Just driving inland on the eastern side of Australia.The towns are in the range 100km to 150km apart.
Try driving through areas where the gas stations are ~200 miles apart... Yes, there are signs 'fill up NOW'. I've driven through a number. (Alaska, Canada, North Dakota, Texas).
When I head south 230km would get me to a town with the next town a further 130km. Do the 30 minute charge then the next town to stop at is again 230km as 300km would not get to the next town after that. With the next charge a possible 110km down the road
230+130+230+110=700km, not 1000 km.
It looks like you're forgetting that the totals here are 500 km starting/maximum range and charging is 300km in 30 minutes(slowing after that). You're not actually restricted to precisely 300km of recharge in 30 minutes. So you might or might not get 400km in 40 minutes. More likely if you're running near empty. IE to reach 500 km range from 200 km range will take longer than reaching 400km from 100 km. 100km to 400km is the 30 minute charge. Start at 40km left? That first 60km should take less than 6 extra minutes.
230+130=460km. Drive to the second town, fill up. Probably want to spend a bit more than exactly 30 minutes there. ~400 km range after charge. We're out of stated driving distances...
Anyways, the goal should be that, while keeping a safety margin, you simply stop long enough until you hit the sweet spot between getting the fast charge and how far you can stretch to reach the next charge point.
So if a 36 minute charge gets you to the next charge point, you hang around for the extra 6 minutes. If a 24 minute charge gets you to a charge point but the next charger is another 30 minutes charge away due to having to get over 400km in the battery, then you leave a bit earlier. Or if you're enjoying lunch, you gain more margin, because why not?
With the initial charge you mentioned and planing for the 30 minute stops it would be doable with stops needing to be more planned than "i want a break lets stop here".
Depends on you. You're unlikely to want to stop on a full charge(when you first started driving), so as long as you stop and top off your vehicle at the same time, you should be good.
Another thing I thought of - part of the reason for stopping is because sitting for long periods isn't good for you, so multiple drivers, short of a larger vehicle where the passengers can stretch their legs, shouldn't actually speed things up too much as the passengers need breaks as well.
To convert back to US measurements, 300 miles at 60 mph(average) = 5 hours, which is about the time between meals anyways.
Once down to wanting the 30 min for 300km charges would be stopping in as little as 230km to charge. Starting with a full charge would stop to charge 3 times. Starting with a 30 minute charge would stop to charge 4 times. Making it a 2 day trip instead of 1 day would save 1 charge later in the trip at the cost of a motel room for the night.
First, I always assume starting a long drive with a full battery. Hell, I do that with gasoline vehicles - I top off as I'm leaving town. Second, it looks like you're disregarding that you have roughly 100km of flex in charging locations, and that's before you figure that you can just spend a little more time in one location to avoid an additional stop. Oh, and that if you add stops you remove the need for the stops to be 30 minutes.
It was a round trip of 28km to the local shop for the bottle of vegemite I got the other day. For those trips an electric car with a range of a few hundred km would not think twice.
Nope, which is actually the reason why EVs could replace 90% of vehicles on the road today - because your trip is unusual.
Oh, here's another way to look at it: If we get all the city-dwellers to switch over to EVs, that means more liquid fuel for those of us who live out in the country! Cheaper gasoline for us! Stop trying to stop me from convincing them to buy EVs!
Goalpost shift. I said they sell better. I didn't say compared to what else, so it's compared to themselves, not up against gasoline vehicles.
There seems to be this expectation that EV sales MUST rise and MUST replace gas cars. There is no assurance that it will ever happen. It might, but a number of things would have to change for that to happen.
Not really. Just 1 thing needs to change: Cheap oil, and therefore cheap gasoline/diesel. That's it. Improved and cheaper batteries have helped.
Price is the first issue, range is the second, and places to charge everywhere is the third.
I agree with you on the first, but I'd swap your next two, with the caveat that I place it that way in that if you fix the first, the range will be fixed as well - Teslas have the necessary range. Fix their price, and the remaining problem is recharge availability. Which most people won't need on a routine basis if they can charge at home and/or work.
On the cables - well, you want to get pedantic they're carrying low voltage electricity, but under 48V, just for signalling. Still, hard to kill you with that, though you always have the idiot who managed to fatally electrocute himself with a 9V battery.
None of which have batteries. Or need routine energy top-ups by their users.
At least the RV probably has batteries in it. And they're designed to be plugged in when stopped.
As for topoffs - cell phones, tablets, cars(gasoline, which can be more dangerous than electricity), lawn mowers, etc...
First, it assumes supercharger stations are available for all the drive, and it then further assumes they are optimally positioned for the journey of the day.
1: Why are you repeating one of my suppositions? I'll repeat: " let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common." 2: Optimally placed: There's roughly 100 km of flex built into the given scenario for the charging stations. The only reason it's not 200km is that you really need to get the EV down to at most 100km of range before you can get the really fast charge. IE you could stop after driving 300 km, but you're not going to get 300km of range in 30 minutes due to it charging slower the more charged it is. 3. Neither is likely to be true - Now, but as I posited in the "moderately in the future" scenario, it could be.
I suspect this (and maybe price) is why there is at least 10% that such vehicles won't presently work for.
First and second paragraph. Already stated.
In reality the above scenario would tack probably 90 minutes to the already long drive and would further restrict the routes that could be driven.
Already acknowledged. I was just saying that it's likely possible, with current technology, for the guy to make his drive without significant extra time, and if it DOES take him extra time, it's probably because he's not taking proper rest stops for maximum safety. What's lacking is infrastructure.
