usea

You wouldn't. So what? You don't need to do that.

That's an assumption which github may not agree with.

You can add features / value by only removing code.

No, they don't. Not beyond what's explicitly in the license.

It may be in their interest to invest in open source software they use. Or they may simply want to do it, even if it's not in their interest. But they have no obligation to do so. If they did, it would be in the license, and as a result that license would not be open source. To say that users of open source software are obligated to contribute is an attack on the idea of open source.

The reason I license my software the way I do is so that users are not required to do anything to see it or use it. That's the whole point. I'm giving it away, like youtube does their videos.

What rule do you think there is that requires me to watch youtube ads? By what mechanism do you think I'm beholden to that rule? Is it a real rule that I have to abide by for some reason, or more like a feeling you have about the way things should be?

I am genuinely curious where you think my obligation to watch ads comes from.

No, I don't.

> It's not charity and you are not entitled.

You're right. I'm not entitled to it. They give them away for free. I'm taking advantage of that. They've been doing it a long time. I'll keep watching them until they're not offered anymore.

At no point have I been obligated to watch their ads. I didn't strike some deal with them where I promised to watch their ads in exchange for videos. I'm simply accepting their free videos. You don't get to invent obligations in other people that they never agreed to.

They give you the videos for free. You don't have to watch ads. I don't know why you think you have to do that. You don't.

Criticizing uses of energy based on their cost and utility isn't persecution or oppression of cryptocurrency people.

It's not clear to me that hairdryers are worth it for society.

I did an undergrad in CS, where I did well. I don't feel like I understand CPUs very well. Certainly not anywhere in the realm of "intimate."

What are you basing this on? I can't draw the same conclusions, and I see no evidence for it.

> Beginning January 1, 2023, if you buy a qualified used electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) from a licensed dealer for $25,000 or less, you may be eligible for a used clean vehicle tax credit (also referred to as a previously owned clean vehicle credit). The credit equals 30% of the sale price up to a maximum credit of $4,000.

They have to be a licensed dealer, and the benefit is a portion of the sale price.

For the federal credit, only some EVs qualify, and the list changes each year. You also have to have a tax burden within a certain range. The credit for used vehicles has different requirements, too. Starting next year, you get the rebate back as cash from the dealership at the time of purchase, which is nice.

My state offers a 5k credit for new EVs costing under 80k with no other strings. Next year they're adding 2500 more if the cost is under 35k.

> So for me the comparison would be Bolt at full $32K vs. a $6-$8K Civic since I like to buy cheaper used cars.

A no-brainer at those values, for sure! The last vehicle I bought was a 6 year old Focus for $7k. Because my family has changed since then, I was looking at used cars in the 15k range instead of under 10k

I would never have even considered a new car if the tax credit hadn't pulled the Bolt down into a range that made it competitive. All of the other EVs either cost too much initially, or didn't qualify for the credit. Also a lot of them had really small driving distances on one charge, which surprised me.

Another thing I found surprising, was that some people purportedly purchase a new EV each year for the tax credit. They drive it for a year, and sell it next year at a small profit. Market liquidity not totally accounting for the credit value (varies by model). I am far too risk-averse to do such a thing.

There are lots of other things not included in the model, too. I would need to pay a contractor to add a 240 outlet to my garage, which will be like $500 since it's next to the breaker box. I will also spend hours of my life waiting for the car to charge during trips over those ten years. I bet people probably underestimate how much that will suck before they buy an EV. I could include a healthcare cost adjustment due to safety ratings, the impact of which I probably grossly underestimate.

I think the biggest omission is change in the gas:electricity price ratio over ten years. Using current values for the whole ten years is a mistake, considering it's the main difference between the options and is likely to change a lot.

edit: also I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post. I didn't mean for it to sound that way.

You have no reason to question my motivation, and it's unreasonable to make up possible deficiencies you imagine my methodology might have without even attempting to understand what is there. I provided plenty of information. The link works.

Depreciation never enters into it, nor should it. The model is that you buy the car, drive it for ten years, and then add up how much you spent on everything: The original purchase, fuel, maintenance, insurace, registration, etc. The value of the vehicle at any point after you buy it is irrelevant. You never sell it. It simply ceases to exist at the end of ten years. If you think I should include a sale price in the model, it will not be favorable to the car that sells for 15k less at t=0 and is 7 years older. But I'm not including that, because it's not useful. I'm looking at the cost for driving a car for ten years. When I do, a new bolt is cheaper than a used civic.

The prices are very similar (18k vs 19.5k) after tax break. And the electric one costs a lot less to drive over time, so after ten years you spent less money. It's not complicated, and the math bears it out easily. I brought receipts. Just look at them. Or do it yourself. Or propose your own model.

I chose to compare a 2016 Civic with ~60k miles to the 2023 Bolt with ~0 miles. The market price for the Civic is ~18k [0], and the lowest for which you can realistically get a Bolt is the EUV for ~32k [1]. I also considered 12.5k in state and federal tax breaks, which decrease the purchase price of the Bolt to 19.5k.

Here is a cumulative vehicle cost calculator https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/ It makes a graph, from which we can look at the value for year 10.

Add a 2023 Bolt, and a 2016 Civic. Change the price of the Bolt to $19.5k, and the Civic to 18k. Choose your state for energy prices. You may also change the gas price or the number of miles you drive. Click Get Results.

My results are Civic: 52k, and Bolt: 45k. That's assuming that the ratio between gas and energy prices doesn't change in the next ten years.

[0]: The site itself pulls a value of 18,640 from somewhere, but my 18k value came from online listings. My wife looked for these, and I think she mainly used KBB.

[1]: The Bolt EV cannot be purchased, only the EUV. I called about 20 dealerships. After 3 weeks I had gotten several offers to buy vehicles for 32k and higher, but none lower.