jamkey

Oooh, you just gave me a thought of mine! My bedside stand was a hand-me down from a college friend in the 90s. So I’ve been using that for close to 30 years now.

I think the idea is both are adding new files and also making changes to various files but his commits to the non-new files caused the conflict. Also, if both new files affect the same deliverable (like a DLL) then that could create a conflict in some cases (though I think that all depends on the build system).

This is not my thesis but someone else’s but as a counterpoint to this platitude, look at the difference between Lincoln versus Nixon. Both were leaders at pivotal times but they took very different ethical directions. Sometimes character and background DOES matter and we SHOULD expect more of our leaders. Just assuming they will all be corrupt makes up disengage from the process.

What is this? Photoshop Fryday?

How many of those are real serious recalls that they didn’t just fix with easy tweaks over the air? I hate Musk as much of the next guy but I follow a lot of EV YT channels and even the ones that don’t like Tesla acknowledge that the media overhyped the recalls given how many of them have been easy OTA fixes. Plus since they iterate very fast and don’t just update the car once every four years often it only affects a small subset. Like 1-4k cars in some cases rather than the typical 100k recall that Toyota would have.

To be fair, there are some good ones out there. I worked for a drug-rehab company in the 90s as the IT head that got mostly government funding for a 6 month-rehab-program for non-violent drug offenders (mostly stuff like heroine, cocaine, etc.). We also had an in-prison program but I don’t think that was as effective. Of course to get government contact money we would have to meet lots of strict guidelines too.

I definitely more wary of ones that don’t get any public funding and therefore have practically no guardrails and less forced transparency.

Exactly! Just what I’ve been saying! Do your own research!

You absolutely should keep on watching YT. In fact I can specifically highly recommend the channel DukeUnivLibraries. This video with almost 1M views will sway in just the first 15 seconds but you will not be able to peel your eyes away for the entire 3 minutes and 14 seconds. Prepare yourself. Get some popcorn. https://youtu.be/e1iGEM9NMFM

Well, these goals are about sustainability of batteries and electric related "stuff" in general not just phones. Phone affect us the most in terms of everyday life and addiction but in terms of long term impact to the environment and what we need to focus on the most that's a harder nut to crack b/c we don't know how growth will happen moving forward. So I think this makes sense to have a broad/sweeping legislation that covers lots of mediums and has different targets depending on the size/usage of the "thing". Obviously removing a battery from a car is not the same thing (in terms of complexity or even 'need') as removing a battery from an electric scooter.

There seem to be different target/goals based on the applicance/vehicle type. The title is a bit terse on this post but it's obviously the most catchy, so I get it. EV's would fall into the group needing to have some recycled content in them. From the article:

The regulation provides for mandatory minimum levels of recycled content for industrial, SLI batteries and EV batteries. These are initially set at 16% for cobalt, 85% for lead, 6% for lithium and 6% for nickel. Batteries will have to hold a recycled content documentation.

Relay for Lemmy? Explain, por favor.