I think that it's a great opportunity to play with relatives. Each person can explain why/why not and that's probably the main point.
It'll also probably shut the mouth of those who think that they know better. This works with the driving license. Start a test with the whole family and watch the older men get a reality check.
> But critics have said E2EE makes it harder to stop harmful content spreading online, because it means tech firms and law enforcement have no way of viewing any material sent in direct messages.
Like they give a damn. I report accounts that explicitly sell fake credit cards, citing laws that make it illegal and 95% of the time "we checked and there is no violation here, we know that you're not happy but don't give a crap".
So the argument of security is utter bullshit and they just want to snoop.
This is the problem with this report. It doesn't mean that the cars break down more often, it means that they are so rarely at the shop that the drivers don't notice the used brake pads, tires etc.
> This is the problem with this report. It doesn't mean that the cars break down more often, it means that they are so rarely at the shop that the drivers don't notice the used brake pads, tires etc.
The average European drives about 12,000 km (~7500 miles) per year [1]. The maximum inspection period allowed by the EU for most personal cars is 2 years [2].
The average person in the US drives about 13,400 miles (~ 21,500 km) per year [3].
So, roughly, the average European vehicle is inspected after a driving distance which is about the same as that which the average US vehicle puts behind it in a year.
I thus doubt that the Tesla numbers from the article are greatly affected by a lack of inspections.
>The maximum inspection period allowed by the EU for most personal cars is 2 years
Your source clearly says that the first inspection needs to be at least four years after registration, so if you now buy a Tesla Model 3, you won't need to have it inspected until 2030. It's how Finland does it, so 4 years to first inspection, then every 2 years until the car is 10 years old, and then every year (4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12…).
> Your source clearly says that the first inspection needs to be at least four years after registration, [...]
That doesn't mean the first inspection is only required after four years, only that it must be required after four years. The countries can still introduce stricter rules, like Germanys TÜV - the first inspection has to happen in the first three years here.
Thanks for pointing out the possibility (but, as someone else pointed out, it's just a possibility - the EU regulation obviously does not set a minimum) of a double gap for new vehicles. On the other hand, don't new vehicles typically see an extra inspection by the manufacturer/dealer early on? (I don't know).
The regulation is quite clear: in any EU country, inspection must happen at least every 2 years for vehicles older than 4 years. I understand that Finland allows a 4 year gap after first registration. After that, the max period is still 2 years. Individual countries may also require 2 years (or less) during the first 4.
I’m an American living in a state with no roadworthyness inspections so I don’t have any first hand experience with this. But in previous threads, people have mentioned that the typical thing to do is, at the vehicle service (oil change or whatever) prior to the inspection, you mention “hey, my car needs to get the roadworthyness inspection soon, can you look it over for that while it’s in the shop?”. And if something is wrong, it’ll be brought to your attention and fixed before the official inspection. Then you show up for the official inspection and oftentimes, it goes smoothly. The pro-Tesla theory is that BEVs require less service so people don’t catch these things prior to official inspection.
Seems like if that’s true of BEVs generally one could find similar trends with Nissan Leafs, etc.
Not really - EV regen is really good. Even on my 4000 pound Fusion Hybrid, I don’t brake as often as I would in a gasoline powered vehicle because I’m able to coast down on the motor braking itself.
This is a software, not a hardware problem. Suitably intelligent software could gently apply the brakes every now and then in addition to regenerative braking even when it doesn't need to, just to keep the brakes in good condition.
The better you get at this, the more you'll drive around without getting the break pads checked.
This also increases the risk of running out of braking power when the car needs it the most, you'll be fine on an easy drive and then rear end the car in front of you or worse.
It doesn't mean that the cars break down more often, but it does mean that the average Tesla Model Y on the road is in much worse shape than another car of similar age.
Not COBOL but I sometimes have to maintain a large ColdFusion app. The early LLMs were pretty bad at it but these days, I can let AI write code and I "just" review it.
I've also used AI to convert a really old legacy app to something more modern. It works surprisingly well.
