Right. So you really think that if he spent all his own money, built it, and then went to the government and asked them to reimburse him...they'd say yes and foot the bill to the taxpayers?
They'd bitch. They'd moan. They'd form a few committees made out of people who don't know anything about solar, who invest in oil, or who think that the earth is going to end in the next century via divine intervention. Then they'd say they needed to observe the solar plant for a few years to verify it did what it was supposed to do. Then they'd offer to pay for 1/4 of the station on the condition that Musk builds a coal power plant for backup for the battery backup.
Yeah, can't imagine why he isn't going to "Build it first and trust in the government."
When most US readers read "Tax Break" they think that someone bought a car that was priced "X" and instead, paid "X-Y" where Y is some subsidy the Government offers...or alternatively they imagine that ALL cars cost "X+Y" where Y is a uniform tax. That's not the case in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, a car that is imported from overseas is subject to a First Registration tax, that tax STARTS at 40% of the car's value and goes up from there "X+0.4X". This is a tax only on imported vehicles and previously all EV were exempt from it which put Tesla (and other imported EV) on level playing field with domestic Hong Kong vehicles. But that exemption has been removed for EV over a certain threshold, of which Tesla lands above. So now Tesla costs "X+Y" where Y is a tax that no domestic vehicles have to pay. So yes, Tesla is on an even playing field with other imports, but not with all other cars.
So the folks saying "Ha! See, Tesla can't compete with other cars without a special exemption!" are ignoring that Tesla is now working at a handicap, not a level playing field.
As others have pointed out, it's also likely that anyone who had the spare cash laying around who was planning on buying a Tesla, just did so prior to this phase out. People with lots of money aren't COMPLETELY oblivious to price fluctuations...especially when announced in advance.
I'm not sure I want every person who thinks they know how to fix a car to be messing with cameras, sensors, and the main computer. Especially if there's going to then be some argument over who is liable for an accident when they don't put the computer back together correctly but insist they did according to the spec sheet.
If the computer is able to perform self driving, why would upgrades be free unless it's a safety/bug in which case I agree it should be addressed just like any other critical safety issue.
"We at eBay would like to continue to have an advantage over Washington based retailers who are required to charge sales tax. We are concerned that if we are required to charge sales tax that our customers will no longer have a financial incentive to use our service. We don't care at all about "extra taxes" being placed on consumers or small businesses. We just want to be able to undercut any business that can't get out of sales tax. Please write your congressman so that we can continue to make a lot of money and you can find a way to deal with your state's lack of tax revenue some other way."
See also: "We of the GOP want to urge everyone to oppose the estate tax. Democrats are trying to rob you of your inheritance and take away your family farms. Though you may have heard that there is a $5 million exemption on the estate tax, this has nothing to do with rich people keeping a lot of money tax free. We just want to look out for the little guy"
"Write your congressman and oppose the increased tax on capital gains and dividends. This will hurt hard working Americans who are just trying to get by on their stock investments and will hurt Job Creators"
How am I missing the point? You think Subaru had a fix that would have moved them from a 4 to 5 star rollover category and just chose to not implement it? The post above said "if another car company had thought there would be [sic] they would have done it." Some SUV got "mostly 5 star" but the X got "all 5 stars." I recognize it's not massively better, but it's still a true statement to say that it's the first to get all 5 stars in all categories. There's no evidence for the implication that another company was able to achieve the same and "just chose not to"
Nor is the X alone in the category of "SUV that aren't really great Sports Utility Vehicles." Just look at BMWs entire "SAV" lineup...those aren't even rated though I suppose.
It can handle offroad better than most sedans, but not as well as some SUVs. It's in between.
The top mounted stuff is annoying, I'll grant you that one. But it's also not necessary for people that don't need to haul sports items that are that size.
Not sure what extreme weather you're thinking of. Yes, range goes down in cold weather...but depends on the range you need.
You think Land Rover just didn't make a 5-star safety rated $100k Range Rover because they didn't feel like people wanted the safety rating? They already make the $100k SUV...you think they thought "Hmm. I bet 5-star safety rating would make this a less marketable SUV..."
Pretty sure they designed the safest car they thought they could while making a car they thought people wanted to buy...and they didn't get the 5-stars. Pretty sure that's the same for every other SUV manufacturer.
