There’s another post two posts down that may have the info you’re looking for

Perhaps the newer models consume that much (under load), but the older ones are very power efficient - back in the day they ran Windows 8 and only consumed 4.6W @ idle (this is actually the same one I have, except I run HA on it which is probably much more power efficient than Windows 8 would be).

Realistically, for something like this, you probably don’t want to exclusively use the full load numbers to calculate power consumption, rather you want to use the idle+load numbers for your specific use case. Home Assistant barely uses any power even over time (I unfortunately misplaced my kill-a-watt or I’d measure it for you), and the NUC barely feels warm.

Nonetheless, you can disable a bunch of the GPU stuff in the BIOS if you’re concerned about power consumption. The article I linked above explains the settings a bit. These were meant to be the middle ground between a thin client and full PC, so it wouldn’t be surprising if their maximum wattage & TDP was much higher than a Pi; but that doesn’t necessarily mean a higher power bill or more heat.

Lastly, I mostly meant that this would be a good alternative to the device in the article, which would need a beefier power supply than the NUC. This shop listing says that its TDP is 60W, so just looking at raw numbers the NUC runs much cooler.

For this price, just get an Intel NUC (one with like an i5 or better). They’re cheaper than this is on ebay.

They might not have 32GB of memory, but I’m honestly not sure why you’d need that much for a small PC like this.

There’s tons on the used market.

Rivian and Ford are killing it in the EV truck space, which doesn’t help Tesla.

I mean, this amount of problems is still surprising for a first model year.

Eh, I think that might be too smart for Musk. I don’t doubt the Saudi’s investment but that investment only came after the SEC forced him to take the “deal” (since he couldn’t keep his mouth shut even when around SEC officials). In other words, I think the Saudi’s saw their chance and took it.

Only the Russian people can fix the elections. NATO and the EU have nothing to do with that, so I’m not sure why you’re blaming them for “confirming” it when the only people that “confirmed” it were the Russian people who rolled over for yet another false election.

So you are owed no apology from NATO, and I certainly don’t owe you one.

It would still probably count as some sort of trade (even when delayed), which is what would violate the sanctions.

[many citations needed]

Also, you seem to be putting the actions of Putin (and the consequences of allowing him to get the country to this state) on to Europe and NATO. The fact is that these sanctions would not be in place if Putin didn’t invade a neighboring country for illegal annexation (specifically, Russia violated United Nations Charter Article 2, paragraph 4).

I’m sorry to tell you that mass protests aren’t enough. As long as the Russian people are complicit (for example, by continuing to contribute to war efforts at their oil refinery jobs) and continue to allow Putin to govern, they will suffer.

Huge growth!

Since many of the sanctions also apply to things that are expected to fail over time, like electronics and industrial equipment, I’m sure the losses will continue to rise. Something to look forward to.

No shit, the Cybertruck can’t offroad.

I hope Google gets sued once this inevitably backfires.

Western Australia

You only have to work 80 hours a week to get it (or else they’ll just fire you)!

Hell no, not gunna ever go back.

Waze is owned by Google.

Ah, the classic “hive mind” excuse. It’s always brought up when someone has nothing else to stand on (that someone is you, if it wasn’t clear).

So, Tesla successfully lobbies the government to get the grant money to apply to NACS instead of CCS, making it the new defacto standard. Now, they’re seemingly pulling out? Seems like Tesla just didn’t want to have to update their chargers to work with CCS (something that would have been required for that government money, before the lobbying).

On top of that, the lobbying successfully stunted CCS development, even after 700 kW CCS charging had been demonstrated, with future increases planned. Tesla basically killed all of their charging competition with this move.

I’m sure the auto industry is happy to hear this headline after they started to change their vehicles over to NACS and made promises to customers about access to the Tesla network. Rivian, for example, has already begun shipping complimentary NACS adapters for R1 owners, but this will probably throw a wrench into that.

Sure, that is a valid argument. But it doesn’t change the fact that the government was successfully lobbied into changing what their grant money could be used for, seemingly overnight. When the grants were announced, CCS was said to become the standard. Due to that, many car companies stuck with CCS, and no doubt that some consumers (myself included) bought a CCS vehicle expecting it to be further developed.

That’s all I was trying to say - I’m more miffed regarding the lobbying than the connector itself.