People buy emotionally, not rationally... at least the vast majority do.
Vast majority are a mix. Right now most of those buying EVs are doing so emotionally. That said, I disagree with the range issue. The price issue is the primary one right now. As evidenced by that EVs sell better when gas prices are high.
And note I say "price" and not "cost". Because EVs are very close to being cost effective, but because they feature higher up-front costs in return for lower back-end costs in fuel and maintenance, the purchase price is higher, and sticker shock is a thing. So isn't fear of the new, etc... That's why I put the disclaimer in there "moderately in the future".
You reply to me enough that you should realize by now that just because my replies to something are focused on topic, doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of other factors - I'm just not writing a book.
I say this because 3 of your 4 sentences amount to a personal attack. "you don't understand", "your fancy math"(I didn't even bust into algebra!), "you think"
So in return I'll make a personal attack: You're assuming. Stop that.
The 500km range you mention would get us to our destination with no where to charge which would require a rethink of how the trip is done.
So where are you going? Out into the deep woods? Because most of the places people drive to today are electrified. Remember that I said 'moderately in the future' and 'superchargers are common'. IE even if there's not a charge point now, there will be in the future.
Hell, you tell me where you're going, I can see what the current options are. Keep in mind that Tesla vehicles come with a selection of charging plugs - For example, if there's an RV park in the area, you can get a complete overnight charge off of that. Also, dryer outlets, electric oven outlets, etc... Cripple charging (120V 20A circuit) isn't ideal, but still possible.
Would mean stopping at towns we normally ignore.
Sometimes that's not a bad thing.
Without some care the 30 minute charge for 300km range would have the car flat between towns.
The GPS in the Tesla will actually calculate the fastest route for you, taking charge points into account.
Without some care the 30 minute charge for 300km range would have the car flat between towns.
You have a 100km buffer in there, you know. Besides there's a reason I specified 2 stops for the routine thing and only specified the 1 charge stop with the disclaimer of 'hypermiling'.
Another 10-20% energy density in the battery, more charge points. Hell, the battery swap that Tesla developed. All options to increase the range enough to cover more people.
They've already gone from 85kWh being the maximum battery pack to 100kWh. Get up to 600km and I'd say a couple charging stops would be sufficient.
That 13 hours includes rest and meal breaks so a single driver can have enough of a rest to do the trip.
In which case you're driving faster than my WAG. As long as you have 1 hour of stops in there along with 12 hours of driving, you could do it in a Tesla today, assuming the superchargers are present.
Remember, it took a relatively long time to get our gas stations as well.
but a heavy duty cable that can instantly kill us if things go wrong.
You might as well worry about your water heater, dryer, stove, etc... All use similar amounts of electricity. Hell, RV connections. When it comes down to it, handle a 110V@15A circuit wrong and it can kill you.
At least with most EV chargers, the cable doesn't carry electricity until it's properly connected to the car.
So the expectation is that the average person who leaves the city limits now and again has access to a second car with a gasoline engine.
I've got news for you: The average person(in the USA) today lives in a multi-car household. The idea that they'll go electric for only 1 of them at first shouldn't be shocking at all. That said, you're ignoring renting and car-sharing service, which could service the college students and single people with only 1 car.
100% of the driving needs for 90% of the people? That sounds doable. Probably 95-99% if you allow for a rental vehicle for, say, 2 weeks a year, which would be 4% of the time. Call it 95%. of driving needs.
Lots of people end up in rental vehicles more often than that.
So do you think that you're stating anything that EV owners don't know about or haven't acknowledged? The article states 90%, the EV supporters have generally acknowledged that EVs are not (yet) for everybody.
So you're part of the 10% who aren't ready for EVs. That's fine.
1000km in 13 hours. Let's see. A Tesla model S can have a range of 300 miles. Roughly 500 km. You can get an ~300km of charge in 30 minutes using a supercharger.
So, given that nothing happens instantly, let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common.
So, 2 30 minute charges = 600 km, plus 500 km for your morning charge. You'll complete your 1000 km with 100 km to spare.
Figure, oh, 80 km/hour, that's 12.5 hours, plus 1 hour for charging, giving me 13.5 hours for the total trip.
By the way, you are aware that you're supposed to take breaks during the trip, right? Roughly speaking, with the EV you can simply put them with charging - park in the charge spot. 2 sit down meals, which you'd generally want over a 13 hour trip anyways. We're assuming the charge station is close to, if not at, the restaurant. Part of the future thing, and keep in mind that we don't need huge buried or above ground tanks for the EV stations).
Half an hour is enough time for a good meal, but not a relaxed one. Of course, if you hypermile a bit you might be able to get by with only one 1 hour stop(enough for a full charge).
First, there's a reason I don't respond to anonymous cowards anymore. They're nearly universally morons.
Second, another point I noticed - he's fueling his vehicle, and walking away while doing so. I can't say for every state, but I know it's up into criminally negligent, possibly an offense you can be arrested for. Hell, in Florida they removed the tabs that let you lock the pump because of people doing this.
The fuel shut-off malfunctions occasionally. Either he has the slowest pumps in the world, has something like a 50 gallon tank, or his regular station always has a clerk ready for him, or he risks spilling gas all over the place with him not there to stop it - a serious fire and explosion hazard.
Having had a clearance for just about as long, I worked in the compusec office, and thus was involved in just about every security incident. Even had a case where I wasn't allowed to see the classified information, just assisted in running the checklist.
