Search results

I did a multi-day trip with no charger, SC only. Lots of errands around Southern CA. I planned a charge around lunch stops. There's a rule, apparently, that all SCs must be a very short distance away from some very good authentic Sichuan food. A quick lunch still brings the car to over 96%.

I certainly do. So much less that I've noticed the lack of gas stops. Planning one around having to use a bathroom, wanting an iced tea, maybe even a snack. But now, no excuse to stop, I have to think about the actual thing I want. I used to think that a road trip fuel stop was five minutes...

Nope, he faked it for NASA right on site. I'm sure of it. Looks way too good for amateur flyboys to be doing their own directing and filmwork! Up next, I can explain why the jet fuel can melt steel beams. It's because the planes were full of chemtrail material, and who knows how hot that...

LOL!!! Fish on!! Key in on my last sentence. "And knowing what a stickler Kubrick is for details, I would bet he filmed it on site."

I've seen pretty good evidence that the moon landing could have been faked. It even seems kind of likely, it's almost too good. My theory? They hired Stanley Kubrick to direct it, look at all his other work. It's good, convincing. And knowing what a stickler Kubrick is for details, I would...

Self driving on demand is where it's at. Or at least for people with more than one vehicle. Sometimes I want to do something really impromptu and it would be *annoying* yet not impossible with a CaaS model. Yet 99% of the time it would be fine. I mean, I tell Siri, "Start climate control"...

You make an excellent point though, the manufactured outrage hypocrisy is strong.

That's pretty much limited to the true 1%, pretty much everyone agrees you need to finance cars. And I maintain that you SHOULD in most cases. Or at least, historically. One of our cars is financed by choice, because it was cheap, but still smart to finance. Almost nobody is alleging that...

And you shouldn't. Credit requirements are the same for EVs as for ICE. I had this conversation with our credit union when refinancing our Tesla, and just had it with a neighbor's kid who got a Bolt with what he describes as "I fucked up but I'm fixing it" credit. The EV savings are not...

The lying scumbag who is the darling of the nutter alt right feeds his worshippers this garbage:

I don't understand the comparison. The US government has said that they will force everyone to drive an EV. They have not yet said they will force everyone to go to the moon. We had EVs since the early 1900s and a few people went to the moon in the 60s (if you believe they actually did)...

Not necessarily bad things, depending on who gets to define it.

And those things could be considered positives as well.

"Nobody is really buying this product any more, you should be happy you have any job at all. Now get your shovel and stop whining!"

You're quick. Nothing gets past you.

Ok, so that would be 38 batteries in series per bank to get the standard 400v, meaning that there would be parallel banks of 254 batteries. With a general capacity of about 3Ah per cell, we get to a battery pack capacity of a little over 21kWH. If we assume standard EV sedan efficiency that's...

Exactly. Like I said, I'm familiar with the arguments, and both of the extremes are based on fantasies. You can't let the free market fix it when governments are complicit/bought, and you can't just stop the capitalism without the danger of people starving to death.

The potential flipside of not exploiting poverty labor is letting them starve instead. I'm familiar with the arguments in both directions, just saying there's no one super easy and clear answer.

A very bipartisan move is to restate the other person's words incorrectly, position them as ethically abhorrent, then attack that. The easiest way to be wrong is to think your party is the clean end of the dog turd. EV opposition comes from people in both parties, for different reasons. Some...

Of course. I do wonder where one draws an ethical line between a state's "right" to control its people and the land mass it owns, versus the idea of human rights. I personally lean towards anarchy and can't yet find any reason he can't ignore them...