Seriously there is a much easier alternative. Just do what most other phone makers do and not provide security or bug fixes.
Is this true? Do iPhones users really believe this? I've had HTC and Samsung phones on T-Mobile for many years, and I've always gotten several updates per year, mostly for security issues.
Speaking as a human, we've cut down the left side of the bathtub for our mortality by a lot. It's still there, but not nearly as pronounced. The right side of the curve is still there. A lot of change in expected lifespan depends on infant mortality.
Definitely the decrease in the early-life deaths (moving the left wall down) is very significant, but delaying the onset of aging-related deaths (moving the right wall to the right) is also very significant.
A bathtub curve gives you a high probability of failing early on (manufacturing defects, etc), then a long period of relatively low, constant odds of failure, and then a climb back to a high probability of failure as things wear out. So that if you graph the odds of failure you get a U shape, or "bathtub cross-section"
They're claiming mole rats never get that final climb - in fact as they get really old the odds of dying actually *diminish*. That means that the older a mole rat gets, the better its odds are of still being alive in 10 years time.
The bathtub curve is maybe the right way to look at this. The flat bottom of the curve is based on environmental causes of failure, while the early-life and aging sides of the curve are based on intrinsic problems with the system or the animal in this case. So, assuming that the bathtub curve applies here, the implication is that once this animal passes the early life death phase, death is basically determined by environmental causes. It's consistent that those individuals that are better adapted at surviving some environmental causes (such as predators, weather, or lack of easy food) would have a lower failure rate at the bottom of the bathtub. That is, the individuals probably have a constant failure rate, but the population based on age would have a diminishing failure rate because the less robust individuals die sooner.
Put an MBA in charge of a company and they simply chase the next big thing instead of innovating and creating the next big thing.
They do this because they are not innovators and creators, they are simply followers and maintainers.
It seems to be the plight of large companies to not want to take the risk of hiring an innovator. So they look for someone who "knows how to run a business." They get what the look for, stagnation.
I think MBA executives can be very intelligent and innovative, but mostly in their area of expertise, which is why corporations have so many reorgs and tax dodging schemes. It's unreasonable to expect MBAs to be innovators in tech. They can appoint techies who are the actual tech innovators, or they can pick up on innovations that others are doing and copy those ideas, but the only way they might approach being tech innovators is in the same way that Gene Roddenberry was an innovator, i.e., imagining what the black box might do rather than than describing the workings inside the box.
Satire and political commentary are one thing, but revenge porn is something entirely different. Not that I'm advocating banning these tools, but I can easily imagine teenagers et al. using this for revenge, embarrassment, and bullying.
Who woulda thought that if you impose multiple and ever-increasing burdens on employers, that they'll start to hire fewer people as employees?
While unfunded mandates on employers definitely push companies to want to decrease their employee costs, I think that's just one relatively minor issue among the much larger elephant in the room. The real problem is that the forces that push back against eliminating jobs and decreasing compensation are waning. If all government mandates were suddenly eliminated overnight, I believe that the current cost reduction will continue and even accelerate. Executives are incentivized to cut costs to maximize their short-term stock returns. That's the core of the problem. Until that incentive is altered, government regulations won't matter much in affecting job growth/elimination. Perhaps, those short-term stock returns need to be extended to many years, but that won't happen because the compensation committee members are also the beneficiaries in the incestuous world of corporate governance.
There is no difference whether such control is wielded by religions, dictatorships, or corporations. Each believes in its own benevolence and the evilness of those that do not adhere to incontrovertible truths.
There is a difference. You can leave a corporation or a religion. You cannot leave your government so easily...
Depends. I think you're correct in most situations. However, there are situations where the religion or the corporation has sufficient control over finances/career, family/friend relationships, etc. that coercive control can be exercised. If you live in a commune where all of your property rests with the religion or if all your family and friends would shun you for being a heretic, then leaving is not easy. If you work for a company that can fire you and leaving means significant financial and/or emotional upheaval, then leaving is not easy. In these cases, one might choose to accept the "company" line because the alternative is too difficult.
