Ah, I see. This is sometimes being enforced not just with a project space, but also to include people's personal opinions and posts outside the project, for instance, in public forums such as Twitter. Yes, I have a big problem with that.
But I think if only enforced within the scope of a project, it still seems reasonable...
The origins of the Contributor's covenant aside, I really don't see anything in that I would reasonably expect most people to have a problem with: https://www.contributor-covena...
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Also, from that article:
Of course, since track data is stored locally on the phone, that also means it’s limited.
Which means that while it appears to be a privacy issue, it's actually not. Compared to the 900 other problems with any Android smartphone that actually are privacy issues, but are hidden from you.
Funny how privacy issues usually revolve around perception, not reality. If I walk around with a camera pointing it at people, many will get very angry, but generally don't mind at all that the government sets up cameras all around the city.
I was a student made up differently from everyone else. I was diagnosed with ADHD and as a result, I was given unlimited time on all tests, because that was mandated due to my disorder.
I NEVER once used that "privilege". I felt that my job would not offer me an unlimited time to do work, so that I should learn to grow up, focus the best I could, and develop strategies to workaround my disability. Learning the lessons of facing life head on and never giving up has served me well in life.
I have a real disorder. I also have high neuroticism and may have undiagnosed aspergers and/or depression & anxiety. On paper, I'm a mess. But I've always viewed my limitations as obstacles to overcome and I've overcome them. I now have a successful marriage, wonderful kids, and I get top reviews at work and lead a large group of engineers. Going into software development, I never thought I'd need public speaking, but I need it daily at work. It's one of my most needed skills.
Accommodating everyone who's made up a little different isn't the answer. There are a plenty of students with disorders, myself included. A small number of those students truly need serious accommodation to function, or they won't be able to grasp school. We need to accommodate those. But in general, we accommodate far too much and don't teach people the hard lesson that is "when you leave school, life in general won't give you a pass because of your disorder." Learning that life lesson is more valuable than any class assignment in school. The alternative is they leave school without having learned how to grow up. Then these immature people who are already struggling to function have the world crash around them when the real world happens. That's not good for them or society.
Btw, Jordan Peterson is tremendously helpful for many individuals in that group of people, because he tells them the truth: Society as a whole doesn't care about your problems, and won't give you a pass. You can either grow up and do something with your life or accomplish little and live a life of depression. So set goals, grow up, and make something of your life.
I don't know what message you heard from Jordan Peterson, but that's actually an incredibly empowering message, not a soul crushing message. Many people have recovered from serious depression and drifting in life by listening to Jordan.
Oh, they should have more room for cost now in 2016 than they did in 2011. Their battery costs should be much lower, but they haven't redesigned the car yet and they just sold the battery manufacturer[1], so their costs may actually be higher. There's no way to really know, but they did up the replacement pack cost from $5,500 to $8,000[2]. Either way, adding active thermal management requires a redesign of the car and the pack, which hasn't happened yet.
And yes, it appears that the 30 kWh packs are degrading faster than the 24kWh packs[3]. The cause is unknown--there's less metal casing around the cells, so they could be heating more, there appears to be a software issue with the battery capacity calculation[4], and there's a different chemistry. I'm sure Nissan knows how much each of these is the cause, but they're not saying. There's not really enough data on the 40kWh packs (2018) yet to determine how they'll behave.
I too am interested in what Nissan comes up with in 2019, but their poor support of existing models will strongly discourage me from buying a future Leaf unless there's a big reason to do so. That opinion would instantly change if they stop serial code locking batteries (preventing 3rd party replacement) and sell the newer high capacity packs for the existing Leafs.
I would argue that based on your statement, electric cars are useful for basically every two-car household in the US, provided sufficient range for commuting. Rough guess, that's 100 million cars in the US alone? That seems like a good market for a new technology.
This assumes nothing like a supercharger network. Once you include the concept of a supercharger network, then they become useful for basically all situations.
I have a Leaf with 35 mi range (2011 model, the battery is almost toast), and it covers 85% of my driving needs. If it could do 95 miles roundtrip with the AC or heater on, it would meet 100% of my driving, except for vacations. The 2018 Leaf's range is perfect for me. 3x that would be massively overkill, but a 3x cost reduction on the battery pack would be very welcome...
