This is like building a computer, getting it mostly done, and declaring it useless because it doesn’t turn on yet. Or complaining the Manhattan Project had produced zero nukes by early 1945.
It’s a decade long project, with phases and 50 different state governments doing the actual contracting. The Fed side is mostly funding and establishing the Tesla charger as the national standard - which required quite a bit of diplomacy to get all the car manufacturers onboard.
Ah, so if they had the extra year they would have had charging stations everywhere. What a pity. All that money wasted because we didn't wait till August.
They invented a novel weapon in half the time your heroes dreamed of building a charging station.
> They invented a novel weapon in half the time your heroes dreamed of building a charging station.
It's a plan to build tens of thousands of charging stations, by 2030.
In all 50 states, with the states and local administrations being responsible for contracting, permiting, buying land, utility work, etc. Most of the work is not on the Feds here.
It should not be at all surprising that 10k+ little building projects take some time to get going. Even from the folks who credulously believed the President could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
But we have a plan, ceejayoz. We've got a plan. And ten years from now we'll have a plan and maybe one shed where we can build a teleporter, but always remember the bomb: in early 1945 there was no bomb.
The Interstate Highway System took like 36 years to build, wouldn't that be a better analogy, since it's an entity that exists in many different places at once? Whereas the bomb was built on eminent domain-seized property so you didn't have to deal with local jurisdictions or landowners.
That is a better analogy, yeah, and much more convincing. If this is delivering at an equivalent pace (same year had a state complete their I-70) then I am convinced.
I think your other comment about it being harder because it's an overly complicated plan doesn't convince me. The complexity and feasibility of a plan are also characteristics of its quality.
I didn't mean it was overly complicated so much as it's probably got more bickering stakeholders, as it involves private industry who presumably don't want Tesla to be able to dictate the standard.
Coming up with one would have been a reasonable outcome. Using Tesla's would also have been reasonable. They managed to sort out who to give EUV tech. But in any case the space of disagreement here isn't large enough to be worth arguing.
There’s also the matter that the Manhattan Project was under one authority. As an ancestral comment mentioned, there’s multiple automakers involved. It would be trying to build a bomb and dealing with not only the gun type design vs. the implosion design but a bevy of others, whose proponents all have equal influence over Oppenheimer to stymie the effort.
> There are currently 214 operational chargers in 12 states that have been funded through the law, with 24,800 projects underway across the country, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
I'll give you a general tip for reading opinion pieces / fact checks (from generally reputable sources):
Any "fact" it claims which is bad for it's case, you can believe with > 90% probability
Any "fact" it uses to support it's case should be taken with a tablespoon of sodium.
For example in this case: 24,800 projects underway. I assume if many were mostly built then they would say "10,000 chargers expected to be operational by March".
If they were under construction at all, they would probably say "under construction" This is a statement from the Federal Highway Administration! it's PR! (as it should be, nothing wrong with tooting your own horn) and the most they claim is "underway".
Of course we won't get an investigative story about this, but I'd wager the vast majority is in the earliest possible stage (before even permits to build)
So, the criticism of Buttigieg is well founded, and the "misinformation" is more directionally correct then the "fact check"
I think it's the price per charger that's the important value here, and the original claim "billions of dollars for 8 EV charging stations" is indeed provably false (even if you amend it to 243 or 214 EV charging stations). The money hasn't been spent yet.
and Twitter is bleeding money like anything, unable to retain users and advertisers. You may end up with less servers but not necessarily a stable and functional system.
It makes sense when you see Twitter less like a traditional business like Apple (whose goal is to turn a profit) and more like a means to other political ends. Twitter punched way above its weight in cultural influence given its relatively small user base. Being profitable is a perk, but not the goal.
Twitter is bleeding money in part because the owner refused to play ball with advertisers moderation demands, and the majority who don't see any downtime on twitter consider it more than "stable and functional".
And for the owner, who probably thinks he's co-piloting the strongest government in the world right now and attributes part of that success to the platform he controls, it is functioning magnificently.
I’m not an audiophile, but after hearing Sonos at a friend’s house and being impressed, I decided to purchase a speaker for my kitchen, where I often listen to music while cooking. I opted for the Sonos Five, assuming that Bluetooth connectivity would be a standard feature on a standalone speaker, especially at this price point. To my surprise, a speaker costing nearly $600 doesn’t support Bluetooth—it only works via Wi-Fi streaming!
If you’re an Android user, the limitations are even more frustrating. Playing music directly from YouTube isn’t possible without jumping through hoops, such as linking the Sonos app to YouTube or relying on third-party solutions. Ultimately, I returned the Sonos Five and chose a portable JBL speaker instead. It connects seamlessly via Bluetooth and gets the job done without any unnecessary complications.