Damore probably can find a job elsewhere, but what about someone in their 50's? What about someone who just signed up for a $5000/month mortgage? What about someone who has no friends outside of Google?
Even if defining culture and etiquette are similar to defining values, there is a world of difference between voicing personal opinions and values and forcing those opinions and values upon financially dependent subordinates. It's that control that renders many normal relationships non-consensual. Sexual relationships and philosophical/religious/political discussions that are fine among friends have such a coercive potential in superior-subordinate relationships that they are legally prohibited in many situations and maybe should be in all such situations. This potentially coercive relationship certainly exists in the employer-employee relationship. Think the way I want you to think or you may be fired, demoted, or otherwise financially penalized. It really is as bad as it sounds.
The "right to not be offended" is not only not desirable, it must be vigorously opposed because it is impossible to implement for all people. The only way to implement such a right is to selectively decide who gets that right and who does not, which offending actions are sanctioned and which are not. In practice, what this right entails is the imposition of the views of those in power upon the controlled masses, along with the propaganda that such mind control is benevolent, that blessed views are correct, and that opposing views are incorrect.
There is no difference whether such control is wielded by religions, dictatorships, or corporations. Each believes in its own benevolence and the evilness of those that do not adhere to incontrovertible truths.
If it was my phone, I would still be mad. They built something with a design flaw
The "design flaw" is that batteries are batteries and electronic circuits take a minimum amount of power to run. In other words not a flaw, it's how the real universe works.
This wasn't a design flaw, which is when a design decision results in unexpected behavior. In this case, the results were consistent with the design intent.
The problem is that the intent was not in the user's best interests. Yes, slowing down the system to conserve energy is a good thing, but only if minimal usability is preserved. Otherwise, there is no difference from simply letting the battery drain completely. In either case, the system would be unusable.
In many other systems with consumable parts (e.g., toner in laser printers, oil or gas in cars, hard disk drives, batteries in cars), the system warns the user that the consumable part needs to be replaced. Can you imagine the outrage if electric cars silently limited max speed to 10 mph for a battery that is nearing the end of its life cycle instead of just flashing a battery replacement warning?
Who pays corporate taxes? Answer: the corporations. And who owns the corporations? Answer: the shareholders.
Why don't we just tax the shareholders and skip the corporate tax?
Sounds fine to me. However, the shareholders who are real owners and have non-zero control of the company, i.e., Larry and Sergey, should pay 100% of the tax. All other shareholders are owners in name only and are just playing the ponzi game on the side.
You forget the most important part. In the US, there is a sacrosanct freedom to directly and openly criticize the government by the press and individuals, including calling for the removal of the current leaders, the changing of laws, and the callings of assemblies to protest the government. These are by far the most important of the freedoms in the US and why the first amendment is the first in the Bill of Rights.
We have no idea how much they will make (a word usually synonymous with "profit") or even whether they will make anything at all on the deal given how expensive, and even risky, the tech is to develop and produce. Only time will tell.
Why wouldn't Samsung not make a huge profit? The technology and manufacturing process are not risky, since they've been doing this for many years at high volume. They are also the dominant supplier, so they would be hugely inept to not negotiate a deal that guarantees huge profits. At worst, they could walk away from any deal and actually better compete with Apple in the high-end smartphone market.
Based on the supposedly reliable Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple is paying Samsung $120-$130 per OLED screen and is urgently trying to find a second source for OLED screens to diminish Samsung's strong current negotiating position. Hence, Apple's huge $2 billion investment in LG.
Also, according to this article, Samsung OLED operating margins are 12% to 22%, which would put the profit on $22 billion at around 2.5 to 5 billion dollars.
My kids watch only so-called commercial-free kids shows on Netflix and YouTube. Shows like Pokemon and Lego Ninjago/Chima/Nexo Knights. In reality, they get bombarded with a commercial-to-airtime ratio of 100% instead of 24%. The difference between Netflix et al. and shows with explicit commercials is the mix of commercials and not the total commercial exposure time.
As far as I know, the goal of Elon Musk was to push other manufacturers into making electric cars.
