Huh
"you won't need to cough up a cent.
Sorry about that"
Why would you apologise... a good pun it it's own reword.
5237 publicly visible posts • joined 19 May 2008
Do try reading properly....
So you drive long distances internationally - and you do this without ever stopping for fuel, or comfort breaks, or safety breaks. To be honest it really makes no difference - if you are regularly spending all day behind the wheel as you claim then you really should be moving to an EV. It'll save you a fortune.
Suggesting that I have "inflicted" "limited range" on myself is rather rich. I even linked to a relatively recent YouTube video - in which a dino juice vehicle raced an EV over a 10 hour highway journey (about the worst possible case for the EV). I haven't changed any of the journeys I regularly make - there is no more limit to the range of an EV than an ICE - both need a top up every so often.
My underlying assumption, which is borne out by the statistics on road travel, is that long journeys are rare. There are vanishingly few days when the vast majority of motorists drive more than 200 miles.
Not quite sure why you think a high density city would make that number higher, when I lived in a high density city I didn't need a car at all, that's kind of the point of high density.
I said that I expected there to be a stronger than random correlation between the two groups of ~1/4 of the population. I explicitly said they wouldn't overlap perfectly.
My "little bubble" is one in which I use an EV, and don't have issues getting from A-B. Your "little bubble" is one in which there are imaginary problems stopping you doing anything that might be of benefit to you or others, because you haven't already done it.
"Ah yes, but given the lack of chargers it is highly likely that you may spend as much time queueing as you will charging if you managed to arrive just when all chargers filled up. In other words, you then spend time watching for people trying to jump the queue."
Ah - someone who doesn't have an EV making up situations again. If I arrive somewhere and the chargers are all in use I'll probably carry on to the next charger, at the second one I'll check how long the vehicle in front is likely to be and make a judgement call (based on the state of the bladders in the car), only at the third will I usually wait.
Of course this hasn't happened in a very long while, because it's already pretty rare, and getting consistently rarer with public chargers becoming both more numerous and faster.
And it's only ever something you ever need to think about on relatively rare long journeys - because 98% of the mileage is done without ever touching the public charging network. Whereas an ICE vehicle is always looking at the next fuel station, even when you are only doing typical (and inherently inefficient) short journeys.
Not everyone can charge off road, but the vast majority can (24% of households don't have off street parking, but 23% of households don't have a car - those groups won't perfectly overlap, but I suspect there will be a correlation that is substantially better than random).
I often see queues at dino juice stations, and remember them being common as well. The queues might only take 5-10 minutes but this affects ICE owners for every mile they do, not so for EV owners.
"I think the key question here is how much that costs in terms of energy and range"
Well, actually it costs some energy, and *improves* range - because the batteries spend very little time at the less efficient lower temperatures. Of course if you are plugged in overnight then the batteries can be prewarmed from the mains, so the range is unaffected (though the electricity cost will still exist).
"Personally I prefer a PHEV - best of both worlds."
Or the worst of both worlds, carrying around multiple basically independent power trains...
A modern 350kW charger (in a car that will take it) will give you enough juice to do your next 2 hours of motorway driving in less time than it takes you to relieve yourself of your previous drink (6 minutes provides 35kWh, which is about 140 miles or two hours on the motorway).
It takes easily that long to pump liquid fuel (and pay for it), although you probably need to do it less often, but comfort breaks are a safety thing as well as a comfort thing - and you can't take a break whilst you fill up, because you have to supervise the pump.
Well - since deisel will be significantly gelled at that temoperature... you might find that even ten miles will beat an ICE.
Or you could look at actual behaviour... Let's pick norway, since they have pretty cold winters. Teslas are well used as well - because they manage their battery temperature.
So it's not inevitable that an EV range suffers any more than an ICE does.
And physics is why decent EVs thermally manage their batteries.
I read it as the common accusation that the heater was to blame... If you drive an ICE vehicle that gets 50mpg you lose about 8 miles an hour of range idling the engine.
