I wonder if this will happen in Europe first, since the connector is standardized with Tesla's. I also wonder how, in the US, they'll handle the fact that lots of EVs charge very slowly.

They'll likely charge a combined rate based on time and amount of kwh consumed. If you want to have your car charge for more than an hour, be ready to pay a fat premium for it.

Here are some Tesla chargers that don't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2Gs9hRr8k

It seems Tesla doesn't have any idea how to implement decent charging!

Why did the takedown notice have text in Arabic when Iranians speak Persian? This is what made me think it was fake, at first.

I just really doubt there's that many people out there who rolled the dice like that. First of all, landlords can report late to reporting agencies, which will make it difficult to get another apartment later and can impact the person's credit score. Secondly, there was never any guarantee that this would be the outcome -- it could have been something like having to pay back rent on a schedule. If you have the means to pay rent, why bother with the risk? It doesn't add up.

If your threat model includes state level actors, there is no commercially available solution that will make you 100% safe. This is about privacy from private corporations and making it more difficult and more costly for governments to get your data. But the latter is always possible when you use the web.

>If your threat model includes state level actors

My personal threat model doesn't include state level actors, but if it did I would certainly differentiate between a solution that the NSA can break with some expense and one that my local police department can break with a warrant.

My actual threat model is advertisers, so I think the Apple solution is quite elegant and will serve me well. It shouldn't be conflated with TOR though.

Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats).

Breeding is cruel. Adopt.

And just where are you going to get the specialized service, and search and rescue dogs?

We have 3-4 pups doing active SAR work, and countless ones doing ACTUAL service work (not ESA).

You don’t get that consistently from shelter mutts

A vast majority of dog breeders aren’t doing it for service work. They do it for profit. This is cruel and unnecessary.

Of course breeding dogs for work makes sense, because those dogs are needed and, due to the price, the market helps ensure there are few abandoned.

Any reputable breeder will always take the dog back versus allowing it to goto a shelter. Most of the breed clubs insist on that as part of membership.

If people would stop buying from backyard breeders that don’t do any health testing, or post sakes support the canine world would be a lot better off.

Examples: a year ago we took back a dog that is 11 years old, he was a service dog for an old guy whose dementia got too bad to be able to even have a service dog. Then did 2k in dental work that he needed. And last we we found out he has cancer.

More? How bout the bitch that kept getting sick with giardia, that was coming from the grounds where her owners lived. They couldn’t move, due to a lease, we took her back, for 6-8 months patched her back into shape and kept her until her people could move. She’s happy and healthy now.

Don’t blame “breeders” for the over population problem though. If people wouldn’t buy crap dogs from the paper or ads on the street from shitty back yard breeders and other irresponsible owners there wouldn’t be this issue.

Purebreds are more desirable for a reason. They are better at whatever they were specifically bred to do.

Im sure pugs and bulldogs would disagree with you, if only they could breathe properly.

Pugs were bred to be lap dogs and they are very good it. They are small (poop less, less food, easier to handle) short fur, small jaws (less threatening)

Your efforts are, and likely always will be (especially with the attitude), tainted by your inbreeding peers.

This is the future of most nations. A notable exception being the US, which will not have a demographic inversion in the 21st century.

If you’re focusing on a person having access to your pulse data as the threat model, your thinking is out of date. The real play will be combining heart rate data with other signals like which Facebook page you’re viewing in order to inject ads. Basically, know when you’re most vulnerable to influence and catching you with a post that sends whatever message the highest bidder wants for you at that moment.

That is the rub with most of this 'data'. Each one by itself it is nearly meaningless. But tossed together it creates a much more interesting thing to use. Like my DOB is borderline useless. But combined with a few other random bits of info and you can target me nearly exactly. The amount of random info is not much at all either. Add in a metric like gets depressed/excited by, and the intrusion gets even deeper.

What heart rate makes me most vulnerable?

When they've learned that your base heart rate is ~70bpm and when you get shown a puppy your heart rate excites by 20bpm they can guess that you like puppies. They could be wrong, and it could be that you're actually terrified of puppies, but they'd be safe in assuming that you're a big fan of them and so they add "Enjoys puppies" to their advertising profile of you.

> Assuming the caloric intake is the same, how does eating a peach smoothie differ from eating a peach?

Increasing the number of masticatory cycles is associated with reduced appetite and altered postprandial plasma concentrations of gut hormones, insulin and glucose [0]

[0]https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

TL;DR It's not just about calories, it's about what the food makes you do later.

To the people whose lives are at stake, what difference does it make?

None, but if we're looking at this situation (where the government is finding secret homosexuals and prosecuting them) and asking "what policies ought we enact to fix this" if your answer is "better privacy" that seems like it's looking at the wrong problem.

You are assuming that perfect and fair governance is a reasonably achievable state. Reality begs to differ. In reality, there are people in the USA who are in the closet or of fear of persecution by their communities.

Privacy provides a fundemental protection from persecution by your government. This is precisely why the constitution includes specific privacy protections.

So while we should fight governments that persecute homosexuality, we also need to protect at least some aspects of privacy to keep protections for the next persecuted group.

And what if it's a domestic company that is destroying those people's privacy and a foreign government that is using this to prosecute them?

Should we avoid preventing further damage that the domestic company is doing? Or should we limit ourselves to dealing with the issue diplomatically, and not do anything else for fear of "looking at the wrong problem"?

I don't understand why you'd seriously suggest that reducing the likelihood of known harm (by ensuring some level of privacy) is the wrong thing to think about when it doesn't prevent other actions from being taken too. It's possible for groups of people to do different things at the same time, after all.

Ultimately, your argument will never result in a situation where privacy is taken seriously because you could substitute in any issue and your conclusion could just as easily be that "better privacy is looking at the wrong problem."