Because some people apparently have an agenda to stop or slow the adoption of EVs because they're not completely perfect in every way (or perhaps they have some other reasons they don't state).
Brake dust and tire dust is particulate matter, not gas. Particulate matter doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it settles to the ground quickly.
Do you have any scientific basis to say that brake dust is actually a serious pollutant anywhere near the NOx and other such emissions from burning gas and diesel?
This sounds exactly like Microsoft and their genocide-supporting Tay chatbot. They try to claim that it learned that stuff from people on Twitter, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Wow, your memory is short. It wasn't very long ago (1 year?), and it was just Microsoft, with their chat-bot "Tay".
It very quickly started saying things like "Hitler did nothing wrong", that the Holocaust was made up, that black people should be put in concentration camps. [1]
They shut it down because it made the company look bad. But it's too late: I'll never forget, and I happily tell anyone who'll listen that Microsoft supports Hitler and genocide.
From Wikipedia: "According to Microsoft, this was caused by trolls who "attacked" the service as the bot made replies based on its interactions with people on Twitter." Yeah, a likely story... they expect me to believe that?
The problem is not cars but excessive congestion... There are too many people travelling to the same place at the same time. You have too many businesses condensed into a small space, which pushes up the price of any nearby residential property and forces employees to live further away.
This is total BS, sorry. Everyone traveling to the same place at the same time is a good thing for public transit; the problem is they don't, which is why public transit generally doesn't work that well. People are coming and going to and from many different points scattered all about a 2-dimensional grid, and a system that's inherently linear doesn't work well there. That's why we need SkyTran.
However, if you could squeeze everyone together more, this would alleviate much of the problem, instead of having them all move out to the suburbs. So what we really need is a LOT more big high-rises for people to live in. The problem is we're not doing nearly enough of that, because existing landowners don't want big high-rises blocking their view, or they want to constrain the real estate supply to maintain their high property values and rents. Basically, much of the problem could be fixed if the governments simply enacted policies to push massive construction of dense residential real-estate, over all the objections of those who stand to lose. Some people would still prefer to live farther out where they can have a yard or more space or whatever, but a lot of people would like to live closer to work, in denser surroundings, but only if it's affordable. Major cities like London, NYC, SF, etc. simply are not.
The people outside cities who work inside them need to move into the cities.
Of course, the stupid politicians won't do anything to get the cost of housing to reasonable levels, because the wealthy land-owning interests they really serve would be harmed by such measures, so people move far away just so they can afford it.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Regenerative braking is just using the car's motor in reverse to generate electricity. A normal Tesla's motor is in the rear, driving the rear wheels. The newest "P90D" dual-motor Teslas and Model Xs have motors driving all 4 wheels.
High-end brake pads usually generate *more* dust, not less. That's how they perform better.
The science says optimally a 4-wheel braking system can only recover 40% of the energy
Where the hell did you read this garbage? Theoretically, you can recover 100%; it doesn't happen in reality because of many different factors (like being able to store that much energy somewhere quickly, losses in the electronics, etc.).
There is also the fact that an EV uses zero energy (well, except for the climate control system, radio, and electronics) when stopped. An IC vehicle still burns fuel. This in itself is a major fuel saver.
Maybe 5%, probably less, in typical driving cycles. But many gas cars these days have "start-stop" technology, where they actually stop the engine when the car is stopped at a light. Also, hybrids like the Prius don't run the engine when stopped.
I think it'd be really interesting to see a study that examines Priuses, Volts, and other hybrids, and compares them to typical cars and SUVs in both actual fuel usage and also actual emissions (not on a stupid dynomometer, but on the actual streets), but *solely* in an urban environment with 100% local driving and fairly short trips. A lot of cars get great highway fuel economy, but that's after the engine's warmed up, and with very little stopping for traffic lights. Drive them around the city with short trips and the fuel economy plummets.
The other thing with EVs (and hybrids) is that they don't generate as much brake dust as regular cars, because they use regenerative braking much of the time.
In addition, the thing about brake dust sounds ridiculous to me. Modern brake pads don't even have asbestos in them, and the total volume is rather small (go look at some yourself, I'm sure the guy in Autozone will be happy to show you some). Those pads last a minimum of 30k miles, probably at least 50k up to 100k. Considering how much air your engine is ingesting and expelling during that much time, that volume of brake dust is minuscule. Same with tires. The problem with cars is the exhaust emissions; brake dust probably isn't healthy to breathe in in large quantities, but that's a far far lower concern than engine emissions, so much lower it's really laughable to consider it while we still have hundreds of millions of cars burning gas and diesel and spewing out noxious emissions from that.
