Because it isn’t a Boeing contract

Again, you are obviously deliberately downplaying the limitations of hydrogen. BEVs make sense for “smaller” vehicles… And by “smaller” that means everything up to a midsize SUV, currently. Which is basically 80% of the consumer car market.

As battery technology improves, the upper limit of what makes sense for batteries only expands.

Hydrogen has a problem scaling DOWN. They are already range limited with a full size sedan. Hydrogen tanks and storage improves when you scale UP in size, and have huge amounts of empty volume to fill. So hydrogen only makes sense for semi trucks or larger.

So no, you’re still spewing kool-aid that there was some conspiracy against hydrogen and that BEVs only exist because of subsidies.

BEVs already made sense 10 years ago for SOME consumers, regardless of subsidies. That niche existed, and expanded, because BEVs offered CONVENIENCES to their buyers. Hydrogen, even at their peak hype, offered zero conveniences and only additional inconveniences. No amount of government incentives are changing the fundamentals of hydrogen vehicle ownership.

You keep saying stupid phrases like “people drinking the kool-aid!!!” while you’re doing nothing but pouring out Kool aid yourself.

In case you weren’t aware, Hydrogen cars ALSO got massive subsidies. They received these subsidies far before Tesla even existed, before BEVs took off, when hydrogen looked like the more viable alternative.

They had the head start, they got government subsidies, government backed infrastructure, AND manufacturer incentives. They had the public opinion back then too, with celebrities like Top Gear endorsing hydrogen over batteries. They are STILL getting government incentives today.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-04-04/california-s-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-lose-traction-against-battery-models

It’s still not enough. The bottom line is that it’s still inconvenient, expensive, and highly limited. If they spent the US military budget to force the issue, they could, but why?

Battery vehicles won because they met consumers’ needs, not some grand conspiracy against hydrogen, and not because everyone hangs on Musk’s every word.

Even 10 years ago, I could buy an EV anywhere in the country and it would meet 99.5% of my driving needs if my home had a garage. Hydrogen cars were STILL limited to a 100 mile radius to the nearest filling station, which is basically the California coast. And you had to pray the filling stations didn’t run out of hydrogen. It didn’t matter how much the vehicles themselves cost. Whether they were $200,000 or free, with a hydrogen car you could only go 100 miles from the pumping station, and only when the pumping station was full. With batteries, you were always full all the time, and you could always go 100+ miles from home. Even before any fast charging stations were built, if you took a short road trip and stayed in one location for a few days, you could go 250 miles away and slow charge at your destination simply by bringing an extension cord.

Electricity is cheap, too. Hydrogen was, and remains, expensive. EV buyers could look forward to not paying ridiculous gas prices. Hydrogen buyers had to look forward to paying MORE per mile than gasoline.

You keep whining about batteries not being the perfect solution to every single vehicle on the planet. Guess what? Average consumers are not driving every single vehicle on the planet. Average consumers are buying midsize crossovers. They drive to work and around town, and maybe do a road trip once a year. They can charge at home and never worry about whether or not the local filling station will run out of electricity. BEVs have won the suburban consumer segment, period.

As charging stations get built out, they will soon meet urban consumer needs, too.

Hydrogen might have some place in industrial processes or long haul trucking, possibly aviation maybe. But it makes absolutely no sense for regular consumers.

Lol. Blaming Tesla for all of hydrogen’s woes is just buying your head in the sand.

I’ve been following hydrogen vehicle development long before Tesla even existed. The field has effectively stagnated since the 90’s. Same promises for the past 3 decades with no substantial improvement. The hydrogen car of today is still the same hydrogen car of 1995 with a better infotainment system. Cost, storage, distribution, range are all problems that have yet to be solved and again are still not substantially better than what we had in the 90’s. Every “revolutionary” hydrogen technology from the labs have basically gone nowhere.

It seemed like a viable competitor to batteries in the 90s and early 2000s because battery technology and prices weren’t up to snuff. But hydrogen has stagnated while batteries have improved. Hydrogen is a “solution” that is 2 decades behind at this point

Glass back is a premium design feature because it breaks easily, and customers who buy premium phones are expected to be rich enough to just buy another phone.

It’s a profit making feature.

Much like luxury cars, nobody actually expects BMW or Mercedes to last more than 3 years. People who buy them are expected to trade up for the latest model every few years.

Same with luxury fashion. Absolutely some of the cheapest and fragile clothing I’ve ever seen come from big fashion brands. And nobody cares, because by the time they break, they’re out of style and the buyer will be updating their wardrobe anyways.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned, expensive luxury items = cheap and breakable. Midrange products are where the customers tend to be concerned with longevity and value.

The Cyborg stuff is cool, but unfortunately we have subscription models, anti-repairability DRM, unblockable ads, and “we’ll fix it with the DLC” software model, and for-profit health care well established before those become a reality

You can then literally charge people an arm and a leg

*Corporate salivating ensues

I would say the opposite.

The chipset is no longer important unless you’re heavily into smartphone games. Even a mid-range chipset from 2 years ago will run standard tasks just fine these days. Smartphone requirements have basically plateaued for a few years now.

Prioritize just about everything OTHER then the chipset, depending on what you really use the phone for. Cameras, battery life, screen quality, memory capacity… Prioritize chipset only if you’re gaming.

Actually apple doesn’t provide any guarantee. They’ve historically supported their devices for a while, but if they choose to cut their support short, it’s entirely within their rights.

or they get around it by not making it a “login” bonus but “do this really quick and easy daily quest” bonus.

I think someone also recreated the entire SC1 campaign as custom SC2 maps

I only remember Syndicate from Bullfrog

Blizzard. Without Activision.

They basically aren’t allowed to spend efficiently or else they wouldn’t get funding in the first place. NASA is just an excuse for congressmen to funnel money into their districts. The fact that any science happens along the way is a miracle already.

Nebula: pay $300 once, lifetime access. They had it up for a week on a trial run a while ago, and they decided to bring it back for now.

curiosity stream: I think I found a deal on Stack Social, + coupon, that worked out to $180. The basic 1080p format only. Again, pay once, lifetime access.

The payoff time for Nebula is around 8 years (not counting possible price increases in the future), so you’ll have to have faith that they’ll last that long. I hope they do though. Curiositystream is obviously less. Then again, the immediate cash infusion they get from this can also help them survive/expand faster.

I just bought the lifetime option.

Anyways both Nebula and Curiositystream have lifetime subscriptions available right now… 90% of my YouTube viewing is from creators on those sites anyway

it’ll hit business servers first… speed and power draw = profits. Even if they cost 1000x more than SSDs, the power savings and speed alone could pay for itself in a datacenter.

The power draw and nonvolatility could mean it can replace SSDs and hard drives entirely. Just store everything in RAM.

If camping is too effective, then the map or weapon balance is what needs work.

For example, of people are camping spawn points, why is the spawn point so easily accessible at all? Why don’t players spawn behind cover with multiple exit points? Do they not get temporary invulnerability?

Or camping objectives. Why is there only one, easily defended path to the objective? Why isn’t there a path for you to sneak up and just stab the camper in the ass while he’s staring down the scope? Or just walk around him and ignore him completely?

Watch some professional CS:GO. Those maps have been refined and balance-tweaked for decades. You can’t just camp one objective because there are two objectives. Every good camping spot is still leaves you exposed to getting flanked. Even with arguably the most OP camper’s weapon in any competitive game - the AWP, teams still only run 1 AWP, maybe 2 at most. Simply because camping alone isn’t effective.

Definitely an amazing game, but really should only be played after you’ve played at least a dozen other FPS games.