I never saw anybody go to prison for it, but most cases were obviously not intentional, even if boneheaded.
Many places have had background checks for cab drivers for a long time.
Remember, I listed doing them as a 'reasonable compromise'. One concern I have, after thinking about it overnight, is more a philosophical one, a potential 'tragedy of the commons' problem.
Basically, we're doing background checks for more positions than ever. Now, it's one thing to do a background check, but what do you then do with it? The check has to be evaluated. Do you hire everybody after getting the check back, even if they're a paroled murderer? Rapist? What if they committed some check fraud 20 years ago? Do you hire nobody with a criminal history? Where do you draw the line?
So, let's go with the worst case - background check comes up with something, you're not hired. More positions than ever get background checks today. So what if this trend continues and having a criminal record is basically a death sentence to your ability to get employment(short of being a member of a family with a family owned/operated business)? Thought experiment here. Is it possible that such a philosophy can result in MORE criminal attacks than not having background checks at all, because those with criminal records aren't pushed into more crime because they can't find legitimate work?
I mean, you could have a prisoner dilemma situation where any one business can see benefits in doing background checks and not hiring criminals, without too much effect on the rest of the population, but as more do it, negative effects start popping up...
It's very much one where I'd want to see the numbers.
Okay, first up, building codes: Most are not actually created by the government, the government just adopts them.
That being said, requiring buildings to be constructed to a code isn't perfect. First, codes are often not ideal for a specific location - I believe that a home built in Alaska should be constructed differently than Florida, but many codes have them being identical.
Second, they tend to paint a 'good enough' line. IE homes will be built 'to code', not to exceed it. A related problem is that you can't go 'non-traditional' as easy, slowing the development of home-construction technology.
Third, it can create a perception that a house is 'good' even if it's not. Semi-recent storms, for example, flattened whole developments of ~$400k homes because it turned out that they weren't built to code - though everybody signed off that they were.
Airbnb is driving up housing costs because people are purchasing homes and then renting them continuously as hotels.
That's what the critics say.
What I ask, per my first post, is that the problem actually be studied. Are people actually purchasing homes to use as Airbnb locations year round? How many? What percentage of the housing market is it?
Next, let's look at the proposed solution to the problem: a $50 registration fee.
Okay, first question I come up with: How is a $50 registration fee going to stop them? If they're buying a house to use as a unofficial short term rental, they're not going to balk at a $50 fee and a trip to city hall. I see a $50 fee as a bigger effect for those looking to rent out their place while the're gone on a month's vacation or such.
As such, I think the proposed regulation fails on the effectiveness standpoint, unless the registration comes with additional regulations to prevent their continuous use as Airbnb locations - but those would be regulations to assess on their own merits, and the $50 fee counterproductive.
Maybe the real fix is for SF to work on it's regulations to encourage the construction of additional housing and hotels - so that the profit availability to Airbnb users is low enough to keep people from using it professionally.
Uber carries commercial insurance only when the customer is picked up. They don't bother when the app is just on and they're trolling for business. Which means they are uninsured at that time.
Incorrect. The polices described. Not logged in: not working, personal insurance. Logged in: attempt personal insurance first, then 50/100/25 On way to pickup: $1M commercial During ride: $1M commercial
Uber just left Austin because Austin insisted they perform the same background checks that taxi drivers get. Only UberBlack has those checks.
Hmm.. I'll note that every city, much less state, regulates taxis differently. Most areas don't require a fingerprint background check.
If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened to me, in places where cabs are less well regulated.
Why? I ask about costs up front. Why couldn't you?
That being said, as I noted earlier, ridiculous fees are a problem that can be tracked, tested, and followed up on when the 'corrective' regulation is put in place. In most cases, a regulation requiring the fee structure be provided up front - such as on the side of the cab, isn't too expensive. So it's a good regulation.
However, a regulation that allows only cars under, say, 2 years old, might be less than ideal if you can't prove that such cars are more dangerous than younger ones. Perhaps a mileage limit or an inspection system would be better? Etc...
Well yes and the SCOTUS essentially ruled yesterday that Texas can't impose safety regulations on abortion providers because abortion is 'right' (disagree personally) and the procedure appears to be to safe (which is funny because its about the only medical procedure I am aware that is almost universally fatal). So the states interest in ensuring safety does not offer a reason for regulation and imposes an undue burden.
Except that the regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to ban abortions by driving out all operations that do them. Going back to what I said - abortions are generally safe(for the mother), and the requirements that were being imposed would fail my standards.
IE: First, they're expensive changes, this means the bar is higher for them being considered 'efficient'.
Second, there were no identified harms being addressed - IE they couldn't identify harm from the clinic drug cabinets not having medicines specified in the rules they passed, because there are no realistic scenarios in an abortion/women's health clinic where they would NEED said medications. That means that obtaining, tracking, and replacing said meds as they expire is simply an additional burden. Having hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass side by side isn't necessary when they're not using gurneys in the first place. Requiring a woman to listen to the fetal heartbeat by having a sonogram sensor shoved up her because the fetus is too small to hear it otherwise isn't a medical need. Etc...
So yes lets apply this standard everywhere, best ruling ever as far as limiting the role government is potentially concerned, when used broadly.
Indeed. I see NOT applying these standards objectively as a very large reason why our government is so large, expensive, and ineffective.
If a government regulation or agency isn't doing appreciable good, isn't being effective, it needs to be reformed or eliminated.
Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).
