Tesla is doing poorly here. That's almost entirely down to Musk's public image, not because BYD make better cars.

[1] https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

Why are Spain's courts allowing this injunction to stand? It's clearly being used to bring the court system itself into disrepute at this point.

There are current Land Rovers with market positioning suggesting they're "better" than Mercedes, and there are historic Land Rovers which were arguably not much better than camels.

I don't know if I would pay £19 for a general state-of-the-area report. I would almost certainly have paid £100-300 for a service that took my planning application, critically reviewed it and told me which aspects were and were not likely to pass, with references to specific examples within my local area.

On the grind, why not get an agent to help you build the long tail of deterministic scrapers? Claude etc is really shockingly good at this kind of moderate-complexity iterative work, it will just keep going around the fetch/parse/understand loop until it has what you're looking for.

Otherwise all I'm taking away from this article is that people don't think deeply about survey questions before answering them.

If the employer leases the car themselves and provides it to you as a benefit, it can be good value -- but then someone has to own the risk of you changing jobs.

For an ICE car the government claws this money back through hefty "Benefit In Kind" taxes placed on employer-provided vehicles, but as an incentive to drive adoption the rates on EVs are only 3% of the car's nominal purchase price (and you only actually pay up to 45% of that 3%).

It doesn't work out "free," but it's typically as cheap to lease a new EV through this scheme as it is to pay the depreciation on a used ICE.

Building a functional equivalent is one thing, making a direct copy in a different case is another.

It isn't, but you can't get blood from a stone and squeezing costs money.

It sounds like the entity that the contract is with has no real assets and/or is based in a jurisdiction which is hard to enforce judgements in. That's a case where you need to get paid up-front, which is the real lesson in this article.

You and I can strongly suspect that there's a significant downside to these providers having so much sensitive personal data but, until that is proven, the voting population will only see the upside.

100 × ((182/5)/196000) = 0.019%

Which, to me, still seems too high a number for a data management function: I make it about 1000 persons-worth of per-capita GDP.

[1] https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/financial-performance-u...

The Zen Koan of T&C's.

The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.

HN user 'onion2k pointed out that doing this breaks Anthropic's T&Cs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47375787

Personally I did the references at the end and didn't feel like I suffered from that decision, but the key references in my particular area were a relatively small and well-known set.