Cethin

They said they believe it was a mislabeled update. MS didn’t respond. Before criticizing others for their reading comprehension, I think you could work on yourself too.

There is a world, and it may be ours, where MS purposefully pushes this out. As the end of the article makes clear, this will be only a minor issue for those with good backup (which they probably all should but they don’t), but for those who don’t they’ll be stuck with the new version and have to pay for the license of it. This is a large benefit to MS while they also get to pretend like it’s just a mistake and not having backups makes it your issue, not theirs.

The apartment I was last in was several stories tall and, as such, the parking lot was shaded most of the day. Most of the parking spaces were even in a parking garage, so they get no sunlight. If you’re in an apartment, odds are this won’t work for you either.

There are companies working on non-permanent balcony solar though, which isn’t as good as rooftop but still something. That’ll still only work for probably about half of apartments (facing east or west), but it’s inexpensive.

We do need solutions for apartment dwellers, but a solar car probably isn’t it. We need to require a certain amount of availability of electric charging at apartments, and we also need better public transportation options and bike Infrastructure. This is a gimmick solution, not a real solution.

I think you might have jumped to the conclusion this company is trying to sell solar cars with unlimited (outside?) range.

No, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be less effective than the alternative of rooftop solar + conventional EV. There is no world in which this is better. Rooftop solar will always have better solar access, and conventional EV will be cheaper because of effeciency of scale. This design is limited to powering the car only, and will never be as ideally situated as rooftop solar. The opportunity cost of this car will be worse than rooftop solar + EV. Sure, for people with unlimited money it might sell, but most of us don’t have that and have to compare cost to value and choose the best option for that.

Everything requires R&D, but doing more things requires more R&D. It’s not just an EV, which requires it’s own R&D.

Custom means it has one purpose, not that it’s a one-off. No one else will be using the same panels they will be, so they don’t benefit from the scale of mass-produced panels (and 10,000 is not a large number even if that’s the number they have pre-ordered).

That’s what I’m on too. It’s Arch based, which may scare some people because of the reputation, but it’s so easy. It comes with tools to install any packages you may need for gaming or other applications. It also comes setup with the AUR so you can “easily” (you have to use the terminal for this, but it’s not hard) install packages from there.

For gaming Garuda dragonized is probably the best way to go. I hate the “gamer” aesthetic, but that’s easy to change.

Why not both is because most people don’t have unlimited money. It’s about opportunity cost. It’d be better to buy a cheaper EV and better rooftop solar than and expensive EV that has mediocre solar charging.

For sure they should test them separately if they’re doing this though, or at least not use custom ones for the prototype. You can buy small panels for a reasonably good price, and they could just stick those on the car for a proof of concept. The problem with this is it’d prove that the amount of power required is way more than is going to be generated. If they can talk about concepts then then people can still wonder “what if…” If they actually implement it then it makes it obvious there’s no reasonable path to a good market and they lose FC funding.

It will not be cheap. It’s going to be the price of an EV + the price of custom shaped solar + the price of R&D + the price of being a niche product and not having the efficiency of scale. It’ll be a novelty without any doubt.

Again, I said ideally. When will it ever outperform solar on a rooftop of the same size? How much more size could you get for the price?

It would never overcome its opportunity cost, even if it recovers it’s cost (which you’re speculating on and have no idea of the cost). You could spend the extra money for a solar car, or spend the money for rooftop solar. Rooftop solar will always outperform it for the price, so you have a negative opportunity cost.

For sure. I’ve always lived an idea like that. You can buy portable solar panels you can throw up on your roof when parked though, or place them elsewhere, so I don’t know if it’s required. It’s a concept I could see actually working though. Not this.

Protondb is your friend. I haven’t actually been there in months though as everything I’ve played recently has just worked without issue.

Try Linux for gaming now. It’s incredibly good. Most games run on par with Windows, with a few actually running better on Linux. There’s only a handful of games that don’t run on Linux, and that’s games with DRM or anti-cheat that has chosen to not support it. I think I’ve even heard that Valorant, with its kernel level AC can (with some difficulty) run Linux, but I’d probably just say to avoid it if you don’t mind.

Price. Large standardized panels are cheaper. Until you cover static otherwise unused space with solar, there’s no way this car is a better use of money.

It’s not any more free than any other EV. it still uses energy. That energy can only be used for the car though. Put some solar on your house and it can charge your car (not free, the price of the panels same as the car). It will also be more efficient because it can be placed ideally, unlike the car. It’ll also be cheaper for a larger area because it can take advantage of cheap standard panels instead of expensive custom ones.

Yeah, this is why it’s dumb. When is a parked car parked ideally to capture sunlight? Just put the money into solar panels on a building or in a field, charge your car when parked, and you have a much better and cheaper product. The solar panels on the building can also be used to power other things, unlike the car. It’s such a stupid idea and will be very expensive to get custom panels for the car that aren’t super fragile and also efficient. Just spend that money and larger cheap panels. This is purely to get VC funding and nothing more. It’s a waste of time and energy.

True, but my understanding is the amount of solar energy that hits an area the size of a car multiplies by the max possible solar energy conversion is still far below what’s needed to power a car. Sure, you can continue to charge it while parked, which is cool. However, you could also put cheaper non-custom panels on a building and then plug your non-solar electric car into it to charge while parked, and the building panels will have significantly better solar exposure and be cheaper per panel.

If your goal is making something effective that reduces carbon output, an EV and solar on a building is much better. If you’re creating junk to get VC funding, this is what it looks like. If this comes to market at all, it’s not going to make any waves, except maybe for how impractical it is.

If it went to court at all, it’s not clearly legal. You saying “the courts” as a singular entity is misrepresenting the facts. Courts frequently come to different conclusions. Can you argue it’s legal? Sure. You can also argue it isn’t. A single court case is not consensus, it’s precedence (on the issues in that case specifically).

AG Garland, in a lawsuit by the US DOJ has this to say:

“Monopolies like Apple’s threaten the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based. They stifle innovation. They hurt producers and workers and increase cost for consumers,” Garland said Thursday.

“If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly. But there’s a law for that,” he added.

Clearly the AG believes them to be a monopoly. I assume he knows more about that law than both of us combined.

It could absolutely be argued Apple is definitely doing illegal stuff too. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean that’s true. Apple is doing a lot of things to lock consumers onto their platform and not allowing competition.

Ah, OK. I don’t think I ever heard about that resolving, or if I did I didn’t care. That’s good that they were forced to allow that. It should probably go further still, like this Google case.

IIRC they are doing things like requiring payments to go through them, and all kinds of other monopolistic stuff. Yeah, they aren’t doing all the same things, but they’re doing a lot of it, and it’s more restricted by default so it’s even more pervasive.

Who’s boot? Linus’s or Putin’s? I’m assuming you’re on Russia’s side by your instance. It’s weird how constituent you people are. Literally anything, you’re defending Russia. If the US was invading a sovereign nation to take it under its influence, I’m sure you’d be against that. As would I, because I’m morally consistent. You somehow justify Russia’s actions yet are against the west expanding and exerting their influence. Care to enlighten me to the difference?

And before you answer: no, Ukraine is not part of Russia and did not start the invasion. Even under the USSR it wasn’t part of Russia. It was a member state of a union of states, as the name implies. Russia does not have any right to it.