Most of that seems to be Uber and the city working out something reasonable. For example, from what I've heard Uber now carries commercial insurance for the drivers, does background checks about as good as what taxi drivers get*. Uber has a facility in NYC to help it's drivers get the licenses and permits required. I read the page on it, it seems that NY has 'numerous' levels of commercial driver's license, depending on if you're going to be a taxi, limo, truck, or bus driver.
You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it.
Okay, so let me ask, how do you determine that it's 'actually needed' if people haven't suffered from the lack of it? That being said, I'm willing to accept a convincingly logical argument that harm would take place without the proposed regulation, but note 'convincing'. Vague statements that it needs to be regulated to prevent vague types of harm isn't convincing. For example, I'm willing to accept evidence from related situations from the past, in different locations.
It's usually not possible to directly compare results with regulation and results without regulation over time.
Sure it is. That being said, you should go back and re-assess regulations on a regular basis for adjustment. We should not be enacting regulations where the expected effect is intended to be so subtle as to be hard to track.
the idea is to reduce crime perpetrated by the drivers, but there really isn't much measurable other than how many people failed the check. In order to see if it reduces crime, it would be necessary to take some of the people failing the check and put them into cabs over a period of time and see how many passengers were crime victims.
Or, for example, you don't require background checks at first, then notice that the crime rate against passengers is too high. You notice that most of the offenders have a history of it, and that's why you put the background checks in. If you note that most of the offenders don't have a history, you look for other options.
For example, consider background checks on people who work with children - including volunteers. This is a law that I consider more harmful than good. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, it turns out that offenders didn't have a disqualifying history even before the checks were put in place.
So you're spending money that the organizations often don't have(why they're depending on volunteers in the first place), in order to prevent not very many potential predators, imposing even more paperwork on organizations while providing what I'd call a false sense of security to parents - because most offenders are the uncaught ones.
Same deal with the sex offender list. Child molesters didn't and don't actually molest children all that often after they're released, list or not, but said list has resulted in a number of murders, both sex offenders and innocents**.
Life requires judgment calls. If you don't like the calls your elected representatives are making, campaign against them in elections. If you get no traction, then it may well be that everyone else is happy with the situation.
Oddly enough, I do this already. There's plenty of 'traction', half the people are upset with one guy, half the other. I also regularly write them to try to convince them to take my side in various matters. My senators, representatives, and such are all familiar with me at this poin
So a company should comply with any regulation at all without complaint?
That other companies should be able to impose regulations in order to capture the industry by excluding any possible competition?
My take on it - any proposed regulation should identify a problem or opportunity*. There should be fairly solid numbers on the problem - IE X amount of criminal calls, complaints, accidents, and such per year. The regulation should identify how much it's expected to cost. There should be a metric to identify whether the regulation is fulfilling it's purpose adequately.
If the regulation turns out to be more expensive than anticipated or doesn't solve the problem in line with it's costs, it should be eliminated.
*And no, 'government makes more money' isn't an opportunity.
That's definitely *not* always the case. If you are going at 50 km/h you have around 10 meters braking distance before you get to a full stop (ignoring reaction time). This means that if your obstacle is at 5 meters you will hit it, but if the obstacle is relatively narrow, 5 meters could be well enough to completely dodge it.
First, your scenario is unrealistic because Self-driving cars have sight distances longer than 10 meters, including that they shouldn't be running at 50km/hour on streets where somebody stepping into the road is likely.
Second, have you tried to see how far you can dodge at 50 km/h in 'only' 5 meters? Remember that, compared to applying the brakes, it takes time to turn the tires.
As others have mentioned - more people have been killed dodging deer than hitting them. The severity of a turn necessary to avoid an obstacle at short distances combined with high speeds often results in a loss of control and leaving the road.
Why don't they use the fundamentals used in developing the algorithm to identify and eliminate the root causes of crime (through rehabilitation/counseling) and thus reduce crime in highly prone areas?
Honestly enough they should, there are pushes to do so, it's just that funding is an issue, as always. Funny thing is, though, it's supposed to actually save money!
Okay, up here in Alaska low oil prices have resulted in a government crisis - the government's income has dropped drastically. One of the reforms being put in place, finally, is 'community corrections', which has been shown to save money by actually preventing repeat criminal occurrences. As they mentioned, locking people up for long periods actually increases the chance they'll reoffend, especially if you don't provide support after they get out.
So rather than locking somebody up for 12 years, you lock them up for, say, 4. You take the money for the next 4 years of prison and put it into rehabilitating the criminal, which is enough to cover extended services in prison, as well as at least 4 years outside, because, surprise, it's cheaper than keeping them in prison. The last 4 years of prison sentence avoided is pure savings, though they mentioned that they're putting half the money into what you mentioned - addressing the core situations causing criminality in the first place.
As for the op -
His attorneys claim that the code is "full of holes," including secret criteria and generic decisions that aren't as individually tailored as they have to be. For instance, they'll skew predictions based on your gender or age -- how does that reflect the actual offender...?
Secret criteria is a problem, but gender and age have clear differences on how likely you are to re-offend. If you're a first time offender at 40 odds are something very strange happened, and if you fix that problem the person is unlikely to offend again, while being a first time offender at 15 is a bad sign that it might become a habit.
Slashdot Mirror
Just driving inland on the eastern side of Australia.The towns are in the range 100km to 150km apart.
Try driving through areas where the gas stations are ~200 miles apart... Yes, there are signs 'fill up NOW'. I've driven through a number. (Alaska, Canada, North Dakota, Texas).
