It’s relevant if the drivetrain is part of your identity. People like the vroom vroom. I drive an EV but I’m not about to ban others from driving what they want.
Maybe you live in an apartment where you can't charge overnight. Or don't have many options for fast charging. Or you drive enough that the range is an issue and you don't want to plan around that or have to own a second car for long trips.
There are many places and use cases where EVs work great. And there are many where they do not.
Edit: and I'll add, that the fraction of EV owners for whom the car is part of their identity likely much larger than for ICE vehicle owners, though the relative sizes of each pool probably affects this. EVs are still in the early adopter phase in many/most areas.
The guidelines are out of date and they don't mention anything for or against AI comments. Having your comment flagged makes the number of upvotes irrelevant.
People often upvote comments that are contrary to the spirit of HN.
And for better or worse, lawyering the guidelines is not in the spirit of HN. Better because moderation is generally patient, kind, and soft touch. Worse because the guidelines are guidelines not so much bright lines and some people want bright lines.
If there were a actual demand for that, Y Combinator could implement something similar to Google AI Overview that automatically summarizes each post, which would strongly discourages people from actually reading the articles and giving thoughtful insights.
Instead of low-effort ad hominems, which are also against the HN guidelines, you should read the blog posts. One of my recent posts which was highly upvoted on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43897320) demonstrates how I don't actually use LLMs all that much for my writing and only use them for specific use cases where they objectively add value, including my work at BuzzFeed.
> Can anyone explain a rational political motivation behind this? I realize "less immigrants" is the hand-wavy explanation, but how does this benefit those in charge?
I recommend you read the link, which in the first few words outlines “non-immigrants” and my summary.
> Adjudicating Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants in Their Country of Residence
I’m not claiming Legos are garbage. In this context I’m claiming we don’t “need” 30 affordable sets per person. If someone wants to collect so be it but it will have a relative cost.
This could be said about any hobby. Why should people that like to read buy physical books? Why should people that like to take photographs print on film? Etc.
Yes but not everyone is a hobbyist so not everyone needs so much stuff. Some people’s hobby is antique car collecting. Not everyone can do it. That’s fine. I’m not mad. Today your Legos hobbyist collects “rare” sets or whatever. It’s not cheap. All I am saying is that we don’t need an overabundance of things be they junk or even quality systems. There is a useful amount and then there is excess.
You have not explained how our current policy is doing anything to achieve this goal. Notably the quote that started this subthread was specifically about rat fucking the public then dismissing their pain it would be a let them eat cake moment were it not lost in the chaos of all the other stupid heinous things he's said
> CP wants to close a lot of post offices, complete the phase-out of door-to-door postal service in favour of community mailboxes (which are already in use for more than half of households), and even reduce delivery frequency to less than 5 days per week.
Honestly that sounds like some good ways to reduce costs and carbon emissions. For the elderly there would need to be some considerations made. I live in the US but in large apartment buildings here there’s a couple of mailrooms for hundreds of units, I imagine it’s significantly more efficient than delivering to each unit.
Here large apartment complexes get door delivery. For single family, unless resident is certifiably limited in mobility delivery is to communal array of postal boxes. Alternating 2 and 3 days a week. Running through a building is not too inefficient. Delivering between them is.
That still seems like a big waste of time. Having a postal worker walk door to door throughout a large building takes way longer than having them fill up the mailboxes in a single mailroom on the ground floor. I wouldn’t be surprised if it took ten times as many postal workers to deliver to apartment doors instead of mailrooms.
You’re only hurting yourself and your friends. At least in LA we’re as pissed off about the current admin as anyone else and love it when people visit.
Individuals in the US, even if a vast majority, being nice and happy that you visit doesn't stop the possibility of legally being held at a port of entry for any reason, even with a valid visa. This isn't new, although the frequency of this happening and reported has gone up.
I cannot understand this sentiment. If you commit a crime in a country and don't pay the fine, why would you be surprised if they made you pay the fine next time you crossed the border? Even if it were a parking ticket I wouldn't find Canada's actions here objectionable, and DUI is a lot more serious than that. Unless I've misunderstood the scenario you're describing.
She didn’t commit the DUI in Canada, she did in the US. We were in the country for three days (Victoria) and didn't even have a car, so she couldn’t have recommitted the offense even if she wanted to, which she obviously wouldn’t want to.
She committed a serious crime and didn't pay the penalty which normally in the US comes with additional criminal penalties for non-payment. They would have been perfectly justified to extradite her and take her to jail.
Also how can you say that she couldn't offend again? She could easily rent or drive another.
I think you don't understand what has happened here. OP's wife has a DUI in the USA. Canada does not normally allow people with a DUI into Canada. In exchange for $250, they allowed her in. This is both a surprise and a nuisance for OP.
It sounded to me like she paid her US fine and thus ceased to be a scofflaw. After further reading it looks like convicted criminals can apply for a temporary residence permit for CAN $239.75.
This may not be needed if 5+ years have passed without further misdeeds and may apply to be deemed rehabilitated.
This covers individual evaluation of your case and may be denied. It probably also serves to keep the riff raff put especially Americans who otherwise may take a day trip to share their further drunken driving adventures with their least lucky Canadian friends.
It is hard to contextualize this as a bribe with poster as a victim when the very reasonable alternative is simple denial.
You have no right to visit Canada and they can charge you as much as they please and its your responsability to do your own homework as far as travel requirements.
I don't understand the comparison. Was she at risk of being locked up for days or weeks? People aren't worried about being denied entry. People are worried about having their rights violated.
