I feel like this is a large portion of the missing puzzle pieces. The difference between real world and advertised ICE stats are somewhat padded, but not significantly. You’d expect the hybrids to have a similar degree of discrepancy, but it’s wildly out of range of expectations. It may simply be that the manufacturers are giving idealized stats, since while testing they would have access to their personal charger in a laboratory environment. But in the real world, owners cannot guarantee working/accessable chargers or even that they can charge at home, which would dramatically impact the results of this study.

Or at least, I’d assume that’s the case in the US. I don’t know what EU’s charging infrastructure is like, where the study was preformed.

TBH, the most astonishing reveal from the study for me was that Hybrid owners weren’t charging their vehicles. Unfortunately, the why isn’t covered in the study since it seems to just be hard math and statistical analysis.

Are they just not plugging in at night?

Too frustrated with the battery draining too quickly?

Driving too far for the battery to meaningfully contribute between charges?

Is the extra hardware mass making the ICE that much less efficient?

Laziness from having to fill both the battery and the gas tank?

To be fair, I’m really just judging the EC’s article writer. Not the trustworthiness of EC or the study itself.

When I saw the headline, I thought this was clickbait, since the headline and the linked article avoided quantifying how much CO2 the vehicles said they consumed vs the real world usage.

If you dig into the cited materials, it turns out it wasn’t hyperbole.

That said, I still consider it extremely poor form to omit the information the study was centering its argument around.

Okay, thanks! That was super informative!

Legit asking:

Up until relatively recently, the layman’s understanding of pollution was mostly focused on exhaust.

What caused the general shift in focus to microplastics, and by direct extension tire ware?

The risk is that Mozilla is in a position to add features and stability at a rate that smaller developers cannot possibly replicate. By doing so they risk becoming the defacto standard (embrace/extend). Then they get to dictate what the entire platform should or should not do. And you’re either on board or left in the dust. And if Mozilla decides that moderating a social network is too much of a liability, then we’re at extinguish.

To be frank, I’m so jaded by big players in this late stage capitalist world that I don’t trust anyone I might otherwise be fine with, like Mozilla.

I mean, we all probably said similar things about Google 20 years ago. It was a liked company that brought a lot of cool innovations to the web. Or even relatively more recently with Chrome. At launch it was liked, but now it’s weaponized.

To be fair, there are far, FAR worse players than Mozilla. I might even be so far as to be convinced they have benign interests at heart at the moment. But corruption always follows domination.

I just read the entire article and I don’t see why Mozilla really wants in on the Fediverse. It covers a lot of how it wants in, but not the driving motivation.

My best guess is they want to be the next Facebook/Twitter. They see a window and think it’s not something to miss.

Never forget: “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, even if it’s from a relatively liked company like Mozilla.

As a filthy casual with little to no knowledge of comics outside of a few cartoons…

… I’m incredibly confused and distracted by retro-cyborg’s design.

They’re still in the process of genetically engineering the bacteria, so their efficiency is still a work in progress.

There’s also the issue that economies of scale tip heavily in plastics direction,

It’s not a carbon neutral process. There’s significant both heating and cooling involved.

And, it doesn’t really solve the issue of retiring plastics.

The last update I read on the bacteria, prior to the genetic engineering, mentioned that the bacteria didn’t actually like the plastic and would only really break it down for want of something more practical. Presumably that has been solved, but I didn’t see it brought up in the article.

The article explains that they use the bacteria to basically break down the plastic into two solutions, which they ultimately recombine into plastic—seemingly out of lack of any other practical use for the results.

I’m not a scientist, I don’t know what could be a better use for the results of the bacteria doing their job. And seemingly, neither do the scientists, but it’s still a very young project in the grand scheme of things.

Since 2021, a French company named Carbios has been running an operation that uses a bacterial enzyme to process about 250kg of PET plastic waste every day, breaking it down into its precursor molecules, which can then be made directly into new plastic. It’s not quite composting it back into the earth itself, but Carbios has achieved the holy grail of plastic recycling, bringing it much closer to an infinitely recyclable material like glass or aluminium.

That’s a significant step forward from when the last time I read up on the plastic eating bacteria. Granted, I’d prefer it if it was recycled into something other than more plastic… but I’ll still take it.

Megalovania intensifies.

While governments can’t directly manipulate Lemmy, you should still operate on the assumption that nothing you do here is anonymous.

I’ve personally burned through no less than 3 bread machines, and I heavily used mine. (It’s the paddle. It’s always the paddle that dies.)

I find it’s significantly cheaper to pick them up at your local thrift store. They’re quite common and cheap there.