When I head south 230km would get me to a town with the next town a further 130km. Do the 30 minute charge then the next town to stop at is again 230km as 300km would not get to the next town after that. With the next charge a possible 110km down the road
230+130+230+110=700km, not 1000 km.
It looks like you're forgetting that the totals here are 500 km starting/maximum range and charging is 300km in 30 minutes(slowing after that). You're not actually restricted to precisely 300km of recharge in 30 minutes. So you might or might not get 400km in 40 minutes. More likely if you're running near empty. IE to reach 500 km range from 200 km range will take longer than reaching 400km from 100 km. 100km to 400km is the 30 minute charge. Start at 40km left? That first 60km should take less than 6 extra minutes.
230+130=460km. Drive to the second town, fill up. Probably want to spend a bit more than exactly 30 minutes there. ~400 km range after charge. We're out of stated driving distances...
Anyways, the goal should be that, while keeping a safety margin, you simply stop long enough until you hit the sweet spot between getting the fast charge and how far you can stretch to reach the next charge point.
So if a 36 minute charge gets you to the next charge point, you hang around for the extra 6 minutes. If a 24 minute charge gets you to a charge point but the next charger is another 30 minutes charge away due to having to get over 400km in the battery, then you leave a bit earlier. Or if you're enjoying lunch, you gain more margin, because why not?
With the initial charge you mentioned and planing for the 30 minute stops it would be doable with stops needing to be more planned than "i want a break lets stop here".
Depends on you. You're unlikely to want to stop on a full charge(when you first started driving), so as long as you stop and top off your vehicle at the same time, you should be good.
Another thing I thought of - part of the reason for stopping is because sitting for long periods isn't good for you, so multiple drivers, short of a larger vehicle where the passengers can stretch their legs, shouldn't actually speed things up too much as the passengers need breaks as well.
To convert back to US measurements, 300 miles at 60 mph(average) = 5 hours, which is about the time between meals anyways.
Once down to wanting the 30 min for 300km charges would be stopping in as little as 230km to charge. Starting with a full charge would stop to charge 3 times. Starting with a 30 minute charge would stop to charge 4 times. Making it a 2 day trip instead of 1 day would save 1 charge later in the trip at the cost of a motel room for the night.
First, I always assume starting a long drive with a full battery. Hell, I do that with gasoline vehicles - I top off as I'm leaving town.
Second, it looks like you're disregarding that you have roughly 100km of flex in charging locations, and that's before you figure that you can just spend a little more time in one location to avoid an additional stop. Oh, and that if you add stops you remove the need for the stops to be 30 minutes.
It was a round trip of 28km to the local shop for the bottle of vegemite I got the other day. For those trips an electric car with a range of a few hundred km would not think twice.
Nope, which is actually the reason why EVs could replace 90% of vehicles on the road today - because your trip is unusual.
Oh, here's another way to look at it: If we get all the city-dwellers to switch over to EVs, that means more liquid fuel for those of us who live out in the country! Cheaper gasoline for us! Stop trying to stop me from convincing them to buy EVs!
No they don't, they don't sell well at all...
Goalpost shift. I said they sell better. I didn't say compared to what else, so it's compared to themselves, not up against gasoline vehicles.
There seems to be this expectation that EV sales MUST rise and MUST replace gas cars. There is no assurance that it will ever happen. It might, but a number of things would have to change for that to happen.
Not really. Just 1 thing needs to change: Cheap oil, and therefore cheap gasoline/diesel. That's it. Improved and cheaper batteries have helped.
Price is the first issue, range is the second, and places to charge everywhere is the third.
I agree with you on the first, but I'd swap your next two, with the caveat that I place it that way in that if you fix the first, the range will be fixed as well - Teslas have the necessary range. Fix their price, and the remaining problem is recharge availability. Which most people won't need on a routine basis if they can charge at home and/or work.
On the cables - well, you want to get pedantic they're carrying low voltage electricity, but under 48V, just for signalling. Still, hard to kill you with that, though you always have the idiot who managed to fatally electrocute himself with a 9V battery.
None of which have batteries. Or need routine energy top-ups by their users.
At least the RV probably has batteries in it. And they're designed to be plugged in when stopped.
As for topoffs - cell phones, tablets, cars(gasoline, which can be more dangerous than electricity), lawn mowers, etc...
No, they really aren't... people just tell themselves that to feel better about the emotional purchase they have already decided to make...
No, people actually do the math and figure out that, then don't buy the EV. When it comes to 'economical', 'close' doesn't cut it.
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
If they're uneconomical they're uneconomical. 'close' merely means that you check again next year rather than 5 years down the road.
First, it assumes supercharger stations are available for all the drive, and it then further assumes they are optimally positioned for the journey of the day.
1: Why are you repeating one of my suppositions? I'll repeat: " let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common."
2: Optimally placed: There's roughly 100 km of flex built into the given scenario for the charging stations. The only reason it's not 200km is that you really need to get the EV down to at most 100km of range before you can get the really fast charge. IE you could stop after driving 300 km, but you're not going to get 300km of range in 30 minutes due to it charging slower the more charged it is.
3. Neither is likely to be true - Now, but as I posited in the "moderately in the future" scenario, it could be.
I suspect this (and maybe price) is why there is at least 10% that such vehicles won't presently work for.
First and second paragraph. Already stated.
In reality the above scenario would tack probably 90 minutes to the already long drive and would further restrict the routes that could be driven.
Already acknowledged. I was just saying that it's likely possible, with current technology, for the guy to make his drive without significant extra time, and if it DOES take him extra time, it's probably because he's not taking proper rest stops for maximum safety. What's lacking is infrastructure.
