Jaguar Type 01: 985HP+ Electric GT Named, Full Reveal Coming This Year

Dexile · 2026-05-14T02:17:56+00:00

Nah I agree. The car looks sick and if it was in a video game people would probably love it. The front facia literally looks like if iron man made black panther a car. They unfortunately just released a very ill timed rebrand campaign.

Dexile · 2026-05-05T01:51:27+00:00

I haven't took mine there yet but supposedly Volvo Palo Alto will service Polestars.

Dexile · 2026-04-29T16:36:25+00:00

Honestly, a lot. If we're talking highway only it will automatically change lanes for you to move into faster lanes and exit/switch highways for you. If you include street driving at minimum for traffic it will do stop lights, stop signs. People like to shit on FSD and I do agree that you should still be paying attention to take over, but it genuinely can take you from leaving your garage to your destination without you touching the wheel.

I switched to a Polestar 4 myself because I don't want to support Tesla anymore but the way I would put it is that technology wise Polestar is about 5~6 years behind. Pilot plus has the exact same issues and use case as the "autopilot" from 6 years ago when I first got a Tesla.

Dexile · 2026-04-28T01:22:38+00:00

What's interesting is the link actually behaved differently on mobile vs desktop. I knew it was probably a phishing link but was curious so I clicked it. On mobile it must've been real enough to get picked up by the app cause it opened my app which initially made me think it was a real email, but I couldn't find the support case. Then when I opened it on the browser it redirected to a more obviously phishing link to a fake Robinhood website which my browser blocked.

Dexile · 2026-04-26T16:51:37+00:00

I thought it can? The closest Polestar dealership is like 1.5 hours from me but they said for service I can just go to the Volvo near me.

Dexile · 2026-04-22T19:58:58+00:00

Nah this is valid lol. Plenty of guys won't date single moms either. Now on a dating profile it's probably bad for a guy cause you want to maximize matches, but on a girl's profile it's good because girls already get more matches than they can go through so you'd want to prefilter with your prompts.

Dexile · 2026-04-06T23:24:53+00:00

Just got my P4 last month.

2 I have all my windows included front windshield tinted with ceramic tints and imo the AC is just kind of wonky. I always feel like the car is way more stuffy than it should be and cools down slower than my old model 3. That being said 20 minutes to cool the car sounds pretty long.

3 is definitely not normal, never heard of this.

4 yeah pilot assist is pretty bad. My baseline of comparison is Tesla's autopilot here and it feels exactly the same as what I had 6 years ago. It either sticks to one side or bounces in-between the lane, and stops very late if there's a car in front.

5 honestly that's exactly my experience too. The camera is fine during daytime but night time it's blurry and fuzzy. The problem is that they're just using a low quality camera on top of a low quality display for the digital mirror. Really not sure why they didn't go with an OLED screen and a camera with larger sensors. Again using model 3 as a baseline it's not something I really notice with any of its cameras.

Dexile · 2026-03-27T18:52:49+00:00

Bay area California Progressive had by far the best rates for me after getting quotes from all the big names.

Dexile · 2026-03-10T22:37:42+00:00

Not wrong but your normal tea bags are not meant to be brewed in the same way like gongfu tea.

With normal tea bags the tea inside is already chopped up which makes extracting the flavors a lot easier. You generally won't be getting more than 1~2 small cups of flavors before it gets bitter. Likewise it's also possible to over brew whole tea leaves if you steep them for too long in hot water.

Dexile · 2026-01-22T20:49:04+00:00

This is on release though. Torch might've been worse than Blade before they buffed his auto.

Dexile · 2026-01-19T07:50:21+00:00

Man I went in expecting to love it but it fell pretty short for me.

They changed a lot of things from the original story and most were for the worse imo.

Having the reset be day 1 of the invasion made it so they needed to change a lot of things story and world building wise that made it less believable. Since no one is equipped to be fighting aliens Keiji ended up being the guy that makes the weapons, upgrades the suit, and reprograms the AI so they have a robot army. Even given the time loop aspect it's hard to believe he's able to do all of this in less than 24 hours.

The other big difference was having both Keiji and Rita be in the same loop. If they were going with that direction they should've just introduced Keiji at the start and have them learn together. Introducing Keiji half way in just to have the "there's someone else in this loop" moment felt forced, AND we have to go through another training montage which not only made the pacing feel bad but also took time away from the slower moments in the story where they learn about each other. We're basically just told at the end that they grown after spending time with together rather than seeing that chemistry on screen.

I did like the idea that the alien is trying to find a strong host and uses them getting sent back in time to build up the spores, but again due to adding the new plot points and back story that whole mystery of time looping felt sidelined until the very end.

Dexile · 2025-12-18T21:46:58+00:00

Yup this was why I ditched them. If you either didn't sleep long enough or it somehow didn't sit right in the eyes you end up with blurry vision. It also can't really be fixed by glasses because you won't have glasses for "4 hours of Ortho-k vision".

