Same here! none of my home Tvs, most LG and Samsung, have ever seen w Wifi password. Always putting firestick on it and call it a day. At least firestick I can unplug throw away, God only knows what updates TV does that I obviously cannot revert.
> Always putting firestick on it and call it a day.
Aren't you just letting amazon collect and monetize your viewing habits while allowing them to push ads at you? Avoiding ads and data collection are the reasons I'd want to leave my TV offline in the first place.
I have more control over where Amazon shows me ads versus my own TV. Someone will always collect the data, I prefer USA's Amazon does it than Singaporean's Samsung. And I never seen Ads on Firestick, BUT that could be because I'm prime member, which actually works very well in my zip code (there is Amazon distribution Hub about 10 minutes away from my home)
Ashamed of France Poland and Hungary. Hungary is a state regime dictatorship so I get it.. but France and Poland, after everything Poland went thru during WW2 then communism with USSR, who the heck are these people voting FOR ?
> 3. Apple had a bug in their age verification protocol. Again, valid point, but Apple needs to follow UK law.
No they don't. They need to grow balls. They pay hefty tax rates in UK. If they would announce they are leaving UK market in 90 days, I bet you would find enough politicians to change the course of this terrible law.
Should Apple be responsible for righting the wrongs of legislation in every country it operates in? I don’t think so. Ideally it would mettle as little as possible, even though they clearly don’t (see right to repair).
Hmm. I don't think the point is that Apple has to "fight". The point is that Apple needs a moral high ground and is willing to completely give up the UK market (which I understand but don't necessarily agree with). I don't see that happening with today's environment, considering that shareholders will happily fire Cook over that.
I think this law is the wrong way about doing what they're trying to do, but I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.
> I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.
Apple might be the wrong company for you then. They're all about corporate control and deciding what is and isn't permissible on their devices. The first time you want to install an app that isn't approved in their app store, this becomes quite apparent.
They can do whatever they want on their devices that is permissible in whatever jurisdiction they're selling into, but they don't get to choose to follow our laws. If we want those changed we'll do it at the ballot box.
I'm not aware of any law or even terms of service that prevents Apple from saying "we don't like your politics, your iPhone has been disabled, account suspended, all iCloud data deleted." I don't think they would suffer any reputation damage either at this point.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few out there who have gotten their Apple account restricted for whatever reason, and didn't have the clout, energy, or mental bandwidth to pursue it loudly and publicly.
Apple paid 304m in taxes on 1200m in profits in the UK. That's ~25% tax rate on profits. It's entirely subjective to say if that's a "pretty hefty" rate or not, but it seems to be pretty standard for G20 countries.
I suspect the UK wouldn't love losing that 304m, but Apple would also probably not enjoy losing the 1200m of profits either.
It's almost like international companies having to deal with legislation in every country they operate in is a more complicated topic than could ever be hashed out in the comment sections of a tech news site...
None. But you don't put a non refined cruide oil in your diesel, it not only has to be refined but DELIVERED to your country. Depending where that country is, delivery could be even 60% of the final price. And when, you know, tankers with oil explode due to drone attacks, you will see quick large spikes in pump price.
EDIT: also, oil is a commodity traded worldwide, and downside of this is the price of oil is directed by future contracts bet on said oil. In other words, if enough people assume there will be future upticks related to raising cost of transportation insurance, they buy more futures. If they buy more of this virtual contract on price going up (called "long") then eventually real price of oil catches up. Sure, this is upside down, but markets live in this setup for many years now where tail wags the dog.
> You call it for what it is: an executive with authoritarian tendencies.
I think you misunderstand fascism. Fascism is not gassing certain minority group of people in concentration camps, that's called crimes against humanity. It might be an endgame to fascism if you are government that is allowed to commit those crimes without consequences, but the road to it is still fascism regardless whether you historically know how it ends. Calling press "the enemy of the people" as Trump did (also known as "Lügenpresse") IS a form of fascism. You don't need to push Democrats and immigrants into gas chambers to be full blown fascist. Overwhelming amount of actions taken by this democratic government ARE what most historians call fascism.
Fascism, in political science, has some clear requirements: a government that controls all branches of power, lack of elections and effective ban of free speech and other political parties.
It also requires ideological aspects such as nationalism and far right politics, otherwise fascism would apply to far left dictatorships which didn't have these traits.
You really going to say that Trump and his Administration does not control all branches of power?
During Third Reich neither press was banned nor elections. Look it up, Google is still free to research. Unless of course you want to endup at conclusion that Nazism and Third Reich wasn't fascism.
And what did it change? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. Tariffs are still here - this morning I accepted DHL package and had to pay it - and even if - Trump/Vence already said its actually good because we will use another vehicle which will allow us to continue collect the money. So it won't be called tariff - it will be called embargo fee. So yes, Trump continues to control all branches, one way or another.
It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.
The nature of tariffs has fundamentally changed. Imports from all countries are subject to the same 15% rate which means no more deals or wielding tariffs as a punishment.