People buy emotionally, not rationally... at least the vast majority do.
Vast majority are a mix. Right now most of those buying EVs are doing so emotionally. That said, I disagree with the range issue. The price issue is the primary one right now. As evidenced by that EVs sell better when gas prices are high.
And note I say "price" and not "cost". Because EVs are very close to being cost effective, but because they feature higher up-front costs in return for lower back-end costs in fuel and maintenance, the purchase price is higher, and sticker shock is a thing. So isn't fear of the new, etc... That's why I put the disclaimer in there "moderately in the future".
You reply to me enough that you should realize by now that just because my replies to something are focused on topic, doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of other factors - I'm just not writing a book.
I say this because 3 of your 4 sentences amount to a personal attack. "you don't understand", "your fancy math"(I didn't even bust into algebra!), "you think"
So in return I'll make a personal attack: You're assuming. Stop that.
The 500km range you mention would get us to our destination with no where to charge which would require a rethink of how the trip is done.
So where are you going? Out into the deep woods? Because most of the places people drive to today are electrified. Remember that I said 'moderately in the future' and 'superchargers are common'. IE even if there's not a charge point now, there will be in the future.
Hell, you tell me where you're going, I can see what the current options are. Keep in mind that Tesla vehicles come with a selection of charging plugs - For example, if there's an RV park in the area, you can get a complete overnight charge off of that. Also, dryer outlets, electric oven outlets, etc... Cripple charging (120V 20A circuit) isn't ideal, but still possible.
Would mean stopping at towns we normally ignore.
Sometimes that's not a bad thing.
Without some care the 30 minute charge for 300km range would have the car flat between towns.
The GPS in the Tesla will actually calculate the fastest route for you, taking charge points into account.
Without some care the 30 minute charge for 300km range would have the car flat between towns.
You have a 100km buffer in there, you know. Besides there's a reason I specified 2 stops for the routine thing and only specified the 1 charge stop with the disclaimer of 'hypermiling'.
Another 10-20% energy density in the battery, more charge points. Hell, the battery swap that Tesla developed. All options to increase the range enough to cover more people.
They've already gone from 85kWh being the maximum battery pack to 100kWh. Get up to 600km and I'd say a couple charging stops would be sufficient.
That 13 hours includes rest and meal breaks so a single driver can have enough of a rest to do the trip.
In which case you're driving faster than my WAG. As long as you have 1 hour of stops in there along with 12 hours of driving, you could do it in a Tesla today, assuming the superchargers are present.
Remember, it took a relatively long time to get our gas stations as well.
but a heavy duty cable that can instantly kill us if things go wrong.
You might as well worry about your water heater, dryer, stove, etc... All use similar amounts of electricity. Hell, RV connections. When it comes down to it, handle a 110V@15A circuit wrong and it can kill you.
At least with most EV chargers, the cable doesn't carry electricity until it's properly connected to the car.
So the expectation is that the average person who leaves the city limits now and again has access to a second car with a gasoline engine.
I've got news for you: The average person(in the USA) today lives in a multi-car household. The idea that they'll go electric for only 1 of them at first shouldn't be shocking at all. That said, you're ignoring renting and car-sharing service, which could service the college students and single people with only 1 car.
100% of the driving needs for 90% of the people? That sounds doable. Probably 95-99% if you allow for a rental vehicle for, say, 2 weeks a year, which would be 4% of the time. Call it 95%. of driving needs.
Lots of people end up in rental vehicles more often than that.
So do you think that you're stating anything that EV owners don't know about or haven't acknowledged? The article states 90%, the EV supporters have generally acknowledged that EVs are not (yet) for everybody.
So you're part of the 10% who aren't ready for EVs. That's fine.
1000km in 13 hours. Let's see. A Tesla model S can have a range of 300 miles. Roughly 500 km. You can get an ~300km of charge in 30 minutes using a supercharger.
So, given that nothing happens instantly, let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common.
So, 2 30 minute charges = 600 km, plus 500 km for your morning charge. You'll complete your 1000 km with 100 km to spare.
Figure, oh, 80 km/hour, that's 12.5 hours, plus 1 hour for charging, giving me 13.5 hours for the total trip.
By the way, you are aware that you're supposed to take breaks during the trip, right? Roughly speaking, with the EV you can simply put them with charging - park in the charge spot. 2 sit down meals, which you'd generally want over a 13 hour trip anyways. We're assuming the charge station is close to, if not at, the restaurant. Part of the future thing, and keep in mind that we don't need huge buried or above ground tanks for the EV stations).
Half an hour is enough time for a good meal, but not a relaxed one. Of course, if you hypermile a bit you might be able to get by with only one 1 hour stop(enough for a full charge).
First, there's a reason I don't respond to anonymous cowards anymore. They're nearly universally morons.
Second, another point I noticed - he's fueling his vehicle, and walking away while doing so. I can't say for every state, but I know it's up into criminally negligent, possibly an offense you can be arrested for. Hell, in Florida they removed the tabs that let you lock the pump because of people doing this.
The fuel shut-off malfunctions occasionally. Either he has the slowest pumps in the world, has something like a 50 gallon tank, or his regular station always has a clerk ready for him, or he risks spilling gas all over the place with him not there to stop it - a serious fire and explosion hazard.
Having had a clearance for just about as long, I worked in the compusec office, and thus was involved in just about every security incident. Even had a case where I wasn't allowed to see the classified information, just assisted in running the checklist.