That's silly. The purpose of the Leaf was to sell an electric vehicle at a similar price point to a petrol car, and this was key to the design. When introduced, the Leaf's battery costs were enormous, and Nissan either lost money on the car or barely broke even on the 2011s, without counting R&D costs. Obviously, you need to amortize the R&D costs, so they lost money on the car. The idea that they should just add more in costs to the car to prevent battery degradation is silly. They haven't done a significant redesign of the Leaf since 2011 (even 2018 is just a restyle--the battery pack compartment is physically unchanged).
Rumors are the 2019 Leaf will use active thermal management. But this is 8 years later, and battery costs are now a fraction of what they were.
There are plenty of things to fault the Leaf for. Saying that Nissan is "pocketing the savings" isn't one of them.
Google Fiber was actually ranked second. I'm not surprised by that at all. Their customer service has been fantastic, as has the internet and TV. The two times I've had an issue, they had metrics to show exactly what was wrong from their end and their support rep understood the problem and could interact directly with the engineers.
On the other hand, Comcast required more than 3 calls to bury the outside cable line after it was replaced (it was supposed to be buried automatically with a second crew after the tech left, but he didn't file the right paperwork), and when I called customer service, one representative told me he was going to "reset my modem to resolve the issue". Yeah, apparently resetting modems can bury cable lines underground now, folks...
But the underlying point is that, even if in net terms he received 0 dollars, he is still being funded by the taxpayer to create a large and diverse business empire risk-free, and with the prospect of one of the longshots coming off and making him a zillionaire.
Okay, so I've mainly been lurking on the Elon Love/Hate flame wars, but this is just too much. You seriously just tried to describe Elon's business model as "risk-free"... OK.
I definitely agree that the ownership cost was lower than buying a new one, but unfortunately the ownership cost was at least 50% higher than the equivalent T&C. The main reason is that while the reliability of my T&C and Odyssey were equivalent (I may have gotten a bad Ody), the repair costs for parts were much higher. Also, the initial purchase cost was dramatically higher ($11k Ody vs $4k T&C).
In any case, it was what it was, but the primary factor I found was that domestic parts are dramatically cheaper than foreign ones. Fundamentally repair cost is (parts + labor) * reliability. If parts is 3x more expensive, then repair cost is higher unless the reliability is dramatically higher. Once you factor in the much slower depreciation of foreign cars, this means that buying used domestic can often be cheaper than used foreign, even though they're generally less reliable.
A similar "expensive foreign parts" situation just occurred on my Nissan Leaf. The passenger occupancy sensor just failed, and Nissan wants $2700 for the sensor (plus labor & taxes). $2700 for what is essentially an electronic scale is... well, insane. That's more than I paid for the rebuilt transmission installed on my T&C.
Keep in mind that the Odyssey is one of the least reliable models that Honda offers, according to Consumer Reports--not because the Ody is particularly bad, but because overall Honda is generally very good. In short, CR shows that the Odyssey is about as reliable as most domestic cars, whereas the rest of their models beat the pants off most domestic cars. Also, this was all just about costs--there's something to be said about the annoyance of having your car in the shop. Reliability has value outside financial cost.
My Honda Odyssey cost me nearly $7k last year, from 120k-150k miles. Timing belt tensioner is hydraulic and failed, so I needed a timing belt service ($1k) only 30k miles after the previous belt. Also had the alternator fail which fried the AC compressor stator coil ($10)... But you can't replace that without draining the freon and removing the compressor so then you might as well put a new one on... $1k. Also had the water pump go bad and an engine mount failed (they're known for bad mounts)... And again, it's hydraulic so it's ~$700 for EACH mount (instead of $40 for normal non hydraulic mounts). Add in a few other random failures and it's been a very expensive year.
In short, the Odyssey failed just as much as my Chrysler Town and country, but every part was over 3x as expensive. It also cost 3x as much to purchase used (with 100k miles), so not worth it.
I spent $18k total on my T&C for 100k miles, 8 years and $22k total on the Ody for 70k miles, 5 years.
I just bought a used Chrysler to replace the Ody. It needed ALL new engine mounts, which cost $500 total, including labor... Nearly half the cost of a single Ody mount. I probably will never buy Honda again.
