Maybe I should have worded it different. Once in a while places with high population centers have relative power shortages. According to that article the last California controlled blackout due to power shortages was 2022, so it’s not like we’re talking third world regular brownouts or anything.

I just meant it in the way that the power grid is old and was built during a time when we used less power, and while it generally works it’s already at capacity and increasing capacity would require a lot of investment and cooperation.

In this particular case, a small grid controlled by one bureaucratic entity, as apposed to many bureaucratic entities across multiple countries, might be more easily modified. But, to my knowledge, none of them could support a sudden increase in power needs as they are currently (see the several big Texas blackouts, or the above article).

No, all three grids US don’t have the power to support most cars becoming electric atm. Heck, on the west coast they occasionally have controlled blackouts because there’s not always enough power as it is. The Texas grid, while having some flaws, would probably be the most agile to be modified on a dime. The US east and west grid need to deal with the US Feds, US States, Canadian Feds, and Canadian provinces and would probably take more time to modernize.

Edit: Copying my below reply for clearification Maybe I should have worded it different. Once in a while places with high population centers have relative power shortages. According to that article the last California controlled blackout due to power shortages was 2022, so it’s not like we’re talking third world regular brownouts or anything.

I just meant it in the way that the power grid is old and was built during a time when we used less power, and while it generally works it’s already at capacity and increasing capacity would require a lot of investment and cooperation.

In this particular case, a small grid controlled by one bureaucratic entity, as apposed to many bureaucratic entities across multiple countries, might be more easily modified. But, to my knowledge, none of them could support a sudden increase in power needs as they are currently (see the several big Texas blackouts, or the above article).

deleted by creator

You can prevent recall from running and collecting data, you just can’t remove it entirely without breaking some features. I don’t think you can replace the file explorer, it’s your desktop n stuff as well as file exploring, but preventing recall from running might be your best bet. Or, alternatively, if you don’t use the features that you lose in file explorer by removing recall then you might be fine just removing recall and continuing on.

I’d be afraid of wearing out a battery super fast. Outside of super long trips that require recharging to arrive, I’d much rather leave a car plugged in overnight rather than need to pay to replace batteries. Also, like @[email protected] said, it’s a lot of power at once that could get dangerous if something goes wrong or overload grids if lots of people start fast charging their cars.

Though of course I’m sure it’s a great achievement and hopefully the research is useful.

From my understanding, you can prevent Recall from running just fine, you only can’t remove it.

From the video sounds like it can be prevented from running, just not removed.

Sorry, not sure if you intended to reply to my post or if it was intended for another comment. If you were intending to reply to me, I doubt they’ll ban the Israeli flag, although they also haven’t banned the Palestinian flag either. They started removing one emoji when used as a representation of something that violated their rules and wanted to clarify the slightly misleading headline on The Intercept’s part.

Again, though, as I said above I’m still not a fan of the rule. Meta has made a lot decisions (moderation and otherwise) that I’m not a fan of.

“user is clearly posting about the conflict and it is reasonable to read the red triangle as a proxy for Hamas and it is being used to glorify, support or represent Hamas’s violence.”

It sounds less bad than the title, not an outright ban on the emoji just a ban on using it as a proxy for otherwise banned ideas. Still not a fan of Meta’s longstanding belief they’re the arbitors of morality and what may be discussioned.

It feels almost coordinated to get you to feel like all companies are compromised, so you should just use the popular thing and forget about privacy and security.

People are criticizing Mozilla for the ads, tracking, and AI stuff. The stuff Google does. Criticizing Mozilla is not an endorsement of Google, in fact quite the opposite.