I already have a transreflective screen on my current mass-produced bike computer. I don’t see a need to make another one, whereas I’ve never seen an eInk one; I think that’s genuinely cool and the main innovation here.
Heh, I just got a waveshare RLCD to play with sunlight visible higher refresh rate, but then I compared it side by side with the exact e-paper display for this project and I felt buyer’s remorse; the contrast is soooo much worse on the LCD.
Maybe it would have fared better if I was out in sunlight viewing them, but seeing this thing in person sold me on e-paper for this use case
> Regardless of any "investigation", the big change here is that Tesla is now solely responsible (and liable) for the safety of a "autonomous" driving system that still requires constant supervision.
They have been for the past year, they've had Model Ys running autonomously since June of last year (albeit with safety "passengers" at first).
That's the storyline they want the public/investors to believe. What they have been telling the authorities is very different.
Tesla filed new comments with the California Public Utilities Commission that amount to a quiet admission: its “Robotaxi” service still relies on both in-car human drivers and domestic remote operators to function.
Media playback? It has a 21" screen in the middle.
Also as a redundant connection so they don't have a meltdown like Waymo did when they lost cell signal.
> “In limited instances on Saturday night, the [robotaxi] Driver sought additional context,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. (The company refers to its cars’ autonomous driving systems as “Drivers.”) “However, the unprecedented scale of the power outage and its impact on local connectivity resulted in some delays to those confirmations.”
> On March 19, 2020, President Donald Trump directed the Department of Energy to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to maximum capacity, when oil was priced at $24 per barrel. This directive was given to help support domestic oil producers given the impending economic collapse from COVID-19 and extreme drops in international oil markets. However, funding was blocked by Congress, with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer stating that Democrats had blocked a "bailout for big oil".
In March 2020 the SPR was at 640 Mbarrels (out of 714M). What was blocked was a US$ 3B line item out of a US$ 2T stimulus budget what would have topped things up to the 714M (a purchase of ~77M).
In 2022, ~340Mbarrels (180+30+40+45+20+10+15) were released due to the effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine (and we still can crazy-high inflation due to energy (and food) prices):
Having 77M more would not have been a bad thing, but I'm (a) curious how much it would it would have made a difference now (6 years later), and/or (b) if there was more earlier on if more would have been released in previous events (because more was available to be release: a 'self-fullfillng prophecy' of sorts).
I'm no fan of Mr Schumer. However, perhaps he was of the opinion that US-Israel wouldn't have been as stupid as they were to go war with Iran in the way that they did.
It was a missed opportunity to top it off from about 625m to 714m barrels. But the Trump administration really shot themselves in the foot by loudly championing it as a bailout for big oil. Trump didn't care about the reserve, he cared about the oil industry. A lot of money was going out the door.
> But the Trump administration really shot themselves in the foot by loudly championing it as a bailout for big oil.
For all I hate about him and his admin, the trump admin didn't call it a "bailout" once that I can find (even with the help of AI). The only quotes I can find are Chuck Schumer / Democrats calling it that and no direct quote of Trump saying it. In fact this is what I can find:
> On March 13, 2020, Trump described it as purchasing crude oil “at a very good price.” He said filling the reserve would save taxpayers money while also “helping our oil industry.”
> On April 3, a reporter directly asked Trump whether oil executives had requested a bailout. Trump answered: “No, they didn’t ask for a bailout. No.”
> The “bailout for big oil” wording came from Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats, not Trump. Schumer’s official March 25 press release claimed that the final CARES Act had: “Eliminated $3 billion bailout for big oil.”
Would love to be proven wrong here.
> Trump didn't care about the reserve, he cared about the oil industry.
Does that even make a difference?
Either way it's filling the reserve for instances exactly like this, and was blocked by politicians to try and "win" for their party at the expense of every US citizen.
I think playing this word game for stuff that trumpf says is not a fruitful exercise (applies to most politicians I guess). He doesn’t have to use the word bailout for it to be a bailout
> For all I hate about him and his admin, the trump admin didn't call it a "bailout" once that I can find (even with the help of AI).
Trump called it help for the struggling oil industry:
> "We're going to fill it right to the top," Trump said Friday in a wide-ranging news conference at the White House. He said it will save taxpayers "billions and billions of dollars" while helping an industry that's been reeling.
[…]
> There have been reports[1] the Trump administration may be willing to help the oil industry in other ways. For example, the White House could reduce federal royalties for oil pumped on government land or offshore. The administration could also offer low-interest government-backed loans.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. It seems like it would have been a sensible time to buy back then with such a low price, although of course government spending was already very high due to COVID.
> As it should be, because they are. Well, not dumb, but both are complicit and essentially operate as a uniparty for capital interests.
One party is statistically much "dumber" than the other overall, but yeah... Most all of the clowns in D.C. really don't give a rat's ass about anything beyond filling their pockets at the expense of the American people and pushing their (not "We the People") particular individual pet agendas (at the expense of anyone that gets in the way) and anyone that trusts a single damned one of 'em is a gullible fool that shouldn't be trusted to vote.
They're all a buncha professional crooks pretending to rule a nation while they actively corrupt every single value this nation's supposedly supposed to stand for. We need to fire 'em all (or jail, depending on circumstances) and hire all new and better folks (ones who actually care about this nation and it's people) to fill their jobs. Same goes for the corporations that basically own them these days.
It's done that to me even at the beginning of conversations. I usually end up telling it what time of day it is, but if I even do that at all it starts nannying me.
> At most, the buyer would need to allow the financer access to retrieve their property. The financer could then sue the seller for the buy-out cost and/or breach of contract.
Nope, at least not typically.
Typically in the US houses are sold as-is unless it's noted in the closing docs. Everything in or on the house when you close is yours. The seller would be the one fighting with the financing company, as (again unless noted in closing docs) they would be considered fixtures and considered part of the real estate sale.
Financer is probably not the correct word here. The common model around here is that an installer puts solar panels on your roof, and sells you the right to their electric output in exchange for a fixed fee (with a fixed annual increase). That is to say, the original homeowner never owned the solar panels, and so never had the right to sell it in the firstplace.
If the solar panels were financed with an unsecured loan, then the home buyer would unambigously own them. It is also possible for the lender to have a lien against the panels; which again would survive the home sale.
In the UK there's a standard(-ish) form [1] the seller competes, before contracts are exchanged.
So if a seller wants to keep their smart doorbell, or their curtains, or to take all the plants from the garden - they can agree that, as part of contract and price negotiation. At the same time, the buyer gets to send people to check the property and can lower or withdraw their offer depending on what the inspections reveal.
Not sure if you've heard of them, but they're starting to come to market with this exact thing aside from distance detection and more on the "which part is squeaking" side.
Extremely similar to Southwest flight 1380 which killed a person in the US after they were partially sucked out of a broken window from an engine failure.
That wouldn't work because the Cg would be too far forward and the mechanical moment of pylons would be far too great. What needs to happen is proper redesign of the CFM56-7B engine cowl to contain fan, LP, and HP failures.
I was going to reply that I thought the Boeing 737 was also hands down the most popular commercial airplane model in current use, so of course it would have more high profile issues. Then I did a quick web search and apparently the Airbus A320 is actually more popular since 2025, otherwise they’re fairly close to even. Yet these things only seem to happen to Boeing.
So yeah, never mind, fair game to blame Boeing actually.
The CFM56 cowl redesign to prevent fan blade off uncontained failure is still unfixed. The FAA gave Boeing/CFM an unreasonable amount of time (July 31, 2028) to address the issue. This is similar to the bungled handling of MCAS.
Now exploiting them? Yes that's a crime.
reply