Your insults sounds much better the second time, genuinely. I hadn't appreciated just how biting they were till you unleashed them a second time. And now I tremble in fear of your mighty wit. You must have studied long and hard at wit school to come up with "ShortWilly". It's a devastating blow.
On the substantive topic, let me remind you that you wrote: "Nobody manufactures BEV construction equipment". If you had wanted to say "Nobody manufactures REALLY REALLY BIG BEV construction equipment for nuclear waste storage facilities deep underground", then... and I know this is a tricky concept here, so bear with me while I spell it out for you.... probably best for you to have actually written what you meant, ie "Nobody manufactures REALLY REALLY BIG BEV construction equipment for nuclear waste storage facilities deep underground". Unless, of course, this was by some wild chance just some kind of post hoc rationalisation of your position to make yourself feel better in your own eyes. But that would be absurd. No-one could have self-esteem that low. So I'll go with "unable to communicate effectively" instead. Either way, it's not a great look, but hey, that's something you're used too, right?
Ohhhh, construction equipment only counts if it's REALLY REALLY BIG!!!!!
Because proper construction is for manly men like you, who don't have to resort to mocking a nickname because of your own ridiculous inadequacies. Except when you do.
Sweetheart, if it makes you feel better to think what you just did then constitutes winning an argument, who am I to take away a little bit of psychological comfort in what is clearly going to be a rough ride through life for you? Don't worry, we're all laughing with you, not at you. Honest.
You started by trying to argue a broad point -- that overall, the environmental case for EVs vs ICE was equivocal, taking into account CO2e and cobalt as examples. Now you are discussing CO2e only, and arguing that this isn't clear when in fact it is. This is a disingenuous thing to do.
You can find studies arguing the case is equivocal but you can't find *credible* studies arguing this position. That's why there *isn't* a long discussion to be had. The case is, overall, unambiguous, and you're either kidding yourself that it's not, or worse, trying to kid others. It's not a sensible position to take. Fewer particulates. Lower NOx emissions. Lower sulphates. Lower noise levels. Lower CO levels. Lower benzene levels. Lower formaldehyde levels. All of it the emissions moved out of city centres where people are found in the greatest numbers and moved to power plants that are more efficient and better scrubbed where they are still fossil fuel, and with grid mix improving all the time, moving more and more to non-emitting sources. And this is all about the non-CO2e benefits. Etc etc.
If you're really going to study this for your PhD, you're sounding pretty naive about things. Screening leads to false positives as well as true positives, and positives require intervention. If you're going to intervene with every early prostate lump that's too small for a GP to feel, you're going to be intervening with a lot of people who would have done perfectly well with no intervention at all, or intervention only much later.
I mean there are reams and reams of papers written on this topic in relation to breast cancer screening, for example. Hugely difficult to figure out whether screening is a net benefit. Even more so when you start thinking about marginal spend and cost per QALY.
The general idea that prevention is better than cure, and early intervention is typically better than late intervention -- lots of evidence to support that. But it's not evidence for fancy machines, it's evidence for public health and primary care, a la the NHS before the Tories fucked it over (again).
Well sure, but for all the marginal cases like tonsillectomies, there's a ton of straightforward clear benefit cases like ankle fractures. And you can't know whether intervention beats non-intervention without doing a study that involves some intervention.
Taleb spends his time talking about stuff that professionals in the fields he discusses would respond to with "no shit Sherlock"
Potentially. But there are other considerations too. Rabbi Abraham Twerski talks about this in an anecdote about his father's death. Atul Gawande wrote an entire book about it.
Average car is on the road 8 to 12 years max, so you are clearly right that the OP is talking cack.
For the UK, there were 31.2m cars in 2017, of which 0.1455% or 45,397 were BEVs (33k in 2016, 25k in 2015, 16k in 2014, 6k in 2013, so the growth is pretty fast and no Model 3 available here yet).
This is just bizarre. We don't live in a world where auto manufacturers are toying with electrification while waiting to see what happens with Tesla. We live in a world where VW has committed $50bn. What, you think its institutional investors are going to sit idly by if VW says "actually we were lying and haven't spent the money as we said we would, it's all some kind of Potemkin village"?