I can't confirm 5, but the rest of your statements are true:
The test is based on an industry-standard procedure designed by SAE International, a global engineering association. Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don’t overheat.
However, CR said that even after an overnight cooldown, all braking distances on the next day were still long (even the first!):
In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even after we let the brakes cool overnight.
In other words, prior to the firmware update, you only get one hard brake with optimal stopping distance before you have inconsistent braking performance. It is possible that had they only done fewer hard brakes on day 1, the first brake on day 2 would have been optimal. I have no way of knowing. However, an overnight cooldown should reset the count as the brakes would have fully cooled. The original braking performance was a serious problem and certainly something that would impact "actual drivers".
If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place?
The same reason you have bugs in any program you use. Software is complicated and hard. Testing is time consuming, expensive, and difficult. Bugs get out all the time. The difficulty of fixing an issue is nearly independent from the factors that go into finding it in the first place. Once identified, given the severity of the bug, fixing it was obviously crucial, and kudos to Tesla for quickly resolving the issue.
Agree with most of what you said, except the "No real change for actual drivers". The cool down period that CR gave the car was overnight, and yet it still had the problem. We don't know what the actual "cool down" period is, but it's at least 12 hours.
While I agree it's unusual someone may need to panic brake twice in quick succession, with the number of cars and drivers on the road, it's almost guaranteed to happen. And when "quick succession" becomes "within a 12 hour period or more", there's a serious problem.
Agreed. Science and the laws of nature are amoral and don't make such value judgements.
Let's look at American political history:
Most of us would agree that slavery and civil wars are both bad. In the 1800s, conservatives wanted their values and traditions (which avoids societal collapse), while liberals wanted to free the slaves as quickly as possible. The ideal would be to free the slaves without unrest, but societal constraints meant that these two goals were at odds with each other. As it were, we ended up freeing the slaves, but over 1.6 million Americans died.
The actual value judgements are left to the reader. Most would argue that war & death is bad, but there's no absolute "law" of science the says so. Most would argue that slavery is bad, but again, no absolute "law" of the science or universe says so. That's because science is amoral.
However, most people agree on basic ethics--war, suffering, slavery, anarchy, and death is bad while progress towards shared societal goals is good. If you have those value judgements, you'll want to avoid societal collapse AND stagnation. In that context, it's essential we find a middle ground between conservatives and liberals.
It's highly linked to a personality trait called openness. People who are high in openness are interested and emotionally get benefit/happiness from new ideas, thoughts, and concepts. People with this personality are generally very interested in becoming scientists and professors. Likewise, high openness correlates strongly with liberal political views. Therefore, it makes complete sense that there's a strong correlation between scientists/professors, and liberal political viewpoints.
Just imagining it makes sense -- conservatives generally want to embrace tradition and liberals want to change the world to make it a better place. Somewhere in the middle is good for society--too much change is chaos, and too little is stagnation.
It's the same reason they tell you to put your oxygen mask on in a plane before you help others. You will pass out quite quickly, because your lungs change from an oxygen input system to an oxygen output system--your lungs work by osmosis. At 40,000 ft, you'll pass out in 15-20 seconds--whereas most people can hold your breath for 1-2 minutes (without training). Also keep in mind this is "useful consciousness", not death. You will be living, but unconscious, for a while longer. If the plane descends quickly enough, you'll simply wake up with no permanent effects.
What this means is that the prisoner could extend their life for 1-2 minutes by holding their breath. But eventually, they'll run out of oxygen either way, and it gets quite uncomfortable to hold your breath for an extended period of time due to the buildup of CO2 and lung reflexes.
You also wouldn't want to hold your breath during explosive decompression, because your lungs would be at risk of damage or rupture. See [2]. So either way, if you're at high altitude without oxygen or a suit, you're in serious trouble. Likewise if you're strapped to a table and people are just waiting for you to finally breathe and die.
What are they supposed to use their brain to do if they aren't told that the chances of dying as a side effect are relatively high? You can't make an informed decision without data.
Agreed.
That's nice. Wouldn't it have been better if you knew before you made the choice what the chances were?
Of course it would have. They didn't know it killed people in the beginning because it was a very rare side effect. Once that information became available, it was distributed promptly and the drug was pulled from the market. Are you suggesting that we predict the future?
