It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not.
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
What she should NOT have to do is guess... guess "is this a man who feels like a woman, or a man who is up to no good".
The problem with "guessing" is that she has to wait until he does something bad. By then it is too late.
As it stands now, by his mere presence, he has made himself a thread and she can respond accordingly.
The attack is against the law anywhere
Do you always wait for someone to attack before deciding if they are a threat or not?
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
Sadly, you're wrong... but since you're not a woman, you don't understand that.
This law REQUIRES that a transgendered man -- genetically female, appearing male -- use a womens restroom.
It REQUIRES that a transgendered woman -- genetically male, appearing female -- use a men's restroom.
How many men/women just "feel" like a different gender, vs how many have gone the whole Caytlin Jenner route (she is ugly as sin, but that is a separate issue).
That is a serious question. What percentage of the US population has done this? I can't imagine it is a large number, but I'm open to hearing it.
---
Side note: It doesn't matter what surgery you've had done, if you were born male, then you're male. Cutting off your dick doesn't make you a girl. Taking pills doesn't change your body.
---
Look, I don't care what you do in your private like. Fuck a goat for all I care, really. (that is illegal most places, but really, who cares!)
The problem is when it comes into other people's spaces.
Perhaps you should look it up. It's not nearly as rare as you think.
It is at least an order of magnitude more rare than people who have only one set of bits at birth.
---
Regardless, this whole thing is just another example of a very small part of the population wanting to change things for the majority, regardless of who it might affect.
Anything other than normal, straight males and females of all types is by far the minority, even if you combine all groups together. They are just fucking LOUD about it.
If you're not careful, you'll get a nasty backlash at some point, us normal folk get really tired of it after awhile. We are NOT against you, but that doesn't mean we're FOR you either.
Imagine the insanity if I held a "straight-pride" parade.
As a citizen of Texas, this puts North Carolina on my "possible move to" states...
The irony is that I have no problem with gays getting married. I think they are weird, but they are human beings and deserving of human rights. Frankly I don't think government should be in the marriage business.
But this is not a rights issue, it is a public safety issue. Men are not allowed to follow women into the ladies room and for good reason.
---
Side note to the above: The grand irony is that I've employed gays before. They have no legal protections being gay, but frankly I don't give a damm. If they don't walk around flaunting it and talking about it endlessly, I don't care what they do at home.
And yes, I'm equal on this, straight people shouldn't be walking around work talking about sexual conquests either.
About 5 years ago, I had a one year partnership in a small company with a gay person (it was a contract thing, the company was formed to provide a one year contract of tech services for another company). The money spends the same, it doesn't care. Really, I don't care, but on the bathroom issue, I do.
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in.
What about the women who want to use a bathroom and feel safe in?
Their rights don't count?
I see a whole lot of people worried about less than 1% of the population and in a really big hurry to stop caring about the 50% of the population affected by this.
By your own admission, your wife would object to the latter -- and threaten violence, in fact. You think that's sane or safe?
If someone walks into a restroom and looks like a man, he/she/it/whatever needs to leave.
You think my wife should just say, "oh gosh, we have new rules, I guess any man who "feels like a woman" can come in here now?
No, not gonna happen.
As for violence, if a man walks into the bathroom behind her and she feels cornered and unsafe and she cannot leave, what exactly would you like her to do?
Roll over and die?
If she says "please leave, this is the woman's bathroom" and he says, "I have every right to be here, the law says so, tough lady", don't be shocked if she shoots him in self defense.
In Texas, she has a decent chance of being ok doing that as well, since he was in the wrong bathroom and was between her and the door.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Two points:
1. You fully have the right to live your life as you see fit.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
So you want to play girl. Fine, you go for it, I doubt the vast majority of people care. I know I don't.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room. You likely are no threat to my wife or daughter, but they can't know that, now can they? How exactly do they tell the difference between you and someone just pretending to be you?
Answer: They can't. It may not be "fair" to you, but your right to live your life as you wish ends when it impacts their ability to feel safe in a public restroom.
When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.
If you personally are transgender, that's fine, I honestly don't care what you do. It doesn't affect me.
Right up until you want to walk into the same bathroom as my wife.
