There's a film applied to the window that has a layer of liquid crystals sandwiched in-between two pieces of plastic.

When the film is turned 'off' the liquid crystals can do whatever they want which creates opaqueness in the window as they're all just scattered about.

When you turn it 'on' a current of electricity is run through the film which causes all the liquid crystals to snap into alignment and become clear.

It's called PDLC film.

Yeah, buy wiper fluid rated to the temperature lol.

All of ours are good to -40C or something like that. There's no tricks to it.

1. By their nature, ICE engines are only about 20-30% efficient. Meaning 70% of the gasoline that is burnt by them is lost as heat. Formula 1 ICE engines are about 50% efficient, but these engines literally cost tens of millions of dollars and need a specialized team of engineers just to start the motor.

2. Cars have gotten heavier, the engines are producing more power, and despite this they still get better fuel economy than they used to. So they have gotten more efficient when you consider all the variables.

The overwhelming issue as to why we can’t have a 100 MPG 3500 pound car is simply that by design ICE engines aren’t that efficient and we’ve almost reached the practical limit of what we can do with them.

We’d have to switch to a different kind of engine/fuel like nuclear powered cars.

Yup. I have a nice MacBook as a personal computer. My work laptop is an HP with a touch screen. I've literally never used the touch screen functionality on it.

Fingerprints on the screen also drive me insane.

Does anyone actually use these? I've been on iPhone since 3GS and I have literally never used Siri.

Shares aren’t necessarily synonymous with voting shares nor is there necessarily a 1:1 vote to share ratio. Someone can hold 75% of the total equity in a company but if someone else owns preferred shares that give them 1000 votes per share, then that person will have more voting power than the person who owns 75% of the company. In that case then yes, the person with the voting super majority could fire the person who has 75% of the total equity.

Elizabeth Holmes owned 51% of the equity in Theranos but her voting power was pretty much 100% because her class of shares gave 100 votes per share whereas everyone else's only gave them 1 vote.

It all depends on share structure.

Pretty insane how gambling has taken over pretty much everything from video games (loot boxes) to professional sports (NHL broadcasts are now 3 hour long gambling ads) to phone apps.

It’s literally everywhere.

The time it spent in the barrel. Once it's bottled, it doesn't age anymore.

They don't make one batch of whiskey and then sit on only that batch for 12 / 15 / 25 years until they can/want to sell it.

They're barreling whiskey every year, and every year they're also bottling whiskey that has been aging in barrels for X amount of time. So it's essentially just a revolving door of barreling and bottling.

So for example, a 3 year aged cycle would look like this:

Barrelled / Bottled

1 / 0

2 / 0

3 / 0

4 / 1

5 / 2

6 / 3

After the first 3 years, you then have a constant supply of 3 year old whisky. Companies putting out 15 / 25 year old bottles aren't just selling those. They definitely have more short-term aged whisky that they sell in the meantime. But they also likely have batches of 15 year old whisky that come of age on a yearly basis.

You take someone's argument and turn it into something they didn't actually say, so then you can attack that fictional thing because that is easier than countering what they actually said.

Person A says something simple, like they wish income tax rates were lower.

Person B responds by saying 'oh so you want people to die then because there will be less money for social programs? How you could be such a monster?'

Person B created a strawman out of Person A's simple statement that they wished for lower income taxes and attacked the strawman instead. When the reality might be that person A wants income taxes lowered but for there to be higher corporate taxes and thus no 'people dying from the reduction of social programs.'