My point was that I would have continued to take the drug after this information was known, but the FDA prevented me from doing so, which caused me significant weekly excruciating physical pain. A 1/100,000 chance of death would have been worth avoiding that torture.
Should others be restricted in knowing the danger because you are a risk taker?
Nowhere did I state or imply that we should hide drug harm and interaction information from others, due to my willingness to take risk or any other reason. Of course everyone should be informed of known drug dangers.
What value is the information that this certain drug didn't kill anyone in a group of 100 test subjects after taking it for just six weeks? How do you call it "informed" when there is so little data, and not just little data, but too little to have any statistical significance?
Label that the drug is basically untested, extremely dangerous, and should be considered experimental until more data is available? Then share that data once it does become available?
Disingenuous. You would not be allowed to have an opinion. You are psychotic. It's easy to say what you would do; less easy to say what your next of kin should do with you.
Accepted. Psychosis would remove my ability to think clearly. Assuming similarly severe non-mental illness, my point stands.
So what you're saying is that knowing there is a drug that might cure you on the market in a year, after more testing to show that it won't kill you, is not good enough to wait for, you'd choose death now? A year of poor quality of life isn't worth living?
And taken to the extreme, this calls for a program of euthenasia for anyone whose life will be "low quality", because quality is more important than quantity. I'm sorry, that's where this concept takes us.
I'm saying it's my choice, not yours, and not the government's. Period.
Furthermore, Parkinson's is a terminal disease, so even without treatment, it's very likely I wouldn't be around before a cure is available. As for euthanasia, this has nothing to do with non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, but it is related to voluntary euthanasia. Determining if I wish to risk or end my life is my right. Remember, your rights stop where mine begin (and vice versa).
Look, the Democrats and Republicans both voted overwhelmingly to pass this. In the senate, only TWO senators voted against it (Rand Paul and Ron Wyden), both who have historically stood up for civil liberties and privacy.
I'm blaming the D's AND the R's. Regardless of who's in power, every representative gets a vote, and nearly everyone used it to pass FOSTA. Had the D's mostly voted against FOSTA, it would have still passed, but I wouldn't blame them. That's how it works.
By the way, if you are a civil liberties person and concerned about privacy, Paul and Wyden would be great to donate to. If you're partisan, donate to the one on your party.
"40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online"
I'd definitely fall into that category--in my decades of online experience, I've certainly been harassed. I've also been harassed in the real world. I will be the first to admit there has been some serious harassment, stalking, and threats to life online. Those are serious, and should be/are addressed. But they're not 40%. Liars figure and figures lie.
The impact of that online harassment on my life now? Basically ZERO. So how exactly do we want to "fix" this "problem"? At what cost? Muzzle free speech?
How about people have a brain and it's their life?
I used to take a medication that was later found to kill ~1 in 100,000. Given the benefit and risk of that drug, I would have elected to continue treatment with that drug. Instead, the FDA pulled the drug (for my safety)... because people would have been screaming about the people that died if the drug stayed on the shelves. There was no suitable replacement that worked for me.
I know the math, I'm willing to accept the risk, and the risk is reasonable. Inform me and allow me to make the choice.
Drugs should be clearly marked with known side effects. If they have rushed testing, that should be disclosed. As side effects are discovered, the company should be required to communicate them clearly and quickly. If you don't want to take a limited-test drug, don't. But let people have the freedom to make informed decisions with their doctor.
If the drug significantly benefits many patients, it's not even clear that death should prevent it from being on the market. If I was unable to move and was having severe psychosis, I would consider a drug that resolved those symptoms, EVEN IF I was guaranteed that it would kill me in a few months. Quality of life is just as important (or more so) than quantity of life.
You can play the entire piece in a completely different key. That also makes zero difference
It makes no difference to you or I. It sounds completely different to her. When she hears a song transposed to a different key, it has a completely different sound to her than the original song.
Small to moderate changes in absolute pitch does not matter to most people. But to those with perfect pitch, it matters far more than you realize.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. This is sometimes being enforced not just with a project space, but also to include people's personal opinions and posts outside the project, for instance, in public forums such as Twitter. Yes, I have a big problem with that.
But I think if only enforced within the scope of a project, it still seems reasonable...
The origins of the Contributor's covenant aside, I really don't see anything in that I would reasonably expect most people to have a problem with:
https://www.contributor-covena...