In an EV if you assume that you are going to use a 4kW heater constantly (which strikes me as rather unlikely) then you give up ~16 miles an hour.
Yes, in percentage terms it's worse, but I've been very generous to the ICE here. My last ICE vehicle was meant to get 50mpg, I used to get ~35-36 on a good day (worse in the cold) - so that was probably losing 11-12 miles of range an hour.
An EV heater should be a heat pump, and shouldn't need a constant 4kW (being in a small box with four single bar electric heaters seems like it would get quite warm quite fast, so even 4kW heat required seems overkill). If you drop to 2kW heating load you're already down to 8 miles an hour range - if you can lower that load using a heat pump then, hang on I was already losing less range than my ICE vehicle.
"And I'm sure Apple with jump on any tech that shortens the life of its phones."
Really? You pick on the one company that has had exceptionally good long term support for it's handsets. The last seven generations of their phones (not counting the SE models, since they're just a repackaging of one of other generations) all support the latest version of iOS.
Good thing we don't expect human learner drivers to be taught be people who will ever more rarely be required to intervene in their driving.
A hud with information about the decisions that the system is taking would probably be a useful addition - equivalent to "conversation" with a learner driver.
"Her defense team will argue she was checking Slack messages from Uber in her work phone at the time, whilst prosecutors will say she was watching an episode of reality show The Voice on her personal handset."
It doesn't really matter which, it matters whether either of these was considered acceptable whilst being the legally responsible driver in a vehicle.
If checking slack is something which was accepted, or even expected, by her employers then that is a serious issue.
She was a safety driver, not a systems engineers meant to be heads down doing other work whilst the vehicle was in motion.
"AV are not up to human standards"
I think you overestimate the standards of human drivers.
For appropriate roads (and here motorways are pretty much the ideal case) AV can already do two things:
- Navigate the motorway better than a meatsack
- Hand back to a relatively fresh meatsack at the far end
- Thus improving the safety of roads it's not used on
"Solar panels are not recyclable"
No, because 85% reuse of the silicon isn't recycling at all...
And EVs do not require lasting several times as long an ICE vehicle to be ecologically beneficial. They do "cost" more to build, but only on the order of 40ish%.
And that is offset, even with fairly generous (to ICE) assumptions about electricity production within a few years.
I'll take that as an "I didn't bother counting external costs because they're inconvenient".
There is no doubt that a large scale burn can be better controlled than lots of small burns - and EVs take advantage of that brilliantly. But they also allow for significantly cleaner methods of energy harvesting.
The fact that you think that solar panels have a 10 year lifespan and then have to go to landfill is the killer though - solar panels are easily recycled, and the volume of them coming to the end of their life is starting to grow, which will make this an easier process still.
Erm no - it's not a straw man at all.
In fact it's a response to more than just your individual post.
Your claim that your freedom not to have a free, well tested, proven effective, medication to protect those around you is more important than the freedom for those people to be able to leave their houses with some confidence of safety. It's not, you're just being a selfish jerk (Yes, I know you have taken the vaccine, albeit apparently under duress).
But given the numbers of people who refuse to even take the very simple step of wearing a mask during a pandemic... I can only conclude that selfish jerk is simply the default way of being for a significant (and noisy) minority.
"There's nothing inane about freedom."
"Freedom" to not wear a piece of fabric is inane.
Freedom to leave your house is important.
The refusal of people to wear a small amount of fabric prevents many others from leaving their house...
Therefore the "freedom" to not wear at least a small piece of fabric is not - people claiming it are doing a massive disservice to the concept of freedom.
Yes - and they absolutely should get to see it. Else they're just blindly signing certificates.
What they don't need to do is make a record of all the additional data they collected when issuing certs.
A list of cert fingerprints and name will be useful to revoke certs as needed (though I can't really see much need - the person who needs their cert revoked can turn up with their ID and their cert and ask for it to be revoked).
