arc @ arc @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

598

Joined

2 yr. ago

But even if you aren’t interested in reading that source with a critical eye and recognizing the ways it manipulates language and information to make a point (I’m still not clear why a towing company wrote this), you can literally just look next to the authors name and see:

The RAC isn't just a "towing company". It provides a range of motor services like breakdown assistance, insurance, vehicle inspections, servicing, fleet management. Therefore it happens to know a great deal about automotive matters unlike say Forbes or some other outlet which does not. It's also not some stealth EV proponent controlled by some shadowy puppet master, it just happens to have knowledge from supporting fleets of EVs of their outcomes. The AA, a similar organisation also debunks EV myths, again coming from a position of experience.

I wouldn't say Volkswagen ID cars (ID.3, ID.4, ID.Buzz), Audi Q4 e-tron are cheap cars but they're using drum brakes. Drum brakes are actually more efficient since a pad isn't rubbing against the plate, impeding efficiency. It's also easier to integrate electronic parking brakes into the mechanism. I imagine other EV makers will follow suit if for no other reason than it saves money and weight.

As for tyre wear, I've already pointed to links from the RAC & Kwikfit who I trust know what they're talking about. I suppose if you drove an EV like you just stole it you might suffer wear but I imagine most people don't drive like that and actually drive their car anticipating the need for acceleration / deceleration to maximize regen. And that style of driving also happens to reduce wear on the tyres.

I expect Cybertruck will sell in places with a big truck culture. The US, Canada and Australia probably I think they will sell terribly in Europe where trucks are generally quite rare and disliked because they're not practical on public roads. I also foresee that the EU might get pissed off with Tesla's laissez faire attitude to safety critical stuff like - "unbreakable" glass, door releases, position of indicators, pedestrian safety and force them to change design to comply with more stringent regs.

Of course it has excellent water management because otherwise they'd run out. Doesn't mean that everyone having pools and so many golf courses is anyway defensible, or doesn't put insane stress on the supply.

Las Vegas has something like 70 golf courses wasting inordinate amounts of water. Of course most houses also have outside private swimming pools too.

Masturbation makes hair grow on the palms of your hands - it's science people.

Wait, so you you're saying EV tyres are designed to wear slower, and yet they eat through tyres faster? Did that even make sense in your head? And if this design is a thing (slower wearing I mean) then why don't ICE vehicles also do it?

And no EV tyres are not more expensive because of whatever you imagine but because of simple market forces - EVs are less common therefore, tyres cost more.

And yeah my link is not journalism. It's pointing to actual companies that deal with breakdowns and replace tyres. The sort of people most people would implicitly trust to know what they're talking about.

No dummy, the RAC is one of the biggest automotive companies in the UK. Tyre repair companies also say it. Common sense says it. If tyre tread on EVs was substantially less than ICE vehicles it would be borne out by data but it is not.

I have an EV that I just charge at home when I need to, once every 5-8 days depending, and then in the morning unplug it. That covers driving to work, shopping, gym, school runs and occasional trips to the airport. The stats show most cars never go more than 20-30 miles on average. Maybe there are some hyper commuters, or people who drive hundreds of miles per day but they're atypical, not the norm.

I've had the car 6 months and haven't even tried using a public charger. That said, public charging infrastructure in Ireland is very spotty and if I did need to make a long journey I probably would be concerned about where I was going to charge and have to plan ahead. I am expecting that since over a 1/5th of new car sales are electric that the situation will improve over time. The UK is much better, France / Germany are even better and Norway is insanely good. Demonstrates it is possible and will happen eventually.

I think governments could do much to alleviate range anxiety if every public charger was required to be visible in a national database - occupancy, cost, reliability, rate of charge and other information so that apps could be built around it. At the moment it's a hodge podge of apps which seem to have their own partnerships with different providers so it's very hard to know all the chargers from a single app.

here is the RAC - a major road assistance company in the UK & Ireland - explaining EV particulate emissions. Basically, no the particulates aren't any worse from an EV and are actually better compared to ICE, both brake and tyre.

Doesn't mean particulates are good in any circumstance, but this argument, that somehow EVs are even worse, which is largely being propagated by people & groups with a vested interest in ICE cars is a complete nonsense.

Here is Kwik Fit, the largest tyre repair / refit retailer in the UK saying the complete opposite. They say that conventional tyres wear faster. The downside of EV tyres is they're still more expensive. It's not hard to find similar points made by others who have the knowledge to make the comparison.

So yeah but no.

No they don't massively increase tyre dust. In fact, if you go to motoring organisations, or actual tyre repair / refit companies they will tell you straight out that tyres on EVs don't wear any faster than regular tyres. The only difference really between an EV tyre and a regular one is the cross section which is different to account for the generally higher weight of an EV.

Definitely so it's not a binary all or nothing - one way or another. It needs to be governments putting their fingers on the scale and pushing development in a way that lowers CO2 emissions, energy use, reliance of fossil fuels etc. I think some countries like the US are too far hooked on cars to think they'll change over night to optimal urban designs, so even pushing people to use EVs, install solar on their houses etc. is a positive over what exists now. Perhaps in due course, they'll change but it needs political will - to increase urban density, change building codes, create hubs etc.