As to whether an EV with its need for cobalt and use of electricity from our still-dirty-grid is an improvement on an ICE car of comparable size and drag coefficient is a long discussion
Why would this need to be a long discussion? It's clear that EVs are an improvement on ICE cars. As you mentioned cobalt and the grid, you clearly are thinking about both CO2e and other factors: - CO2e -- grid mix improves over time; the mix is better where EVs are more common eg Norway or CA vs W Va; large power stations are more efficient than small car engines; and numerous full lifecycle analyses have concluded lower CO2e for EV vs ICE - Non-CO2e -- particulates much lower; no tailpipes in town; lower noise levels; Li is obviously v abundant and mining it is a lot nicer than drilling for oil; Co extraction can be foul, but efforts to improve supply chain are intensive; and batteries can be reused and eventually the metals can be recovered and recycled indefinitely.
You have to squint *really* hard to make believe EVs are no better for the environment than ICE cars
The EV mafia?! My, what a vivid imagination you have.
|n the world I live in, it is in fact the case that power lines run everywhere that humans live. Or did you plug your device into your butt for power last night, rather than an electricity outlet?
I'm talking about the longer term. Many hotels already routinely have run cables from their existing power to wallboxes for EV users. I don't mean only the big chains either. I mean even small hotels in holiday spots whose main appeal is retro chic, such as this one: http://www.seaviewhotel.co.uk/
And the whole point about ubiquity and reasonable range is that most people won't need to charge, most of the time. Do the calculations for streetlamp charging: average US commute is 30 miles, assume a range of say 180 miles. So that's a charge every six days, or one out of six cars charging per night. Say 1 in 5, to be conservative. And that's ignoring any off-street charging at home, any charging away from home, etc.
Bit of a weird descriptor you're using there. Running an auto manufacturing plant might be boring and day-to-day -- to you, if not to many others -- but it's also notoriously difficult, and has been a major barrier to entry for the auto industry for decades, particularly in Western markets. Tesla's current capability to manufacture autos is like the proverbial bear that dances -- the wonder isn't how well it does so, but that it does so at all. The rate they've gone up the learning curve has been impressive, and they're still at the start of a decades-long journey towards the effective and efficient mass manufacture of EVs -- as is the whole industry. Costs-to-serve will drop substantially over time as learnings are consolidated and economies of scale kick in.
You're not thinking about this right. Electricity is available absolutely *everywhere* -- literally every building, every street light, has electricity running to it. All that's needed is a retrofit to this existing infrastructure to add outlets for EVs. Some of these outlets will be fast charging, most can be trickle-charging, and all can make money for their owners and the owners of the existing infrastructure. Ubiquity is a non-issue, in time.
That is one of the weirdest trolls I've ever seen on Slashdot, which really takes some doing. I can't imagine what your motivation would be, given Blair's now been out of power for more than a decade. I mean, it reads like you're some kind of Kipper, but if you're a Kipper or a gammon (but I repeat myself), shouldn't you be frothing about migrants and Brexit? Lots of people on the right and left get angry about Blair, but I think you're the first to get this angry about his plastics policy (if such a thing even really existed).
In what world are road vehicle emissions (not car alone, obviously) a tiny problem? Obviously, CO2e from freight is a significant issue, and obviously heavy fuel oil produces really vile emissions that are airborne, but equally obviously cars, vans and trucks are continuously driving through population centres, and their emissions are themselves vile and cause all manner of respiratory disease, and the volume of traffic means CO2e is pretty high.
Have you got any actual data to back up your contention that car emissions are a "tiny" problem relative to tanker and cruise ships?
That's a very exciting and obviously wrong statement (what, you think FB aren't going to do in-house testing of their iOS app any more?), but even *more* excitingly, it represents a complete failure to respond to the substance of my post. Well done!
This is stupid. iCloud is a consumer service and thus GDPR compliance in the sense you mean it: iCloud being usable by an enterprise for purposes that fall under the purview of GDPR, is a contradiction in terms.
FB was paying 13 year olds. No-one's going to pretend that a young teenager is any kind of employee or contractor in court, not least because it will open up a different world of pain related to the legal inadvisability of employing young teenagers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your insults sounds much better the second time, genuinely. I hadn't appreciated just how biting they were till you unleashed them a second time. And now I tremble in fear of your mighty wit. You must have studied long and hard at wit school to come up with "ShortWilly". It's a devastating blow.