I'd say he succeeded, at least partially.
Google Fiber was trying mainly to spur competition using minimal funds and didn't care about market share or even long-term viability. In contrast, Tesla's survival depends on beating competitors. I doubt merely spurring competition was a real goal.
How much environmental damage did this cause? Quantify it. If you're going to assert that he should be killed for his crime, you should be able to identify exactly what his crime was.
This seems like a silly argument. Sort of like telling the traffic court judge that you didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage, so the running the red light ticket should be dismissed. And asking for quantification of the damage? How many significant digits would you require?
The US government isn't the bad guy here. It's mostly on the Volkswagen top executives that asked the scapegoats to lie to protect the higher-ups. Note that the lying was never intended to protect the company but only the executives. It's also somewhat on the scapegoats who agreed to lie even though it was disingenuous of them to believe that they had anything positive to gain by breaking the law.
There have been utopian no-government proposals in the past.
People always show up, and when enough people have arrived, they need to be governed.
The problem is not directly the number of people but rather the expression of self-interest by those people. Just two people in a relationship (e.g., a marriage) are sufficient to create sufficient discord to require governmental intervention.
However, I'm pretty sure no Chinese person has ever thought of Chinese characters as "kanji".
They are not.. the characters are not Kanji to the Chinese; I am just saying we can overlook the obvious error and see what the poster meant....
People vaguely familiar to the situation should be very familiar with the fact that the Kanji is the uniquely-Japanese writing system that uses the shared Chinese ideograms, and it's the set of Ideograms not the local adaptation called Kanji or the language that are shared.
Ironically it's the people who know the difference that would be the most irritated by the "typo." My point is that the connotation of such terms is dependent on the viewpoint of the listener. For westerns, using kanji to denote Chinese characters is simply a typo, but not necessarily so for Chinese, especially those that still bear resentment toward the Japanese based on events from the last century. This is a common theme of language-based communication, that the connotation often carries more meaning than the actual denoted meaning.
And yet people keep accusing them of not paying their "fair share" when they are already paying their share along with a lot of other peoples' share.
Depends on what you mean by "fair share". The most common argument, endorsed by some people of significant sophistication and perspective like Warren Buffet, is that most very wealthy pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than the typical middle class taxpayer.
Fairness always depends on the specific metric of interest. Aside from the ability to contribute financially, owners of more property also consume more governmental services and resources. For example, a rich person has a greater need for fire protection services than a homeless or indigent person. Transportation infrastructure yields convenience for poor people but is a business necessity for business people.
I think the app just relays entered information. The Japanese pizza guys probably aren't entering fake info to make it appear like they are working hard and following procedure.
I have heard stories of technicians and IT folks in Japan being extremely meticulous in following all steps of a prescribed methodology. In contrast, Americans will skip or modify steps based on personal evaluations of a specific step's significance. Sometimes that's the end result of creativity and independent thinking.
hànzì, and they're used by the Chinese, the Japanese adapted them to kanji () , Koreans as Hanja (), the Vietnemese, and some others.
Yes, it's obvious to Westerners that kanji is meant to cover all Chinese-character derived ideograms. However, I'm pretty sure no Chinese person has ever thought of Chinese characters as "kanji". It's not a big deal to Westerners. However, it does have a similar connotation to saying that the British speak the American language. The two languages are related, and the meaning is mostly clear, but the connotations are very different and would be probably grating to the British.
That map of superchargers is only impressive compared to what was there before but not compared to the number of gas stations. Only major highways are covered. If you're taking minor highways and back roads, you'd have to plan your route to not stray too far from the existing superchargers.
And since you can plug a Tesla into any outlet, thereâ(TM)s a lot more âoecharging stationsâ tha. Gas stations.
There are billions and billions of electrical outlets in the US, and almost all of them are worthless for charging an electric car because the owners won't allow it. If your car stops in front of my house, I won't let you connect to my outlets. If you stop in front of a business, they aren't going to let you plug into their outlets either. In fact, it's hard to think of many places that would actually let you charge up. I'm not sure most companies would look favorably on non-employees charging at their stations. There are the superchargers and the few, scattered charging stations in some towns, but you have either plan your route to hit those stations or otherwise be extremely lucky to fortuitously find one.