You were born a man, use the men's room, period.
What you do at home honestly is your business. What you do around my wife and daughter is my business.
---
Note: You likely are not remotely a threat to them. The bigger issue is that they can no longer see "man entering restroom" and consider it a threat. Which it will be some of the time. So they have to treat it that way all of the time.
So you are simply not welcome in there, regardless of how harmless you are. If you walk in, you'll be asked to leave. If you refuse, they can only assume that you're a threat and deal with you accordingly. If they can leave, they would do so. If not, you'll be asked to leave again at gunpoint.
You probably think that is extreme. You're welcome to argue with them, but if you do, you'll likely get shot. The bullets don't care.
---
What you miss is that this is a public safety issue, not a rights issue. I fully support your rights outside of this area.
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
The only places that have shared bathrooms are the ones where there is only one place to do your business.
Then it can be shared, since only one person can use it at a time.
Actually they'll love it once they get used to it, because it shifts the demand from segregation to simply having more private stalls. I don't care who is in the stall next to me, but I do prefer having a large urinal divider to just dangling it over a shared trough.
You don't, because you're a man. Your opinion frankly doesn't mean much because you're not the concern, women are.
A man does not go into the bathroom with a woman who is a stranger, period. It is creepy, unsafe, and wrong.
Why is it that people with one view seem to claim that people with an opposing view are only "0.001%?" If that was true, this wouldn't even be an issue. And yet it is an issue. Did you possibly comprehend that: A) the transgender population in the US is at least 0.2% (lowest reasonable estimate)
You're insane, do you know that?
You want to violate the rights of 50% of the population to satisfy the perversions of 0.2% of the population?
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail?
There has been basically zero cases of men dressing up as women to try to get into a bathroom to assault women or girls.
Are you sure there have been zero? Ever?
In any case, that point is moot.
If my wife or daughter walks into a girls bathroom and then some dude walks in, I want to be able to tell him to get the hell out.
That is just creepy. His "rights" do not extend to going into the bathroom with my wife/daughter. They really don't, no matter what you might think.
If a man did that, my wife would either leave, or tell him to get out. If he refused, then either the police are coming, or an ambulance, because he isn't staying.
And she is a better shot than me, ironically enough...
Yes, lessons always need to be learned... There is always room for improvement...
But imagine if those M1 tanks had not been tested as well before Iraq, imagine if they worked perfectly well in North Carolina, then take them to Iraq? It might not have been possible to use them at all.
But no, please please, tell me more about my country and how we're supposed to love our corrupt gun-smuggling perpetually-lying media-crushing government!
If your government sucks so much, either vote in a replacement, or if that is not possible due to too much corruption, then overthrow it.
Oh wait, you can't, because you don't have guns.
And people wonder why so many Americans want to keep ours. Some of us remember the British and how they used to be.
Governments are needed, we couldn't function without them, but sometimes they get out of control and need to go away.
'Cause if you put a big red button that says, "DO NOT PUSH" and I in the same room together, I'm pushing that button as soon as you leave the room. It might blow up the world. It might lock the door and gas me. I'm still pushing that button.
We should make such rooms. That would gas you... and kill you...
It would clean up the human population of such people and the rest of us would be better off.
If someone bothered to put a "do not push" sign, there is a fucking reason and if you're so stupid as to push it, then you don't belong in the human gene pool.
"Longer seasons for pollination resulting in larger food harvests"
Diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks spreading farther and faster.
Ahh, so we need to have an ice age, think of all the people THAT would save!
---
Seriously, this is the biggest steaming pile of political crap I've seen in awhile.
300 pages of "oh my god the sky is falling, quick, support MY programs, do what I say and I'll save you".
This is why so many people simply don't believe it. True or not, the climate change crowd keeps shooting itself in the foot with the "sky is falling" stuff.
But researchers said other, less obvious effects also could take a toll on human health â" from mental health problems that can result from extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods
Holy crap... so in other words, people's feelings might be hurt from a weather event.
And what happens in practice is that the 80% solution is 1/10th the cost and so you have twice as many, so there are more working than the ideal at 1/5 the cost.
Twice as many that don't work isn't much of an improvement.
