I always have these same questions when these articles come up. Why does it matter how long the first owner keeps an EV? It seems like we’re allocating 100% of the environmental cost of production to the first buyer. But shouldn’t the “energy break even” calculations account for the expected life of the car, no matter…

This take is pretty dumb and mostly inaccurate. We absolutely should demand automakers find a way to make the production of EVs less wasteful. However. what matters for determining the total carbon footprint is the expected useful lifespan of the vehicle, not necessarily how long the first owner holds onto it. Even if…

Especially the “However, many households sell their vehicle before they get there” line is dumb, because the vehicle doesn’t stop being environmentally friendly when it moves to its second or third owner. Who cares if it takes until the 2nd owner until it becomes a net positive for the environment if the first owner…

Unless people are sending their cars to the junkyard at 69k miles,

The typical American drives roughly 13,500 miles a year. So within between 24 months to 60 months of ownership is enough that the EV becomes a net positive. When the average new car is owned for 8.4 years, that means this all leans in the EV’s favor.

In the U.S., the typical non-luxury EV needs to log between 28,069 and 68,160 miles before netting any emissions benefits.

Unless people are sending their cars to the junkyard at 69k miles, I don’t see what the issue is. Today most cars can make it past 150k before ending up in the junkyard. 

I mean, are they? Prosecraft didn’t reproduce the works, it scraped them for data and then reproduced that data. That seems arguably within the bounds of fair use under Authors Guild v. Google.

So, linguistic analysis, which is fine - perfectly fine - if done by underpaid (or unpaid) interns entering data manually while being bored and miserable is somehow wrong if the process is automated?

Were taking about ActiBlizz here. It took over ten years to get a new Diablo. StarCraft can be considered a dead IP at this point. I doubt we’ll ever see another Warcraft RTS again. Overwatch got ran into the ground. HotS is dead. Hearthstone is still a licence to print money so it’s in no danger of.going dormant…

If it’s enough to have a visible effect on the market and consumers, it’s already too much.

The customers will suffer as Microsoft will starve other platforms of content. Once they have control, they will increase prices because they can.

I’m as anti-megamerger as the next person but I strangely see this as increasing competition more than harming it. Microsoft has been trailing Sony for some time now and while I wish it was done via an internal push for more and better first party entries, them having additional massive franchises under their belt…

If MS continues to only have 20% of the console market share then no, it won’t be a monopoly.

While nothing’s final until it’s final, it now looks like Microsoft’s shocking acquisition of one of the biggest game publishers in the world is about to become a reality, and will soon have the potential to completely reshape the video gaming landscape in the process. Or maybe Xbox owners will just get a bunch more…

Oh thank God it’s almost over.

When one’s net worth hits, let’s say, $100M, they get a trophy for winning capitalism and a 100% marginal tax rate. 

It was straight (or at least men-attracted) women watching and loudly enjoying men shagging. That’s fine, it seems.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Local Plex server ftw.