We can certainly use better public transit, and I've been harping on SkyTran for years now but everyone tells me I'm crazy and that we need to stick with cars. Honestly, at this point I'm just hoping for a planet-killer asteroid to put us all out of our misery because we're clearly too stupid as a species to live.
It's not exactly that. This is Apple we're talking about here: with them, they tell you what to like. What you want isn't important, because they know better than you. Millions of Apple fans agree, and will happily adjust their opinion every time a new Apple product comes out. Remember when Apple said people don't want large-screen phones? Apple customers didn't; they were happy with the smaller iPhone screens. But then later, Apple came out with a large-screen iPhone to match the Samsungs, and suddenly all the Apple customers liked the new large-screen iPhone.
Whatever Apple tells people to like, they do. And that's how their office planning goes too. They simply assume the employees will like whatever they bequeath on them. And they probably will; if they didn't have this mindset, they wouldn't be working there.
I mostly agree, but not for the ones working at Apple. I think they should get a reward. I'm hoping they'll make the work environment there so noisy and chaotic that nothing they produce works right.
This is why I wonder if things would be better if polyamory were more accepted. Raising kids does take too much time, but if you had 2 or 3 couples living together and raising kids together, it wouldn't be so much of a burden, either financially or time-wise.
Of course, finding even one person you get along with well enough to live with is hard enough...
I realize they're pretty complicated, but in each case, they never regained their former glory. After they were taken over by Macedon, as you note, Greece never ruled themselves again until only recently (and even then they were ruled by a military junta for a while, until very recently). They haven't been a major power since ancient times. Same for Rome: while they had some political importance during the Holy Roman Empire, it was nothing like when they had the Republic or the Empire, and modern Italy has never been a world power of any kind, though they kinda tried under Mussolini.
Turning your neck to see this information is OK in some shitty little $12k econobox, where they center-mount the gauges to save money in production costs (they can use the same dashboard for both left-hand drive and right-hand drive versions of the car worldwide). This car is not billed as an econobox, nor priced like one. You'd have to be as fucking stupid as Apple lovers to try to convince people that economy-level features are worth paying moderately-high prices for.
It's not NIMBY (I don't live in an expensive area), it's simple economics. Why should society pay for someone to live in a place where the cost of living is astronomical, when they could be relocated to the boonies where the CoL is dirt-cheap? The same tax dollars could afford to help many times more people.
Of course, if these people are also low-wage workers in the high-cost area, that means removing those workers from the area, which is fine with me. I'd rather pay them the same or less, and have them not work. Let the high-cost areas go without them; that's what their city planners get for not doing a better job keeping housing affordable. Eventually the high-cost area will not be so high-cost. Giving assistance to these people to stay there is just making the problem worse.
No, they aren't. Skinny wheels are what's best in the snow, regardless of diameter. Skinny wheels means a smaller contact patch and more pressure. Wide tires float on the snow.
As long as it's at least 0F, just go without heat. You can simply wear more clothes to keep you warm.
In Minnesnowta-like conditions, however, I'd say it's a bad idea. At those temperatures you'll get frostbite sitting for long without heat.
But the battery range problem is a big one: batteries typically have much poorer output in very cold weather. But these EVs are supposed to have battery heaters to help with that (of course, that takes more power...).
I miss the 80ies, back then they tried to hide these for aerodynamic reasons.
Were you in an alternate universe then? The 80s cars in my universe were ugly boxes, with grills. It was the 90s when they tried to hide them.
They've brought them back because the highly-sloped hoods were horrible for pedestrian safety: when you hit a person, they'd bounce up onto (or through) the windshield. Somehow, modern grills are safer (probably are made of somewhat easily-crushed plastic) and don't scoop up pedestrians this way. Seems weird to me, but that's what I've read about it. Also, even with modern grills, modern cars have lower Cd numbers than ever.
Oh BS. My car has radar adaptive cruise control. It's really nice on flat freeways and some other places, but you aren't always driving on those. When you're not using it, you still need to see the speed to avoid a speeding ticket.
