On the assumption phevs have the combustion engine off unless they are in hybrid or performance mode:

I think it’s decisive because the article’s focus is fuel consumption but fuel consumption in phevs is actually just a proxy for driver behaviour. (Once you factor out differences between models)

So while the study does show that phevs technically have worse fuel economy in real world usage, it doesn’t show they use more fuel in either electric mode or in hybrid mode than previously believed.

The conclusion is useful for understanding the overall impact of phevs on petroleum consumption, air quality and global warming, but it’s misleading when evaluating what kind of car you should buy.

Since you know how you drive, learning new information about average driver behaviour doesn’t factor into your decision on what kind of car you buy.

The environmentally conscious answer is still no car if possible, electric if you need a car but most journeys fall within the range limit and phev if you need a car for frequent long range usage.

Tldr; it’s contentious because the article reports information useful for policy decisions to a general public who are making individual consumer decisions where the information is misleading.

Like most taxes it’s possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn’t sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it’s passed.

Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.

The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won’t encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.

That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.

Fixed, thank you.

Yeah, fair that is probably a truer reading of their intent, I will edit my post to refer to yours.

I would still argue that taking proven approaches that cut security services related murders by up to 98.5% is worth doing and dismissing that on the basis that anarchism if somehow implemented in the US would solve the last 1.5% is…

Well whatever, I don’t want to try to debate people out of anarchism, especially not here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_annual_rates_and_counts_for_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers

• Venuzela is 1st with 1829.9 per 10M
• USA is at 29th with 33.1 per 10M
• Poland is at 60th with 0.5 per 10M
• Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and Croatia are recorded as 0

Declaring something happens in every country with armed police Is asinine when it happens 55 times more in some places and 66 times less in others.

When there are countries with such a dramatically lower rate of security services killing civilians there are important lessons to be learned there, rather than throwing up our hands and saying something like “well states will murder wherever states exist, don’t worry about it, it’s normal”. Edit: better characterisation in pupperdreams’ reply below

They are arguing the definitions with someone who was “arguing” with someone who lived through the reality

It’s generally not even Londoners re-posting crime “news” about the capital (we live there, so we know) it’s more certain people from rural areas who neither live, work or visit London.

Those certain people are either the ones who have a chip on their shoulder about how London is a success despite not catering exclusively to white native born people, or people who just got sucked into an alternate reality where they read so much crime news that everyone in London must get stabbed once a year.

There is also a healthy dosage of conflating per square mile and per capita crime

ICE are trump’s praetorian guard, a paid trip to Europe and the Olympics on company time is a reward for loyalty shown to the executive over the people.

Oh it’s easy;

Does doing it the correct way increase your workload but make the business more profitable in the short term? Do it the correct way.

Does doing it the correct way preserve your safety at the cost of operating efficiency? Do it the incorrect way.

The second kind of unfollowed rule is there as a liability shield, it’s so that if you get hurt the business can claim you weren’t following your mandatory training and they aren’t liable.

But if people did follow it then they would get a kind word from their supervisor saying we don’t have the time for that even if it is in the official training. Because the supervisor themselves is in a worse bind, they have to tell management that the new liability shield is being followed as it won’t work otherwise, but they are on the hook for the productivity of their team in such a way that they can’t allow people to follow the slow process.

No worries, glad it helped 🙂

I think it would be nice if there were good discoverable resources for things that come naturally to most people but others need to put work into understanding.

Electric cars allow carbon emissions from personal transport to fall in step with the carbon emissions from energy generation.

Every solar panel, wind turbine, hydro plant, nuclear plant etc which comes online makes all EVs a bit cleaner, but does very little for internal combustion engine cars (acronyming that feels weird now)

Ideally we would have fewer or no cars, but I get that I’m very lucky to live in a major metropolitan area with good public transport and that’s why I don’t need a car, but that’s not true for everyone.

It is significantly easier to move people from combustion to electric cars than it would be to build robust public transport everywhere and change the habits of everyone in the country.

I think it’s counter productive to shame people for taking a positive step for the environment just because it’s not a total solution. People doing good should be praised not shamed, even if it’s a small good, especially if it’s a small good that might lead to them making further positive changes.

This chart attempts to take that into account using OCED’s purchase power parity metric

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.html

I don’t know if the basket of goods takes into account healthcare and schooling and I expect it ignores taxes, but it sounds like the chart should be reasonably accurate.

Ful disclosure; I’m on the autistic spectrum

Same, since this is something I struggled with for a while and this thread is old I will try to give (my) understanding of humour in general and how it applies here.

Okay, as far as I can tell the root of all humour is something unexpected/surprising/confusing.

A lot of wordplay operates by having you understand a sentence one way then

Where there’s a will, I want to be in it.

The surprise here is that you expect where there is a will there’s a way, and you expect “will” to refer to willpower, the unexpected aspect is that when you get to the end of the sentence it actually means last will and testament.

Comical misunderstandings in comedy fall under this, “edgy” humour is predicated on the idea that people will conform to polite discord then they break it. Cringe comedy is the same but rather than polite it’s “cool” (or whatever the atonym for cringe is.)

In this case the surprise is just that the doll looks like the daughter, you expect the doll to be some random famous character and instead it’s an image of someone you know.

This is mildly amusing but not that funny, what makes it hilarious (I assume) is the feedback loop between father and daughter. If he had been in the shop and seen it by himself there might have been a chuckle but not much more.

He shows her the mildly funny doll, she makes an unimpressed face as seen in the photo; she probably finds it a bit funny, but doesn’t want to give her dad a “win” for something which is vaguely at her expense, so puts on an unimpressed face. Having known her for her whole life Dad understands what is happening intuitively, this is the second layer of funny where the daughter is putting on an act, then it compounds because the contrast between his reaction and hers is amusing and the more he finds the situation funny the more pointed the contrast becomes causing a feedback loop.

The difference in reaction is a classic comedy trope people find funny, thats why most multi person comedy acts have someone play “the straight man”

Sadly I don’t think I can source this since nobody explains any of this so it’s all observation and trial and error

I enjoyed their recent video on power law distributions and why they dramatically change how you should operate in those domains.

They also did some good content a short while ago explaining why Monsanto and Dupont are problematic.

That said you are right about the thumbnails since when I looked at the channel to double check that it was veritasium I was thinking of the title and thumbnail are completely different for all of them.

Valid, I got 15-20 from a Google search, but further research puts your numbers as more reasonable, I will edit the patent post.

I think it’s hard to definitely call something a bubble until it pops.

The definition of a bubble goes something along the lines of market prices exceeding the intrinsic value of the investment they represent, which may be true here?

If you want to read more about this the rough name for these companies was “the magnificent seven” a year or so ago when I last looked at this. A quick Google suggests represent about a third of the SNP 500’s value now and have a cape ratio (cyclicly adjusted price to earnings) of ~37 compared to 15-20 being normal.

Edit: the above baseline is incorrect; see sugar_in_tea’s comment for a more accurate baseline and some interesting counterpoints

I can’t find a good numerical source for the correlated risk within this group, and I suspect analyzing it is very difficult. Given they all used to be a lot more diversified in the past but now a large % of their valuation is predicated on AI historical correlation analysis probably fails. But the diagram linked here suggests it’s probably bad to put all your money in these companies. (Or even a 3rd if you are in an s&p 500 index tracker 😶)

Like, none of this definitively says this is a bubble, since if it were possible to divine that the bubble would immediately pop, but it does suggest there is a strong likelihood we are seeing a bubble.

Don’t design for having a nice codebase today, design for having a clean codebase after 3 months of Devs copy pasting one bit of code then tweaking it to do what they need or adding more fields to existing concepts.

This generally means it’s best to have one pattern for a given thing, rather than having several patterns you pick based on context, the later runs into problems:

• Someone copy/pasted pattern A for a pattern B context
• Enough stuff changes in a pattern A implementation that it would now be better as a patter B thing.

A second consideration for this is that if there are a group of classes/files/whatever that regularly needs to be copied they should live together. If there are different sections of the code that needs to be edited when creating a new resource, they should be kept in one place and kept small-ish.

Most of this comes from accepting the way people tend to work and from the perspective that software is a living evolving process and only regarding a snapshot of it misses vital information.

Challenging, new boss battles for late-game players to overcome

Was Simon not enough 😨 I swear I am still getting the phase 2/3 music popping into my head randomly months later.

Jokes aside, definitely playing this on release.

I don’t even know if they do, this is possibly/probably just the government repeatedly and gleefully shooting itself in the foot.

Palestine protests themselves aren’t criminalised (despite the title), what is however is criminalised is support of the Palestine Action group.

This is because they are a proscribed as a terrorist organisation, after a couple of their members snuck onto a military base and spray painted aircraft.

This is stupid in almost every way you can look at it, it criminalises people who are innocent of everything but carrying a sign or wearing a t-shirt, it makes the government look both cruel and inept and it has (as far as I can tell) been a huge boon to the credibility of Palestine Action resulting in more people joining or at least supporting them. And finally it (makes the government appear to/reveals the government does) support a nation enacting a genocide.

As for why; the aircraft were refusing tankers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT I assume this was done because of rumors that the RAF were refueling IDF planes bombing civilians but last I heard they use incompatible in flight fueling systems.

Various news articles suggest 7m of damage which seems a bit high for spray paint, my guess is that knowing that people with unknown intentions had unsupervised access to military aircraft they demanded the planes on be stripped and re built to check for other sabotage.

The UK terrorism laws are unfortunately defined very broadly and can apply in the case of serious damage to property, not just intent to cause death and injury https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine-action-ban-disturbing-misuse-uk-counter-terrorism-legislation

There was also some controversy in that PA were grouped in with organisations which meet the more common definition of terrorism https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/uk-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-palestine-action-as-terror-group

deleted by creator