Yes, in some situations, you can get 5 times as many for the same cost, until they don't work.
Read up a bit of history of WWII, the problems of taking vehicles into the desert, then the arctic, then Western Russia and the mud. Then the jungles of SE Asia.
Stuff that is reliable as dirt in one place is worthless in another.
Part of what makes military stuff cost so much is the ability to work everywhere. Our M1 tanks have to be geared up to work in 120 degree deserts and -40 degree arctic snow.
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
Yep, people miss this all too often, but the military has learned the lessons of the past.
Look to prior wars, equipment that worked perfectly on the test bench or at home, simply turned out to be useless in a hostile environment.
The US Army tests this stuff in Alaska for example, to see what happens at -40 degrees below zero. A LOT of stuff that works fine elsewhere completely stops functioning in that much cold.
What if we end up having to invade Siberia? Ok, not likely, but you have to plan for everything, not just the easy stuff.
Cars aren't computers, but all technology gets better with time, and EVs are still not what I'd call a mature technology. So you have to admit that there is room to move there.
Yes, of course. I simply am pointing out that it isn't a "forgone conclusion" that EVs will end up cheaper than gas cars. They might get close, they might be a bit more, or a bit less, but from the comments I read, some people think they will drop in price by half, then half again, like computers have.
We also know that oil doesn't last forever. I know we've been hearing about peak oil for decades, but the premise is still true. At some point oil production will peak, and when that day comes (even if it takes another 30 years), EVs get a lay down misere.
The "another 30 years" comment is a human thing, not a planet thing. It is easy as humans to only think of and measure stuff in terms of our own lifetimes. But we are but a blink of an eye to the planet.
The "another 30 years" was said back in the 70s, here we are 40 years later and we have more oil reserves today than we had back then (known, proven, recoverable).
Will we run out of oil? Yes. Will we do it in our lifetimes? No. Colorado all by itself likely has more than a trillion barrels of recoverable oil shale. The planet is swimming on oil, we simply have scratched the surface. Of course we can deplete it sooner or later. I just think it is more likely to be 300 years rather than 30 years.
They don't have to be cheaper because EVs don't have to account for 100% market share. The advantages of EVs are worth paying a small premium for IMO, and If the EV market grows to 50% then it's going to be a win for the likes of Tesla.
I have a hard time seeing the EV market grow to 50%, but it is possible. Maybe in 30 years, maybe in 50... You'll run into resistance points long before 50% that have nothing to do with price. Once price is overcome, then you have range issues (real or imagined), then you have "that's different" issues, which the 20 year olds won't care so much about, but the 40 year olds will. Then you have people who don't have a garage, only have one car, need more range because they are college kids at school 250 miles away and don't want to worry about it, etc.
I can see EVs getting to 30% market share in 20 years, if we really do get a push of cheaper batteries, but I think you run into other issues somewhere around that percentage.
Range isn't really an issue for most people. It is for some, but most people travel less than 300km/day. This is purely an emotional position for a good chunk of the population.
Never discount people's emotions. Also don't discount people's desire to "do what they want".
People can go out and buy a car today that has no range issues, you can take that once a year road trip, move across country, etc. all without concerns of fuel or battery power. Now you're telling them, "yea, but it doesn't matter, 99% of your trips are less than 100 miles, you'll be fine".
Yes, but why should they have to be "fine"? They are fine now. Rent a car? Another expense? Drive someone else's car that isn't as nice as their own car? What about people who move often? Take a military family that moves every two years. How do you drive a Nissan Leaf across country when packing up and moving? Ship it and fly? That costs money.
You're trying to tell people to adapt their lives for... "save the planet" or "reasons". Everyone cares about the planet, until it impacts their own lives, then it becomes just another item lost in the "give a crap list". Yes, 5-10% of the people will accept those limits because "save the planet", but that isn't going to move the masses.
The Leaf looks disgusting. I want an EV but I wouldn't have one of those if you paid me. So you are right there is more to it than price, most people want a car that looks good too.
Yep, and frankly from looking at the prototype, the Model 3 is boring as snot. Yes, I'm serious, and no, that isn't anti-Tesla, it just is so bloody boring.
Slashdot Mirror
there are many people with a penis that would look entirely inappropriate in a boys room.