I also don't use my ACC when I'm on rolling hills like we have here in VA: it wastes gas because it'll mash the gas going uphill and slow down when going downhill; it's better for me to speed up on the downhill slopes a bit so I let it coast a bit going uphill. The interstates aren't like this, but smaller state highways are full of these rolling hills because they were too cheap to level them.
IMO, every car should be required to have a HUD (heads-up display) showing the speed and other info. Looking to the side is retarded.
This thing looks like a fucking engineering disaster in the making.
Small correction: this could be an engineering masterpiece for all we know, it's a human factors and design disaster in the making.
Engineers aren't the ones who come up with the idea of eliminating tactile controls and having everything on a stupid touchscreen. They just implement what the designers tell them to.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. America was not in decline when the first two world wars came around. In fact, it was rising, turning from an agrarian nation into a major industrial power, and the wars pushed it even farther.
I also don't agree about Germany, Japan, and France being better off after the wars. Germany was a world power before WWI, and Japan was a rising power too with an empire, and control of much of the lands around it. France was also a major world power before the wars (did you forget about Napoleon?), with a lot of colonies.
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if they figure out how to greatly increase lifespans, so that it becomes perfectly feasible to wait until you're 50 or 75 or 100 to have kids (and still look and feel like you're 30 at those ages). If people have many decades to get an education, work on their careers, save up a large nest egg, mature a lot, find just the right partner(s) and spend plenty of time with them, etc. before taking the big step of having kids, I wonder if a lot of those people would be having some.
The American Civil War I think isn't a good example. The country overall was rising at that time; look where it started, less than 100 years before. The Civil War was a big conflict between two conflicting regions and cultures within the nation, which set the future direction of the country. America at that time was in no way "in decline", as happened to the other societies I listed.
My ancient history isn't *that* good, but as I recall, ancient Athens became part of Greece, which was then conquered by Rome. Not exactly a success story. Rome changed, but not for the better: it turned into an authoritarian empire (from a republic), declined (at one point the Praetorian guard was selling off the emperorship), was sacked several times, and finally fell apart.
Slashdot Mirror
Because some people apparently have an agenda to stop or slow the adoption of EVs because they're not completely perfect in every way (or perhaps they have some other reasons they don't state).
Brake dust and tire dust is particulate matter, not gas. Particulate matter doesn't stay in the atmosphere, it settles to the ground quickly.
Do you have any scientific basis to say that brake dust is actually a serious pollutant anywhere near the NOx and other such emissions from burning gas and diesel?
This sounds exactly like Microsoft and their genocide-supporting Tay chatbot. They try to claim that it learned that stuff from people on Twitter, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Wow, your memory is short. It wasn't very long ago (1 year?), and it was just Microsoft, with their chat-bot "Tay".
It very quickly started saying things like "Hitler did nothing wrong", that the Holocaust was made up, that black people should be put in concentration camps. [1]
They shut it down because it made the company look bad. But it's too late: I'll never forget, and I happily tell anyone who'll listen that Microsoft supports Hitler and genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From Wikipedia: "According to Microsoft, this was caused by trolls who "attacked" the service as the bot made replies based on its interactions with people on Twitter." Yeah, a likely story... they expect me to believe that?
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...
The problem is not cars but excessive congestion... There are too many people travelling to the same place at the same time. You have too many businesses condensed into a small space, which pushes up the price of any nearby residential property and forces employees to live further away.
This is total BS, sorry. Everyone traveling to the same place at the same time is a good thing for public transit; the problem is they don't, which is why public transit generally doesn't work that well. People are coming and going to and from many different points scattered all about a 2-dimensional grid, and a system that's inherently linear doesn't work well there. That's why we need SkyTran.
However, if you could squeeze everyone together more, this would alleviate much of the problem, instead of having them all move out to the suburbs. So what we really need is a LOT more big high-rises for people to live in. The problem is we're not doing nearly enough of that, because existing landowners don't want big high-rises blocking their view, or they want to constrain the real estate supply to maintain their high property values and rents. Basically, much of the problem could be fixed if the governments simply enacted policies to push massive construction of dense residential real-estate, over all the objections of those who stand to lose. Some people would still prefer to live farther out where they can have a yard or more space or whatever, but a lot of people would like to live closer to work, in denser surroundings, but only if it's affordable. Major cities like London, NYC, SF, etc. simply are not.
The people outside cities who work inside them need to move into the cities.
