I understand that. You said "I think it means" and it is not at all what it means. It's probably what they want to say by using these words, but isn't what they (the words) mean. It probably is where they (the authors) mean. And that also isn't what you said either, hence my comment.

Doing the calculation isn't hard. It's harder to know how much energy (be it electricity, gas, or whatever) you actually use. It also varies wildly with meals, as some need multiple stove tops (is that the right term?), possibly for varying lengths of time and/or the oven.

Please note that you can not really deduce the energy consumption from a power rating, as those usually are max values and not what it'll actually need.

I have good enough energy monitoring that I can measure the usage (sort of), and having rather high electricity cost at around 0.40 €/kWh I do pay some attention to it. Running the oven for like an hour will be roughly 1€. Boiling water for pasta or something is probably more like 20 ct (includes cooking the pasta). Just using a lid actually helps a lot here if you make use of a lower power setting after reaching a boil and putting in the pasta.

It's gonna have to be a very elaborate meal to break 3€. So while it does matter and add up, compared to buying fully prepared food from a restaurant, it isn't that dramatic even with very high energy prices like these.

Cooking appliances use a lot of power, but they don't run for whole days at a time, so the energy used also isn't that dramatic. There's a relatively recent video by technology connections that goes into detail, and might be of interest (link).

That's not what the word means though.

Here that doesn't change or help in any way. You're the one on the contract for the Internet access, so you're responsible. That's it.

You can operate as an ISP, but the requirements and responsibilities that go with that make this a non-starter. From my (limited) understanding, it includes that if you can't provide the identity of someone who is being sued (including piracy, but also any other law breaking), you're responsible.

Just as s comment for someone else reading this: if this actually has a chance to protect you is highly dependant on your local laws. Even then, at least from my understanding, any lawsuit has to progress relatively far (involving lawyers to a significant degree) for this to become potentially relevant.

That also means you can't downvote just wrong information anymore. Look at YouTube, which disabled down votes and nothing got better. And their votes weren't even public.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Considering this at least seems more like an internal hand over than a buy out, you're probably fine.

They took very large sums of money from venture capital firms. As in many millions. Those now require constant and perpetual number-go-up. This won't stop getting worse, let alone get better. There are other services. If you're a creator, use them.

WotC did some shady shit before, too. Certainly right improve since the acquisition though.

If you're reading this and think "that's me", you might wanna look up DSPD and/or Non24 (N24). That might also be you then.

I would also add that if this proves to be successful, having a second generation that (can) run on catenary isn't out of the question. Even for parts of routes this might be an option, still having the flexibility of batteries for the areas or something?

It certainly is faster to get up and running this way. We'll see I guess...

The cars/trams are also small enough that the wires would be low enough to be a problem. I assume they share the road where trucks are allowed to be a certain height. Also assuming this is mostly in cities, you just can't put overhead wires in all places with low effort.