Voluntary recalls are actually more common than ordered recalls. Manufacturers usually don’t wait for the NHTSA to get involved.

What makes it a recall is that either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determine that there’s a safety defect or that the vehicle doesn’t confirm to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

So I believe the terminology is required by the NHTSA if it fits the above definition regardless of how the issue is addressed.

Of course this is for the US and this is a recall in China but I’m assuming similar legal requirements are involved.

I’m speaking from a US point of view. To my knowledge there are no 240 watt USB-C chargers in existence.

There are a handful that claim 240 watts but upon closer inspection only provide a max of ~100 watts per port.

There are cables sold with a 240 watt rating but no actual chargers.

I don’t think there are any 240 watt chargers on the market though despite it theoretically being supported. Last I read, there were some doubts around if it was truly feasible. Laptops that require more than 90 or so watts still come with proprietary chargers because they can’t charge at full rate over USB-C.

My Dell laptop is 240 watts and the only way to charge it at full rate over USB is to buy a proprietary $250 charger from Dell that provides two USB cords that must be plugged in together to achieve a combined 240 watts. The 90 watt charger from my old laptop won’t keep it running for more than an hour.

Anyway, hopefully we see 240 watt USB-C in the future but at the moment it seems to be vaporware. Maybe this ruling will push it forward.

Vanilla bean is one. A lot of the people who produce it don’t really understand why we want it.

It’s not though. There are lots of use cases that electric vehicles are not suitable for (many covered in this thread). Sure there’s people who could switch and don’t out of fear or unwarranted concern but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re simply not feasible for a lot of people currently and PHEV’s are a great middle ground that can still vastly reduce emissions and that’s the goal here isn’t it?

Yea those prices are high. You can typically get a rebuilt engine installed for between $2500-5k but you have to go to a shop that specializes in rebuilds. A regular mechanic can’t do that type of work and will just be looking for something they can drop in.

People in the US typically only take domestic flights between major cities and usually only if they are traveling a long distance (across multiple states).

One reason for this is because you usually have to rent a car when you reach your destination anyway. So if you fly two states away to visit family, land in the closest city to where they live, now you have to rent a car at the airport and drive a couple of hours to their house. You’ve now paid for a flight and a car rental and you probably could have gotten there cheaper and just as quickly, if not faster, if you drove.

It’s a great stop gap and it’s the bridge we need. It would reduce the great majority of emissions (those produced by commuters) while allowing people to drive longer distances without worry.

It buys us time to build out charging infrastructure and introduces people to the concept of a plug in vehicle.

Expecting everyone to switch to full electric overnight is unrealistic. There are still a lot of logistical issues we have to solve.

They pulled it. Google didn’t.

TLDR: Ubuntu Pro offers additional security patches to packages found in the universe repo. Universe is community maintained so Ubuntu is essentially stepping in to provide critical CVE patches to some popular software in this repo that the community has not addressed.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it but I don’t really see this as withholding patches. Software in this repo would otherwise be missing these patches and it’s a ton of work for Ubuntu to provide these patches themselves.

Now is they move glibc to universe and tell me to subscribe to get updates I’ll feel differently.

I wish communities would start banning that bot. It’s summaries are mostly awful, typically missing critical details in an article to the point of completely altering itsintent.

This example is particularly egregious though, I think it had a stroke.

I’ve had two Dell laptops that ran Ubuntu perfectly. Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed and also certifies models for Linux. Their Linux support is top notch in my experience.

Honestly this is probably me going off of outdated or even incorrect information. The fact that it has little adoption for that use case or as a root filesystem is probably the larger factor.

It’s been awesome to see Ubuntu embrace it over the last few releases though and that’s certainly starting to change things but since it’s not part of the Linux kernel that gives most other distros pause I think.

I don’t believe it’s been marked stable yet but it doesn’t suffer from the raid write hole like BTRFS and claims to be more performant than ZFS’s implementation.

With it being merged into the kernel it should get much wider use and hopefully that helps it reach stability.

I was referring to its lack of use as a root filesystem. It’s primarily used for large storage arrays both at home and in data centers.

I’m really excited for this. If it lives up to the hype I think it could become the defacto filesystem some day.

BTRFS, despite being a great filesystem, got a bad rep mostly due to its poor RAID5/6 implementation. It also lags behind in performance in many configurations and has been mostly relagated to a specialty filesystem. While it could make a great root filesystem few distros have adopted it as such.

ZFS has been similarly pigeon holed. It’s typically only used for building large arrays because it’s not very safe when used on a single device (edit: After some research this may not be true and is probably outdated or incorrect info stuck in my head) . It also lacks a lot of the flexibility of BTRFS, though you could say it trades flexibility for reliability.

bcachesfs on the other hand feels like it has the potential to be adopted as a root file system while also providing replication, erasure coding, high performance and snapshots; something that no filesystem has managed to date, at least on a wide scale.

In my experience, at least in the US, most people aren’t getting rid of their car because a new car is cheaper, they do it because the cost to repair the old car exceeds the current car’s value. This is actually a very poor justification for buying a new car but it happens all the time. People get scared when they get a high repair bill and jump into a multi year auto loan costing 250+/month.

Cars are expensive here though so you’re unlikely to buy new for much less than 20k and the reality is most consumers aren’t buying base model cheap compact cars.

Of course you may be able to buy used cheaper but people who are afraid of repair bills aren’t usually rushing out to replace one old car with another.

What you described is already done with ICE vehicles. Engines and transmissions are rebuilt all the time. Even cars that are totaled are typically given a second life.

Ultimately it’s the vehicle’s body and frame that determine when it’s at the end of it’s life. You’re not going to put a new battery in a tesla with a rusted out frame.

Arguably the lifespan could be worse for EVs since replacing the batteries is so expensive (more than a typical engine rebuild) that many probably won’t be willing to put that much money into an old vehicle.

He’s actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.

The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.

So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.

I don’t know what provoked the OP’s comment. I just wanted to add context because I personally made a lot of bad assumptions from it before reading the article.

Also I don’t know that your statement is accurate and global warming is never brought up in the article.