That reduces a lot of relevant context, like why they needed the 08 bailouts in the first place, how many times they've been bailed out, and the fact that China has heavily subsidized these cars to the point that even if they were making the same vehicle, it would be significantly more expensive.

Signal's location share AFAIK can't be a live location share (which is useful during events like amusement park trips and stuff)

They have invite links to group chats? I don't know how that would work

Trump can't be both "different from everyone else" and "everyone's worries about the guy are unfounded, he's just another politician."

While I know you didn't say he's the same, per se, you might as well by comparing alarms that Obama or Romney are going to be forever presidents to the guy literally "joking" about being a forever president that's taken possibly criminal steps to subvert the results of an election already.

It's not just the fringe paranoid folks saying "this could be the end of democracy as we know it if Trump wins."

Did you read what OP wrote?

I don't know why two of you are replying to me saying "but it restores my tabs?"

I'm asking OP "what's going on that it doesn't restore your tabs?'

The reason the US and Canadian governments are doing this is to stop that $10k car from destroying the auto motive industry in North America resulting in layoffs that make the recent tech layoffs look like peanuts.

I agree we need cheaper EVs in North America, I want one too... There's an Ars Technica article where Ford basically goes "we thought everyone wanted expensive trucks ... we made those electric ... we realize we missed the mark, we're going to work on smaller, cheaper, EVs." So, they are coming hopefully within the next couple of years.

I'm not sure how important manufacturing still is to the Canadian economy, but for the US economy ... trying to protect domestic production is important (and we should've done it years ago instead of letting cheap Chinese imports destroy a large amount of the factories in North America).

A different angle of attack might be ... why isn't it capable of restoring your tabs and is that fixable?

Particularly relevant since this seems to be IT enforced updates.

Well... That sucks. It looked like a decent update on Dirt Rally 2 as well

I'm opposed to the idea, we've got enough people that think their ideas need to be broadcast to everyone in the world.

That sounds like a really cool title for a game if nothing else!

This reminds me of the new game Andrew Gower and his brothers have been working on, Brighter Shores. It's a pure passion project based on a from scratch game engine that was created to make programming (even massively) multiplayer online games much easier.

The goal isn't profit but rather, to have fun, and make a cool enjoyable game. He's said they've made more than enough money from the sale of Jagex and RuneScape back in the day (which FWIW, he regrets that sale and a lot of what has happened at Jagex/to RuneScape).

I love to see game developers (and people in general that ... "make it" and then go "you know what, I do have enough").

Agree on the first part ... disagree on the latter.

Joe has invested heavily in domestic production of "the next generation of technology" (chips, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc).

This is in no small part about protecting that ... and I don't think there's much in terms of negotiating that China could do here.

Any doctor worth their salt is going to be able to answer the question "how do you know that?" way better than "I just do" or "I have a medical degree" and that's the point; I've yet to find a problem space where that isn't the case. I don't try to win arguments by waiving my credentials around and I don't expect people to take my for "my word" just because of my credentials.

There are plenty of people with titles and fancy degrees that are not worth listening to, like the Ohio doctor (that somehow recently got her medical license back) that claimed the COVID vaccine was making people magnetic, Dr. Oz, etc.

Put another way, do you trust the alleged internet licensed electrician that says a ground wire makes you safer but can't explain why, the alleged internet licensed electrician that says a ground wire is worthless, or the person that says "fuck who I am, ground wires are important because they allow tying things like a metal mixer's body to an incomplete circuit, so that if the metal becomes electrified the circuit is instantly completed and the breaker trips. Alternatively, the circuit becomes completed when you touch the metal and you might die before the breaker trips. If you don't have a ground you can protect humans with a GFCI which detects current loss at the outlet and cuts the power locally. However, a GFCI may not detect some situations that a ground wire would resolve, like an arc that makes use of a grounded portion of the appliance and may generate enough heat to start a fire. AFCIs have been created to help detect this situation. However, both GFCI and AFCI can fail and thus a ground wire is still a useful backup option that also has value for some sensitive electronics."?

Most professionals aren't going to volunteer all of that, but many will volunteer more and more if challenged/questioned.

For reference, my background is in Software Engineering but my father is an electrician at a factory, and a good friend of mine is a forensic electrical engineer. I have no formal credentials in electrical engineering ... but I do know a fair bit about the what and why ... because I have been inquisitive, I've questioned the experts that I've come across to understand their field and learned from them.

Not to mention this was the first 2 years, the years an administration is typically least effective.

