I was pretty surprised to learn that Interac e-transfer or equivalent isn’t commonplace everywhere.

There’s zero MS in the stack on anything with SYNC4 and newer. Your salesperson is wrong. Even development is largely done on Ubuntu. SYNC 4 has two front ends, one’s Qt which has some Panasonic outsourcing baggage, the newer one is web based. The latter is what’s in the Mach-e. Since about 2017 all of this has moved in house. Ford hired the whole BlackBerry mobile R&D org in late 2016 - people, offices and everything. It’s had an honest-to-god software org since then.

Your Flex probably had the older SYNC iteration that was MS developed. BTW I’m not sure if it was Windows based or whether it was QNX with MS devs creating the software stack on top of it.

Found the Canadian.

Jesus fucking Christ. And exactly how are they gonna do that? Condition a ceasefire on an election rigged against Hezbollah-friendly candidates?

Late on Friday night, the Israeli army issued a statement alleging that Hezbollah was using medical vehicles to transport fighters and weapons, warning that it would strike any vehicle it suspected of being used for military purposes.

Let’s see how long is this line gonna work.

SYNC 4 is QNX, the next gen units like the one in the new Lincoln Nautilis is QNX + Android with some Linux on other ECUs. MS is firmly gone from Ford vehicles.

Looks straight out of Toronto QEW downtown.

PFAS, microplastics, airborne plasticizers, and more. You are guaranteed to win the chemical lottery. Not that I’m anti-chemical, that’s silly, but I’m talking specifically about dangerous chemical pollution of the environment.

This is scarier than the original.

Neither is SteamOS.

Valve is doing this? Not Android since 2008?

Heck we know people don’t give a shit what’s under the covers since at least the switch between Windows 98 and 2000/XP, the latter being a very different OS. It could have been BSD or Linux and people wouldn’t have bat an eye if the start menu looked the same and Word, Corel Draw, Photoshop and AutoCAD worked.

I haven’t seen any report of missiles targeting populated areas. Only military targets. So I think we can scratch that from the equation. Either they let everything that was targeting the base fall or they were defending it and some got through. Doesn’t make sense that they intentionally let some hit the hangars and runways if they were defending the base. I doubt they can tell exactly where every projectile is gonna fall. It’s possible that they focused more on the other base that was being targeted. But I find it unlikely that they didn’t defend this base given they use it for their F35 fleet. At the very least there could have been enough damage to put it out of service for a while.

It’s still only a few reps.

So it seems Iran overstated the accuracy of their missiles and Israel understated how many got through.

“Create an Haitian cooking a tabby cat in a spit fire, the background should look like a typical Ohio town”

And the capital gathered through this automation won’t redistribute itself to keep people fed without a fight.

Oh the units conversion looks promising. Might replace Ultra Measure Master for me. I think it doesn’t quite work yet.

Is the author’s username a play on “jerkoff”? No his name is Jost Herkenhoff.

It might also save it from shit controllers and cables which ECC can’t help with. (It has for me)

Oh this is an interesting argument.

Posting this further up for visibility.

Maybe I’m stupid but there’s this table:

It seems like they’re not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.

Then there’s also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:

The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).

Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?