I agree, as an X owner, that it's more of a CUV. I also, though, agree that the vast majority of SUVs don't do much "sport" and seem mostly to be vehicles to 1) make people feel safe because "big" = "safe" and 2) carry a lot of stuff without being a minivan. In that regard, the line between SUV and CUV is pretty blurry.
The X is certainly not a sedan. I think CUV or crossover is a perfect description. It's sure as heck nothing like a minivan.
Why are the batteries going to hold up any less well than the engine block? They're down low and inside the frame. So an incoming car has to penetrate into the safety cage to get far into the battery pack. Classic off-center front end collision with an ICE the impact is taken directly on the engine whereas on the Tesla it just smashes a big crumple zone. Why would the engine, with all those moving parts, do well there?
Having been in that exact accident with my old ICE, I know the engine didn't like it...
Seriously. And they're even calling it "harvester?" At least make the Machines be a bit creative before they decide to start feeding on us...don't just hand them the whole plan in a box.
Oh boy. You really just made up some shit about antibiotics didn't you? Full disclosure...actively practicing inpatient medical provider here with family practice background and infectious disease training. I prescribe antibiotics.
First off, Amoxicillin is very narrow spectrum. It is also prescribed incredibly commonly despite your claim to the contrary. It is one of the most common pediatric outpatient antibiotics specifically because of it's narrow spectrum of activity and excellent safety profile. It will not knock out "almost any infection you could have." It kills gram positive organisms almost exclusively. Since it is susceptible to penicillinase producing organisms, resistance is reasonably common. Further, it has no, or little, effect on most gram negative organisms because it acts on the components of the bacterial cell wall which are present primarily in gram positive only organisms. Calling it "strong" or weak implies a misunderstanding of antibiotics. While we often use "strong" to imply broad spectrum, any antibiotic is "strong" if it is used against an appropriate organism.
Your suggestion that the newer antibiotics are strictly narrow is flat out wrong. The newest antibiotics in common clinical use are the carbepenems which came into clinical use in the 80s and they are vastly broad spectrum.
The "old" antibiotics are not particularly broad when compared to the newer generations of carbepenems which we utilize heavily in the hospital. Some old antibiotics are narrow spectrum, some are broad. You're making a vague and unsubstantiated claim.
The only thing you are correct in is that you are right that we often prescribe narrow spectrum antibiotics when possible so as to avoid resistance patterns. But this isn't "strong" versus "weak" antibiotics, this is just good antimicrobial stewardship.
Just because these resources could potentially be used by illegal immigrants does not mean that they shouldn't be built. All 3 of your points essentially boils down to "I would rather not have a resource available at all, lest it potentially be used by someone who I feel is undeserving of it."
You can make that argument for nearly anything and it's just as much a straw man as it is what you've pointed out.
1. We should have no minimum wage because a minimum wage only serves as a crutch for those who aren't willing to get a better education or a better job.
2. We should not manufacture guns because having any guns at all only makes it easier for illegal immigrants and law breakers to get their hands on guns.
3. We shouldn't subsidize utilities or gasoline costs, if people can't afford those things on their own they're just relying on government handouts and taking tax money from hard working Americans.
There will always be people who take advantage of "the system" but that doesn't mean that we should dismantle those systems so they are of no use to anyone.
I imagine that they mean Uber as a company, not "Transportation" as a category. The article seems to imply that it's Ground Transportation specifically in which Uber is capturing 52% of receipts. So food, drink, and lodging aren't even in that particular figure.
The 6% figure might seem high but you should think about the fact that Uber is the giant in this space so there's little competition. It's not that it had more expense receipts than all of food and lodging, but it had more than any single other company. Therefore it's not that Uber was expensed more than lodging, food, etc...but that folks are not using one service provider more; the rest of the spaces available have too much competition. I also wasn't clear whether they were looking at "most" to mean net sales or number of transactions. The study doesn't make that clear.
In full, they are talking about those who contract and THEN die. But they specifically are addressing that hysterectomies remove individuals from the denominator of the equation with regard to incidence and subsequent morality. The study has nothing to do with how the cervical cancer, once present, is treated.
One could hypothesize that the racial disparity has to do with how the african american patients are treated once diagnosed, but since I'm not willing to go through the paywall and see if they controlled for that aspect, it's only speculation. If it's a well done analysis they would control for differences in treatment.
The study isn't looking at women who had cancer and DIDN'T get hysterectomies. It's looking at incidence of the disease...NEW DIAGNOSIS. To calculate incidence you take the population at risk for the disease and see how many develop it per year.
(XXX cases) / (People who can possibly get it) = Incidence
The study made the observation that:
(XXX cases) / (All women) = Incidence A ---> (XXX cases) / (All women WHO HAVEN'T HAD HYSTERECTOMY) = Incidence B
Because the denominator is smaller in the 2nd case and the numerator is unchanged, Incidence B > Incidence A
Everyone who is suggesting that this study makes some conclusion about how cervical cancer is treated is completely missing the point of the study. It's not about how it's treated, it's about how common it is. Hence why the title about "Deadlier" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the study itself.
Also...moderation "off topic"? How is pointing out, and explaining why, that the study doesn't have the conclusion that the headline implies "off topic?"
Should I have made a butt joke? Is that on topic? Yeesh.
My reading of the data is that they are publishing the likelihood of any given individual contracting cervical cancer. By removing women without cervixes from the equation they calculated the new incidence among those at risk for the disease.
They were not looking at relapse rates status-post initial diagnosis and subsequent treatment (which is what you're addressing when you mention hysterectomy status-post initial diagnosis). So whether white women or black women get hysterectomies after their initial diagnosis is irrelevant in this study.
Exactly what the Subject says. Cervical cancer did not get deadlier. That would be an adjustment to the 1, 3, or 5 year mortality rates which are not addressed here. What they adjusted was the incidence of the disease, i.e. the likelihood that you will get the disease.
Their data is valid presumable, but this headline about "deadlier" is wholly inaccurate. Report what the study actually concluded, not clickbait.
I'm anti-antibiotic and modern medical intervention because I think knowing that they're available just makes people careless and sloppy when they travel in areas where those interventions aren't available. I would much rather a few more people die because we don't use antibiotics at all than for people to become reliant on them and just become careless and unfit.
I agree that there could be secondary effects, but the more logical conclusion from my standpoint is that if the technology definitively improves safety then eventually it should become standard across the board in all cars and then the issue of "dependence" will eventually become moot. Pointing out that people who don't use the technology have worse outcomes than those who do is an endorsement of the technology, not a reason to block the use of it.
No, it's a fancy tech feature that you're paying for (or not) which is optional. That's like complaining that one ski jacket has a built in avalanche transponder (some do) and another model by the same manufacturer doesn't and that somehow the manufacturer is liable for your injury when you choose to not purchase the additional safety feature.
At some point if the NTSB mandates autopilot then it will be on all cars, but until then it's just a feature just like any number of others. Seats that reduce whiplash by moving in a crash, pre-crash seatbelt tensioners, car hoods that actuate to minimize pedestrian injury, emergency braking, blind spot warning...etc.
Those are all Tesla S cars at Schipol, which get much better mileage. I have driven an S and had no problem getting good mileage. The X is a different car and notably harder to achieve good mileage on. If I can drive an S efficiently without any difficulty but struggle with an X, it seems unlikely I'm "doing it wrong."
On a Tesla, the "accelerator" controls the SPEED OF THE CAR.
Also inaccurate by the way. If you keep your foot on the accelerator at the exact same point and the car moves from a flat to a hill, you will slow down, not maintain speed. Here is Seattle we have a lot practice with the hill thing. You need to press further if you want to maintain speed on the hill.
Yeah...nope. But I do appreciate the mansplaining. For the record, my wife (who expends no effort to drive conservatively) gets WAY worse mileage than I do. It's staggering.
But I've tested the heck out of this thing. I have tested this out with and without cruise control. City driving and freeway driving. Long drives and short drives. With and without climate control. I've shut it down to "Sport" and even tested it out locked down in Valet mode. I've drafted, I've coasted, I've driven it like the Prius I used to own. I have compared it to a Model S in which I can effortlessly pull 290 watts/mile and in which I had to actually try hard to break 325 watts/mile.
But nope, my P90D Model X typically struggles under any conditions to be below 425 watts/mile. It's so ridiculous I've even taken the numbers to Tesla Service and seen if they think something is wrong, and their answer is that it's "within normal limits." But even on their best test drive with the car sitting in a warm shop prior to testing and with a previous drive to get the battery packed warmed up, they were only able to get 390 watts/mile with climate control off and Sport mode on. In their words "your lifetime consumption of 410-420 watts/mile seems good". That means 215-220 miles of range at best on a full tank and in practice I find it to typically be worse at normal freeway speeds.
p.s. The power graph is orange when you're burning energy. It's green during regen. Get your colors right before you try and "explain" to someone how an EV works.
Eeeehh....I wish I could agree. But I drive a Tesla X with a 90 kWh battery. If I ever get it to drive 200 miles on a "full 250 mile" charge, I'll wet myself with glee.
Last weekend left a Supercharger with 230 miles remaining range, drove 90 miles at 68 mph and reached my destination with 110 miles of range remaining. Thankfully I found a L2 charger to plug into while I visited friends so I could make it the 90 miles back to the Supercharger on the way home.
I wish I could do 200 miles without white knuckles or driving 55 mph with the climate control off.
p.s. I agree the author was probably trolling, and with 100 kWh batteries and larger he totally is a troll, but at 90 kWh and below...sort of right.
Discovering a concept or a signaling pathway is not the same as discovering a treatment. Absolutely public funds play a role in research and have led to a lot of breakthrough work. Despite what the "moonshot" crowd believes, you can't just "want it enough" if the research groundwork hasn't been laid down. So yes, publicly funded research is also key. But saying that pharmaceutical companies are just buying "cures" and then paying to pass a bunch or red tape with the FDA is disingenuous. The reason why the FDA process, among others, is expensive and time consuming is that many of these "miracle discoveries" that come out of research never pan out their promise.
To go back to my original example, if CAR-T was just discovered fully-baked by public funds, we wouldn't have patients dying from toxicity, we wouldn't have patients dying for lack of efficacy, we wouldn't have 100 different trials around the county because we would know exactly how it works and should be performed. We don't. We may have some of the details from the scientific research, but that is not the same as making it viable medical therapy.
Private firms do purchase the rights to promising research from research labs. Most never pan out. That's the risk-reward game that those companies are playing.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. So you really think that if he spent all his own money, built it, and then went to the government and asked them to reimburse him...they'd say yes and foot the bill to the taxpayers?
They'd bitch. They'd moan. They'd form a few committees made out of people who don't know anything about solar, who invest in oil, or who think that the earth is going to end in the next century via divine intervention. Then they'd say they needed to observe the solar plant for a few years to verify it did what it was supposed to do. Then they'd offer to pay for 1/4 of the station on the condition that Musk builds a coal power plant for backup for the battery backup.
Yeah, can't imagine why he isn't going to "Build it first and trust in the government."
When most US readers read "Tax Break" they think that someone bought a car that was priced "X" and instead, paid "X-Y" where Y is some subsidy the Government offers...or alternatively they imagine that ALL cars cost "X+Y" where Y is a uniform tax. That's not the case in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, a car that is imported from overseas is subject to a First Registration tax, that tax STARTS at 40% of the car's value and goes up from there "X+0.4X". This is a tax only on imported vehicles and previously all EV were exempt from it which put Tesla (and other imported EV) on level playing field with domestic Hong Kong vehicles. But that exemption has been removed for EV over a certain threshold, of which Tesla lands above. So now Tesla costs "X+Y" where Y is a tax that no domestic vehicles have to pay. So yes, Tesla is on an even playing field with other imports, but not with all other cars.
So the folks saying "Ha! See, Tesla can't compete with other cars without a special exemption!" are ignoring that Tesla is now working at a handicap, not a level playing field.
As others have pointed out, it's also likely that anyone who had the spare cash laying around who was planning on buying a Tesla, just did so prior to this phase out. People with lots of money aren't COMPLETELY oblivious to price fluctuations...especially when announced in advance.
Reasoning?
I'm not sure I want every person who thinks they know how to fix a car to be messing with cameras, sensors, and the main computer. Especially if there's going to then be some argument over who is liable for an accident when they don't put the computer back together correctly but insist they did according to the spec sheet.
If the computer is able to perform self driving, why would upgrades be free unless it's a safety/bug in which case I agree it should be addressed just like any other critical safety issue.
"We at eBay would like to continue to have an advantage over Washington based retailers who are required to charge sales tax. We are concerned that if we are required to charge sales tax that our customers will no longer have a financial incentive to use our service. We don't care at all about "extra taxes" being placed on consumers or small businesses. We just want to be able to undercut any business that can't get out of sales tax. Please write your congressman so that we can continue to make a lot of money and you can find a way to deal with your state's lack of tax revenue some other way."
See also:
"We of the GOP want to urge everyone to oppose the estate tax. Democrats are trying to rob you of your inheritance and take away your family farms. Though you may have heard that there is a $5 million exemption on the estate tax, this has nothing to do with rich people keeping a lot of money tax free. We just want to look out for the little guy"
"Write your congressman and oppose the increased tax on capital gains and dividends. This will hurt hard working Americans who are just trying to get by on their stock investments and will hurt Job Creators"
Etc.
How am I missing the point? You think Subaru had a fix that would have moved them from a 4 to 5 star rollover category and just chose to not implement it? The post above said "if another car company had thought there would be [sic] they would have done it." Some SUV got "mostly 5 star" but the X got "all 5 stars." I recognize it's not massively better, but it's still a true statement to say that it's the first to get all 5 stars in all categories. There's no evidence for the implication that another company was able to achieve the same and "just chose not to"
Nor is the X alone in the category of "SUV that aren't really great Sports Utility Vehicles." Just look at BMWs entire "SAV" lineup...those aren't even rated though I suppose.
It can handle offroad better than most sedans, but not as well as some SUVs. It's in between.
The top mounted stuff is annoying, I'll grant you that one. But it's also not necessary for people that don't need to haul sports items that are that size.
Not sure what extreme weather you're thinking of. Yes, range goes down in cold weather...but depends on the range you need.
You think Land Rover just didn't make a 5-star safety rated $100k Range Rover because they didn't feel like people wanted the safety rating? They already make the $100k SUV...you think they thought "Hmm. I bet 5-star safety rating would make this a less marketable SUV..."
Pretty sure they designed the safest car they thought they could while making a car they thought people wanted to buy...and they didn't get the 5-stars. Pretty sure that's the same for every other SUV manufacturer.
I agree, as an X owner, that it's more of a CUV. I also, though, agree that the vast majority of SUVs don't do much "sport" and seem mostly to be vehicles to 1) make people feel safe because "big" = "safe" and 2) carry a lot of stuff without being a minivan. In that regard, the line between SUV and CUV is pretty blurry.
The X is certainly not a sedan. I think CUV or crossover is a perfect description. It's sure as heck nothing like a minivan.
Why are the batteries going to hold up any less well than the engine block? They're down low and inside the frame. So an incoming car has to penetrate into the safety cage to get far into the battery pack. Classic off-center front end collision with an ICE the impact is taken directly on the engine whereas on the Tesla it just smashes a big crumple zone. Why would the engine, with all those moving parts, do well there?
Having been in that exact accident with my old ICE, I know the engine didn't like it...
Seriously. And they're even calling it "harvester?" At least make the Machines be a bit creative before they decide to start feeding on us...don't just hand them the whole plan in a box.
Oh boy. You really just made up some shit about antibiotics didn't you? Full disclosure...actively practicing inpatient medical provider here with family practice background and infectious disease training. I prescribe antibiotics.
First off, Amoxicillin is very narrow spectrum. It is also prescribed incredibly commonly despite your claim to the contrary. It is one of the most common pediatric outpatient antibiotics specifically because of it's narrow spectrum of activity and excellent safety profile. It will not knock out "almost any infection you could have." It kills gram positive organisms almost exclusively. Since it is susceptible to penicillinase producing organisms, resistance is reasonably common. Further, it has no, or little, effect on most gram negative organisms because it acts on the components of the bacterial cell wall which are present primarily in gram positive only organisms. Calling it "strong" or weak implies a misunderstanding of antibiotics. While we often use "strong" to imply broad spectrum, any antibiotic is "strong" if it is used against an appropriate organism.
Your suggestion that the newer antibiotics are strictly narrow is flat out wrong. The newest antibiotics in common clinical use are the carbepenems which came into clinical use in the 80s and they are vastly broad spectrum.
The "old" antibiotics are not particularly broad when compared to the newer generations of carbepenems which we utilize heavily in the hospital. Some old antibiotics are narrow spectrum, some are broad. You're making a vague and unsubstantiated claim.
The only thing you are correct in is that you are right that we often prescribe narrow spectrum antibiotics when possible so as to avoid resistance patterns. But this isn't "strong" versus "weak" antibiotics, this is just good antimicrobial stewardship.
Just because these resources could potentially be used by illegal immigrants does not mean that they shouldn't be built. All 3 of your points essentially boils down to "I would rather not have a resource available at all, lest it potentially be used by someone who I feel is undeserving of it."
You can make that argument for nearly anything and it's just as much a straw man as it is what you've pointed out.
1. We should have no minimum wage because a minimum wage only serves as a crutch for those who aren't willing to get a better education or a better job.
2. We should not manufacture guns because having any guns at all only makes it easier for illegal immigrants and law breakers to get their hands on guns.
3. We shouldn't subsidize utilities or gasoline costs, if people can't afford those things on their own they're just relying on government handouts and taking tax money from hard working Americans.
There will always be people who take advantage of "the system" but that doesn't mean that we should dismantle those systems so they are of no use to anyone.
I imagine that they mean Uber as a company, not "Transportation" as a category. The article seems to imply that it's Ground Transportation specifically in which Uber is capturing 52% of receipts. So food, drink, and lodging aren't even in that particular figure.
The 6% figure might seem high but you should think about the fact that Uber is the giant in this space so there's little competition. It's not that it had more expense receipts than all of food and lodging, but it had more than any single other company. Therefore it's not that Uber was expensed more than lodging, food, etc...but that folks are not using one service provider more; the rest of the spaces available have too much competition. I also wasn't clear whether they were looking at "most" to mean net sales or number of transactions. The study doesn't make that clear.
In full, they are talking about those who contract and THEN die. But they specifically are addressing that hysterectomies remove individuals from the denominator of the equation with regard to incidence and subsequent morality. The study has nothing to do with how the cervical cancer, once present, is treated.
One could hypothesize that the racial disparity has to do with how the african american patients are treated once diagnosed, but since I'm not willing to go through the paywall and see if they controlled for that aspect, it's only speculation. If it's a well done analysis they would control for differences in treatment.
The study isn't looking at women who had cancer and DIDN'T get hysterectomies. It's looking at incidence of the disease...NEW DIAGNOSIS. To calculate incidence you take the population at risk for the disease and see how many develop it per year.
(XXX cases) / (People who can possibly get it) = Incidence
The study made the observation that:
(XXX cases) / (All women) = Incidence A ---> (XXX cases) / (All women WHO HAVEN'T HAD HYSTERECTOMY) = Incidence B
Because the denominator is smaller in the 2nd case and the numerator is unchanged, Incidence B > Incidence A
Everyone who is suggesting that this study makes some conclusion about how cervical cancer is treated is completely missing the point of the study. It's not about how it's treated, it's about how common it is. Hence why the title about "Deadlier" is completely and utterly irrelevant to the study itself.
No, it was a typo on my phone.
Also...moderation "off topic"? How is pointing out, and explaining why, that the study doesn't have the conclusion that the headline implies "off topic?"
Should I have made a butt joke? Is that on topic? Yeesh.
My reading of the data is that they are publishing the likelihood of any given individual contracting cervical cancer. By removing women without cervixes from the equation they calculated the new incidence among those at risk for the disease.
They were not looking at relapse rates status-post initial diagnosis and subsequent treatment (which is what you're addressing when you mention hysterectomy status-post initial diagnosis). So whether white women or black women get hysterectomies after their initial diagnosis is irrelevant in this study.
Exactly what the Subject says. Cervical cancer did not get deadlier. That would be an adjustment to the 1, 3, or 5 year mortality rates which are not addressed here. What they adjusted was the incidence of the disease, i.e. the likelihood that you will get the disease.
Their data is valid presumable, but this headline about "deadlier" is wholly inaccurate. Report what the study actually concluded, not clickbait.
I'm anti-antibiotic and modern medical intervention because I think knowing that they're available just makes people careless and sloppy when they travel in areas where those interventions aren't available. I would much rather a few more people die because we don't use antibiotics at all than for people to become reliant on them and just become careless and unfit.