If Biden gets years 4-6 with a democrat majority in the house and senate it will be a big deal.

I'm waiting on the EV makers to pivot away from huge vehicles (https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/ford-rethinks-ev-strategy-is-working-on-a-smaller-cheaper-ev-platform/). I'm waiting for better charging infrastructure or at the very least a consensus on what plug is going to be used. I'm waiting for cars to be able to power homes during a power outage.

I don't think this is far away, maybe 2025 or 2026. However, it's not a great couple of years to buy right now. As I have a Camry in pretty good condition and don't drive a ton ... I fully intend to wait until I'm really ready to buy. As much as I want an EV, I want a good EV not debt for the sake of an ideal.

their only hope for a cheap option was artificially doubled in price overnight

Not true.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/02/ford-rethinks-ev-strategy-is-working-on-a-smaller-cheaper-ev-platform/

It varies, I think the most important part for any kind of online discussion is to establish credibility based on the argument not credibility based on title or degree.

It's also important to recognize a challenge on its own merits. I don't care if you flip burgers at Wendy's, if you can argue a point on the merits I'll hear you out (and try to politely explain why you're wrong -- in understandable language -- if needed).

I hate the "trust me bro I'm a X, it's an elite field, it would take years to explain this to you and you wouldn't even understand anyways" attitude some professionals take. The real experts that I've met and I respect can simplify the subject matter they're an expert of (to be digestible and reasonable to most people) and I aspire to be that insightful.

If you turn completely around are you going to same direction you were when you started?

I think it's valid that it's "completely turned my life around" and "I pulled a 180 and changed my life."

The term homeless people puts the emphasis on homeless, and allows NIMBYs to forget that these people are, in fact, people.

I really think this needs to be challenged. Sociologists need to prove this actually has some positive effect; I don't believe it does. Particularly in this case, homelessness was not an offensive term.

We just get ourselves into pointless debates about the politeness of a particular term, people looked down upon for "using an outdated term to talk about the issue" (and patting themselves on the back for "doing something for the issue"), while real people endure real suffering.

I don't believe anyone is going to suddenly see a person as a person because someone told them "we're relabeling that." If they're the dude in this article, they're going to roll their eyes and keep handing out fake money until people actually hold them accountable for their bad behavior.

This is not much different than the former University of Akron president trying to rebrand the university as "Ohio Polytechnic Institute" (to community outrage I might add).

The left wing of the US needs to stop relabeling shit and actually do something about it. Even at the local level, we have way too many mayors trying to solve homelessness by spending extra money to make urban design hostile to homeless people. That's not Republicans, that's not the labeling, that's a failure of the establishment to actually address affordable housing concerns and gaps in the social safety net.

I'm with the other person, virtue signaling in words is not helping the issues.

I do not believe the homeless community came out and said "I hate the word homeless, call me unhoused." There issue is AFAIK with houses, not name calling.

Saying "unhoused people" instead of "homeless people" doesn't make them sound any more like a person; it's just a different qualifier.

EDIT: Even worse in this case, there are a number of people that are trying to use "unhoused" to distance "homeless" from the traditional image of an unemployed person that may or may not be asking for money on a street corner. They want to capture people that may have employment but live in a car or something.

Like... This is pretty clearly about the former (someone struggling to make ends meet and begging for moeny), not someone struggling to buy a house.

It's the WSJ, it's the Fox News of print. It's going to have that "mostly true, but also any regulation is bigger than life" vibe.

NYTimes reported on different forms of this bill way back in December when things were still in infancy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html

If signed into law, the legislation, called the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023, could upend a growing sector of the housing market, and potentially increase the supply of single-family homes available for individual buyers. Homeownership, long a cornerstone of generational wealth in the United States, is increasingly out of reach for Americans as home prices and interest rates soar.

In separate legislation, Representatives Jeff Jackson and Alma Adams of North Carolina, both Democrats, introduced the American Neighborhoods Protection Act on Wednesday. That bill would require corporate owners of more than 75 single-family homes to pay an annual fee of $10,000 per home into a housing trust fund to be used as down payment assistance for families.

The bills were introduced three months after The New York Times published a story examining the impact of corporate-backed investment on Charlotte, N.C., where, in 2022, investors purchased 17 percent of the city’s homes in cash, often outcompeting first-time buyers who rely heavily on mortgages.

Investors buying up 17% of a city with nearly a population of 900,000 people is just nuts. If you say 4 people per household, that's roughly 38,250 homes.