LastYearsIrritant @ LastYearsIrritant @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

230

Joined

5 mo. ago

It also doesn't exist yet. I'm very skeptical that it's going to be actually offered at the $27,500 price point.

Deliveries expected in Q4 2026, which means we'll probably get a few trucks rolling out in their premium price point in early 2027, and maybe get some of the base models in 2028.

I also don't see a backup camera screen (might be one in the rear view, but they don't say) which means it can't be sold as advertised. They list a whole bunch of customization stuff, which means it's going to need a lot of modification hard points, how is it going to handle crash tests and rollover tests?

They're early specs are wildly out of line with current offerings, which means they either need an unprecedented team of engineers, or it's not going to be even close to how it's listed when actually sold.

You're describing the Ford Maverick

As much as I like my EV car, I understand why trucks are a much harder sell. It's really difficult to get an electric truck to do everything a gas truck can do, and the demographic for trucks is very different than cars.

Not sure what it's going to take to change this trend, maybe they need to stop selling "do everything" trucks and focus on work vans?

Buy a paper map, or ask your car insurance agent for a free atlas.

That only works after the video is out and has usage statistics.

This could theoretically start to identify those moments before the video is public.

That's how I read the article, yes.

It's a little confusing, because they seem to also be speculating on how power generation and load will be in the future as well as people's charging habits.

I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing the paper is about. The overall load is lower, but the mix of power types is different.

Specifically, in California, there's a HUGE difference in power generation types overnight than during the day. There's excess capacity until the sun goes down due to solar. If you look ahead to everyone driving EVs, and then assume that everyone charges at night, then the power problem is completely different than what it is today.

You're missing that the researchers recommend charging during daytime business hours, which means people who use EVs to drive to work would need public or workplace provided chargers to accommodate this.

Setting a timer to charge around noon wouldn't help if you're parked at your job with no chargers nearby.

Basically they want people to charge during the daytime when solar power is available, instead of in the evening when the grid is strained by higher demand and lack of renewable energy.

EVs have timers in them to prevent them from charging during peak demand or high electric cost hours. My power company charges triple rates from 2pm-7pm weekdays. We just have the EV timer set to not charge during that window.

These dogs could absolutely be much better, but the police prefer to have half trained dogs so they can justify using them as a pretext to harass people.

Regular slip joint pliers.

A pack of auto Fuses that match your car.

A good flashlight.

A good phone battery pack.

For what?

All folk tales were social commentary. It's been that way since the first stories were told around a fire.

Depends on the location.

There exists "one party consent" recording laws that mean that as long as anyone involved in the conversation consents to being recorded, the entire conversation can be recorded. But it also requires that you are only talking to someone else in the same one party consent area.

For example, if you lived in Virginia, you could record a conversation with someone else that lives in Virginia without informing them. But if you called someone in Illinois you'd have to tell them, even if the call and recording started in Virginia.

Most recording apps probably prefer to not have to keep track of all the legalities and just prefer to notify everyone, so they don't get sued.

Just waiting for it to hit $20. I already played it through once, so I'm definitely not paying more than that to play again.

No, this is exactly why it shouldn't be allowed. This isn't akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it's the same thing is what makes it wrong.

Your emotions don't always line up with "what you know" this is why evidence rules exist in court. Humans don't work that way. This is why there can be mistrials if specific kinds of evidence is revealed to the jury that shouldn't have been shown.

Digital reenactments shouldn't be allowed, even with disclaimers to the court. It is fiction and has no place here.

I think we'd all enjoy a fresh take on SDV. There's probably a ton he'd like to change, but can't without having to rework the whole thing.

He did a fantastic job making the game what it is by adding slowly to the game, but it's certainly pretty disjointed and limited in a lot of ways.

This isn't a message from the victim. This is a message from his sister using his image as a way to increase the impact of her statement in court.

This is a bad thing, this is manipulating the court with a false and confusing message.