Yes, probably, but boys can generally defend themselves, or should be able to...
Triple that against girlie men...
The issue is women's bathrooms, not mens...
Here in West Hollywood
Well there is your first problem...
It may surprise you to learn that there's nothing that keeps men from going into women's restrooms to attack women in North Carolina either, whether dressed as women or not.
It may surprise you to learn that you completely and totally miss the point.
If a man walks into a woman's bathroom, she has every right to feel unsafe and expect him to leave. If not, either the law can get involved and arrest him or she can defend herself. Or leave, if leaving is an option.
What she should NOT have to do is guess... guess "is this a man who feels like a woman, or a man who is up to no good".
The problem with "guessing" is that she has to wait until he does something bad. By then it is too late.
As it stands now, by his mere presence, he has made himself a thread and she can respond accordingly.
The attack is against the law anywhere
Do you always wait for someone to attack before deciding if they are a threat or not?
The only safety issue involved is for the transwoman who is in mortal danger (have a look at the stats) if forced to go into the men's restroom where they stick out like a sore thumb to every opportunistic violent bigot.
Sadly, you're wrong... but since you're not a woman, you don't understand that.
So, oppression of a minority is OK as long as it's less than 10%? You really want to stand by that argument?
That isn't what I said, but good job attacking the strawman.
That being said, you can't make everyone happy all the time, so let me turn this around for you.
"Are you ok to oppress 50% of the population to make 1% happy? You really want to stand by that?"
This law REQUIRES that a transgendered man -- genetically female, appearing male -- use a womens restroom.
It REQUIRES that a transgendered woman -- genetically male, appearing female -- use a men's restroom.
How many men/women just "feel" like a different gender, vs how many have gone the whole Caytlin Jenner route (she is ugly as sin, but that is a separate issue).
That is a serious question. What percentage of the US population has done this? I can't imagine it is a large number, but I'm open to hearing it.
---
Side note: It doesn't matter what surgery you've had done, if you were born male, then you're male. Cutting off your dick doesn't make you a girl. Taking pills doesn't change your body.
---
Look, I don't care what you do in your private like. Fuck a goat for all I care, really. (that is illegal most places, but really, who cares!)
The problem is when it comes into other people's spaces.
Perhaps you should look it up. It's not nearly as rare as you think.
It is at least an order of magnitude more rare than people who have only one set of bits at birth.
---
Regardless, this whole thing is just another example of a very small part of the population wanting to change things for the majority, regardless of who it might affect.
Anything other than normal, straight males and females of all types is by far the minority, even if you combine all groups together. They are just fucking LOUD about it.
If you're not careful, you'll get a nasty backlash at some point, us normal folk get really tired of it after awhile. We are NOT against you, but that doesn't mean we're FOR you either.
Imagine the insanity if I held a "straight-pride" parade.
But that's okay, because your prejudices reign a little longer, until the courts force the whole thing in your face.
But that's ok, so long as you get your way using whatever tactics are required, that's ok...
Doesn't make you right, just makes you a bully...
As a citizen of North Carolina
As a citizen of Texas, this puts North Carolina on my "possible move to" states...
The irony is that I have no problem with gays getting married. I think they are weird, but they are human beings and deserving of human rights. Frankly I don't think government should be in the marriage business.
But this is not a rights issue, it is a public safety issue. Men are not allowed to follow women into the ladies room and for good reason.
---
Side note to the above: The grand irony is that I've employed gays before. They have no legal protections being gay, but frankly I don't give a damm. If they don't walk around flaunting it and talking about it endlessly, I don't care what they do at home.
And yes, I'm equal on this, straight people shouldn't be walking around work talking about sexual conquests either.
About 5 years ago, I had a one year partnership in a small company with a gay person (it was a contract thing, the company was formed to provide a one year contract of tech services for another company). The money spends the same, it doesn't care. Really, I don't care, but on the bathroom issue, I do.
The anti-discrimination ordinance doesn't allow "some dude to walk in". It allows a transgendered woman to use the bathroom she feels safe in.
What about the women who want to use a bathroom and feel safe in?
Their rights don't count?