Of course, the stupid politicians won't do anything to get the cost of housing to reasonable levels, because the wealthy land-owning interests they really serve would be harmed by such measures, so people move far away just so they can afford it.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Regenerative braking is just using the car's motor in reverse to generate electricity. A normal Tesla's motor is in the rear, driving the rear wheels. The newest "P90D" dual-motor Teslas and Model Xs have motors driving all 4 wheels.
High-end brake pads usually generate *more* dust, not less. That's how they perform better.
The science says optimally a 4-wheel braking system can only recover 40% of the energy
Where the hell did you read this garbage? Theoretically, you can recover 100%; it doesn't happen in reality because of many different factors (like being able to store that much energy somewhere quickly, losses in the electronics, etc.).
Maybe you should read some better sources.
There is also the fact that an EV uses zero energy (well, except for the climate control system, radio, and electronics) when stopped. An IC vehicle still burns fuel. This in itself is a major fuel saver.
Maybe 5%, probably less, in typical driving cycles. But many gas cars these days have "start-stop" technology, where they actually stop the engine when the car is stopped at a light. Also, hybrids like the Prius don't run the engine when stopped.
I think it'd be really interesting to see a study that examines Priuses, Volts, and other hybrids, and compares them to typical cars and SUVs in both actual fuel usage and also actual emissions (not on a stupid dynomometer, but on the actual streets), but *solely* in an urban environment with 100% local driving and fairly short trips. A lot of cars get great highway fuel economy, but that's after the engine's warmed up, and with very little stopping for traffic lights. Drive them around the city with short trips and the fuel economy plummets.
The other thing with EVs (and hybrids) is that they don't generate as much brake dust as regular cars, because they use regenerative braking much of the time.
In addition, the thing about brake dust sounds ridiculous to me. Modern brake pads don't even have asbestos in them, and the total volume is rather small (go look at some yourself, I'm sure the guy in Autozone will be happy to show you some). Those pads last a minimum of 30k miles, probably at least 50k up to 100k. Considering how much air your engine is ingesting and expelling during that much time, that volume of brake dust is minuscule. Same with tires. The problem with cars is the exhaust emissions; brake dust probably isn't healthy to breathe in in large quantities, but that's a far far lower concern than engine emissions, so much lower it's really laughable to consider it while we still have hundreds of millions of cars burning gas and diesel and spewing out noxious emissions from that.
We can certainly use better public transit, and I've been harping on SkyTran for years now but everyone tells me I'm crazy and that we need to stick with cars. Honestly, at this point I'm just hoping for a planet-killer asteroid to put us all out of our misery because we're clearly too stupid as a species to live.
It's not exactly that. This is Apple we're talking about here: with them, they tell you what to like. What you want isn't important, because they know better than you. Millions of Apple fans agree, and will happily adjust their opinion every time a new Apple product comes out. Remember when Apple said people don't want large-screen phones? Apple customers didn't; they were happy with the smaller iPhone screens. But then later, Apple came out with a large-screen iPhone to match the Samsungs, and suddenly all the Apple customers liked the new large-screen iPhone.
Whatever Apple tells people to like, they do. And that's how their office planning goes too. They simply assume the employees will like whatever they bequeath on them. And they probably will; if they didn't have this mindset, they wouldn't be working there.
I mostly agree, but not for the ones working at Apple. I think they should get a reward. I'm hoping they'll make the work environment there so noisy and chaotic that nothing they produce works right.
Next, I'm hoping Microsoft does the same thing.
This is why I wonder if things would be better if polyamory were more accepted. Raising kids does take too much time, but if you had 2 or 3 couples living together and raising kids together, it wouldn't be so much of a burden, either financially or time-wise.
Of course, finding even one person you get along with well enough to live with is hard enough...
I realize they're pretty complicated, but in each case, they never regained their former glory. After they were taken over by Macedon, as you note, Greece never ruled themselves again until only recently (and even then they were ruled by a military junta for a while, until very recently). They haven't been a major power since ancient times. Same for Rome: while they had some political importance during the Holy Roman Empire, it was nothing like when they had the Republic or the Empire, and modern Italy has never been a world power of any kind, though they kinda tried under Mussolini.