As someone that an Android user, and has been a user (and formerly, major fan) of Sonos for about ten years now, it honestly seems worse than that. For a while, Sonos speakers appeared as Google Cast targets, which was a phenomenal (if slightly overcomplicated) way to use them without opening up the Sonos app. Then, the cast functionality became really unreliable. Then, it just went away one day. Then, the Sonos app itself became basically unusable.
So, a decade or so ago, I spent $1k+ on speakers. Over time, due to software changes, they've become more or less unusable for me. My recourse on this is.. pretty much nothing.
Is there a good technical article for why casting has become unreliable over time? Is there like an issue with standardization across Manufacturer's APIs or is it more of an issue with Client SDKs being spotty in implementation?
The former. AirPlay and Google Cast (and Spotify Connect for that matter) are not actually standards at all. They're proprietary protocols subject to change in ways and for reasons not publicly known nor disclosed. But it can typically be safely assumed that any/all changes are made in order to maximize profits.
I'm not saying what they did was ok, but would it be possible to solder on a raspberry pi or something? Compared to other types of board rework, audio connections and DC power is relatively easy.
I'd suspect that there is. That kind of ruins the point of Sonos, though - their appeal was their ability to do a lot of different things, automatically, with just a wifi connection. Having to set up some sort of alternate source of audio means that I really should have just bought a cheaper speaker back when I bought my Sonos products.
Wifi streaming is great if it's easy, but for me, Sonos makes it hard.
My spouse uses the speakers pretty often, but even the old app wasn't great, and I gave up on it. Why can't I just cast the music from my Youtube music app? Why do I have to connect Sonos to Youtube, then wait for a separate app to pop up?
I just end up playing music in my headphones, or on my phone speaker. The quality is worse, but the experience is better.
>Why can't I just cast the music from my Youtube music app?
Because the YouTube app developers haven't implemented it? Casting via spotify works flawlessly in my experience, whether using airplay or letting spotify discover the speakers. No app hopping required.
TBF that's because clicking on a Sonos device in Spotify uses their own special-sauce Spotify Connect, not AirPlay/Cast. So you're basically using the Spotify app as a remote for the selected Sonos device vs AirPlay/Cast which are transmitting (potentially a reference to) the underlying audio stream.
I agree with your last statement, because despite 20 years of development, they still haven't figured out how to get Bluetooth to work reliably. I don't think there's been a single other technology that has caused me more grief than it.
i got several "nice" sonos speaker for free, tried to stream to them via bluetooth, learned i couldn't, then promptly gave them away. what a garbage experience
as an Android user I can tell you that Sonos better fix this quickly because casting is going to work reliably any day now. And then they'll be in trouble!
> If you’re an Android user, the limitations are even more frustrating. Playing music directly from YouTube isn’t possible without jumping through hoops
Unfortunately that's due to Google's bullshit. There's a lack of appropri APIs, that's why you'll notice that any "smart" audio device (by smart I mean, integrates directly with music streaming services/locally stored music) doesn't support YouTube nor YouTube Music.
Music Assistant (sister project to Home Assistant) supports it via hacks such as pretending to be a TV or copy pasting auth cookies.
It's frankly an embarrassment from Google not to have APIs for this, they only lose potential users.
Google Assistant also stopped working abruptly on many devices, Sonos included for months. This guy did exactly what some Google exec wanted, which was to exact revenge on Sonos over a patent loss.
The patent on changing volume for more than one speaker at a time? That was such bullshit. The software changes forced by the ITC ruling forced Google to basically break speaker groups.
Not a surprise that might have resulted in some frayed business relationships.
Don't be mistaken, Science and politics are intertwined and have been for a long time. Talk to any lead scientist who has to secure funding for their project and they ll tell you how its all political. So I dont see a problem with science magazine editors taking a political stance.
The Right tends to harp on this purist view from time to time while ignoring their own house of glass. For them, it's ok for for example, WSJ to be a completely biased in one direction. They dont complain about skewed viewpoints then. They will also defend famous podcasters for providing a platform pseudo science people with agendas. But as soon as a science magazine editor takes a stand, they flip out.
only a problem when it leads to publishing obviously false statements and never correcting them, such as the "The so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured".
SciAm is allowed to be wrong and is allowed to be opinionated as well. The Bro however pretends to ignore proven science in order to have "interesting conversations." The dissonance here is astounding.
