No no no guys.
It’s perfectly okay to do this as this is art, not child porn as I was repeatedly told and down voted when I stated the fucking obvious
So if it’s art, we have to allow it under the constitution, right? It’s “free speech”, right?
This feels like another “Netflix are coming after password sharing, HOW DARE THEY, EVERYONE WILL CANCEL AND THEY WILL BE BANKRUPT IN 6 MONTHS” circlejerk we recently read.
Then Netflix announces a pretty good quarter and all of a sudden these people are silent.
This feels like it’ll be that. I could be wrong. But it really feels like the echo camber will lose its mind again in a few months when the stock is priced above zero and maybe actually doing quite well.
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Just because you personally don’t like a service or it fails some silly purity test you made up doesn’t give you some right to censor news about it.
Stand down as a moderator: what little power you have has already gone to your head and now you’re activity harming the communities you’re supposed to be protecting.
NASA invented wheels that never get punctured
No they fucking didn’t.
Wheels that don’t puncture have been around for centuries
We don’t use them because they are more shit than normal tyres for the majority of use cases.
Specific use cases, such as those faced by NASA may benefit from having such a feature, but to say they “invented” wheels that don’t puncture is an outright lie.
Who the fuck wrote this trash?
Agreed. I’d prefer a pull handle or something, but at least there is a way of getting in at all without causing damage. I suspect it’s a very rare event to need it at all.
I’ve seen cars (not Tesla’s, I think it was a Dodge, not sure) require the removal of an entire bumper just to change a light bulb. So I guess silly design decisions like this are not a new thing.
The problem with Tesla cars is that they uses two batteries.
Every single electric car has a low voltage system. Every single one. With maybe the exception of the G-Wiz.
You don’t want hundreds of volts flowing through your lights etc. and you don’t want an inverter running 24/7 in case you want to remote unlock your car.
One is the main one, which is used for propulsion, and the other one, a conventional car battery, is used for most of the critical electronic
Newer Teslas have a 16 volt lithium battery for the low voltage stuff. In theory it’s more resilient to low charge conditions. Video here if you’re interested: https://youtu.be/8-MNFgashpQ
Problem is, both are independent from each other, which mean you can have a full main battery, and still be locked out of your car if the secondary on is out. And those batteries hate cold.
The car is more than capable of topping up the low voltage battery from the high voltage battery should it be required, and in fact they do this if they are sitting for a while. I have left my Tesla for a couple of weeks without moving it without issue. Including in the cold. Although James May did have an issue with his model 3 during lockdown if I remember correctly.
Hyundai cars are notorious for allowing the low voltage system to run low, but I believe firmware updates have resolved that.
You can have a similar results with gas car, where the ignition won’t happen because of the cold, but at least you can recharge it easily with another car that happens to pass by. For Teslas, you can’t. Because those fuckers decided that it was too unsightly to see the bare battery, and bolted a plastic turd over it to make sure the only person to ever be able to change it is a Tesla tech.
It’s a five minute job to remove that cover. Really. The plastic cover is a non issue.
All other car manufacturers, which happens to have a bit more experience than those asses, understood that being able to have an unified battery, that happens to be thermally insulated (and often in the nordic countries, heated), to make sure you actually use them, even in cold weather.
I’m intrigued. Please give me examples of this.
Tesla cars are a perfect example of a product that only survive out of hype.
If you don’t like them, you don’t like them. That’s fine. Nobody has a gun to your head. But you probably shouldn’t be making up stuff for no reason.
After a three-year battle, the Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL) campaign will this month finally take national broadband ISP and phone provider BT to trial as part of a £600m £1.3bn class-action lawsuit, which alleges that the UK telecoms giant overcharged 2.3 million of its landline-only phone customers between 2015 and 2018.
Article fails to mention that 2.5 years of this were spent coming up with that “CALL” campaign name.
Does it always work for you to just try and insult your way to making a point?
You started it. I just returned the favour and was more overt.
You’ve lost all credibility if you can’t make a point without doing so. I’ve not once called you a name, insulted your intelligence in any way,
More lies. You very clearly said that I said something I did not say or insinuate. This was a very clear and deliberate act.
yet you think this is a acceptable way to not only debate a topic, but win an argument.
Again, you started it.
I pity not only you personally, but those around you that have to put up with this behavior on an every day basis
Take a look in the mirror.
To compensate, you’d need to build many more powerplants and burn much more fuels to not only take up the slack just for vehicles, but for everyday household use as well. This would pollute even more.
No, it would be less pollution. As I’ve already explained. Power stations pollute less than ICE cars for the same energy output.
The fictional situation I described would be less pollution
Again: read what I said.
By adding the numerous new power plants, you’d have those be closer to neighborhoods than they are now.
No reason that has to be the case.
You seem to be completely ok with more pollution and raping of our environment as long as it’s not right there staring you in the face.