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Also, from that article:
Of course, since track data is stored locally on the phone, that also means it’s limited.
Which means that while it appears to be a privacy issue, it's actually not. Compared to the 900 other problems with any Android smartphone that actually are privacy issues, but are hidden from you.
Funny how privacy issues usually revolve around perception, not reality. If I walk around with a camera pointing it at people, many will get very angry, but generally don't mind at all that the government sets up cameras all around the city.
110010001000's point is that slavery still exists in "many countries", not that it exists in the US.
I was a student made up differently from everyone else. I was diagnosed with ADHD and as a result, I was given unlimited time on all tests, because that was mandated due to my disorder.
I NEVER once used that "privilege". I felt that my job would not offer me an unlimited time to do work, so that I should learn to grow up, focus the best I could, and develop strategies to workaround my disability. Learning the lessons of facing life head on and never giving up has served me well in life.
I have a real disorder. I also have high neuroticism and may have undiagnosed aspergers and/or depression & anxiety. On paper, I'm a mess. But I've always viewed my limitations as obstacles to overcome and I've overcome them. I now have a successful marriage, wonderful kids, and I get top reviews at work and lead a large group of engineers. Going into software development, I never thought I'd need public speaking, but I need it daily at work. It's one of my most needed skills.
Accommodating everyone who's made up a little different isn't the answer. There are a plenty of students with disorders, myself included. A small number of those students truly need serious accommodation to function, or they won't be able to grasp school. We need to accommodate those. But in general, we accommodate far too much and don't teach people the hard lesson that is "when you leave school, life in general won't give you a pass because of your disorder." Learning that life lesson is more valuable than any class assignment in school. The alternative is they leave school without having learned how to grow up. Then these immature people who are already struggling to function have the world crash around them when the real world happens. That's not good for them or society.
Btw, Jordan Peterson is tremendously helpful for many individuals in that group of people, because he tells them the truth:
Society as a whole doesn't care about your problems, and won't give you a pass. You can either grow up and do something with your life or accomplish little and live a life of depression. So set goals, grow up, and make something of your life.
I don't know what message you heard from Jordan Peterson, but that's actually an incredibly empowering message, not a soul crushing message. Many people have recovered from serious depression and drifting in life by listening to Jordan.
Oh, they should have more room for cost now in 2016 than they did in 2011. Their battery costs should be much lower, but they haven't redesigned the car yet and they just sold the battery manufacturer[1], so their costs may actually be higher. There's no way to really know, but they did up the replacement pack cost from $5,500 to $8,000[2]. Either way, adding active thermal management requires a redesign of the car and the pack, which hasn't happened yet.
And yes, it appears that the 30 kWh packs are degrading faster than the 24kWh packs[3]. The cause is unknown--there's less metal casing around the cells, so they could be heating more, there appears to be a software issue with the battery capacity calculation[4], and there's a different chemistry. I'm sure Nissan knows how much each of these is the cause, but they're not saying. There's not really enough data on the 40kWh packs (2018) yet to determine how they'll behave.
I too am interested in what Nissan comes up with in 2019, but their poor support of existing models will strongly discourage me from buying a future Leaf unless there's a big reason to do so. That opinion would instantly change if they stop serial code locking batteries (preventing 3rd party replacement) and sell the newer high capacity packs for the existing Leafs.
Sources:
[1] https://insideevs.com/nissan-c...
[2] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...
[3] https://insideevs.com/nissan-l...
[4] http://www.mynissanleaf.com/vi...
I would argue that based on your statement, electric cars are useful for basically every two-car household in the US, provided sufficient range for commuting. Rough guess, that's 100 million cars in the US alone? That seems like a good market for a new technology.
This assumes nothing like a supercharger network. Once you include the concept of a supercharger network, then they become useful for basically all situations.
I have a Leaf with 35 mi range (2011 model, the battery is almost toast), and it covers 85% of my driving needs. If it could do 95 miles roundtrip with the AC or heater on, it would meet 100% of my driving, except for vacations. The 2018 Leaf's range is perfect for me. 3x that would be massively overkill, but a 3x cost reduction on the battery pack would be very welcome...