I never saw anybody go to prison for it, but most cases were obviously not intentional, even if boneheaded.
Many places have had background checks for cab drivers for a long time.
Remember, I listed doing them as a 'reasonable compromise'. One concern I have, after thinking about it overnight, is more a philosophical one, a potential 'tragedy of the commons' problem.
Basically, we're doing background checks for more positions than ever. Now, it's one thing to do a background check, but what do you then do with it? The check has to be evaluated. Do you hire everybody after getting the check back, even if they're a paroled murderer? Rapist? What if they committed some check fraud 20 years ago? Do you hire nobody with a criminal history? Where do you draw the line?
So, let's go with the worst case - background check comes up with something, you're not hired. More positions than ever get background checks today. So what if this trend continues and having a criminal record is basically a death sentence to your ability to get employment(short of being a member of a family with a family owned/operated business)? Thought experiment here. Is it possible that such a philosophy can result in MORE criminal attacks than not having background checks at all, because those with criminal records aren't pushed into more crime because they can't find legitimate work?
I mean, you could have a prisoner dilemma situation where any one business can see benefits in doing background checks and not hiring criminals, without too much effect on the rest of the population, but as more do it, negative effects start popping up...
It's very much one where I'd want to see the numbers.
Why should people follow building codes?
Okay, first up, building codes: Most are not actually created by the government, the government just adopts them.
That being said, requiring buildings to be constructed to a code isn't perfect. First, codes are often not ideal for a specific location - I believe that a home built in Alaska should be constructed differently than Florida, but many codes have them being identical.
Second, they tend to paint a 'good enough' line. IE homes will be built 'to code', not to exceed it. A related problem is that you can't go 'non-traditional' as easy, slowing the development of home-construction technology.
Third, it can create a perception that a house is 'good' even if it's not. Semi-recent storms, for example, flattened whole developments of ~$400k homes because it turned out that they weren't built to code - though everybody signed off that they were.
Airbnb is driving up housing costs because people are purchasing homes and then renting them continuously as hotels.
That's what the critics say.
What I ask, per my first post, is that the problem actually be studied. Are people actually purchasing homes to use as Airbnb locations year round? How many? What percentage of the housing market is it?
Next, let's look at the proposed solution to the problem: a $50 registration fee.
Okay, first question I come up with: How is a $50 registration fee going to stop them? If they're buying a house to use as a unofficial short term rental, they're not going to balk at a $50 fee and a trip to city hall. I see a $50 fee as a bigger effect for those looking to rent out their place while the're gone on a month's vacation or such.
As such, I think the proposed regulation fails on the effectiveness standpoint, unless the registration comes with additional regulations to prevent their continuous use as Airbnb locations - but those would be regulations to assess on their own merits, and the $50 fee counterproductive.
Maybe the real fix is for SF to work on it's regulations to encourage the construction of additional housing and hotels - so that the profit availability to Airbnb users is low enough to keep people from using it professionally.
Uber carries commercial insurance only when the customer is picked up. They don't bother when the app is just on and they're trolling for business. Which means they are uninsured at that time.
Incorrect. The polices described.
Not logged in: not working, personal insurance.
Logged in: attempt personal insurance first, then 50/100/25
On way to pickup: $1M commercial
During ride: $1M commercial
Uber just left Austin because Austin insisted they perform the same background checks that taxi drivers get. Only UberBlack has those checks.
Hmm.. I'll note that every city, much less state, regulates taxis differently. Most areas don't require a fingerprint background check.
If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened to me, in places where cabs are less well regulated.
Why? I ask about costs up front. Why couldn't you?
That being said, as I noted earlier, ridiculous fees are a problem that can be tracked, tested, and followed up on when the 'corrective' regulation is put in place. In most cases, a regulation requiring the fee structure be provided up front - such as on the side of the cab, isn't too expensive. So it's a good regulation.
However, a regulation that allows only cars under, say, 2 years old, might be less than ideal if you can't prove that such cars are more dangerous than younger ones. Perhaps a mileage limit or an inspection system would be better? Etc...
Well yes and the SCOTUS essentially ruled yesterday that Texas can't impose safety regulations on abortion providers because abortion is 'right' (disagree personally) and the procedure appears to be to safe (which is funny because its about the only medical procedure I am aware that is almost universally fatal). So the states interest in ensuring safety does not offer a reason for regulation and imposes an undue burden.
Except that the regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to ban abortions by driving out all operations that do them. Going back to what I said - abortions are generally safe(for the mother), and the requirements that were being imposed would fail my standards.
IE:
First, they're expensive changes, this means the bar is higher for them being considered 'efficient'.
Second, there were no identified harms being addressed - IE they couldn't identify harm from the clinic drug cabinets not having medicines specified in the rules they passed, because there are no realistic scenarios in an abortion/women's health clinic where they would NEED said medications. That means that obtaining, tracking, and replacing said meds as they expire is simply an additional burden. Having hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass side by side isn't necessary when they're not using gurneys in the first place. Requiring a woman to listen to the fetal heartbeat by having a sonogram sensor shoved up her because the fetus is too small to hear it otherwise isn't a medical need. Etc...
So yes lets apply this standard everywhere, best ruling ever as far as limiting the role government is potentially concerned, when used broadly.
Indeed. I see NOT applying these standards objectively as a very large reason why our government is so large, expensive, and ineffective.
If a government regulation or agency isn't doing appreciable good, isn't being effective, it needs to be reformed or eliminated.
Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).