The mentally ill (e.g. hoarders) probably shouldn't be driving at all.
Yes, I hoard something called my wife's car in our garage. We have a 60 year old home that has an ostensibly two-car garage with 5 feet of clearance on one side and 6 inches on the other side. Because it's not practical to fit two cars in the garage, I park outside.
In your everyday life (aka, the vast majority of your time), instead of 5 minutes to detour to a gas station, a full charge takes 10 seconds: 5 to plug in, 5 to unplug. In the comfort of your garage.
... if you happen to have a garage and actually park your car inside the garage. I have a garage, but I park my car outside and would need a 50-foot cable to reach my car.
On long trips, it charges during meal and bathroom / stretch breaks, about 75 miles range per 10 minutes charging at below 50% SoC. Take, for example, a 700 mile trip. At 70mph that's 10 hours (not counting breaks), so two meal breaks - say, a 20 minute lunch and a 30 minute dinner. 45 minutes charging. That adds about 375 miles, meaning 685 miles. Just one or two 10 minute stretch breaks (on your 10 hour trip) and that's your entire charging.
... if you are willing to make sure that your route passes those charging stations, you are willing to accept the eating options at those places, and you are willing to accept the risk that there are no open spots when you arrive.
3) in the absolute worst case (which almost never happens), you can ask to charge virtually anywhere. Farmhouse in the middle of nowhere? Ranger station deep in a national park? You name it. And the answer in practice is almost always yes.
Well, if the out-of-juice car happened to stop conveniently right next to the electric plug, that's great. But that doesn't really happen with electric or gas cars. AAA trucks carry spare gas for stranded gas cars. What we need are AAA trucks with batteries to charge stranded cars... sometime in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously there is a much easier alternative. Just do what most other phone makers do and not provide security or bug fixes.
Is this true? Do iPhones users really believe this? I've had HTC and Samsung phones on T-Mobile for many years, and I've always gotten several updates per year, mostly for security issues.
Speaking as a human, we've cut down the left side of the bathtub for our mortality by a lot. It's still there, but not nearly as pronounced. The right side of the curve is still there. A lot of change in expected lifespan depends on infant mortality.
Definitely the decrease in the early-life deaths (moving the left wall down) is very significant, but delaying the onset of aging-related deaths (moving the right wall to the right) is also very significant.
No, absolutely not a bathtub curve.
A bathtub curve gives you a high probability of failing early on (manufacturing defects, etc), then a long period of relatively low, constant odds of failure, and then a climb back to a high probability of failure as things wear out. So that if you graph the odds of failure you get a U shape, or "bathtub cross-section"
They're claiming mole rats never get that final climb - in fact as they get really old the odds of dying actually *diminish*. That means that the older a mole rat gets, the better its odds are of still being alive in 10 years time.
The bathtub curve is maybe the right way to look at this. The flat bottom of the curve is based on environmental causes of failure, while the early-life and aging sides of the curve are based on intrinsic problems with the system or the animal in this case. So, assuming that the bathtub curve applies here, the implication is that once this animal passes the early life death phase, death is basically determined by environmental causes. It's consistent that those individuals that are better adapted at surviving some environmental causes (such as predators, weather, or lack of easy food) would have a lower failure rate at the bottom of the bathtub. That is, the individuals probably have a constant failure rate, but the population based on age would have a diminishing failure rate because the less robust individuals die sooner.
Na, the previous CEO's were innovators.
The current CEO is an MBA.
Put an MBA in charge of a company and they simply chase the next big thing instead of innovating and creating the next big thing.
They do this because they are not innovators and creators, they are simply followers and maintainers.
It seems to be the plight of large companies to not want to take the risk of hiring an innovator. So they look for someone who "knows how to run a business." They get what the look for, stagnation.