Well obviously less vehicles of any kind would be a benefit. Cities designed around people with public transport options would always beat out a society where everyone has a car. I think there is more push on this in Europe than the US, where outside of the big cities public transport is virtually non-existent. Urban planning should emphasis central districts to create transport hubs where people eat / work / shop and therefore demand to make public transport. And outside of that cycle routes, footpaths etc.

But electric vehicles are still much better than ICE vehicles. Over their life time they account for 1/4 emissions (depending on how power is generated) and those emissions can be more effectively captured. And of course renewables bring the emissions down year on year. There is a direct correlation between NOx emissions and respiratory deaths so this is a good thing. Also less CO2 emissions and contribution to global warming. Also, particulates are much less - brakes are not the primary source of deceleration in an EV (regen is) so pads don't see anything like as much use as an ICE car. Some EVs are even going back to using drum brakes where the dust is basically captured inside an enclosed drum. The tyres also aren't any worse or faster wearing than ICE vehicles so in that regard it's even.

The incurably stupid and grifters.

        According to two sources familiar with the matter and another person briefed on Team Trump’s legal strategies, the former president and his lawyers are intentionally trying to provoke the judge into a nuclear-level overreaction.

  

I think Trump's legal strategy is he knows he's lost already. He's going to be fined and run out of business. So is his only hope is if he and his lawyers are obnoxious dicks and provoke a reaction to force a mistrial or grounds for appeal. Also he can whine about "witch hunt" and the usual nonsense to his base if he's found in contempt or held accountable for his actions. Expect this nonsense to happen in his criminal trials too.

Nothing provided it is an honest and upfront with consent from the user. The problem is vast majority of affiliate links are non-consensual, buried in articles and in the worst case are the reason that pages even exist - "top ten dishwashers", "50 gifts to buy your wife for Christmas" etc. clickbait garbage. I doubt most visitors even understand that's why the pages exist or the financial remuneration they get from making these lists.

So it would not be a bad thing that if a browser to detect an affiliate link and ask you if you wanted to follow it as-is or strip the affiliate info out with a checkbox to remember the decision for the site.

They aren’t cheaper in epic, but more money goes to the publishers and developers. It sucks when a game studio you like goes under.

I’d argue they aren’t profitable because of steam. Everybody uses steam, and most people will wait 6 months to get the epic exclusives after the exclusivity runs out.

I guess as a studio it boils down to is would they rather get 70% of 10 million sales or 88% of 1 million sales. They have to make that calculus and also whether they're going to spend money to make, test, distribute and support multiple builds of the same game to capture as many sales from as many platforms as possible.

I once made an app for Android that I distributed on Play, Amazon and Blackberry(!) app stores and it soon became a huge pain in the ass. Since the stores have different banner / screenshot requirements, different upload requirements, even different approval procedures that could mean uploads took a week to appear. In the end I just gave up and used Play because it was the largest audience and relatively frictionless.

It's COMPLETELY possible to have an alternative app store that does these things. You could install F-Droid on your phone if you so wished right now. Many phones have Samsung's app store baked into them. Amazon also have an app store.

It would more correct to say that Google preinstalls Play store and enjoys the power of the default - this stuff is in all their licensed phones, it does the job and vast majority people lack a motivation to use anything else. But if people were motivated they could do something else it since the door isn't completely closed as it is on many other platforms.

I think this is just Epic getting pissed that they either have to agree to the terms of using Play, including give a cut of in-app purchases or go it alone and do their own thing. They could even have their own app store if they wanted - who knows if they had better terms than Google then maybe they could attract other games onto the platform, or find some other model, like curated subscription based gaming.

Google Play is a monopoly in practice, but it's not like other app stores don't exist and might even be preinstalled. Samsung's store is baked into their phones. AOSP forked firmwares (Kindle, Baidu, LineageOS, etc.) might not have Google apps at all. But even on Google android phones, Amazon Appstore, Samsung Galaxy Store, F-Droid etc. can be sideloaded. Even apps like Netflix are turning into app stores to give away stuff with a subscription. Any APK at all is available to sideload assuming someone wants to.

So it's a defacto monopoly and perhaps it is intended that way by Google knowing few people will bother to install anything else even when the door is open to do it. Is it any different from most other platforms though? Apple is completely shut. So are XBox, Nintendo & Playstation. Even Windows has a preinstalled appstore that Microsoft is pushing hard with things like Windows S ("safe mode") to stop people from escaping.

As for Epic, I think they're just pissed that Google wanted a quid pro cut of the profits. They feigning shock that in return for putting Fortnite in front of a lot of eyeballs, promoting it, facilitating millions of download/installation/updates that Google would want something in return. Epic demonstrated they could sideload Fortnite via an APK downloaded from their store so they can pick their poison - distribute a game entirely for themselves, or do it via a store subject to the terms and conditions.