Most of that seems to be Uber and the city working out something reasonable. For example, from what I've heard Uber now carries commercial insurance for the drivers, does background checks about as good as what taxi drivers get*. Uber has a facility in NYC to help it's drivers get the licenses and permits required. I read the page on it, it seems that NY has 'numerous' levels of commercial driver's license, depending on if you're going to be a taxi, limo, truck, or bus driver.
You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it.
Okay, so let me ask, how do you determine that it's 'actually needed' if people haven't suffered from the lack of it? That being said, I'm willing to accept a convincingly logical argument that harm would take place without the proposed regulation, but note 'convincing'. Vague statements that it needs to be regulated to prevent vague types of harm isn't convincing. For example, I'm willing to accept evidence from related situations from the past, in different locations.
It's usually not possible to directly compare results with regulation and results without regulation over time.
Sure it is. That being said, you should go back and re-assess regulations on a regular basis for adjustment. We should not be enacting regulations where the expected effect is intended to be so subtle as to be hard to track.
the idea is to reduce crime perpetrated by the drivers, but there really isn't much measurable other than how many people failed the check. In order to see if it reduces crime, it would be necessary to take some of the people failing the check and put them into cabs over a period of time and see how many passengers were crime victims.
Or, for example, you don't require background checks at first, then notice that the crime rate against passengers is too high. You notice that most of the offenders have a history of it, and that's why you put the background checks in. If you note that most of the offenders don't have a history, you look for other options.
For example, consider background checks on people who work with children - including volunteers. This is a law that I consider more harmful than good. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, it turns out that offenders didn't have a disqualifying history even before the checks were put in place.
So you're spending money that the organizations often don't have(why they're depending on volunteers in the first place), in order to prevent not very many potential predators, imposing even more paperwork on organizations while providing what I'd call a false sense of security to parents - because most offenders are the uncaught ones.
Same deal with the sex offender list. Child molesters didn't and don't actually molest children all that often after they're released, list or not, but said list has resulted in a number of murders, both sex offenders and innocents**.
Life requires judgment calls. If you don't like the calls your elected representatives are making, campaign against them in elections. If you get no traction, then it may well be that everyone else is happy with the situation.
Oddly enough, I do this already. There's plenty of 'traction', half the people are upset with one guy, half the other. I also regularly write them to try to convince them to take my side in various matters. My senators, representatives, and such are all familiar with me at this poin
Sack up and deal with it Airbnb
So a company should comply with any regulation at all without complaint?
That other companies should be able to impose regulations in order to capture the industry by excluding any possible competition?
My take on it - any proposed regulation should identify a problem or opportunity*. There should be fairly solid numbers on the problem - IE X amount of criminal calls, complaints, accidents, and such per year. The regulation should identify how much it's expected to cost. There should be a metric to identify whether the regulation is fulfilling it's purpose adequately.
If the regulation turns out to be more expensive than anticipated or doesn't solve the problem in line with it's costs, it should be eliminated.
*And no, 'government makes more money' isn't an opportunity.
For me that's 'put it in low gear and turn the engine off'.
You really think coming to a complete stop takes as long as moving 2 meters sideways?
Surprisingly, yes, in most situations.
Moving that severely results in a loss of control that, as you say, results in even worse accidents.
That's definitely *not* always the case. If you are going at 50 km/h you have around 10 meters braking distance before you get to a full stop (ignoring reaction time). This means that if your obstacle is at 5 meters you will hit it, but if the obstacle is relatively narrow, 5 meters could be well enough to completely dodge it.
First, your scenario is unrealistic because Self-driving cars have sight distances longer than 10 meters, including that they shouldn't be running at 50km/hour on streets where somebody stepping into the road is likely.
Second, have you tried to see how far you can dodge at 50 km/h in 'only' 5 meters? Remember that, compared to applying the brakes, it takes time to turn the tires.
As others have mentioned - more people have been killed dodging deer than hitting them. The severity of a turn necessary to avoid an obstacle at short distances combined with high speeds often results in a loss of control and leaving the road.
Why don't they use the fundamentals used in developing the algorithm to identify and eliminate the root causes of crime (through rehabilitation/counseling) and thus reduce crime in highly prone areas?
Honestly enough they should, there are pushes to do so, it's just that funding is an issue, as always. Funny thing is, though, it's supposed to actually save money!
Okay, up here in Alaska low oil prices have resulted in a government crisis - the government's income has dropped drastically. One of the reforms being put in place, finally, is 'community corrections', which has been shown to save money by actually preventing repeat criminal occurrences. As they mentioned, locking people up for long periods actually increases the chance they'll reoffend, especially if you don't provide support after they get out.
So rather than locking somebody up for 12 years, you lock them up for, say, 4. You take the money for the next 4 years of prison and put it into rehabilitating the criminal, which is enough to cover extended services in prison, as well as at least 4 years outside, because, surprise, it's cheaper than keeping them in prison. The last 4 years of prison sentence avoided is pure savings, though they mentioned that they're putting half the money into what you mentioned - addressing the core situations causing criminality in the first place.
As for the op -
His attorneys claim that the code is "full of holes," including secret criteria and generic decisions that aren't as individually tailored as they have to be. For instance, they'll skew predictions based on your gender or age -- how does that reflect the actual offender...?
Secret criteria is a problem, but gender and age have clear differences on how likely you are to re-offend. If you're a first time offender at 40 odds are something very strange happened, and if you fix that problem the person is unlikely to offend again, while being a first time offender at 15 is a bad sign that it might become a habit.