I think MBA executives can be very intelligent and innovative, but mostly in their area of expertise, which is why corporations have so many reorgs and tax dodging schemes. It's unreasonable to expect MBAs to be innovators in tech. They can appoint techies who are the actual tech innovators, or they can pick up on innovations that others are doing and copy those ideas, but the only way they might approach being tech innovators is in the same way that Gene Roddenberry was an innovator, i.e., imagining what the black box might do rather than than describing the workings inside the box.
Satire and political commentary are one thing, but revenge porn is something entirely different. Not that I'm advocating banning these tools, but I can easily imagine teenagers et al. using this for revenge, embarrassment, and bullying.
Who woulda thought that if you impose multiple and ever-increasing burdens on employers, that they'll start to hire fewer people as employees?
While unfunded mandates on employers definitely push companies to want to decrease their employee costs, I think that's just one relatively minor issue among the much larger elephant in the room. The real problem is that the forces that push back against eliminating jobs and decreasing compensation are waning. If all government mandates were suddenly eliminated overnight, I believe that the current cost reduction will continue and even accelerate. Executives are incentivized to cut costs to maximize their short-term stock returns. That's the core of the problem. Until that incentive is altered, government regulations won't matter much in affecting job growth/elimination. Perhaps, those short-term stock returns need to be extended to many years, but that won't happen because the compensation committee members are also the beneficiaries in the incestuous world of corporate governance.
There is no difference whether such control is wielded by religions, dictatorships, or corporations. Each believes in its own benevolence and the evilness of those that do not adhere to incontrovertible truths.
There is a difference. You can leave a corporation or a religion. You cannot leave your government so easily...
Depends. I think you're correct in most situations. However, there are situations where the religion or the corporation has sufficient control over finances/career, family/friend relationships, etc. that coercive control can be exercised. If you live in a commune where all of your property rests with the religion or if all your family and friends would shun you for being a heretic, then leaving is not easy. If you work for a company that can fire you and leaving means significant financial and/or emotional upheaval, then leaving is not easy. In these cases, one might choose to accept the "company" line because the alternative is too difficult.
Damore probably can find a job elsewhere, but what about someone in their 50's? What about someone who just signed up for a $5000/month mortgage? What about someone who has no friends outside of Google?
Even if defining culture and etiquette are similar to defining values, there is a world of difference between voicing personal opinions and values and forcing those opinions and values upon financially dependent subordinates. It's that control that renders many normal relationships non-consensual. Sexual relationships and philosophical/religious/political discussions that are fine among friends have such a coercive potential in superior-subordinate relationships that they are legally prohibited in many situations and maybe should be in all such situations. This potentially coercive relationship certainly exists in the employer-employee relationship. Think the way I want you to think or you may be fired, demoted, or otherwise financially penalized. It really is as bad as it sounds.
The "right to not be offended" is not only not desirable, it must be vigorously opposed because it is impossible to implement for all people. The only way to implement such a right is to selectively decide who gets that right and who does not, which offending actions are sanctioned and which are not. In practice, what this right entails is the imposition of the views of those in power upon the controlled masses, along with the propaganda that such mind control is benevolent, that blessed views are correct, and that opposing views are incorrect.
There is no difference whether such control is wielded by religions, dictatorships, or corporations. Each believes in its own benevolence and the evilness of those that do not adhere to incontrovertible truths.
If it was my phone, I would still be mad. They built something with a design flaw
The "design flaw" is that batteries are batteries and electronic circuits take a minimum amount of power to run. In other words not a flaw, it's how the real universe works.
This wasn't a design flaw, which is when a design decision results in unexpected behavior. In this case, the results were consistent with the design intent.
The problem is that the intent was not in the user's best interests. Yes, slowing down the system to conserve energy is a good thing, but only if minimal usability is preserved. Otherwise, there is no difference from simply letting the battery drain completely. In either case, the system would be unusable.
In many other systems with consumable parts (e.g., toner in laser printers, oil or gas in cars, hard disk drives, batteries in cars), the system warns the user that the consumable part needs to be replaced. Can you imagine the outrage if electric cars silently limited max speed to 10 mph for a battery that is nearing the end of its life cycle instead of just flashing a battery replacement warning?
