Not to be that guy, but for at least a few years recently I have had zero issues printing from arch and tons of issues printing from Windows on the same printer lol
It's not political difference, it's disinformation and propaganda. Just look, even if you're conservative you should be able to see how messed up it is unless you lack critical thinking skills
I highly doubt 20% of light bulbs purchases are going to appliances. Refrigerators have been using LEDs for over a decade now, and even when they weren't, they lasted significantly longer due to being operated at colder temperatures and for significantly less time. Oven lights also last a long time because they are off almost all of the time.
I think your original questioning of what's the point was valid, but now with more data presented to you you're being dismissive and not bothering to research why they did it. Reducing energy consumption still matters even if we were to get to 100% renewable overnight (not possible) because constructing the renewables still costs carbon at the moment. We need to be doing everything we can, and this decision isn't taking resources away from other decisions, that's a fallacy.
...Why not both? It makes sense for it to be illegal to sell a device that consumes more than 6x the power of the equivalent and dies significantly more frequently. I searched for statistics and it seems like 20-30% of bulbs sold are incandescent. That means well over half the energy consumption of light bulbs still comes from them. It's low hanging fruit that can have an almost immediate impact, even if it's not enough on its own.
Planned obsolescence is a thing here. The LEDs don't fail, it's the power circuitry. Unfortunately the fixture theory doesn't pan out, as fixtures meant for incandescent bulbs need to be able to dissipate much more heat (about 6 times as much). I've been using LED bulbs for 7 years in all sorts of different fixtures and have never had even one burn out on me. Why? I don't really know. Maybe I turn the lights on less often than other people?
Ah yeah that one wasn't a very good one, it got recalled for crankshaft manufacturing defects and they got sued when the problem ended up being worse than anticipated and the money they set aside wasn't enough. The early genesis coupes were also pretty unreliable in general. Actually, I'd say Hyundai was unreliable in general in the 2000s. They were a mixed bag, the 2009 Elantra had a rock solid drivetrain but crappy electronics for example, and the theta 2 engines were plagued with failures. But pretty much anything 2015+ is rock solid, they seem to have learned from that one.
I didn't realize you were talking about Hyundai as of like 15 years ago, though that should have been obvious since the car in your story was 10 years old
Which year/model or engine? Worth noting many car manufacturers have struggled with timing chain issues on at least one engine. VW struggled with it on more than one engine, BMW, I'm pretty sure there was even a Honda or Toyota engine that had a weak timing chain system at some point. If they actually stopped making the engine because of it, good on them, because other manufacturers (especially VW) definitely don't. Other Hyundai engines have rock solid reputations. One bad experience is called an anecdote, and it's not a good reason to discredit a brand.
I mean, the treatment he had the first time worked, seems to me like it would make sense to do it again, especially with the advances in the treatment since the first time
I've been pissed about this for a decade