Scientific American's challenge to certain political beliefs doesn't undermine its commitment to scientific awareness. I find their articles more informative than arbitrary podcasts. No one claims SciAM is the sole source of truth, but it's a valuable resource. You're free to ignore it, just as I ignore most podcasters. If you rely on Joe Rogan for science and claim it be truer than SciAm, there's little to discuss here.
SciAm and the media are held to a higher standard... by themselves. They claim a position of authority. So when they are biased or get something wrong, it's a problem because their brands have a halo of truth left over from olden days.
Joe Rogan doesn't claim a position of authority. So when he is biased or gets something wrong, it's just what's to be expected from a bro with a podcast.
Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.
There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)
What research gets funding, grant selection, grant applications, getting donations, creating a research group, what gets published, who gets award prizes... all of it is political. Same goes dor the negative space of what doesn't get researched and what truths don't get discovered (see laws blocking government money from gun violence research)
> They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity...
If they did claim impartiality, I don't think the editor would be continually spouting political hot takes on Twitter.
> Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.
You can definitely try present different theories on a given topic, citing different papers that defend different viewpoints. You can have a bias for one interpretation, I will not fault you for that. But if you pretend like you favorite interpretation is the settled science and anyone that disagrees is an idiot, then I think you failed at your job as a science publication.
I think most of the Anti-Rogan sentiment is mostly people attributing things to him that he does not actually do or say.
People from the far left are so opposed to listening to him their opinion of him is almost completely formed by hearsay and taking small snippets of what he or his guests say out of context.
I fell victim to this. After the recent talk about just how important his show was in the election I listened to the Trump, Vance, and Fetterman interviews. His show is nowhere near as bad as the left says it is, and he is hardly "far right" just because he decided to endorse Trump this time.
I was an early fan from 2016-2018 (stopped listening as regularly after 2018 and dropped off entirely after 2020). I agree he is not far right
Rogan definitely shifted right during this time though. Enough so that I and many others close to me found it off putting to continue. A shame because I’ve never found a replacement show.
Calling him far right is incorrect, but I believe the criticism has always been about the people he platforms and not his views. Whether or not you agree with that critique is up to you
See also Limbaugh[0] et al on AM. IF you actually listen to their (not rogan) shows they follow the art bell and phil hendry style of broadcasting. Repeat something inflammatory, maybe add a bit of opinion, go to commercial, wait for the calls to come in, then let the callers go off. Their mechanism for entertainment is common man.
Rogan has uncommon men (afaik), NdgT, etc. I don't like long-form content in general so i catch clips and replays of sections but i don't care enough about long-form to ever listen. i don't have anything against the guy, personally.
[0] limbaugh was replaced by other people and i can't remember their names because i only listen to AM during the day when i am somewhere without cell coverage and i'm out of USB stick tunes - the last time was 2018 or so and maybe it was hannity or something? Also the word "repeat" as i used it was explicit in "repeating what someone else said" - not repeating to belabor. I could give examples, maybe. Further, Alex Jones isn't this type of broadcaster, either. He is outside the diagram i've already drawn between our comments.
I am trying my best to read this site on Safari for iPhone but god the ads on this page are something. I get it, I am not against ads but sites like this are why I begin to get annoyed so much so than I’d rather not learn the content than dealing with distraction of ads and the accidental clicks on the page. Sorry, I hate to say it but if you this your page, do better.
Absolutely! You are not alone. We have elected a convict as a president. The person who instigated a mob in attacking the Capital. The person who misled his base about 2020 election. Got impeached... the Trump saga goes on.
Yes, for the crime of the century of... classifying hush payments to a porn star (which is legal) as a legal expense instead of a campaign expense. And then they made each time he signed a check a separate count, so they could make a big deal of “34 fElOnIeS!!!” Not weaponized, indeed.
It’s the most mundane thing that has been “Trumped up” to the extent that anti-Trumpers act like he murdered someone. Everyone else thinks “oh wow, improperly classifying an expense, who cares.”
Yes, based on the tortuous logic that he would’ve lost the election if voters knew that a famous playboy had had an affair with a porn star. Of all the gaffes and scandals he had during his campaign, that would’ve been the one to sink his election chances. Sure thing.
And still at the end of it, it boiled down to “you should’ve classified the hush money as a campaign expense instead of a legal expense.” Do you seriously not understand why no one really cares?
The campaign obviously had that concern and acted on it; it’s irrelevant if you think it’s “tortuous logic”. When did the affair occur? When did the payment occur, and what was the surrounding context? — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_...
Then, read this again —
https://robertreich.substack.com/p/dont-call-it-the-hush-mon...