Who pays corporate taxes? Answer: the corporations. And who owns the corporations? Answer: the shareholders.
Why don't we just tax the shareholders and skip the corporate tax?
Sounds fine to me. However, the shareholders who are real owners and have non-zero control of the company, i.e., Larry and Sergey, should pay 100% of the tax. All other shareholders are owners in name only and are just playing the ponzi game on the side.
You forget the most important part. In the US, there is a sacrosanct freedom to directly and openly criticize the government by the press and individuals, including calling for the removal of the current leaders, the changing of laws, and the callings of assemblies to protest the government. These are by far the most important of the freedoms in the US and why the first amendment is the first in the Bill of Rights.
We have no idea how much they will make (a word usually synonymous with "profit") or even whether they will make anything at all on the deal given how expensive, and even risky, the tech is to develop and produce. Only time will tell.
Why wouldn't Samsung not make a huge profit? The technology and manufacturing process are not risky, since they've been doing this for many years at high volume. They are also the dominant supplier, so they would be hugely inept to not negotiate a deal that guarantees huge profits. At worst, they could walk away from any deal and actually better compete with Apple in the high-end smartphone market.
Based on the supposedly reliable Ming-Chi Kuo, Apple is paying Samsung $120-$130 per OLED screen and is urgently trying to find a second source for OLED screens to diminish Samsung's strong current negotiating position. Hence, Apple's huge $2 billion investment in LG.
Also, according to this article, Samsung OLED operating margins are 12% to 22%, which would put the profit on $22 billion at around 2.5 to 5 billion dollars.
My kids watch only so-called commercial-free kids shows on Netflix and YouTube. Shows like Pokemon and Lego Ninjago/Chima/Nexo Knights. In reality, they get bombarded with a commercial-to-airtime ratio of 100% instead of 24%. The difference between Netflix et al. and shows with explicit commercials is the mix of commercials and not the total commercial exposure time.
As far as I know, the goal of Elon Musk was to push other manufacturers into making electric cars.
I'd say he succeeded, at least partially.
Google Fiber was trying mainly to spur competition using minimal funds and didn't care about market share or even long-term viability. In contrast, Tesla's survival depends on beating competitors. I doubt merely spurring competition was a real goal.
How much environmental damage did this cause? Quantify it. If you're going to assert that he should be killed for his crime, you should be able to identify exactly what his crime was.
This seems like a silly argument. Sort of like telling the traffic court judge that you didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage, so the running the red light ticket should be dismissed. And asking for quantification of the damage? How many significant digits would you require?
The US government isn't the bad guy here. It's mostly on the Volkswagen top executives that asked the scapegoats to lie to protect the higher-ups. Note that the lying was never intended to protect the company but only the executives. It's also somewhat on the scapegoats who agreed to lie even though it was disingenuous of them to believe that they had anything positive to gain by breaking the law.
There have been utopian no-government proposals in the past.
People always show up, and when enough people have arrived, they need to be governed.
The problem is not directly the number of people but rather the expression of self-interest by those people. Just two people in a relationship (e.g., a marriage) are sufficient to create sufficient discord to require governmental intervention.
However, I'm pretty sure no Chinese person has ever thought of Chinese characters as "kanji".
They are not.. the characters are not Kanji to the Chinese; I am just saying we can overlook the obvious error and see what the poster meant....
People vaguely familiar to the situation should be very familiar with the fact that the Kanji is the uniquely-Japanese writing system that uses the shared Chinese ideograms, and it's the set of Ideograms not the local adaptation called Kanji or the language that are shared.
Ironically it's the people who know the difference that would be the most irritated by the "typo." My point is that the connotation of such terms is dependent on the viewpoint of the listener. For westerns, using kanji to denote Chinese characters is simply a typo, but not necessarily so for Chinese, especially those that still bear resentment toward the Japanese based on events from the last century. This is a common theme of language-based communication, that the connotation often carries more meaning than the actual denoted meaning.
And yet people keep accusing them of not paying their "fair share" when they are already paying their share along with a lot of other peoples' share.