I did not say that.
I specifically said it would be less pollution. Which part of this are you not understanding?
The entire continent would be better off as there would be less pollution.
Which part of that is so difficult for your tiny mind to understand? How are you struggling to comprehend this very basic point?
Everyone else I have spoken to about this has understood it very easily. You are the only one whl struggles with it
You’re seemingly ok with exploiting an entire continent’s worth of people just so you don’t see some gasses escape a vehicle in front of your quaint home.
Another lie.
I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I have a fairly large solar installation. I’m getting a heat pump installed. My gas will be cut off soon and my car is an EV which is charged either by my solar panels or my grid connection which is 100% green (according to my supplier)
Twice in as many paragraphs you’ve just made up stuff about me as a thinly vieled insult. Something you claim is beneath and you “feel sorry” for me for doing.
You are massive hypocrite. The only difference is that I overtly called you a cunt.
Really, I still don’t understand why you think I’m mischaracterizing what you’ve said
Because you are. And the record clearly shows that. To which I’ve explained multiple times but funnily enough you never acknowledge what I actually said.
because you’ve gone ahead and reiterated it here AGAIN.
Because I’ve attempted no less than three times to explain it.
Sadly I cannot make you understand the very basic point.
That’s on you, not me.
One more time:
EVs being powered by fossil fulled power stations would be overall better for the environment compared to ICE cars and EVs not existing as there would be less pollution overall.
I am not saying this is the ideal situation. We should still transition to renewables
If it makes you so incredibly angry to read what you’ve written, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and try thinking all the way through your ideal situations.
Hypocrisy is a strong point for yourself it seems. Shame logic isn’t.
You’ve admitted TWICE in this reply that you’re ok with pollution as long as it’s not near your home.
Nope. I specifically said the exact opposite. I shall once again state the the overall pollution would be lower!
Yet again you have lied about what I said and the point I was making.
I’m not lying about anything here.
The record here says otherwise.
And this is why I’m insulting you: because you deserve it. You lie again and again about my very clear intent. So I’m calling you a cunt. Because you deserve it.
I can see you did the exact same thing to another commenter in this thread.
You are the problem. Not us.
It must be wonderful to just ignore half of what is said to you and continue to live in your bubble of ignorance.
If you reply with another pack of lies, I shall simply block you. I have a feeling you won’t be able to help yourself as you’ll want the “last word” but I won’t waste any more time on you if you continue on this idiotic route. Moron.
But I didn’t say:
pollution is ok as long as it’s not in your backyard and happening in a confined locale…
Nor did I imply otherwise. Stop lying you colossal piece of shit.
I am saying that there would be less pollution overall running EVs which are charged by fossil fueled power stations compared to running ICE cars for the reasons I have already clearly explained and I see other commentators have already attempted to explain to you.
It is overall a better solution. If we magically waved a magic wand and swapped every ICE on the road with an EV it would be overall better for everyone, even if the power source was from burning stuff to make it
And yes, having power stations, which are usually not in dense residential areas is better as less people are breathing in the smoke at high concentrations.
And those are the facts. It’s really simple if you actually read all of what I fucking wrote. Idiot.
It still wouldn’t be a proper long term solution. I’m not saying that.
Do you understand now or are you going to keep ignoring the very simple point?
It must be so nice living in your level of ignorance and willfully completely ignoring literally half of the points being presented to you.
No dumbass, that’s very clearly not what I said nor what I was implying, and you know that.
If the pollution is being produced in one area then we can actually capture and reduce the overall level of pollution which is produced.
However, if we continue to use ICE cars then pollution will be scattered all over the place and there will be more of it as cars are less efficient than power stations.
And in the mean time, we can of course transition over to renewables. The EV will happily accept power from both.
See how that works?
Try thinking just a little bit before responding. Legit felt like I was talking to a petulant child just there
I assume you’re talking about Colbalt mining? It was difficult to decipher your meaning.
Zero colbalt in a modern LFP battery which some cars are now using. Other battery chemistries do still use it, such as the device you used to type out your comment.
Colbalt is also used in the production of gasoline. And when it’s used, it’s used: more is required to refine more fuel. Whereas the colbalt in a battery remains useful again and again every time you recharge a battery.
So if you want to be mad about it, remember to be mad at your own usage as well.
Electricity usually.
In all seriousness, even if the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, that’s still preferable to burning them locally via internal combustion in a car’s engine.
The pollution is one place, so is easier to manage/capture and a power plant is much more efficient than your car can hope to be, actually reducing overall usage and pollution for the same energy output.
Sure you can. Car manufacturers do it today.
You will have to define “3 years” as well. It can’t be a blanket 3 calendar year thing, it would have to be X number of cycles which the average user would realistically hit with 3 years of usage. Not someone glued to their phone playing games all day that need to charge three times a day.