It's not 99% of the same things, you have cherry picked.
There's many studies comparing the cost, I've never see any that put the saving as low as 10 to 15%, 50% is a more common figure.
Most manufacturers grantee their batteries , mine has a 10 year warranty.Batteries developing problems and needing to be replaces is not really a thing.
> It's not 99% of the same things, you have cherry picked.
No, I have not cherry picked.
Because the remaining 1%, topping-up oil, replacing gaskets, belts etc. is simply not where the bulk of ICE maintenance costs come from. This sort of stuff can be done cheaply and easily by your local garage.
The bulk of the ICE and EV maintenance costs is the same, the stuff that gets exposed to the wear-and-tear of the elements, i.e. your tyres, your windscreen, your shock-absorbers etc. etc.
An EV does not make you immune to getting nails in your tyres, chips in your windscreen, cracks in your shock-absorbers etc. ....
> Most manufacturers grantee their batteries , mine has a 10 year warranty
As with most things of this nature, I would be interested to see the wordings of such warranties, particularly the exclusion clauses. :)
> There's many studies comparing the cost...
And if we exclude studies funded/conducted by the EV companies or others with vested interests ? :)
> Most manufacturers grantee their batteries , mine has a 10 year warranty
A ten year battery warranty means most used car buyers would be without a battery warranty. My current car was 12 years old when I got it, and in basically pristine condition. Good ICE cars are very durable in a way that the batteries in EVs simply aren't.
This already happens for cars in the UK with 13 different road tax rates based on g/km co2 emissions. https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables . My last petrol car paid £0 road tax.
Overall that seems decent as far as privacy is concerned, though there are 2 things I don't like about it.
1. It relies on an 'aggregation service', which you'd better hope is trustworthy because they seemingly get all info about what 'impressions' you had and what 'conversions' you caused.
2. This is the browser acting on behalf of advertisers. It's nice there's a way for people to help companies benchmark their ads, but this really shouldn't be something a user agent does without being explicitly told to.
It uses multiple aggregation services, each of which get only partial data for each event, such that no individual service can track you, even if they wanted to. Initially the two aggregators are run by Mozilla and ISRG - your privacy is at risk only if you think both are malicious and actively sharing all the data between each other to track you.
As the number of aggregators increases this gets better - as long as you trust at least one aggregators involved then your individual data remains untrackable.
Also, in general if you think Mozilla is likely to _actively_ lie to you to steal your data and track you, you're probably using the wrong browser in the first place and the aggregation service makes little difference.
Given how our data circulates around the web’s data brokers, it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see that the risk of aggregators colluding the de-anonymize people is actually quite high.
They deny any direct benefit for the user, and then go on to list some actual downsides (CPU, network, and battery cost & privacy loss) for the user running their software.
> Any benefit people derive from this feature is indirect. [By] Making advertising better
Mozilla never fails to surprise by the choice of their alliances.
> Our view is that the costs that people incur as a result of supporting attribution is small. [...] In comparison [...] The value that an advertiser gains from attribution is enormous.
What would we all do without Mozilla saving dystopian corporate propaganda from the dreadful death through user choice?
I actually think this is a great initiative. Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere, and Mozilla is trying to come up with a version of that which isn't terrible. And this sounds reasonable.
Well since theft is also not going anywhere would you be OK with the police helping thieves as long as they make sure the thieves don't damage your house while taking your stuff?
Why do you think the advertising industry is pushing for this kind of crap? Because they ARE scared that the world is finally waking up to them and making their business effectively illegal.
Depends on your definition of tax evasion. It is either tautologically illegal or there are legal forms of tax evasion: any way that means someone is not paying their fair share of taxes.
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere
Sure they are - just install ublock origin.
Even if you're OK with the snooping and the attention hijacking and the slow pageloads and the pictures of rotting teeth, plenty of malware has been delivered by inept ad networks. Frankly, I find it strange when someone doesn't block ads.
Ads as a revenue model is not going anywhere even if you personally block them.
I'm also a ublock origin user. But it only works because most people in the world are not ublock origin users. I view no ads and am subsidized by the users who do.
> if everyone did that, there would be almost no more free websites
Wrong.
Let's ignore for the moment that ad-funded websites are not free but only pretend to be free (the average user pays eventually, otherwise ads would not make sense for the advertiser), non-commercial websites have existed longer than ad-funded ones. If anything, making "free" profitable invites profiteers that produce mediocre content but know how to out-SEO genuine free websites.
> So much of the internet is paid for through ads.
And the best thing for the Internet is if that part came crashing down. But even for the ad-supported part of the web, almost all of the actual content is generated by unpaid users.
You have no idea how I LONG for a return to that. I DEEPLY wish every single person would install an ad blocker. If ad supported slop went under that would leave us with just paid and passion projects, and we would be far better off for it.
> Let's be honest, ads and ad tracking is not going anywhere
True, they're not going anywhere on my systems since they get stopped at the gates; not one but many gates, defence in depth is the norm when dealing with vermin. We will fight them at the router, we will fight them in the name services, we will fight them at the firewall and in the applications. Wherever they come, we shall be. We will never surrender.
The ad industry can blame itself for this, they have shown themselves to be reliably unreliable and are no longer welcome.
I don't think it is a blunt instrument, in fact I'd say the complete opposite. It's been a nudge of industry in a direction that's better for society, in a way that keeps that playing field level for different manufacturers, reduced their overall tax burden and not cost consumers anything. All this while avoiding any harsh ban, you can still buy high sugar drinks if you wish.
Yes absolutely. It's not a tax aimed at consumers, or even raising revenue. It's to
incentivize manufacturers to reformulate their drinks to be less harmful and seems to have worked. An alternative might be a straight ban on high sugar drinks which seems blunt and less fair response.
Are you monetizing purely on the cost of the pro plan, or are you planning on selling data or leveraging affiliate programs ? I make no judgement on those strategies.
Bundlers also tie clients to developers without them realizing. I work for a webhost and Many people still assume that if they have access to their hosting then they have their "source code". We see often that people migrate a sites after breaking ties with a developer only to find what they have may function, but is unmaintainable.
Sounds like a contractual thing, not like a bundler thing. The client should always include a clause into the contract that the client must hand all work over after closing the partnership.
Client should ask, but ideally this will be written into the contract beforehand. I don't mind sharing source code but not for re-use in other projects.
Yeah this is no different than receiving a binary rather than the source, bundled code is close enough for this comparison (though it would be probably easier to unbundle code rather than decompile a binary, it’s still a fair amount of work)
You'd struggle to extract a maintainable codebase from a C# or Golang web server after the fact too. As an industry we've been making simple websites on shared hosting for over a generation, clients who ignore the entire world of information about the dangers and pitfalls on this topic are squarely to blame as negligent. It ranks up there with not paying taxes and then acting shocked when the government comes knocking.
While Javascript could potentially be contractually mandated to be written in a way to facilitate production codebase recovery, if you knew enough to ask for that you wouldn't, you'd require them to use your source control and to provide build/deployment scripts instead.
reply