Depends on what you mean by "fair share". The most common argument, endorsed by some people of significant sophistication and perspective like Warren Buffet, is that most very wealthy pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than the typical middle class taxpayer.
Fairness always depends on the specific metric of interest. Aside from the ability to contribute financially, owners of more property also consume more governmental services and resources. For example, a rich person has a greater need for fire protection services than a homeless or indigent person. Transportation infrastructure yields convenience for poor people but is a business necessity for business people.
I think the app just relays entered information. The Japanese pizza guys probably aren't entering fake info to make it appear like they are working hard and following procedure.
I have heard stories of technicians and IT folks in Japan being extremely meticulous in following all steps of a prescribed methodology. In contrast, Americans will skip or modify steps based on personal evaluations of a specific step's significance. Sometimes that's the end result of creativity and independent thinking.
hànzì, and they're used by the Chinese, the Japanese adapted them to kanji () , Koreans as Hanja (), the Vietnemese, and some others.
Yes, it's obvious to Westerners that kanji is meant to cover all Chinese-character derived ideograms. However, I'm pretty sure no Chinese person has ever thought of Chinese characters as "kanji". It's not a big deal to Westerners. However, it does have a similar connotation to saying that the British speak the American language. The two languages are related, and the meaning is mostly clear, but the connotations are very different and would be probably grating to the British.
China does, where there are TLDs that require kanji characters to access.
Wow, parts of the Chinese system require Japanese characters? That's sort of like saying that the British use the American alphabet.
How would you manage to avoid driving near a super charger?
https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/2017.png
That map of superchargers is only impressive compared to what was there before but not compared to the number of gas stations. Only major highways are covered. If you're taking minor highways and back roads, you'd have to plan your route to not stray too far from the existing superchargers.
And since you can plug a Tesla into any outlet, thereâ(TM)s a lot more âoecharging stationsâ tha. Gas stations.
There are billions and billions of electrical outlets in the US, and almost all of them are worthless for charging an electric car because the owners won't allow it. If your car stops in front of my house, I won't let you connect to my outlets. If you stop in front of a business, they aren't going to let you plug into their outlets either. In fact, it's hard to think of many places that would actually let you charge up. I'm not sure most companies would look favorably on non-employees charging at their stations. There are the superchargers and the few, scattered charging stations in some towns, but you have either plan your route to hit those stations or otherwise be extremely lucky to fortuitously find one.
The mentally ill (e.g. hoarders) probably shouldn't be driving at all.
Yes, I hoard something called my wife's car in our garage. We have a 60 year old home that has an ostensibly two-car garage with 5 feet of clearance on one side and 6 inches on the other side. Because it's not practical to fit two cars in the garage, I park outside.
In your everyday life (aka, the vast majority of your time), instead of 5 minutes to detour to a gas station, a full charge takes 10 seconds: 5 to plug in, 5 to unplug. In the comfort of your garage.
... if you happen to have a garage and actually park your car inside the garage. I have a garage, but I park my car outside and would need a 50-foot cable to reach my car.
On long trips, it charges during meal and bathroom / stretch breaks, about 75 miles range per 10 minutes charging at below 50% SoC. Take, for example, a 700 mile trip. At 70mph that's 10 hours (not counting breaks), so two meal breaks - say, a 20 minute lunch and a 30 minute dinner. 45 minutes charging. That adds about 375 miles, meaning 685 miles. Just one or two 10 minute stretch breaks (on your 10 hour trip) and that's your entire charging.
... if you are willing to make sure that your route passes those charging stations, you are willing to accept the eating options at those places, and you are willing to accept the risk that there are no open spots when you arrive.
3) in the absolute worst case (which almost never happens), you can ask to charge virtually anywhere. Farmhouse in the middle of nowhere? Ranger station deep in a national park? You name it. And the answer in practice is almost always yes.
Well, if the out-of-juice car happened to stop conveniently right next to the electric plug, that's great. But that doesn't really happen with electric or gas cars. AAA trucks carry spare gas for stranded gas cars. What we need are AAA trucks with batteries to charge stranded cars ... sometime in the future.