That's silly. The purpose of the Leaf was to sell an electric vehicle at a similar price point to a petrol car, and this was key to the design. When introduced, the Leaf's battery costs were enormous, and Nissan either lost money on the car or barely broke even on the 2011s, without counting R&D costs. Obviously, you need to amortize the R&D costs, so they lost money on the car. The idea that they should just add more in costs to the car to prevent battery degradation is silly. They haven't done a significant redesign of the Leaf since 2011 (even 2018 is just a restyle--the battery pack compartment is physically unchanged).
Rumors are the 2019 Leaf will use active thermal management. But this is 8 years later, and battery costs are now a fraction of what they were.
There are plenty of things to fault the Leaf for. Saying that Nissan is "pocketing the savings" isn't one of them.
Google Fiber was actually ranked second. I'm not surprised by that at all. Their customer service has been fantastic, as has the internet and TV. The two times I've had an issue, they had metrics to show exactly what was wrong from their end and their support rep understood the problem and could interact directly with the engineers.
On the other hand, Comcast required more than 3 calls to bury the outside cable line after it was replaced (it was supposed to be buried automatically with a second crew after the tech left, but he didn't file the right paperwork), and when I called customer service, one representative told me he was going to "reset my modem to resolve the issue". Yeah, apparently resetting modems can bury cable lines underground now, folks...
But the underlying point is that, even if in net terms he received 0 dollars, he is still being funded by the taxpayer to create a large and diverse business empire risk-free, and with the prospect of one of the longshots coming off and making him a zillionaire.
Okay, so I've mainly been lurking on the Elon Love/Hate flame wars, but this is just too much. You seriously just tried to describe Elon's business model as "risk-free"... OK.
I definitely agree that the ownership cost was lower than buying a new one, but unfortunately the ownership cost was at least 50% higher than the equivalent T&C. The main reason is that while the reliability of my T&C and Odyssey were equivalent (I may have gotten a bad Ody), the repair costs for parts were much higher. Also, the initial purchase cost was dramatically higher ($11k Ody vs $4k T&C).
In any case, it was what it was, but the primary factor I found was that domestic parts are dramatically cheaper than foreign ones. Fundamentally repair cost is (parts + labor) * reliability. If parts is 3x more expensive, then repair cost is higher unless the reliability is dramatically higher. Once you factor in the much slower depreciation of foreign cars, this means that buying used domestic can often be cheaper than used foreign, even though they're generally less reliable.
A similar "expensive foreign parts" situation just occurred on my Nissan Leaf. The passenger occupancy sensor just failed, and Nissan wants $2700 for the sensor (plus labor & taxes). $2700 for what is essentially an electronic scale is... well, insane. That's more than I paid for the rebuilt transmission installed on my T&C.
Keep in mind that the Odyssey is one of the least reliable models that Honda offers, according to Consumer Reports--not because the Ody is particularly bad, but because overall Honda is generally very good. In short, CR shows that the Odyssey is about as reliable as most domestic cars, whereas the rest of their models beat the pants off most domestic cars. Also, this was all just about costs--there's something to be said about the annoyance of having your car in the shop. Reliability has value outside financial cost.
My Honda Odyssey cost me nearly $7k last year, from 120k-150k miles. Timing belt tensioner is hydraulic and failed, so I needed a timing belt service ($1k) only 30k miles after the previous belt. Also had the alternator fail which fried the AC compressor stator coil ($10)... But you can't replace that without draining the freon and removing the compressor so then you might as well put a new one on... $1k. Also had the water pump go bad and an engine mount failed (they're known for bad mounts)... And again, it's hydraulic so it's ~$700 for EACH mount (instead of $40 for normal non hydraulic mounts). Add in a few other random failures and it's been a very expensive year. In short, the Odyssey failed just as much as my Chrysler Town and country, but every part was over 3x as expensive. It also cost 3x as much to purchase used (with 100k miles), so not worth it. I spent $18k total on my T&C for 100k miles, 8 years and $22k total on the Ody for 70k miles, 5 years. I just bought a used Chrysler to replace the Ody. It needed ALL new engine mounts, which cost $500 total, including labor... Nearly half the cost of a single Ody mount. I probably will never buy Honda again.
The test is based on an industry-standard procedure designed by SAE International, a global engineering association. Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don’t overheat.
