I feel like this is the type of item meant specifically for rich people to waste their money on. You'll never actually use it, but it does look expensive when your house guests walk past it.
I accidentally wrote "no" instead of "yes", but I think you still got the point I was making.
I personally don't care about Google as a company. I'm a consumer, so I care ONLY about good content. I want the best available for the smallest price.
I can see you're just trolling people at this point, so have a good day.
YouTube is already a blackbox financially speaking. Nobody can say for certain how much money YouTube makes or loses, including YouTube/Alphabet. YouTube exists, like many other Google projects, to keep you using the Google ecosystem.
Should drivers pay for Google maps?
Should Gmail charge a fee for usage?
Should Docs charge per page?
Should free Play Store apps charge a fee?
If your answer to those questions is no yes, you're being narrow in your understanding of why they all exist: Google wants you using free services, because it incentivizes you to interact with their profiteering systems, namely AdSense. So if that's your interest, you might consider using social media sites integrated with AdSense so your data can be sold at a premium bundled with your account info.
Hopefully we get a game crossover with TW:Troy like in the Warhammer series. It's a pretty similar time period and uses all the same resources, so I could see Agamemnon doing battle with Ramses.
Yeah basically. Whenever a battery is used, its capacity is slightly reduced over time. If you ever watch a FE race, they're finishing the race with like 0.1% battery remaining, because at 0% they're disqualified. So since they're racing for millions of dollars, it's only sensible to spend thousands to improve their chances of not getting disqualified.
Oh nothing. The FIA has actually made promises to open up battery development back during the Gen-2 cars. Manufacturers and fans are still waiting though.
They can't even really claim it's something that would financially affect the teams, since the batteries and powertrains aren't made in-house. They're made by Maserati, Porsche, and Mercedes.
Correct, it's the batteries and powertrains. F1 uses hybrid powertrains, but at the end of each year cars 'transferrable parts' are often sold from one team to another, put in car museums, or scrapped.
FE has a similar process, except nobody wants to put a big dumb battery in a museum, and nobody wants to buy a used battery for their cars (I think they're not allowed to). So whenever a part isn't being used, it's always scrapped. This can include buying a brand new battery for each race, as any depletion may cause a driver to become disqualified for going over the 600kw limit. A new battery every race, even if recycled, is still incredibly wasteful. In comparison, F1 batteries can be used for a whole season.
They're lying about reusing tyres too. Teams often purchase extras and get fined for it, because it's really dumb to race a whole season on 4 sets of tyres.
Okay, so motorsports have always been considered an innovator in automobile development. Disc brakes, seatbelts, headlights, and anti-lock braking all come from motorsports, and thus the claim put forward by car manufacturers "motorsports innovations make regular driving safer/better" has merit.
In FE, the cars have regulations saying what parts can be modified and improved, and what can't. One of those things that can't be modified on the racecars are the batteries (and powertrains). So no smaller batteries, or more powerful batteries, or different battery casing, or different material components. Every car on the track has been using the same type of 600kw lithium batteries since the beginning of Gen-3 cars.
Manufacturers want to use motorsports as a test bed for trying out new parts and ideas too expensive or risky to put into a production car, so the FIA choosing to block manufacturers from making more efficient batteries for FE means that there's no real innovation going on, despite FE writing the word "innovation" on tons of articles and promotional material.
It can be either depending on implementation. If created to supplement lacking welfare services I'd say it's progressive leaning. If used to replace and prevent welfare systems (Andrew Yang style), I'd say it's pretty libertarian leaning.
American gen-Z punk rock anarchist, for what it's worth.
In the sense that it uses progressive language, without actually being progressive in action. It's advertised as being socially progressive while racing in Dubai, eco friendly while transporting supplies on oil burning ships, and being innovative despite blocking battery development.
Yup. FE is about fast cars racing down narrow streets. "Racing to save the planet" is such lame marketing with no real substance, especially considering that each FE car produces more emissions throughout the season than F1 or NASCAR due to expensive manufacturing. And the real potential for innovations has been crushed by blocking development of batteries and powertrains.
Hazel is actually the main person who's made me so critical of FE since 2020ish. I'd love to see her in a full time position for the sport, even for one of the teams. However she has stated several times that she loses money by going to FE events, even when it's paid for.
It's fuckin sad, but the only motorsport that makes me feel included and welcome is rally.
I honestly think it's too broad of a question since each of those types of people will be doing vastly different things through their time at home. I might play with my dog more often when unemployed, while a homemaker is on their feet caring for a child, and a retired person is doing home maintenance. All of those are different activities on foot, but maybe not available to people in different situations.
I could note however, my grandma has a standing sewing machine that's pretty cool. As for books, I've used a music stand in the garage before, though maybe a podium of sorts would be better in the house.
To be fair, cars can be used indefinitely if maintained. No blackberry from decades past can function on today's cell and Internet networks effectively, even if maintained.
I think much of this issue is created directly by the contracts created the phone companies. For example, I needed a new phone after my old Motorola failed to boot. It was in pretty bad shape with a cracked screen and mangled charging port, so a new phone was in the cards. I had expected to get another cheaper Motorola, but the added fees to switch would've doubled the cost of the phone. Instead, I opened a new line and got a Pixel 7 for free (plus headphones), and kept my old phone active for a single month.
It's a finance thing for most ultimately. $400 to get a new Motorola, or $55 to get a new Google Pixel. The contracts are rigged to get you setup with a mainstream phone, so you'll consider upgrading to the next release for a discounted price.
You mean those services that offer to do the driving for people have impacted the way they live?
Wow, I had no idea business could alter how people spend their money. Someone should write a book on this or something. Truly revolutionary.