Turning your neck to see this information is OK in some shitty little $12k econobox, where they center-mount the gauges to save money in production costs (they can use the same dashboard for both left-hand drive and right-hand drive versions of the car worldwide). This car is not billed as an econobox, nor priced like one. You'd have to be as fucking stupid as Apple lovers to try to convince people that economy-level features are worth paying moderately-high prices for.
It's not NIMBY (I don't live in an expensive area), it's simple economics. Why should society pay for someone to live in a place where the cost of living is astronomical, when they could be relocated to the boonies where the CoL is dirt-cheap? The same tax dollars could afford to help many times more people.
Of course, if these people are also low-wage workers in the high-cost area, that means removing those workers from the area, which is fine with me. I'd rather pay them the same or less, and have them not work. Let the high-cost areas go without them; that's what their city planners get for not doing a better job keeping housing affordable. Eventually the high-cost area will not be so high-cost. Giving assistance to these people to stay there is just making the problem worse.
That's regardless of the width of the wheels. Skinny wheels have better traction in snow than wide ones.
No, they aren't. Skinny wheels are what's best in the snow, regardless of diameter. Skinny wheels means a smaller contact patch and more pressure. Wide tires float on the snow.
As long as it's at least 0F, just go without heat. You can simply wear more clothes to keep you warm.
In Minnesnowta-like conditions, however, I'd say it's a bad idea. At those temperatures you'll get frostbite sitting for long without heat.
But the battery range problem is a big one: batteries typically have much poorer output in very cold weather. But these EVs are supposed to have battery heaters to help with that (of course, that takes more power...).
I miss the 80ies, back then they tried to hide these for aerodynamic reasons.
Were you in an alternate universe then? The 80s cars in my universe were ugly boxes, with grills. It was the 90s when they tried to hide them.
They've brought them back because the highly-sloped hoods were horrible for pedestrian safety: when you hit a person, they'd bounce up onto (or through) the windshield. Somehow, modern grills are safer (probably are made of somewhat easily-crushed plastic) and don't scoop up pedestrians this way. Seems weird to me, but that's what I've read about it. Also, even with modern grills, modern cars have lower Cd numbers than ever.
Oh BS. My car has radar adaptive cruise control. It's really nice on flat freeways and some other places, but you aren't always driving on those. When you're not using it, you still need to see the speed to avoid a speeding ticket.
I also don't use my ACC when I'm on rolling hills like we have here in VA: it wastes gas because it'll mash the gas going uphill and slow down when going downhill; it's better for me to speed up on the downhill slopes a bit so I let it coast a bit going uphill. The interstates aren't like this, but smaller state highways are full of these rolling hills because they were too cheap to level them.
IMO, every car should be required to have a HUD (heads-up display) showing the speed and other info. Looking to the side is retarded.
This thing looks like a fucking engineering disaster in the making.
Small correction: this could be an engineering masterpiece for all we know, it's a human factors and design disaster in the making.
Engineers aren't the ones who come up with the idea of eliminating tactile controls and having everything on a stupid touchscreen. They just implement what the designers tell them to.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. America was not in decline when the first two world wars came around. In fact, it was rising, turning from an agrarian nation into a major industrial power, and the wars pushed it even farther.
I also don't agree about Germany, Japan, and France being better off after the wars. Germany was a world power before WWI, and Japan was a rising power too with an empire, and control of much of the lands around it. France was also a major world power before the wars (did you forget about Napoleon?), with a lot of colonies.
Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if they figure out how to greatly increase lifespans, so that it becomes perfectly feasible to wait until you're 50 or 75 or 100 to have kids (and still look and feel like you're 30 at those ages). If people have many decades to get an education, work on their careers, save up a large nest egg, mature a lot, find just the right partner(s) and spend plenty of time with them, etc. before taking the big step of having kids, I wonder if a lot of those people would be having some.
Germany didn't ever turn itself around. They lost a war, and had an occupational government. Same for Japan.
The American Civil War I think isn't a good example. The country overall was rising at that time; look where it started, less than 100 years before. The Civil War was a big conflict between two conflicting regions and cultures within the nation, which set the future direction of the country. America at that time was in no way "in decline", as happened to the other societies I listed.
My ancient history isn't *that* good, but as I recall, ancient Athens became part of Greece, which was then conquered by Rome. Not exactly a success story. Rome changed, but not for the better: it turned into an authoritarian empire (from a republic), declined (at one point the Praetorian guard was selling off the emperorship), was sacked several times, and finally fell apart.