It depends on the jurisdiction, but in most cases if you have a salaried position with say 3 weeks of PTO but you only take 2 weeks of it. The employer is usually required to pay you over and above your salary for working during your “vacation time”.
If there’s an unlimited PTO policy, they don’t have an obligation to pay you extra for working during vacation time.
It’s a lie.
By making it “unlimited” they don’t need to pay you out of you don’t use all of PTO days.
If you use it more than they think you’ve earned you get terminated.
Employees end up afraid of taking their PTO days and typically end up taking even less time off than if they knew there was a expectation of 3 weeks or whatever.
My favourite thing ever seen in source code was a comment that read “this code is temporary” with developer initials and a date that was at the time about 5 years ago.
Followed by another dated comment from about 3 years later that read “Temporary my ass”
😂
Tesla’s biggest issue is Musk.
Tesla held a commanding lead over the other automakers in the self-driving segment a few years ago. Now they’ve all mostly caught up thanks to Musk’s unhinged firings. Tesla lost some of its best talent for no other reason than not wanting to work for an egomaniacal billionaire nut job.
Tesla needs to fire Musk before he runs it into the ground just like he’s done to Twitter.
Genuinely curious, what new features did that updated firmware have that were valuable to you?
“Green Hydrogen” is made by using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There’re no carbon emissions in that process, but to be truly “green” the electricity must come from a carbon free source like wind, solar, nuclear, or hydroelectric.
The process of electricity to hydrogen to compressed hydrogen to fuel cell to electricity is about half as energy efficient as electricity to li ion battery to electricity. As a form of electricity storage green hydrogen is significantly less efficient than batteries.
Green hydrogen only makes sense as a fuel in situations where batteries are not feasible.
And right now making green hydrogen at all does not make sense because if you build a new low carbon source of electricity it will make a larger impact if you use it to displace fossil fuel based electricity generation rather than using it to create green hydrogen.
What deference would it make if they did?
Moving sheep from on pasture land to another doesn’t change the emissions from these sheep.
The question is what happened to the land these sheep use to be on.
Your math checks out.
Charging a 600 mi battery in 9 minutes would require a charging station that can output somewhere north of 1.2 MW.
We need major upgrades to the electrical grid as well as doubling our electricity generation capacity for charging stations and vehicles like that to be common place.
This is the trolley problem.
The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments that should be morally equivalent. In all variations, the reader can choose to take an action that will directly result in the death of an innocent person who was otherwise ‘safe’, or do nothing and allow a larger group of people to die, and ask what is the morally correct choice.
There’s no right answer to the trolley problem. The interesting take away is that what most people agree is the morally correct answer depends how the problem is framed.
When the situation is framed as “you’re deciding between one person dying and many people dying” most people will agree the morally correct choice is the one where the fewest people die.
But when the situation is framed as “are you justified in murdering an innocent person to save many” most people agree the morally correct answer is no.
There’s even one variation where is is considered by most morally correct to murder one person to save many, if the person you’re murdering is responsible for putting the larger group in harms way in the first place.
It's not like the country was massively relying on nuclear energy at any point in time really.
Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors were generating almost 30% of its electricity a decade ago before they started phasing them out. It was their second largest source of electricity after coal.
Despite having built literally 100s of solar and wind farms in the past decade they still had to increase their coal output by 40 TWh to make up for the gap. A nuclear reactor generates a fuck ton of electricity.
And for what? Statically speaking 800x more people are killed in coal mining accidents per TWh generated than are killed by all nuclear power accidents combined. They phased out their largest source of carbonless electricity and the decision likely killed more people than would have died even if there was a nuclear accident.
I bought a dashcam for my vehicle, and choose to use it to protect myself from false accusations.
Body cams should be like dash cams, something used by employees to exonerate the person wearing them.
I’m not a LEO, and I can respect that maybe it’s not this simple.. but I would expect “honest” cops to voluntarily wear one to protect themselves from false accusations of abuse of power.
But when it crosses over from protecting the employee to big brother watching over you that’s the line.
Body cams used to protect the wearer - Good Body cams used to punish the wearer - Bad
I remember a time when ads weren’t crazy intrusive. They weren’t being shoved into every os and app and website.
There wasn’t 20 of them on every page, and advertisers weren’t trying to harvest my data to the point where they knew every last detail of my personal life.
And I didn’t mind having them in order to have “free” content. But they got greedy and now I’ll block them in every chance I get.
Maybe forcing ads into everything isn’t the answer.