Officially they're on hiatus. They originally said they were retiring the line, but then changed their tune and stated that the Bolt line will return after they can implement their new EV battery tech in them. I believe the statements have been imprecise about when that will be, but potentially sometime in 2025 (meaning the 2026 model). That's assuming no delays or changes to the plan.
If you want a new Bolt without waiting for the revived line, I'd think about acting soon. They're moving really quickly in my area. I'm really happy with the EUV so far, but I'm still only at like 250 miles. I didn't go for the Premier since I don't care about adaptive cruise control or their "Super Cruise" self driving thing.
I'm stuck in an infinite loop of combining water, fire, wind, and earth with everything. I haven't even done any combos that don't involve one of those except by accident.
I'm about 3 weeks into my Bolt EUV ownership. Literally never considered any of their other EVs based on price alone. Really happy with my Bolt EUV so far, and really glad I snagged one before they stopped making them. For all their talk of limited demand, there was a lot of competition in my area to get one.
Mine isn't quite that bad. 7am is a hard wake up call because that's when she's owed her first wet food of the day. Most days she wakes us up earlier just so she can cuddle until breakfast, which is nice, but I'd rather get a little more sleep.
Her cuddle timer is often set off by the sun, so we get back to the 5am or so range in the summer.
You're being downvoted but I agree. None of this has anything to do with religion. A weird fiction that invokes "[the Christian] God provided the vaccine" is irrelevant and disrespectful to the humans that worked hard to create a vaccine.
It's a pretty bad idea in general to bring up a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent "God" in the context of children dying of diseases anyway. What kind of God would allow children to die of cancer? Or any number of other currently incurable diseases?
Look, I don't think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn't vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn't count for representation in the House if they can't vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn't be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn't mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn't be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he's talking about.
You realize you're taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.
Yeah, because the clause doesn't distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.
Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.
I'm not. I'm objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.
I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he's talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.
That one is a lot more nuanced. It distinguishes based on freedom not race. Obviously the US itself was extraordinarily racist and the practice of chattel slavery abhorrent. But that isn't what that clause says.
I always liked Frederick Douglass's take on the clause:
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.
One Dean Koontz book isn't a great sample size. He writes a LOT and most of it isn't very good, but every once in a while he gets it just right and puts out a really good one.
Though tbf, I haven't re-read his stuff in probably 10 years so I don't know if it holds up to modern scrutiny. Odd Thomas was always my favorite of his.
I doubt that would affect Wi-Fi, but what does affect it (at least 2.4 GHz frequencies) is microwaves. They operate at the same frequency and interfere with the router's output waves.
My wife refused to believe me until I had her run a speed test and watch the signal drop when I started up the microwave, then rise again when I turned it off.
If Draino works for you, great. But in case anyone is reading this and has an experience like mine where Draino never seems to fix clogs for long, especially in showers/bathtubs: try Green Gobbler. It's non-caustic, so easier on your pipes, and it breaks down clogs using enzymes to break up organic material. In my experience it's much more effective than Draino.
Officially they're on hiatus. They originally said they were retiring the line, but then changed their tune and stated that the Bolt line will return after they can implement their new EV battery tech in them. I believe the statements have been imprecise about when that will be, but potentially sometime in 2025 (meaning the 2026 model). That's assuming no delays or changes to the plan.
If you want a new Bolt without waiting for the revived line, I'd think about acting soon. They're moving really quickly in my area. I'm really happy with the EUV so far, but I'm still only at like 250 miles. I didn't go for the Premier since I don't care about adaptive cruise control or their "Super Cruise" self driving thing.