And of course you don't need a single central list of issued certs, each LA will have a record of the certs it's issued, but there whole point of the process is that that data never needs to be shared outside the LA (and such sharing should be explicitly banned). The certificate is valid because it has a signed chain of trust to the root CA, not because it exists in some database.
And the vast majority of those people could be easily traced - simply get the IP address used to post the offensive material and follow the ISP.
What we need is police, and courts, willing to act on such hate crimes. Not the compulsion to spaff your real address everywhere, making doxing even easier.
You only need emergency drugs to be kept cold for the flight though - if it's not needed in the next thirty minutes it's not an emergency delivery.
A relatively small pack of dry ice in an insulated container is likely to be more than is needed.
One of my medications needs to be kept refrigerated, but it is always warmed to room temperature before use (since very cold injections aren't all that fun). I presume the same is the case with insulin (just checked - 28 day lifetime at reasonable temperatures), which would probably mean that you don't even need to actively cool it, maybe wrap it in a little bubble wrap if you live in a very hot part of the world...
There are very few places where the roads are not going to be maintained anyway, and the carbon footprint of the person is not tied to their job.
A failure in tracking isn't a reason not to use a delivery - you'll end up with exactly the same problem with any delivery mechanism.
If you *must* have nuggets at 3 in the morning then I question your choices - but I'd suggest that a fleet of drones shouldn't be operating at 3 in the morning anyway. A simple bike is almost certainly the better choice.
If you need an AED at 3 in the morning then absolutely send a drone, or maybe just don't - since you seem to think that the drone would then be responsible for the rest of that person's lifetime carbon emissions (at least you attribute those to the trike).
Because drones are fun for the same reason helicopters are.... they fly by beating gravity into submission.
That's never going to be an efficient form of transport - trucks might be bad, but the answer to an underutilised truck isn't a tiny helicopter, it's a smaller road vehicle.
Where time is of the essence (medicines), and mass is small (medicines, tests, cards...), or where human contact is really unwanted (covid test deliveries) then there is a place for this.
But an electrically assisted (no idea how hilly canberra is) cargo trike will beat most things for energy efficient transport.
"The M1 was released really for the Air crowd – maximum portability and battery time but not a lot of oomph"
Have you ever used one? They pack a serious amount of compute power.
No, they aren't a full blade chassis with densely packed CPU blades... but that's not their purpose.
I've said this before, but I've done that on a production system...
I blame my manager - we were short on hardware and so I ended up doing chroot development on the production build server.
I meant to clean up the chroot jail, but accidentally typed rm -rf /bin /usr /etc instead of the same without the / in front of each...
"We need to go back to the "If you can't bring in a physical working model of your idea, you don't get to patent it." style of patents."
Mostly - the blueprints probably, but some working prototypes are just too expensive for a smaller inventor to build.
If I come up with a likely method to provide a warp drive, or an on-earth teleporter, or whatever takes your fancy from SciFi... then I may well not have the resources to produce a working version.
Should I be able to protect my invention?
Could you reasonably say that you can register a pending patent with blueprints, but an actual patent needs a working prototype?
"You remind me of a person who is about to drown. their arms flailing in a desperate effort to remain afloat."
Whilst that is the popular presentation for TV the reality is usually very different - people don't have the capacity to wave their arms in the air when they are really drowning.
https://rnli.org/magazine/magazine-featured-list/2017/march/how-to-recognise-drowning-its-not-like-the-movies
There is a panic phase before they start drowning when they will, but that doesn't last long (since raising your arms tends to push your head underwater).
Not really - they get raised to higher orbits in groups to allow the orbits to get separated (the orbits rotate around the earth gently, so you raise a few, wait some time and you're now in a different orbital position with the same inclination, then raise a few more... rinse and repeat.
And from what Scott Manley was saying it was primarily that they couldn't rotate themselves to position due to atmospheric drag, if they could then their thrusters could have kept them in orbit.