, which explains why it wasn't chosen.

> “Whether it’s a battery EV, plug-in hybrid, hybrid, or internal combustion engine vehicle―whatever the power source―let’s make good-looking cars that everyone will want to drive!” Toyota’s CEO said at the Japan Mobility Show.

Given the national debt (and the state debts in many cases), I do not feel comfortable assuming that tax rates will not change drastically. I wouldn't be surprised if Roth IRAs became taxable, at least for certain people. And there could be straight-up wealth taxes on "the millionaires" (which you pretty much have to be in order to FIRE.

Yeah, but you're probably 'paying' them in the form of cash deposits that earn nothing, but which they lend out for a few percent.

I have a club card account with a fake name on it. While they may track the purchase I make and know that a single person made them all, it's not attached to anything that is linked to me. My understanding is that they can't link credit card numbers to purchases, they can only use the number to run the transaction.

It's not great they track purchasing, but if it's not linked to me I don't really care that much.

The devil is really in the details:

> The bill also permits a vast array of discounting practices while requiring increased transparency around discounts and placing some limitations on how consumers can be profiled.

The issue isn't "hey, you gave me a custom price that was disadvantageous". The issue is that "you gave me the regular price for some item but gave discounts to other people". That's trickier to outlaw because the "bad price" is the regular price, not a special discounted price.

If businesses are behaving badly, what they're doing is setting high regular prices and then discounting items that they don't think you'd otherwise buy. For items that you buy all the time, they're giving you minimal or no discounts.

But if you tell them they can't do this profiling, then they'll presumably resort to some mix of (1) no discounts with slightly lower overall pricing or (2) some loss leaders but otherwise regular pricing.

It's not especially clear to me that in the long run this is much better for consumers. They might get slightly more consumer surplus, but I doubt it will make that much of a difference. People in a given area probably have fairly similar buying patterns, plus they can still use loyalty programs, student/senior discounts/etc., as well as traditional coupons, to let customers sort themselves into "I'm generally price conscious" and "my time is worth more than my money".

Yeah, I've not pulled the trigger on this yet. I assume I'll get a new phone before too long and then will be forced to use the current OS.

It's lousy that you can't turn off the badge notifications for the Settings app, which is where they push this garbage. I'm still on iOS 18, and I just have to live with a red '1' on my Settings app because I haven't updated my OS. It also pokes me every week or two to update.

It's not Microsoft-level annoyance, but it's not the way Apple used to be, either.

> LinkedIn will bury any relevant career news between the opinion of complete strangers. It is surely just a coincidence that those strangers happen to be shilling whatever Microsoft is invested in at the moment.

The browser extension LinkOff makes the feed much more bearable, even useful. [1]

Also, though I dislike the posts that LI pushes into my feed, I've never gotten the sense that this was motivated by a desire to boost Microsoft's investments. Perhaps I just wasn't paying attention, or am not cynical enough?

1: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/linkoff-filter-and-...

Good to know, but is it ever punished, either by the FTC or by consumer backlash? As long as the expected value is positive, companies will keep doing it.

It's a bummer that these unethical tactics continue to work. They should offer a bounty for people who report cases that are successfully pursued, like for tax evasion or whistleblowing more generally.

That would lead to a slew of possible cases and a greater fear of getting caught. If people are willing to go on the record saying they're not worried about it, then they are really not worried about it.

I worry that reading too much LLM output will make me tend to write more like an LLM. Seems like it would be inevitable, to some extent. (Here's why it works)

Appreciate the point about multiple notifications. I fine-tune mine so that when I'm away I don't get notifications by default. Regarding self-centeredness, reasonable minds can differ on this. Some people prefer a bit of chit-chat before getting down to brass tacks. Others want to get in and get out as quickly as possible. My point was that this is not one-size-fits-all advice.

> If the other party is away, and you leave before they come back, they can still answer your question, instead of just staring at a "Hello" and wondering what they missed.

Well, you can also just send a second message if your first one doesn't get a quick response:

Hey quick question

Just wondering when project X is due

Would this be slightly better as one message? Maybe in some situations. But some people would find it to be self-centered to jump right into "what can you do for me?".

I would refer someone I'm friends with if I know them well, understand what they would be like to work with, and understand the job/company well enough.

After all, I've lived with some people that I never worked with. Surely I know them well enough to recommend them for jobs, even though I have not ever worked alongside them.

If the units are on his property, it's very unlikely he's getting the benefit of HVAC/electricity/security.

Disagree. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. No matter how much the govt brings in, it will want to spend an increasing amount more.

I have a gold wedding band and can have it resized if needed. Also, I don't wear my wedding band when exercising, and that doesn't reduce its utility for me much. But a health tracker ring is arguably at its most useful when worn during exercise, to having to take it off while working out is not great. This isn't limited to weight lifting, as others hav noted. It also applies to tennis or other racquet sports where it gets in the way, and to anyone whose hands swell significantly during exercise. I find that even long walks make my fingers swell quite a bit. So I'd either have to get a ring that's loose during everyday wear or take it off during intensive exercise.

I wondered if/when this would happen. I would have considered their vehicles more seriously had they not done this. To be fair, I do know some people say it wasn't a dealbreaker for them because you could still connect the phone over bluetooth, take phone calls, play music, and even send text messages with Siri.

Seems like the biggest loss is the integrated navigation, which would be important for me.

I didn't see a single reference to iOS 18 in that article. So while I understand it would be faster than 26, those of us wondering about the comparison to iOS 18 are still in the dark.

Compared to iOS 18? Or just compared to 26? how so?

I might get one. I've been using a mini for years and am pretty much giving up on Apple ever making one again. The AI features finally seem worth an upgrade, and I don't love the size of the Air, standard iPhone, or Pro/Max models.

If I'm going to have to two-hand it, this is perhaps not the worst. Also, it might be more one-handable when closed than regular iPhones.

Is it very expensive? Yes, especially if you don't opt for the base storage (256 is not enough in the age of LLMs). But I've not upgraded in 5 years, so I've got budget to spare.