I see a whole lot of people worried about less than 1% of the population and in a really big hurry to stop caring about the 50% of the population affected by this.
By your own admission, your wife would object to the latter -- and threaten violence, in fact. You think that's sane or safe?
If someone walks into a restroom and looks like a man, he/she/it/whatever needs to leave.
You think my wife should just say, "oh gosh, we have new rules, I guess any man who "feels like a woman" can come in here now?
No, not gonna happen.
As for violence, if a man walks into the bathroom behind her and she feels cornered and unsafe and she cannot leave, what exactly would you like her to do?
Roll over and die?
If she says "please leave, this is the woman's bathroom" and he says, "I have every right to be here, the law says so, tough lady", don't be shocked if she shoots him in self defense.
In Texas, she has a decent chance of being ok doing that as well, since he was in the wrong bathroom and was between her and the door.
Yes; speaking as a transgender woman, I can tell you first hand that from the time I decided to transition until the time I had my hormone prescription in hand, 15 months had elapsed along with many visits to psychologists, social workers and a psychiatrist. And that's in a place that's generally very supportive of trans people and doesn't put roadblocks in the way of transitioning.
Two points:
1. You fully have the right to live your life as you see fit.
2. You do not have the right to trample other people's rights int he process of the above.
So you want to play girl. Fine, you go for it, I doubt the vast majority of people care. I know I don't.
But if you were born a man, then you need to go in the men's room. You likely are no threat to my wife or daughter, but they can't know that, now can they? How exactly do they tell the difference between you and someone just pretending to be you?
Answer: They can't. It may not be "fair" to you, but your right to live your life as you wish ends when it impacts their ability to feel safe in a public restroom.
Isn't it?
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
Yes, I'm aware a very small number of people are born with both, but they are so unbelievably few in number that it just isn't a concern.
And generally they should use the mens room.
When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.
If you personally are transgender, that's fine, I honestly don't care what you do. It doesn't affect me.
Right up until you want to walk into the same bathroom as my wife.
You were born a man, use the men's room, period.
What you do at home honestly is your business. What you do around my wife and daughter is my business.
---
Note: You likely are not remotely a threat to them. The bigger issue is that they can no longer see "man entering restroom" and consider it a threat. Which it will be some of the time. So they have to treat it that way all of the time.
So you are simply not welcome in there, regardless of how harmless you are. If you walk in, you'll be asked to leave. If you refuse, they can only assume that you're a threat and deal with you accordingly. If they can leave, they would do so. If not, you'll be asked to leave again at gunpoint.
You probably think that is extreme. You're welcome to argue with them, but if you do, you'll likely get shot. The bullets don't care.
---
What you miss is that this is a public safety issue, not a rights issue. I fully support your rights outside of this area.
The majority of the places I've worked don't even have segregated restrooms in the first place.
The only places that have shared bathrooms are the ones where there is only one place to do your business.
Then it can be shared, since only one person can use it at a time.
Actually they'll love it once they get used to it, because it shifts the demand from segregation to simply having more private stalls. I don't care who is in the stall next to me, but I do prefer having a large urinal divider to just dangling it over a shared trough.
You don't, because you're a man. Your opinion frankly doesn't mean much because you're not the concern, women are.
A man does not go into the bathroom with a woman who is a stranger, period. It is creepy, unsafe, and wrong.
Why is it that people with one view seem to claim that people with an opposing view are only "0.001%?" If that was true, this wouldn't even be an issue. And yet it is an issue. Did you possibly comprehend that: A) the transgender population in the US is at least 0.2% (lowest reasonable estimate)
You're insane, do you know that?
You want to violate the rights of 50% of the population to satisfy the perversions of 0.2% of the population?
You are seriously messed up in the head.
Whose freedom is more important? The transgendered man who wants to use a woman's restroom or the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man? Who should prevail?
That's easy, the woman. Case closed.
There has been basically zero cases of men dressing up as women to try to get into a bathroom to assault women or girls.
Are you sure there have been zero? Ever?
In any case, that point is moot.
If my wife or daughter walks into a girls bathroom and then some dude walks in, I want to be able to tell him to get the hell out.
That is just creepy. His "rights" do not extend to going into the bathroom with my wife/daughter. They really don't, no matter what you might think.