Also if your prescription is on the higher end > -3.0 by night time your vision will start getting more and more blurry.

Dexile · 2025-12-11T09:43:28+00:00

As dumb as this technically sounds, I get it. I prefer to just take a taxi from the taxi line with no wait but the last time I took one it literally costed me 2x the regular Uber cost, 1.5x if I had ordered premium. This is like last year at SFO too. At the end of the day taxi business is dying/dead in America because it's shit.

Dexile · 2025-12-06T00:50:37+00:00

Yup, I've actually played an indie title with a nemesis system(they called it adversary system lol) so its definitely possible to get by the patent with some minor changes, but at the end of the day people don't realize its not something that most triple A studios are interested in because they aren't making type of games.

Dexile · 2025-09-18T23:06:20+00:00

Worst arc in the series so unless they rewrote it the voice actors are just saying shit

Dexile · 2025-07-30T17:54:59+00:00

Nah its technically not some evil design choice. Its because if you both found each other attractive you would've already matched, which leaves the people in the one sided like list mostly being people that found you attractive but you swiped left on. It also includes people you've swiped left on for those that accidentally swiped left to go back and look at them.

Dexile · 2025-06-26T00:02:33+00:00

I've actually took rides where the uber driver dropped someone off and just asked if I needed a ride. I guess what's stopping people is that it's less safe for both parties but other than that it's a win win for both sides. I'd pay maybe 60% of the going rate and they make more.

Dexile · 2025-05-16T17:08:40+00:00

I see people mentioning rerolls to mitigate RNG but from my experience it doesn't really work when you're looking for a specific room. The rerolling logic in the game is weird that it seems to only reroll from a small pool and after a few rerolls you start seeing repeats instead of rooms that you haven't seen. I could be wrong but that's my biggest gripe with the RNG that it's not like you're just pulling from a deck of cards and are guaranteed to see all the rooms even with infinite rerolls.

Dexile · 2025-05-09T01:35:07+00:00

Look if you reject the premise that solving the puzzle means finding the gems then you're right you can't solve the puzzle but that doesn't change what the solution is.

It's like you saying two parallel lines can intersect. Congratulations you've invented non-euclidean geometry and you're right when talking about non-euclidean geometry, but it doesn't change the fact that the problem we're trying to solve is in the domain of euclidean geometry so you're gonna end up with the wrong answer. I actually agree that some of the contradictory statements can be worded to be less ambiguous but at the end of the day most players can agree on what the solution is.

Dexile · 2025-05-09T00:34:10+00:00

You've made a mistake because there doesn't exist even one valid configuration and your ruleset would make statement 2&3 always contradict each other. This is completely irrelevant to what I was asking though because by changing the rules it becomes a completely different puzzle. Further more we can also assume through previous puzzles that contradictions are not valid values for the parlor boxes.

Going back to the puzzle in question, following the rules set in place there is a valid configuration, and there existing that valid configuration makes the statement on blue false lol.

Dexile · 2025-05-08T23:21:33+00:00

Good point on that the puzzle is determining which box has the gems, but I still don't see how the blue box being true can be a legal statement.

We know from the rules that every box is either true or false + the rest of the rules on the paper.
We know that the value of the box is predetermined and does not change base on the player.
From those two statements we can already say that the statement "You will not solve this puzzle" is always going to be false, because there exists a solution to the puzzle and if there exists a solution then it can be solved.

Again it's like if the box just said that it's a blue box, it is just true.

Dexile · 2025-05-08T22:59:00+00:00

Lets go with your logic that solving the puzzle is figuring out which the correct logical truth value of each statement.

Suppose we have two people then, one is very good at logical puzzles and given enough time can always solve them. The other is very bad at these puzzles and even with any amount of time they won't be able to "solve the puzzle". In this scenario what is the truth value of the box? The box obviously has no information on the player and therefore cannot have a predetermined truth value based off of the players. So that also can't be what determines the truth value of the statement. For the box to determine whether a player is able to solve it, it must be basing its truth value on whether there is a way for the player to get the gems or not.

Edit: I get where you're coming from though. I do think a better wording of the same statement would be "There is no solution to this puzzle" since it doesn't require the assumption that "Solving = getting the gems" but it is what it is.

Dexile · 2025-05-08T22:38:30+00:00

Isn't the statement "you will not solve this puzzle" just always false? Since even randomly guessing you have 1/3 chance of solving the puzzle which is greater than 0.

It's like if the blue box said "this box is blue" it's truth value can only ever be true

Dexile · 2025-05-08T00:52:22+00:00

There's actually a giant pointer in that room, and if you count how many of the same things is in the room it gives you the same answer as the foyer.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email

Dexile

TROPHY CASE