I used to work at a place that made smart chargers for EVs. They did all sorts of intelligent scheduling, V2H and V2G, grid response and load shedding, some really clever stuff. The standard for most charger interfaces allows for the vehicle to communicate a load of information to the charger, and almost none of them implemented any more than the bare minimum. I'm many cases the charger can't even tell how full the car's battery is, it just has to charge until the car disconnects itself and stops charging, and assume it's done so because it's full. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Teslas don't communicate as much over OBD as you'd expect given the standard it supposedly implements. Manufacturers seem to be quite content to keep that stuff proprietary wherever they can.

A lot of food places, particularly eat-in restaurants, are just perpetually struggling. Half the staff are on minimal pay, or the owner's friends and family helping out. They struggle and lose money for a few years before finally folding. A regular who has no idea about the industry buys the place and keeps much of it the same because they always loved it. The process repeats.

Continuing to support demand for beef at current rates as the population grows means that beef production must increase. That means we need more cows. Where do you propose we put all those cows? The current solution has been to cut down trees to create usable land. What's your alternative?

Indeed. That would be terrible. I sure do hope such a thing never comes to pass. Just imagine how bad it would be.

Just imagine.

The water level will be affected by the car's acceleration, which is likely also affecting your inner ear and causing the illusion in the first place.

If prices go up, and stay up, eventually things like salaries have to go up too, at least a bit. If you need a certain amount per month to live when last year you could get by on less, you'll need a job that pays you enough to live. In theory if the price of goods has gone up then the value of whatever you're producing for your company has gone up so they can afford to give you the extra (in practice they take a lot of the extra as profit and pass on just enough to retain employees and no more). Of course, it's the same physical item, so eventually it all sort of balanced out.

You can see this if you look at it in the long term. In 1970 the average salary in the UK was something like £1200 per year, and a house cost £4500 or something. Today the average UK salary is over £27,000 and a house is around £285,000. The houses haven't got 61 times larger or anything, that's just inflation. So, yeah, you kind of are just stuck with it.

My setting has a kingdom whose last king died and their heir went missing; the last king had become a bit of a mad tyrant when they were alive, so the people are in no hurry to have another one. The country is ruled by a Regent's Council with the elected Regent as a sort of chairperson. Every session of the Council starts with a statement that the King can't be present and that the council will make decisions in his stead. It's been so long that the king's heir, who was a toddler when the king died, would be middle-aged by now, but they're in no hurry to find him and the heir himself has no intention of coming forward, if he even knows that he's technically king. They've basically become a democratic republic while still being a kingdom on paper - which is deliberate, because there would be political consequences to not being a kingdom any more. For years everyone's just politely pretended not to notice.

One thing I often see is people not understanding the difference between secrecy and privacy. They ask why it matters if you're not doing anything wrong. A UK government minister actually said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", and then backpedaled when someone pointed out they were quoting Joseph Goebbels. The analogy I've seen is simple: I'm sure you don't do anything illegal in the shower, but I'm also pretty sure most people would be uncomfortable with a law that required you to have a police officer standing in you bathroom with a video camera to record you showering, just in case.

The other thing is the assumption that any information about you that the government actually has about you will only be used against you if you commit a crime, in which case you'll deserve it - if you're not a bad person then it's fine. This is a double fallacy.

First, we've seen that information can be used to do all sorts of things regardless of wrongdoing - if someone knows enough about you, they can use it to manipulate you. I don't mean blackmail or whatever, although that's an option. I mean that with a clear enough picture of your preferences and biases and habits, someone can tailor their actions and information to your psychology and make you think whatever they want you to agree with.

Second, it assumes that you won't ever commit a crime because crimes are bad things and you're not a bad person. This overlooks the possibility of you being mistakenly accused while innocent, but more importantly it overlooks the possibility that the government will change into something that holds different moral values to yours. Even in the modern world we've seen places outlaw abortions, or criminalise homosexuality, or pass laws on what religions you're allowed to follow. If that happens in your country and you find yourself on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary line they've now drawn, you may regret giving them so much information about you - information that lets them identify you, prove that you broke their new rules, and ruin your life in so many ways.

The default principal of any exchange with governments, businesses, or any entity taking your information should be to give as much information as is required for them to perform the operation you're requesting of them, and no more - and wherever possible to only engage with those entities that you trust to have that information; a trust that they earn by a verified and unbroken track record of ethical and trustworthy behaviour.

Jade Phoenix Mage was pretty cool. The capstone ability was that you literally explode, dealing a huge amount of damage to everything nearby and literally vaporising yourself. Then you reform on the same spot 1d6 rounds later completely healed of damage and most conditions, with all your gear.

Let's imagine there was somehow zero rental market. Imagine there was a law against purchasing a dwelling and then not actually using it as your residence. People still need to live somewhere, so there would be a demand for housing. People would see a profit in meeting that demand, so someone would build and sell housing. Currently, those who can't afford to buy a home have rental as a cheap alternative. Without that, there would be an open niche for something to meet the need for housing. There would be a market pressure to solve the discrepancy between the price of housing and the available capital of the average person. House prices might be forced down, salaries might be forced up, I don't know what would happen precisely but there would be a pressure to make it possible for people to live somewhere.

You can see evidence for this in what happened in a lot of major cities. People have been able to use one home that they own as collateral in buying a second, and then use the income from renting it out to pay that off plus a little profit. That leaves them with two properties as collateral and a little cash spare, making it easier to do it again with a more expensive place. Rinse and repeat and you've got wealthy landlords buying up all the properties so there's no need for the people selling those properties to drop prices to where first-time buyers can afford them - the usual dynamics of supply and demand that keep prices in reach of buyers have been disrupted, and the two types of buyer separate into two tiers that get pushed further apart, getting harder and harder for people to jump from the lower tier to the upper. This is how you end up with people paying £1000 in rent while the bank tells them they can't have a £700-a-month mortgage because they can't afford it, and that £1000 a month leaves them nothing left over to save up for the £30,000 deposit they'd need anyway. The market pressure that led to this situation are obvious, and reversing those pressures is the most obvious way to fix the situation.

A lot of the punchlines are "ha ha, aren't they weird?", which hits totally different if you're the sort of person who the character is an obvious caricature of. Doubly so if the weirdness in question is associated with some form of neurodivergence. For some people - myself included - a lot of the laughs in that show feel very much like they're laughing at you, not with you. It's only funny if you identify more with the people on the other side of the joke.

Yes.