If a man did that, my wife would either leave, or tell him to get out. If he refused, then either the police are coming, or an ambulance, because he isn't staying.
And she is a better shot than me, ironically enough...
Yes, lessons always need to be learned... There is always room for improvement...
But imagine if those M1 tanks had not been tested as well before Iraq, imagine if they worked perfectly well in North Carolina, then take them to Iraq? It might not have been possible to use them at all.
But no, please please, tell me more about my country and how we're supposed to love our corrupt gun-smuggling perpetually-lying media-crushing government!
If your government sucks so much, either vote in a replacement, or if that is not possible due to too much corruption, then overthrow it.
Oh wait, you can't, because you don't have guns.
And people wonder why so many Americans want to keep ours. Some of us remember the British and how they used to be.
Governments are needed, we couldn't function without them, but sometimes they get out of control and need to go away.
'Cause if you put a big red button that says, "DO NOT PUSH" and I in the same room together, I'm pushing that button as soon as you leave the room. It might blow up the world. It might lock the door and gas me. I'm still pushing that button.
We should make such rooms. That would gas you... and kill you...
It would clean up the human population of such people and the rest of us would be better off.
If someone bothered to put a "do not push" sign, there is a fucking reason and if you're so stupid as to push it, then you don't belong in the human gene pool.
More deaths from extreme heat.
Yea, what a load of crap...
Allow me to fix that:
"Fewer deaths from extreme cold."
Longer allergy seasons.
Another one to fix:
"Longer seasons for pollination resulting in larger food harvests"
Diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks spreading farther and faster.
Ahh, so we need to have an ice age, think of all the people THAT would save!
---
Seriously, this is the biggest steaming pile of political crap I've seen in awhile.
300 pages of "oh my god the sky is falling, quick, support MY programs, do what I say and I'll save you".
This is why so many people simply don't believe it. True or not, the climate change crowd keeps shooting itself in the foot with the "sky is falling" stuff.
But researchers said other, less obvious effects also could take a toll on human health â" from mental health problems that can result from extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods
Holy crap... so in other words, people's feelings might be hurt from a weather event.
When did people become such pansies?
If you honest need 300 pages to come up with an answer, you're likely BSing...
I'm sure you can find some random example where it was needed, but "climate change could hurt someone, somewhere" isn't it.
And what happens in practice is that the 80% solution is 1/10th the cost and so you have twice as many, so there are more working than the ideal at 1/5 the cost.
Twice as many that don't work isn't much of an improvement.
Yes, in some situations, you can get 5 times as many for the same cost, until they don't work.
Read up a bit of history of WWII, the problems of taking vehicles into the desert, then the arctic, then Western Russia and the mud. Then the jungles of SE Asia.
Stuff that is reliable as dirt in one place is worthless in another.
Part of what makes military stuff cost so much is the ability to work everywhere. Our M1 tanks have to be geared up to work in 120 degree deserts and -40 degree arctic snow.
That is harder than you might think.
The study, more than 300 pages long and several years in the making...
Translation: Someone needed a job for some friends for a few years...
1. Rugedize the controller and drone so they can stand up to battlefield conditions which includes the following: temperature extremes; being dropped, stepped on, etc; waterproof; dust/sand resistant; etc
Yep, people miss this all too often, but the military has learned the lessons of the past.
Look to prior wars, equipment that worked perfectly on the test bench or at home, simply turned out to be useless in a hostile environment.
The US Army tests this stuff in Alaska for example, to see what happens at -40 degrees below zero. A LOT of stuff that works fine elsewhere completely stops functioning in that much cold.
What if we end up having to invade Siberia? Ok, not likely, but you have to plan for everything, not just the easy stuff.
The life of the car doesn't matter to the person who is only going to own it for 3-5 years.
Consider the Ford Fusion, a similar sized car to the Model 3. The Fusion gets 29 MPG mixed city/hwy.
At the average of 37 miles a day, 3 years of ownership is about $2,700 @ $2/gal.
So if you buy a mid-trim SE with reasonable features for $22K, you're looking at $25K including fuel for 3 years.
If electricity is 1/4 the cost of fuel, then you're saving about $2K over the 3 years in fuel costs. by going EV.