However, CR said that even after an overnight cooldown, all braking distances on the next day were still long (even the first!):
In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even after we let the brakes cool overnight.
In other words, prior to the firmware update, you only get one hard brake with optimal stopping distance before you have inconsistent braking performance. It is possible that had they only done fewer hard brakes on day 1, the first brake on day 2 would have been optimal. I have no way of knowing. However, an overnight cooldown should reset the count as the brakes would have fully cooled. The original braking performance was a serious problem and certainly something that would impact "actual drivers".
Sources of the above quotes:
[1] https://www.consumerreports.or...
If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place?
The same reason you have bugs in any program you use. Software is complicated and hard. Testing is time consuming, expensive, and difficult. Bugs get out all the time. The difficulty of fixing an issue is nearly independent from the factors that go into finding it in the first place. Once identified, given the severity of the bug, fixing it was obviously crucial, and kudos to Tesla for quickly resolving the issue.
Why did it take a third party tester to find it?
Now THAT is a good question.
Agree with most of what you said, except the "No real change for actual drivers". The cool down period that CR gave the car was overnight, and yet it still had the problem. We don't know what the actual "cool down" period is, but it's at least 12 hours.
While I agree it's unusual someone may need to panic brake twice in quick succession, with the number of cars and drivers on the road, it's almost guaranteed to happen. And when "quick succession" becomes "within a 12 hour period or more", there's a serious problem.
Agreed. Science and the laws of nature are amoral and don't make such value judgements.
Let's look at American political history:
Most of us would agree that slavery and civil wars are both bad. In the 1800s, conservatives wanted their values and traditions (which avoids societal collapse), while liberals wanted to free the slaves as quickly as possible. The ideal would be to free the slaves without unrest, but societal constraints meant that these two goals were at odds with each other. As it were, we ended up freeing the slaves, but over 1.6 million Americans died.
The actual value judgements are left to the reader. Most would argue that war & death is bad, but there's no absolute "law" of science the says so. Most would argue that slavery is bad, but again, no absolute "law" of the science or universe says so. That's because science is amoral.
However, most people agree on basic ethics--war, suffering, slavery, anarchy, and death is bad while progress towards shared societal goals is good. If you have those value judgements, you'll want to avoid societal collapse AND stagnation. In that context, it's essential we find a middle ground between conservatives and liberals.
Not just "for some reason".
It's highly linked to a personality trait called openness. People who are high in openness are interested and emotionally get benefit/happiness from new ideas, thoughts, and concepts. People with this personality are generally very interested in becoming scientists and professors. Likewise, high openness correlates strongly with liberal political views. Therefore, it makes complete sense that there's a strong correlation between scientists/professors, and liberal political viewpoints.
Just imagining it makes sense -- conservatives generally want to embrace tradition and liberals want to change the world to make it a better place. Somewhere in the middle is good for society--too much change is chaos, and too little is stagnation.
Sources:
https://www.chicagoreader.com/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Don't forget "or build locally"
It's the same reason they tell you to put your oxygen mask on in a plane before you help others. You will pass out quite quickly, because your lungs change from an oxygen input system to an oxygen output system--your lungs work by osmosis. At 40,000 ft, you'll pass out in 15-20 seconds--whereas most people can hold your breath for 1-2 minutes (without training). Also keep in mind this is "useful consciousness", not death. You will be living, but unconscious, for a while longer. If the plane descends quickly enough, you'll simply wake up with no permanent effects.
What this means is that the prisoner could extend their life for 1-2 minutes by holding their breath. But eventually, they'll run out of oxygen either way, and it gets quite uncomfortable to hold your breath for an extended period of time due to the buildup of CO2 and lung reflexes.
You also wouldn't want to hold your breath during explosive decompression, because your lungs would be at risk of damage or rupture. See [2]. So either way, if you're at high altitude without oxygen or a suit, you're in serious trouble. Likewise if you're strapped to a table and people are just waiting for you to finally breathe and die.
Source:
[1] https://aviation.stackexchange...
(See the accepted answer there, although the FAA has updated their website).
[2] http://www.geoffreylandis.com/...
What are they supposed to use their brain to do if they aren't told that the chances of dying as a side effect are relatively high? You can't make an informed decision without data.
Agreed.
