GreyEyedGhost

Time for a joke.

And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, "I'll give you $100 if you eat that frog." The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, "I'll give you $100 to eat that frog." The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, "So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?" The economist replies, "Ah, but this way it's twice as good for the economy!"

And many of those activities include consumption. If you're doing more than casual hiking, you probably aren't using second-hand shoes from the thrift store.

Well, it was also proven that the Shuttle was a generally unsafe design. That seems like a good reason to unilaterally decommission anything.

I don't hate them because they're women, I hate them for what they eat! Which they do because they're female. 🤔

I'd say harming mosquitoes (females only, that feed on blood) is better than vegan!

The newer EVs are switching to heat pumps for managing battery temperature. It's more efficient than resistive heat, and can use the same system for cooling. This helps maintain range both by keeping batteries the right temperature and by doing it more efficiently.

And who in Winnipeg hasn't heard of what happens if you let your gas tank get too empty in extreme cold?

The Deep? That you?

Maybe it would be less happy without the pain!

If people were doing this, how would you know? And if other people aren't, what do you expect the people who are to do about it? Are you hoping for a Streets of New York scene where the non-intrusive Christians duke it out with the loudmouthed Christians until only one group is left?

I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong, it just doesnt address the question of the guy who responded to you.

If they have control of updates, they can withhold updates or deliver malicious updates. So they may not be able to make them drop out of the sky*, but they can send an update that makes them completely unable to take off, or even crash upon takeoff.

*But they could install a kill command to turn off engines when a signal is received.

So, using the handy little tool you referenced, I scrolled down to see how much of those contributions were from individuals associated with Honda, versus contributions from the Corporation. We'll, the total from Honda, since 1990, was $324k. The total that wasn't from individuals, from the Honda corporation, was...$0. Meanwhile, if you want to find a year where that's applicable to Toyota, you will have to go back to 2012, the furthest back that the history (easily) allows you to go on that site. And their total from corporate and individuals comes in at $8.9M.

My embarrassment knows no bounds.

The difference is assuming, rather than looking for evidence, and then doubling down like now, after being told that at least one automaker is making a point of not making political overtures.

If you care to pore over my post history, you will see plenty of comments from me making the same point to people saying, "I won't buy an EV because of all the privacy violations," with me responding, "All new cars have this problem, ICE or EV." They then respond with, "Well, that's why I won't buy a car made after x year," to which I respond, "Then why mention EVs at all?"

If you don't want to bother educating yourself before making sweeping statements, don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it, echo chamber or no.