yes_this_time

It getting worse over time I would think is partially a function of customer mix changing.

You start with early adopters who are more eco conscious and then now entering mainstream, and also people choosing plug-ins for performance purposes.

Manufacturers typically market the vehicles as energy efficient.

Because they are more energy efficient...

Until now it has been claimed by manufacturers that the vehicles used only a little or almost no fuel when in the electric mode. The studies showed that this was not in fact the case.

Because when in pure electric mode they do use little or no fuel (different cars have different architectures but this is generally so)

But, yes there is a good point buried in there. Europe needs to update rules on efficiency claims. l/100km in gas mode, and electric range gets you pretty far.

Yes From the data tables in the research paper, company cars were seeing roughly 25% electric drive share, private 50% - quick back of the napkin math.

Misleading article. Someone reading this may think that a PHEV will have higher fuel consumption than claimed. When it reality it should be clarified that fuel efficiency is based on roughly 75% electric drive share.

I see the point where they should adjust that down based on real.world usage.

But... if you are expected to drive 75% electric based on battery range and your usage, you will hit the manufacturers claims, give or take

It's not just a government run store, the products sold are being subsidized. Which is quite unfair to any small businesses/independents who have invested in the blast radius. Will they be compensated? (I'm not concerned about the large corps).

It wouldn't surprise me if NYC saw a net reduction in grocery stores as a result.

So public money to subsidize costs of goods, and public money to subsidize costs of less efficient operations.

Is this the most effective use of public dollars?

I see NYC has incentives to open up grocery stores, good idea. Starting footprint is 5k sq feet.. why so large? That would require something like an a million dollar build out... who is that incentive for?

Because of things like this:

Round tables and town halls for apple varieties, 8 years to get a shop underway... absolutely ridiculous.

There is obviously an issue, and government has a role, but this isn't it

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/25/mamdani-nyc-public-grocery-stores

"According to Overstreet, the councilmember from Atlanta, community buy-in is key. In her district, Overstreet sought feedback about what kinds of products community members wanted access to, down to the preferred variety of apple. Overstreet and her team did this through roundtables, pop-up meetings, and both paper and online questionnaires to try to reach the widest array of people"

"Lastly, noted Christine Caruso, Myer’s co-author on the grocery store research, it is worth reminding community members that such an initiative will take time to realize. Overstreet noted that it took her eight years of work to get the new grocery store in her district under way."

The only way I could see it making sense is if a government was doing it as an exercise to understand what it takes to open a business.

What environment have governments created where no one wants to open a grocery business?

Is it overly dominated by a handful of large corporations? Should these be taxed or broken up to make the market more competitive? Is the supply chain competitive or is it also not competitive?

Should government socialize insurance costs instead, for businesses that drive public good? Or other incentives like health coverage?

Are there bylaws and zoning barriers that are making entry prohibitive?

These are areas I think governments should be in, not operating a retail store. Policy is their area of expertise and has major impact.

I don't disagree with public broadband it's a natural monopoly

Got it. My understanding is tiktok is on another level but have never used it.

It would surprise me if no one was doing content rotation strategies for specific user segments. similarity is a signal so is dissimilarity.

then, there will be spots that the algorithms fall apart.

But, I see what you are saying and yeah I've experienced similar, and agreed, even something simple like 'popular' has issues when driven by a score, as it can just maximize broad emotional response.

"This made me angry", does better than "this made me satisfied in life"

On lemmy do you mean? It doesn't have personalized recommendation algorithms as far as I know or any content similarity algorithms. I think it's just a simple popularity by newness algorithm.

To clarify, I meant corporate social media companies will target engagement, and they will use personalized algos (not necessarily down to a user, could be group of similar users).

So for example if a user looks at some niche wood working content for example, they may mix in popular content that drives emotional response or is entertaining if that keeps people on the platform longer.

That's what I'm saying, it's not about content similarity necessarily, it's about showing whatever drives engagement / time on platform.

When you have a lot of user data, and a lot of content meta data, you can do that very well. To the point where you can trigger addictive behaviors. That's the issue with tiktok - but also other social media companies to lesser degrees

A social media's algorithm would optimize for engagement not content similarity.