On the substantive topic, let me remind you that you wrote: "Nobody manufactures BEV construction equipment". If you had wanted to say "Nobody manufactures REALLY REALLY BIG BEV construction equipment for nuclear waste storage facilities deep underground", then ... and I know this is a tricky concept here, so bear with me while I spell it out for you .... probably best for you to have actually written what you meant, ie "Nobody manufactures REALLY REALLY BIG BEV construction equipment for nuclear waste storage facilities deep underground". Unless, of course, this was by some wild chance just some kind of post hoc rationalisation of your position to make yourself feel better in your own eyes. But that would be absurd. No-one could have self-esteem that low. So I'll go with "unable to communicate effectively" instead. Either way, it's not a great look, but hey, that's something you're used too, right?
Ohhhh, construction equipment only counts if it's REALLY REALLY BIG!!!!!
Because proper construction is for manly men like you, who don't have to resort to mocking a nickname because of your own ridiculous inadequacies. Except when you do.
Sweetheart, if it makes you feel better to think what you just did then constitutes winning an argument, who am I to take away a little bit of psychological comfort in what is clearly going to be a rough ride through life for you? Don't worry, we're all laughing with you, not at you. Honest.
You started by trying to argue a broad point -- that overall, the environmental case for EVs vs ICE was equivocal, taking into account CO2e and cobalt as examples. Now you are discussing CO2e only, and arguing that this isn't clear when in fact it is. This is a disingenuous thing to do.
You can find studies arguing the case is equivocal but you can't find *credible* studies arguing this position. That's why there *isn't* a long discussion to be had. The case is, overall, unambiguous, and you're either kidding yourself that it's not, or worse, trying to kid others. It's not a sensible position to take. Fewer particulates. Lower NOx emissions. Lower sulphates. Lower noise levels. Lower CO levels. Lower benzene levels. Lower formaldehyde levels. All of it the emissions moved out of city centres where people are found in the greatest numbers and moved to power plants that are more efficient and better scrubbed where they are still fossil fuel, and with grid mix improving all the time, moving more and more to non-emitting sources. And this is all about the non-CO2e benefits. Etc etc.
ERAS for the win.
https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
If you're really going to study this for your PhD, you're sounding pretty naive about things. Screening leads to false positives as well as true positives, and positives require intervention. If you're going to intervene with every early prostate lump that's too small for a GP to feel, you're going to be intervening with a lot of people who would have done perfectly well with no intervention at all, or intervention only much later.
I mean there are reams and reams of papers written on this topic in relation to breast cancer screening, for example. Hugely difficult to figure out whether screening is a net benefit. Even more so when you start thinking about marginal spend and cost per QALY.
The general idea that prevention is better than cure, and early intervention is typically better than late intervention -- lots of evidence to support that. But it's not evidence for fancy machines, it's evidence for public health and primary care, a la the NHS before the Tories fucked it over (again).
Well sure, but for all the marginal cases like tonsillectomies, there's a ton of straightforward clear benefit cases like ankle fractures. And you can't know whether intervention beats non-intervention without doing a study that involves some intervention.
Taleb spends his time talking about stuff that professionals in the fields he discusses would respond to with "no shit Sherlock"
Potentially. But there are other considerations too. Rabbi Abraham Twerski talks about this in an anecdote about his father's death. Atul Gawande wrote an entire book about it.
Average car is on the road 8 to 12 years max, so you are clearly right that the OP is talking cack.
For the UK, there were 31.2m cars in 2017, of which 0.1455% or 45,397 were BEVs (33k in 2016, 25k in 2015, 16k in 2014, 6k in 2013, so the growth is pretty fast and no Model 3 available here yet).
This is just bizarre. We don't live in a world where auto manufacturers are toying with electrification while waiting to see what happens with Tesla. We live in a world where VW has committed $50bn. What, you think its institutional investors are going to sit idly by if VW says "actually we were lying and haven't spent the money as we said we would, it's all some kind of Potemkin village"?