That's nice. Wouldn't it have been better if you knew before you made the choice what the chances were?
Of course it would have. They didn't know it killed people in the beginning because it was a very rare side effect. Once that information became available, it was distributed promptly and the drug was pulled from the market. Are you suggesting that we predict the future?
My point was that I would have continued to take the drug after this information was known, but the FDA prevented me from doing so, which caused me significant weekly excruciating physical pain. A 1/100,000 chance of death would have been worth avoiding that torture.
Should others be restricted in knowing the danger because you are a risk taker?
Nowhere did I state or imply that we should hide drug harm and interaction information from others, due to my willingness to take risk or any other reason. Of course everyone should be informed of known drug dangers.
What value is the information that this certain drug didn't kill anyone in a group of 100 test subjects after taking it for just six weeks? How do you call it "informed" when there is so little data, and not just little data, but too little to have any statistical significance?
Label that the drug is basically untested, extremely dangerous, and should be considered experimental until more data is available? Then share that data once it does become available?
Disingenuous. You would not be allowed to have an opinion. You are psychotic. It's easy to say what you would do; less easy to say what your next of kin should do with you.
Accepted. Psychosis would remove my ability to think clearly. Assuming similarly severe non-mental illness, my point stands.
So what you're saying is that knowing there is a drug that might cure you on the market in a year, after more testing to show that it won't kill you, is not good enough to wait for, you'd choose death now? A year of poor quality of life isn't worth living?
And taken to the extreme, this calls for a program of euthenasia for anyone whose life will be "low quality", because quality is more important than quantity. I'm sorry, that's where this concept takes us.
I'm saying it's my choice, not yours, and not the government's. Period.
Furthermore, Parkinson's is a terminal disease, so even without treatment, it's very likely I wouldn't be around before a cure is available. As for euthanasia, this has nothing to do with non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, but it is related to voluntary euthanasia. Determining if I wish to risk or end my life is my right. Remember, your rights stop where mine begin (and vice versa).
Look, the Democrats and Republicans both voted overwhelmingly to pass this. In the senate, only TWO senators voted against it (Rand Paul and Ron Wyden), both who have historically stood up for civil liberties and privacy.
I'm blaming the D's AND the R's. Regardless of who's in power, every representative gets a vote, and nearly everyone used it to pass FOSTA. Had the D's mostly voted against FOSTA, it would have still passed, but I wouldn't blame them. That's how it works.
By the way, if you are a civil liberties person and concerned about privacy, Paul and Wyden would be great to donate to. If you're partisan, donate to the one on your party.
"40 percent of Americans have experienced some form of harassment online"
I'd definitely fall into that category--in my decades of online experience, I've certainly been harassed. I've also been harassed in the real world. I will be the first to admit there has been some serious harassment, stalking, and threats to life online. Those are serious, and should be/are addressed. But they're not 40%. Liars figure and figures lie.
The impact of that online harassment on my life now? Basically ZERO. So how exactly do we want to "fix" this "problem"? At what cost? Muzzle free speech?
How about people have a brain and it's their life? I used to take a medication that was later found to kill ~1 in 100,000. Given the benefit and risk of that drug, I would have elected to continue treatment with that drug. Instead, the FDA pulled the drug (for my safety)... because people would have been screaming about the people that died if the drug stayed on the shelves. There was no suitable replacement that worked for me.
I know the math, I'm willing to accept the risk, and the risk is reasonable. Inform me and allow me to make the choice.
Drugs should be clearly marked with known side effects. If they have rushed testing, that should be disclosed. As side effects are discovered, the company should be required to communicate them clearly and quickly. If you don't want to take a limited-test drug, don't. But let people have the freedom to make informed decisions with their doctor.
If the drug significantly benefits many patients, it's not even clear that death should prevent it from being on the market. If I was unable to move and was having severe psychosis, I would consider a drug that resolved those symptoms, EVEN IF I was guaranteed that it would kill me in a few months. Quality of life is just as important (or more so) than quantity of life.
You can play the entire piece in a completely different key. That also makes zero difference
It makes no difference to you or I. It sounds completely different to her. When she hears a song transposed to a different key, it has a completely different sound to her than the original song.
Small to moderate changes in absolute pitch does not matter to most people. But to those with perfect pitch, it matters far more than you realize.