flutas

It's fairly accurate.

It's a controversial site simply because of what it's targeting but "jobs [dot] now" surfaces a lot of these newspaper ads that they catch, and also highlight crazy (in the modern day) stuff like "send your resume via mail to this address to apply" or at times even custom job boards that only have the PERM roles on them when the company has a completely different board for all others.

Finding bugs is hardly a crime, selling them even isn't.

Now exploiting them? Yes that's a crime.

IMO at least a better one to do would be a transflective LCD like the original pebble watches used.

> Regardless of any "investigation", the big change here is that Tesla is now solely responsible (and liable) for the safety of a "autonomous" driving system that still requires constant supervision.

They have been for the past year, they've had Model Ys running autonomously since June of last year (albeit with safety "passengers" at first).

> bailout: "the provision of financial help to a corporation or country which otherwise would be on the brink of bankruptcy."

Did they go bankrupt? No? Then it wasn't a bailout.

For as much as I love HN, everyone trips over random "achustually" while ignoring the actual definitions to try and be right.

All this to try and claim Democrats were right to AVOID filling the reserves on an article screaming about trump not doing it.

Piece of art right there.

to me helping != bailout

helping = just that, helping. They might be hurting, but they aren't going to die without the help.

bailout = (as wikipedia defines it) "the provision of financial help to a corporation or country which otherwise would be on the brink of bankruptcy."

> But the Trump administration really shot themselves in the foot by loudly championing it as a bailout for big oil.

For all I hate about him and his admin, the trump admin didn't call it a "bailout" once that I can find (even with the help of AI). The only quotes I can find are Chuck Schumer / Democrats calling it that and no direct quote of Trump saying it. In fact this is what I can find:

> On March 13, 2020, Trump described it as purchasing crude oil “at a very good price.” He said filling the reserve would save taxpayers money while also “helping our oil industry.”

> On April 3, a reporter directly asked Trump whether oil executives had requested a bailout. Trump answered: “No, they didn’t ask for a bailout. No.”

> The “bailout for big oil” wording came from Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats, not Trump. Schumer’s official March 25 press release claimed that the final CARES Act had: “Eliminated $3 billion bailout for big oil.”

Would love to be proven wrong here.

> Trump didn't care about the reserve, he cared about the oil industry.

Does that even make a difference?

Either way it's filling the reserve for instances exactly like this, and was blocked by politicians to try and "win" for their party at the expense of every US citizen.

Personally I think it's due to context length.

Whenever context gets towards the max length is when I've noticed it.

For me at least, yes but it's not an EV specific rate plan just our general one.

~80mi a day + AC is the vast majority of my use (for why so much AC - it's 102f [39c] and feels like 115f [46c] right now as I type this).

I'm in Arkansas and get rates fairly similar as quoted.

From my last bill

> KWH USAGE 2590 - $183.37

There's a base customer cost of $18 on top of that, but yeah ~$0.077/kWh taxes included.

> At most, the buyer would need to allow the financer access to retrieve their property. The financer could then sue the seller for the buy-out cost and/or breach of contract.

Nope, at least not typically.

Typically in the US houses are sold as-is unless it's noted in the closing docs. Everything in or on the house when you close is yours. The seller would be the one fighting with the financing company, as (again unless noted in closing docs) they would be considered fixtures and considered part of the real estate sale.