That is nice, but unless the cars are darn close to each other to begin with in price, the EV isn't helping much.
---
Further, consider the Fusion Hybrid. It gets mixed city/hwy of 42 MPG.
That works out to about $1,900 for gas for 3 years, the all EV would save only about $1K compared to the hybrid, give or take.
Now, this is why the hybrid isn't selling. It is $3K more to get the hybrid over the gas version, yet it only saves $1K in gas over 3 years.
It would make sense if gas was $8/gal like in some places in Europe, but in the US, it simply doesn't.
Proof of this is found at my local Ford dealer's web site. They have 114 Fusion cars in stock, only 8 of which are hybrids.
Almost no one wants them, even with 42 MPG. Gas is simply too cheap.
Cars aren't computers, but all technology gets better with time, and EVs are still not what I'd call a mature technology. So you have to admit that there is room to move there.
Yes, of course. I simply am pointing out that it isn't a "forgone conclusion" that EVs will end up cheaper than gas cars. They might get close, they might be a bit more, or a bit less, but from the comments I read, some people think they will drop in price by half, then half again, like computers have.
We also know that oil doesn't last forever. I know we've been hearing about peak oil for decades, but the premise is still true. At some point oil production will peak, and when that day comes (even if it takes another 30 years), EVs get a lay down misere.
The "another 30 years" comment is a human thing, not a planet thing. It is easy as humans to only think of and measure stuff in terms of our own lifetimes. But we are but a blink of an eye to the planet.
The "another 30 years" was said back in the 70s, here we are 40 years later and we have more oil reserves today than we had back then (known, proven, recoverable).
Will we run out of oil? Yes. Will we do it in our lifetimes? No. Colorado all by itself likely has more than a trillion barrels of recoverable oil shale. The planet is swimming on oil, we simply have scratched the surface. Of course we can deplete it sooner or later. I just think it is more likely to be 300 years rather than 30 years.
They don't have to be cheaper because EVs don't have to account for 100% market share. The advantages of EVs are worth paying a small premium for IMO, and If the EV market grows to 50% then it's going to be a win for the likes of Tesla.
I have a hard time seeing the EV market grow to 50%, but it is possible. Maybe in 30 years, maybe in 50... You'll run into resistance points long before 50% that have nothing to do with price. Once price is overcome, then you have range issues (real or imagined), then you have "that's different" issues, which the 20 year olds won't care so much about, but the 40 year olds will. Then you have people who don't have a garage, only have one car, need more range because they are college kids at school 250 miles away and don't want to worry about it, etc.
I can see EVs getting to 30% market share in 20 years, if we really do get a push of cheaper batteries, but I think you run into other issues somewhere around that percentage.
Range isn't really an issue for most people. It is for some, but most people travel less than 300km/day. This is purely an emotional position for a good chunk of the population.
Never discount people's emotions. Also don't discount people's desire to "do what they want".
People can go out and buy a car today that has no range issues, you can take that once a year road trip, move across country, etc. all without concerns of fuel or battery power. Now you're telling them, "yea, but it doesn't matter, 99% of your trips are less than 100 miles, you'll be fine".
Yes, but why should they have to be "fine"? They are fine now. Rent a car? Another expense? Drive someone else's car that isn't as nice as their own car? What about people who move often? Take a military family that moves every two years. How do you drive a Nissan Leaf across country when packing up and moving? Ship it and fly? That costs money.
You're trying to tell people to adapt their lives for... "save the planet" or "reasons". Everyone cares about the planet, until it impacts their own lives, then it becomes just another item lost in the "give a crap list". Yes, 5-10% of the people will accept those limits because "save the planet", but that isn't going to move the masses.
The Leaf looks disgusting. I want an EV but I wouldn't have one of those if you paid me. So you are right there is more to it than price, most people want a car that looks good too.
Yep, and frankly from looking at the prototype, the Model 3 is boring as snot. Yes, I'm serious, and no, that isn't anti-Tesla, it just is so bloody boring.
Or do you think oil will last forever?
Of course not, but it will outlast me.
Asking people, average every day people, to upend their lives for something that won't change within their lifetime, is a tall ask.