“This case alleges that in 2016 Trump arranged to pay off an adult entertainer in order to hide his affair with her from the public. The important thing to keep in mind is that the money was given to protect Trump’s campaign for the presidency — not to protect his marriage or protect him from personal embarrassment.”
Should have also mentioned (can’t edit my last reply) — many really care because they don’t agree that entities exceeding legal limits on political contributions and attempting to conceal it by committing financial crimes is not a big deal, is not election interference, and doesn’t weaken our democracy.
Agreed....this case is the lamest of lame and would not have been brought against anyone other than Trump and only because he was running for election.
It is quite obviously a politicization of the justice system to anyone who is not a partisan ideologue.
Dems can try to deny this but it really doesn't matter.
They are just shooting themselves in the foot and losing support as a result.
You’re saying that entities exceeding legal limits on political contributions and attempting to conceal it by committing financial crimes is not a big deal, is not election interference, and doesn’t weaken our democracy. Thankfully, the jury, selected by both sides, that unanimously agreed on the 34 federal felony counts, disagrees with you.
Considering when the affair occurred, when the payment occurred and surrounding context [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_...], and the strength of the evidence [Wapo article — https://archive.is/kmFCs], do you actually think “financial crimes occurred in order to conceal campaign finance crimes” is a far-fetched verdict that was made up by a unanimous 12-member left-wing jury?
If we are talking about election interference what should we say about the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story just prior to the 2020 election.
This include the politicization of the CIA/FBI to suppress the story by influencing social media companies, then getting 50 intel officers to all lie in unison that it had "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation".
By any measure this is way worse than some stupid accounting classification with regard to hush money for a porn star?
How come no charges were brought on this very serious charge?
People are nowhere near as stupid as the Democratic party likes to believe.
I’d like to learn more about all of the Hunter Biden laptop-related details that you’ve mentioned. Do you have a link to a reputable and credible source?
What happened was not an “accounting classification” issue. The jury, selected by both sides, unanimously agreed on the 34 federal felony counts because after hearing and seeing arguments, testimony, and evidence from both sides, they found it clear that this was not an “accounting classification” issue, but rather an issue of an entity exceeding legal limits on political contributions and attempting to conceal it by committing financial crimes.
And the 34 felony was about 34 payments for the one thing so in reality was just the one "crime" beefed up by a weaponized justice system to look worse than it was.
Again, it is obviously and emphatically true that this kind of govt election interference is way worse than whatever Trump did. So again why was there no charge over this?
And I'm just going to repeat, people are not nearly as stupid as the Democrat party thinks they are.
I was by a few right leaning friends that All-In presented neutral perspectives to political issues but after having tried a few different episodes, I felt that they were pretty biased for Trump. I heard several things which I knew were true but Sacks dismissed them or simply ignored them and continued with his circumlocution on the topic.
Runner here, I only communicate with cyclists by means of rude hand gestures because cyclists think they own the road and leave no room for pedestrians. At the stop sign near my house, not one cyclist slows down or stops and infact many have yelled at me when I am running across. V2V probably wont solve this problem but I wish cyclists start to yield to pedestrians and stay a safe distance away from us runners because we dont want to get hit by cyclist folks.
Hehe, luckily I'm both a cyclist and a runner. I am quite annoyed by fellow cyclists who ride on sidewalks but I understand that many don't feel safe on roads that I consider a nice sprint segment despite (or because of) lots of fast moving cars around me when I try to beat that Strava KOM...
It's a lot about subjective safety feeling: Many cyclists feel safer on sidewalks, runners feel safer without cyclists, scooters and cars around them and motorists feel quite safe all the time in their metal box. Separating traffic, slowing down cars in towns and cities is the only way forward and even though it might seem very slow going or even small reversals like in Spain are taking place: It will happen within our lifetime.
Honestly, as a runner I have a similar problem with other pedestrians. So many people walk in groups of three plus abreast taking up the entire sidewalk, pay no attention whatsoever to whether anyone else is on the sidewalk coming their way, and even single people stray back and forth wandering in a zig zag pattern, wearing noise-canceling earphones, and won't look up from their screen, making it all but impossible to safely pass them except by luck.
Nobody has common courtesy and they all think they own the road. Everyone. It isn't just drivers. But drivers are nonetheless the most dangerous because they're operating heavy machinery that kills you on impact.
Its also a problem on the roads for cars/motorcycles; 4+ lanes wide, with a car in each lane going 3mph under the speed limit totally oblivious to the world around them, as traffic piles up behind them.
Common courtesy should be a more important component of the whole education process.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/pete-buttigieg-did-not-sp...