I don't think its about hate, its more like he doesn't believe in taking away something he cannot see with his own eye. Here his idea is that research and development will still continue happening even if overwhelming majority of people responsible for it in the past, will be gone.
Take COVID for example. We were fine with minor breakouts prior to Trump administration. They came in and Trump saw we are spending $3.7 million on safety measures in Wuhan Lab, fund designated by Obama (here comes first red flag right?) By his standard you could not SEE the protection so he wanted to look like Champion and save tax payers 3.7 million by removing that protection. We all know what came next and boy was damage more financially painful than mere 3.7 mil?
Its like a person who doesn't wear a seat belt because they never been in a car accident so they don't see the point. If given power they would remove mandates to wear seatbelts and have insurance companies deal with the outcome.
Well the parent comment is talking about how cheap a used Model S is, and I'm saying that even with battery degradation, a used Model S still has way more range than other used or new EVs in that price range.
My 13 year old Volvo has 138,000 miles and the same mileage as advertised when it was first sold. Also, when an engine goes, you can rebuild it, you can do a valve job, or replace the gaskets, replace the oil pump, replace the cylinder sleeves and you have a brand new engine. Or if you have scratches on your cylinder walls, you can bore those out and install wider pistons, rebalance the crankshaft, although on many modern engines the cylinder sleeves are effectively sprayed on and are just a few microns thick, in which case you need to get a machine shop to bore out the lining and install a race sleeve with custom pistons, which is expensive, but you can do it. And you can do this for less than the replacement cost of a car battery, both in terms of price and more importantly in terms of minerals required. You are talking about adding at most a couple of pounds of steel or aluminum versus manufacturing a new 700kg lithium iron with a lot of circuitry.
The main constraint now on car longevity is going to be the circuitry and all the electronic modules. Those expire with time and need to be replaced, and they are the same for EV and ICE, I'd wager that EVs have much more. Thermal stresses, vibrations, capacitors degrade over time, there is corrosion from moisture, etc. How many years do you think all those Tesla boards will last? I would worry about them more than the battery, which has proven to be very durable, and long term we will find ways of servicing these batteries without requiring replacements. Or at least, some manufacturers will, and smart consumers will buy from them. Just think of the problems a 20 year old computer has, one that has been used for an hour a day for 20 years. Now imagine one constantly vibrating, left outside in the sun and rain, etc. What would be the survival rate of that board over 20 years? Not good.
What we all need is an open source car for the electronics, as well as right to repair laws. That is probably the most important thing needed to keep cars on the road.
Not to be that guy, but citation needed. My Pontiac Vibe engine from 2007 worked fine when I got rid of in 2025. Still got about the same fuel economy. My old ass Silverado needed new piston seals but has over 200k miles and still gets 22 mpg on the high way at 70 mph.
Honestly I think it depends if Trump stays in power above his current term (not here to argue whether or not its possible). But he knows he cannot collect billions of tax payers subsidies for EVs and then flip a switch and have factory producing Optimus bots. That 100% fraud, and only Trump will ignore it.
How is it fraud for a company to change focus and start producing other kinds of products? It's not fraud in the same way that promising that the car would be able to drive itself from Los Angeles to New York in 2017 and selling people "Full Self Driving Hardware" is.
Tesla single-handedly created the market for EVs. There are over 9 million Teslas on the road worldwide. That's a much bigger return on their subsidies than most government programs.
Have you forgotten about the Nissan Leaf? Tesla created the market for expensive sports car EVs, but Nissan made the market for EVs for the mainstream.
The Tesla Roadster came out first, by a couple years, but only sold about 2500 over its lifetime. By the time Tesla got its second model out, a couple years after Leaf went on sale, Leaf had 50k sales.
It took until 2020 for Tesla cumulative sales to catch up with Leaf cumulative sales.
The first generation Leaf belongs more to the early curiosity phase of EVs than the mainstream. Funny looking, less than 100 miles range, and slow charging via a port that never caught on outside of Japan. Tesla didn't just build a car that addressed the biggest EV objections (range, charging speed, looks), they also built a DCFC network that has more ports than all of the other ones combined. Without the charging network there is no EV market.
Maybe that's true but maybe it also isn't? Tesla or no Tesla, China would've thrown incentives at domestic EV makers to reduce their dependence on oil imports. Without Tesla maybe there would be fewer EVs in North America and Europe today. But I don't see history playing out very differently elsewhere. The economics are just too strong.
A good lawyer could argue that Tesla must be aware that exiting the auto market would immediately crash the value of all existing Teslas because it would essentially create a sunset date for those vehicles, given how much software they're running. Good luck to anyone trying to sell a used Tesla once that announcement is made, because who would buy a car that is going to be bricked at some point?
The subsidies are things like emissions credits and tax credits for purchases. They applied to units already manufactured and sold. There's no conceivable case for fraud if they decide to stop making EVs.
> I think it depends if Trump stays in power above his current term (not here to argue whether or not its possible)
If that were to happen, we will not be caring at all about Tesla's choices, so I'm not sure how you can make such a statement and then claim there is no argument to be had.
reply