I'm speaking from a US point of view. To my knowledge there are no 240 watt USB-C chargers in existence.
There are a handful that claim 240 watts but upon closer inspection only provide a max of ~100 watts per port.
There are cables sold with a 240 watt rating but no actual chargers.
I don't think there are any 240 watt chargers on the market though despite it theoretically being supported. Last I read, there were some doubts around if it was truly feasible. Laptops that require more than 90 or so watts still come with proprietary chargers because they can't charge at full rate over USB-C.
My Dell laptop is 240 watts and the only way to charge it at full rate over USB is to buy a proprietary $250 charger from Dell that provides two USB cords that must be plugged in together to achieve a combined 240 watts. The 90 watt charger from my old laptop won't keep it running for more than an hour.
Anyway, hopefully we see 240 watt USB-C in the future but at the moment it seems to be vaporware. Maybe this ruling will push it forward.
Charged overnight most PHEV's have plenty of range for the average person's daily commute and there's really no reason range can't be improved. That's a huge reduction in emissions.
It's not though. There are lots of use cases that electric vehicles are not suitable for (many covered in this thread). Sure there's people who could switch and don't out of fear or unwarranted concern but that doesn't change the fact that they're simply not feasible for a lot of people currently and PHEV's are a great middle ground that can still vastly reduce emissions and that's the goal here isn't it?
Yea those prices are high. You can typically get a rebuilt engine installed for between $2500-5k but you have to go to a shop that specializes in rebuilds. A regular mechanic can't do that type of work and will just be looking for something they can drop in.
People in the US typically only take domestic flights between major cities and usually only if they are traveling a long distance (across multiple states).
One reason for this is because you usually have to rent a car when you reach your destination anyway. So if you fly two states away to visit family, land in the closest city to where they live, now you have to rent a car at the airport and drive a couple of hours to their house. You've now paid for a flight and a car rental and you probably could have gotten there cheaper and just as quickly, if not faster, if you drove.
It's a great stop gap and it's the bridge we need. It would reduce the great majority of emissions (those produced by commuters) while allowing people to drive longer distances without worry.
It buys us time to build out charging infrastructure and introduces people to the concept of a plug in vehicle.
Expecting everyone to switch to full electric overnight is unrealistic. There are still a lot of logistical issues we have to solve.
TLDR: Ubuntu Pro offers additional security patches to packages found in the universe repo. Universe is community maintained so Ubuntu is essentially stepping in to provide critical CVE patches to some popular software in this repo that the community has not addressed.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it but I don't really see this as withholding patches. Software in this repo would otherwise be missing these patches and it's a ton of work for Ubuntu to provide these patches themselves.
Now is they move glibc to universe and tell me to subscribe to get updates I'll feel differently.
I wish communities would start banning that bot. It's summaries are mostly awful, typically missing critical details in an article to the point of completely altering itsintent.
This example is particularly egregious though, I think it had a stroke.
I've had two Dell laptops that ran Ubuntu perfectly. Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed and also certifies models for Linux. Their Linux support is top notch in my experience.
Voluntary recalls are actually more common than ordered recalls. Manufacturers usually don't wait for the NHTSA to get involved.
What makes it a recall is that either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determine that there's a safety defect or that the vehicle doesn't confirm to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.
So I believe the terminology is required by the NHTSA if it fits the above definition regardless of how the issue is addressed.
Of course this is for the US and this is a recall in China but I'm assuming similar legal requirements are involved.