I feel like people who can't get AI to write production ready code are really bad at describing what they want done. The problem is that people want an LLM to one shot GTA6. When the average software developer prompts an LLM they expect 1) absolutely safe code 2) optimized/performant code 3) production ready code without even putting the requirements on credential/session handling.
You need to prompt it like it's an idiot, you need to be the architect and the person to lead the LLM into writing performant and safe code. You can't expect it to turn key one shot everything. LLMs are not at the point yet.
That's just the thing though - it seems like, to get really good code out of an LLM, a lot of the time, you have to describe everything you want done and the full context in such excruciating detail and go through so many rounds of review and correction that it would be faster and easier to just write the code yourself.
Yes, but please remember you specify the common parts only once for the agent. From there, it’ll base its actions on all the instructions you kept on their configuration.
I’ve found LLMs to be severely underwhelming. A week or two ago I tried having both Gemini3 and GPT Codex refactor a simple Ruby class hierarchy and neither could even identify the classes that inherited from the class I wanted removed. Severely underwhelming. Describing what was wanted here boils down to minima language and they both failed.
Exactly this. Not sure what code other people who post here are writing but it cannot always and only be bleeding edge, fringe and incredible code. They don't seem to be able to get modern LLMs to produce decent/good code in Go or Rust, while I can prototype a new ESP32 which I've never seen fully in Rust and it can manage to solve even some edge cases which I can't find answers on dedicated forums.
I have a sneaking suspicion that AI use isn't as easy as it's made out to be. There certainly seem to be a lot of people who fail to use it effectively, while others have great success. That indicates either a luck or a skill factor. The latter seems more likely.
This sounds like my first job with a big consulting firm many years ago (COBOL as it happens) where programming tasks that were close to pseudocode were handed to the programmers by the analysts. The programmer (in theory) would have very few questions about what he was supposed to write, and was essentially just translating from the firm's internal spec language into COBOL.
I find that at the granularity you need to work with current LLMs to get a good enough output, while verifying its correctness is more effort than writing code directly. The usefulness of LLMs to me is to point me in a direction that I can then manually verify and implement.
I got banned for asking about the yfinance python module. They had an "appeal" but it was a Google Form that probably nobody ever looks at.
My recommendation would be to get in touch with their DPO (Data Protection Officer) and invoke the GDPR rule that you have the right to 1. have an explanation as to why an automated decision was made about you, 2. ask for a human review. You are out of the GDPR scope but the legal contact might not bother checking and just restore your account. Getting your data is also a right under GDPR but getting your account back would be a better option. I wouldn't mention this or they'll jump on it.
There is no certification to pass or anything. You just have to keep it in mind when creating your business. It's too easy to just abuse data and then claim that it's too late to fix.
I've been through several startups after GDPR went into effect, it's really not a problem.
It's funny to talk about internationalization but only support Western date format.
If you are managing hospital admissions in Nepal, you have to be able to provide the date in Nepalese calendar and in the common one. And believe me, the Nepalese calendar is a complex one.
In Ethiopia, you'll have to support 13 months but they'll be close enough to common dates that people will manage mentally. But imagine that you have to handle a quarter of 4 months, one of which is 5 or 6 days long.
If someone has a good reference for a properly international picker, I'm all ears.
Last year I was working on a calendar supporting multiple calendar schemes. Currently it is only dogfooded with fictional calendars and a demo with heavy Vue and UI library.
You inspired me to revive the project. Possibly remove the dependency and make it a usable datepicker.
Relying on a salinity differential, even between salted and unsalted, seems like a terribly small amount of energy. There are projects to put large spheres at the feet of offshore windmills to pump water in and out. That has some pressure challenges but store a lot more.
The advantage I see for the salinity difference is that you can make them a lot larger than the pumped water ones. But is worth it, I'm skeptical.
It'll also probably shut the mouth of those who think that they know better. This works with the driving license. Start a test with the whole family and watch the older men get a reality check.
reply