So until we find a killer app for AI, they will just thoughtlessly shove it into every program and service gat they can, then increase the cost of those programs and services because the user has to pay for something that they never asked for, nor have a compelling reason to use. I refer to the recent increase in the Microsoft 365 plan costs being rolled out to the extent that a year’s subscription to the personal plan is almost the same as buying the standalone Office suite.

And how long would it take to update Linux Mint 20.0 (like your original typo) to 22.1? That would be more like the "full code swap" that they say this Windows update is. According to the Mint Upgrade guide, it can take several hours.

I completely hate the Windows Upgrade system, but there is no need to pretend that all Windows updates take an hour or that all Linux updates only take a couple of minutes.

So what crazy thing has Biden done? Did he mistakenly say the wrong state the a hurricane was going to hit (not unreasonable), but then double-down on this and try to force his officials to lie to back him up? No, that's right, that was Trump. So what stories have you heard?

Just because you chose to watch a specially curated compilation of shots that were not pointing at the insurrectionists who were breaking windows and attacking the Capitol Police does not mean that those things suddenly didn't happen.

Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack died by suicide afterwards. Do you really think that people waving placards and walking within velvet ropes would inspire officers to end their lives? The way you are trying to change the narrative is disgustingly disrespectful to those officers who put their lives on the line to protect democracy.

Oh my God, how self-centered can they be to think that the world was just waiting for the United States to finally do something about climate change to spur them into action. Just look at the first example given in the summary about the Australian Labor Party starting some big projects. The problem with the article's theory is that the ALP launched their Powering Australia Plan in December 2021 while they were the opposition party (and long before the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act). In this plan they pledged to spend around Aus$76 billion by 2030.

The party eventually won government in the 2022 election and put their plan into action. If the US hadn't passed the IRA, do you really think that Australia would have just said "Oh well, never mind. We will just have to wait for someone to inspire us to do it later"?

The PDF at the end of the above article states that they were aiming for "18% reduction in costs to consumers by 2025". While that seems highly unlikely given the levels of inflation seen in recent times (does the US get the blame for that?), I doubt that they were going to twiddle their thumbs for too long before beginning their projects.

Apple won its case.

No, Apple didn't win - at least not where it counts.

Apple had to change their App Store rules to allow third-party payment systems which meant that they no longer get an automatic cut of in-app purchases. Epic cares less about there being only one app store than they do about not having to share any of their sweet Fornite money.

Similarly, they care that Google's Play Store rules say that developers must use Google Pay for in-app purchases. It's always about the money.

Wait, what? Let me get this straight. Rather than inconveniencing you by having to drive by the government's EV charging stations that you won't be able to use, you would rather they implement draconian policies that limit how many children a family can have? That is insane!

Or maybe it is the cost that worries you. This project will cost less than 0.2% of the US tax revenue, which means that to reduce your tax bill by 0.2% you are willing to implement massive restrictions with the most basic rights of the country. And all this at a time when half the politicians in the country are trying to ban abortion, so I don't know how you think that limits on children would work.

I really can't see any point continuing this conversation. You started off here by asking a fairly reasonable question, but I see now that you are just throwing any sort of mud around to see what sticks even if the arguments are completely unhinged. Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't have to be careful because I don't have a vested interest in trying to hide the qualities of EVs. That said, I can get an extra power pack to charge my phone in emergencies, and I can get another car to give me a partial charge for my ICE car's battery. Eventually there will be the equivalent of a readily-available gas can for electric vehicles so that you can at least get to one of the charging stations that the government is trying to build.

As for your particular use case, it is fine if you have a need that is not currently met by electric vehicles, but the government isn't here to just cater for your needs. They have to cater for everyone else who is not in your situation. More importantly, they want to encourage the use of EVs for those who can use them since it will lower the nation's carbon emissions.

Good question. Firstly, since the alternative was the horse, there really wasn't the expectation or need to travel long distances. What was deemed to be the first cross-country automobile journey in Germany 1888 was only 66 miles. Hardly astonishing by today's standard and much less than how far you can travel between charging in an EV. But back then it was monumental! As for fuel:

With no fuel tank and only a 4.5-litre supply of petrol in the carburetor, she had to find ligroin, the petroleum solvent needed for the car to run. The solvent was only available at apothecary shops, so she stopped in Wiesloch at the city pharmacy to purchase the fuel. At the time, petrol and other fuels could only be bought from chemists [pharmacists in US English], and so this is how the chemist in Wiesloch became the first fuel station in the world.

In the early days, drivers could buy fuel in cans at any general store, hardware store, some blacksmith shops, and even mail order! They didn't need a massive infrastructure, just a tank to store the gas. They didn't need to worry about compatible sockets, or adding an power infrastructure that would not cause issues for other power users. But more importantly, there wasn't an impending climate crisis giving the government an urgent incentive to roll out charging stations at an accelerated rate.

There also wasn't any real competition for the car, as most people relied on walking, horses, trains, and trams. Today, electric vehicles have to compete against a VERY prevalent existing mode of transport. You simply cannot compare the need for charging stations now verses in early days of the automobile.

two things can be true at the same time.

Not in this case. You cannot simultaneously hold back funds while also handing out the money for it to be used for a different purpose. It is like how you can't eat your cake and have it too.

You also cannot definitively state that the OP was correct based on just your guess that NGOs and Non-Profits are getting in on the action. The original article states that "fewer than half of states have even started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers" and the delays are being blamed on the "labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements they have to navigate to receive federal funds"; so the problem is happening before any non-government entity has become involved.

Both you and the OP have relied on your preconceived idea the problem of government funding and NGOs that abuse them and not looked at the reported reality of the situation. Perhaps you were misled by the /. story title claimed that Congress had spent Billions on EV chargers when the reality was that they had just authorized the money and that nothing (or very little) had been spent.

The market for electric vehicles will not take off until there exists an infrastructure to support it, so waiting for it to take off before building that infrastructure simply does not make sense. Besides, EV prices have been dropping this year:

Helped by Tesla's price cuts, the average price paid in September for a new EV fell to $50,683, from $52,212 in August and $65,295 a year earlier, with incentives representing 9.8% of the transaction price, or $4,991, according to car buying platform Cox Automotive.

And further down in that same article they ask "Are prices the only thing holding EV buyers back?"

No, people worry about the lack of charging stations and battery life, surveys show. Seventy-seven percent and 73%, respectively, Ipsos said.

So now is indeed the right time to set up networks of charging stations to cater for a market that is rising constantly every year.

Where in the article did you see that funds were being used for other purposes, or did you just make this up? They are withholding money until the states show that they can do a proper job, which has led to delays. This is exactly the opposite of what you described.

If the private sector had already done it, then the government wouldn't have needed to step in. Leaving it to the private sector leads to competing charger standards and wasteful duplication of networks. Just because the private sector is better at doing some things does not mean that it is better at doing everything.

Can you cite a single quote from a Democrat where they even reference that Republicans freed the slaves, let alone show any sign that this has annoyed them. The only people who ever bring this up are the Republicans who want to deflect from the their current racism and attempts to defend slavery by saying that it was beneficial to some slaves:

Examine the various duties and trades performed by slaves (e.g., agricultural work, painting, carpentry, tailoring, domestic service, blacksmithing, transportation).

Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

Florida's State Academic Standards - Social Studies, 2023

I forgot to add my favourite quote of the song: