I suspect an hour's drive is getting close to the point where the supercharger solution gets frustratingly annoying. You have to budget 1/3 of your energy just to the round trip, which will take you at least 4 hours for a complete fill, and may only get you 2 days of power.

But it's not bad to ride out the first couple of days if you've got 120kWh just sitting in your garage.

And unless you're picking it up at your roaster in a container you bring yourself the beans have probably been rattling around in a polyethylene-lined bag.

Which is certainly possible if you have good food coops.

Approximately. These models had been deprecated by 5 or 10 years, and a successor model last year had a software update issued because they had a secret "password of the day" that allowed you to use the date as the admin password.

See plenty of attention to the relative impact of US consumption below, but fundamentally you've got to get your own house in order before you start whining about your neighbor's. The US has largely refused to even think about addressing climate change through energy policy, we've been using the excuse you repeat for the last 30+ years. I think you are the person being unserious here.

Presumably the lack of sober risk assessment was on the part of the hyperbolic reporters.

Just the other day I tried to log into the Google account I have connected only to this HN account, and Google asked me to use the account linked to the backup email address on that account to verify my login, then logged me into that account on my phone when I used it to verify my login. After that point I saw my phone number attached to the HN-specific Gmail account, though it may have been attached before.

It's kind of crazy (and not historically uncommon) to get really preachy about a moral posture towards animals and machines that you don't seem to extend even to your biological peers.

They are definitely the most moralizing. Whether their values are rooted in anything real let alone well-considered seems to me to be a different question entirely.

Stingrays don't care where the provider's towers are, they work by pretending to be their own, and (ideally for you if you are the person wielding one) causing your target's phone to connect to or through your antenna. The only way Starlink would help a target is if your phone rejects tower signals that are not mostly above you, or if Starlink Mobile would utilize something other than the 3GPP standards, both of which are unlikely unless they want to sell their own fully proprietary phones.

Current Starlink direct-to-mobile is proprietary. It's kind of the opposite: 5G NR NTN so far has required new chipsets which haven't found their way into phones yet, whereas Starlink's LTE has been deployed with firmware changes to existing phones.

>they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it

  Doppel requested the site be taken down.

Actually that seems pretty direct.

The article says it's a trademark dispute. A cease and desist letter is a normal part of the process.