As to whether an EV with its need for cobalt and use of electricity from our still-dirty-grid is an improvement on an ICE car of comparable size and drag coefficient is a long discussion
Why would this need to be a long discussion? It's clear that EVs are an improvement on ICE cars. As you mentioned cobalt and the grid, you clearly are thinking about both CO2e and other factors:
- CO2e -- grid mix improves over time; the mix is better where EVs are more common eg Norway or CA vs W Va; large power stations are more efficient than small car engines; and numerous full lifecycle analyses have concluded lower CO2e for EV vs ICE
- Non-CO2e -- particulates much lower; no tailpipes in town; lower noise levels; Li is obviously v abundant and mining it is a lot nicer than drilling for oil; Co extraction can be foul, but efforts to improve supply chain are intensive; and batteries can be reused and eventually the metals can be recovered and recycled indefinitely.
You have to squint *really* hard to make believe EVs are no better for the environment than ICE cars
Um
https://www.hitachicm.com/glob...
https://www.heavyequipmentguid...
https://www.theconstructionind...
https://www.theconstructionind...
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
https://electrek.co/2017/09/17...
The EV mafia?! My, what a vivid imagination you have.
|n the world I live in, it is in fact the case that power lines run everywhere that humans live. Or did you plug your device into your butt for power last night, rather than an electricity outlet?
I'm talking about the longer term. Many hotels already routinely have run cables from their existing power to wallboxes for EV users. I don't mean only the big chains either. I mean even small hotels in holiday spots whose main appeal is retro chic, such as this one: http://www.seaviewhotel.co.uk/
And the whole point about ubiquity and reasonable range is that most people won't need to charge, most of the time. Do the calculations for streetlamp charging: average US commute is 30 miles, assume a range of say 180 miles. So that's a charge every six days, or one out of six cars charging per night. Say 1 in 5, to be conservative. And that's ignoring any off-street charging at home, any charging away from home, etc.
But not where people live. An absolutely tiny fraction of the US is living without power.
Bit of a weird descriptor you're using there. Running an auto manufacturing plant might be boring and day-to-day -- to you, if not to many others -- but it's also notoriously difficult, and has been a major barrier to entry for the auto industry for decades, particularly in Western markets. Tesla's current capability to manufacture autos is like the proverbial bear that dances -- the wonder isn't how well it does so, but that it does so at all. The rate they've gone up the learning curve has been impressive, and they're still at the start of a decades-long journey towards the effective and efficient mass manufacture of EVs -- as is the whole industry. Costs-to-serve will drop substantially over time as learnings are consolidated and economies of scale kick in.
You're not thinking about this right. Electricity is available absolutely *everywhere* -- literally every building, every street light, has electricity running to it. All that's needed is a retrofit to this existing infrastructure to add outlets for EVs. Some of these outlets will be fast charging, most can be trickle-charging, and all can make money for their owners and the owners of the existing infrastructure. Ubiquity is a non-issue, in time.
Mod this up. This is just a gloomier spin on him. He was a wonderful speaker and a true humanitarian.
That is one of the weirdest trolls I've ever seen on Slashdot, which really takes some doing. I can't imagine what your motivation would be, given Blair's now been out of power for more than a decade. I mean, it reads like you're some kind of Kipper, but if you're a Kipper or a gammon (but I repeat myself), shouldn't you be frothing about migrants and Brexit? Lots of people on the right and left get angry about Blair, but I think you're the first to get this angry about his plastics policy (if such a thing even really existed).
So in your head, P&G is run by millennials, is it? Right...
In what world are road vehicle emissions (not car alone, obviously) a tiny problem? Obviously, CO2e from freight is a significant issue, and obviously heavy fuel oil produces really vile emissions that are airborne, but equally obviously cars, vans and trucks are continuously driving through population centres, and their emissions are themselves vile and cause all manner of respiratory disease, and the volume of traffic means CO2e is pretty high.
Have you got any actual data to back up your contention that car emissions are a "tiny" problem relative to tanker and cruise ships?
Yeah right
That's a very exciting and obviously wrong statement (what, you think FB aren't going to do in-house testing of their iOS app any more?), but even *more* excitingly, it represents a complete failure to respond to the substance of my post. Well done!
I'll say it again: it makes zero sense that you were trying to buy enterprise cloud services from Apple. iCloud isn't an enterprise cloud service.
This is stupid. iCloud is a consumer service and thus GDPR compliance in the sense you mean it: iCloud being usable by an enterprise for purposes that fall under the purview of GDPR, is a contradiction in terms.
FB was paying 13 year olds. No-one's going to pretend that a young teenager is any kind of employee or contractor in court, not least because it will open up a different world of pain related to the legal inadvisability of employing young teenagers.