I agree that there could be secondary effects, but the more logical conclusion from my standpoint is that if the technology definitively improves safety then eventually it should become standard across the board in all cars and then the issue of "dependence" will eventually become moot. Pointing out that people who don't use the technology have worse outcomes than those who do is an endorsement of the technology, not a reason to block the use of it.
No, it's a fancy tech feature that you're paying for (or not) which is optional. That's like complaining that one ski jacket has a built in avalanche transponder (some do) and another model by the same manufacturer doesn't and that somehow the manufacturer is liable for your injury when you choose to not purchase the additional safety feature.
At some point if the NTSB mandates autopilot then it will be on all cars, but until then it's just a feature just like any number of others. Seats that reduce whiplash by moving in a crash, pre-crash seatbelt tensioners, car hoods that actuate to minimize pedestrian injury, emergency braking, blind spot warning...etc.
Those are all Tesla S cars at Schipol, which get much better mileage. I have driven an S and had no problem getting good mileage. The X is a different car and notably harder to achieve good mileage on. If I can drive an S efficiently without any difficulty but struggle with an X, it seems unlikely I'm "doing it wrong."
On a Tesla, the "accelerator" controls the SPEED OF THE CAR.
Also inaccurate by the way. If you keep your foot on the accelerator at the exact same point and the car moves from a flat to a hill, you will slow down, not maintain speed. Here is Seattle we have a lot practice with the hill thing. You need to press further if you want to maintain speed on the hill.
Yeah...nope. But I do appreciate the mansplaining. For the record, my wife (who expends no effort to drive conservatively) gets WAY worse mileage than I do. It's staggering.
But I've tested the heck out of this thing. I have tested this out with and without cruise control. City driving and freeway driving. Long drives and short drives. With and without climate control. I've shut it down to "Sport" and even tested it out locked down in Valet mode. I've drafted, I've coasted, I've driven it like the Prius I used to own. I have compared it to a Model S in which I can effortlessly pull 290 watts/mile and in which I had to actually try hard to break 325 watts/mile.
But nope, my P90D Model X typically struggles under any conditions to be below 425 watts/mile. It's so ridiculous I've even taken the numbers to Tesla Service and seen if they think something is wrong, and their answer is that it's "within normal limits." But even on their best test drive with the car sitting in a warm shop prior to testing and with a previous drive to get the battery packed warmed up, they were only able to get 390 watts/mile with climate control off and Sport mode on. In their words "your lifetime consumption of 410-420 watts/mile seems good". That means 215-220 miles of range at best on a full tank and in practice I find it to typically be worse at normal freeway speeds.
p.s. The power graph is orange when you're burning energy. It's green during regen. Get your colors right before you try and "explain" to someone how an EV works.
Eeeehh....I wish I could agree. But I drive a Tesla X with a 90 kWh battery. If I ever get it to drive 200 miles on a "full 250 mile" charge, I'll wet myself with glee.
Last weekend left a Supercharger with 230 miles remaining range, drove 90 miles at 68 mph and reached my destination with 110 miles of range remaining. Thankfully I found a L2 charger to plug into while I visited friends so I could make it the 90 miles back to the Supercharger on the way home.
I wish I could do 200 miles without white knuckles or driving 55 mph with the climate control off.
p.s. I agree the author was probably trolling, and with 100 kWh batteries and larger he totally is a troll, but at 90 kWh and below...sort of right.
Discovering a concept or a signaling pathway is not the same as discovering a treatment. Absolutely public funds play a role in research and have led to a lot of breakthrough work. Despite what the "moonshot" crowd believes, you can't just "want it enough" if the research groundwork hasn't been laid down. So yes, publicly funded research is also key. But saying that pharmaceutical companies are just buying "cures" and then paying to pass a bunch or red tape with the FDA is disingenuous. The reason why the FDA process, among others, is expensive and time consuming is that many of these "miracle discoveries" that come out of research never pan out their promise.
To go back to my original example, if CAR-T was just discovered fully-baked by public funds, we wouldn't have patients dying from toxicity, we wouldn't have patients dying for lack of efficacy, we wouldn't have 100 different trials around the county because we would know exactly how it works and should be performed. We don't. We may have some of the details from the scientific research, but that is not the same as making it viable medical therapy.
Private firms do purchase the rights to promising research from research labs. Most never pan out. That's the risk-reward game that those companies are playing.