People certainly don't have to take a test drive in an EV to know if range is an issue. Its is quite easy to use the specs and make that determination.
You are still on the "they just don't get it" track. I see you will remain stubbornly stuck there and not apply any critical thinking........ so good day to you.
There you go again... starting off with 'my misconceptions'. You'd make a great salesman. I clearly was talking about EV's, not hybrids. Could you not figure that out?
Just because you can rationalize why the market SHOULD be stronger, doesn't mean it really should be. History is littered with those who think they were smarter than everyone else on stuff like this, end the end, a very small few actually were.
Instead of pining on why the market SHOULD be stronger for EVs, try a little critical thinking. You are the one who can't explain what is really happening. Doesn't that tell you something?
You are working hard to explain/rationalize why the market is not doing what you think it should do. I see you are passionate about EVs. But the market is speaking, and your explanations don't reflect what the market is telling you. You seem to want to ignore/dispute those points that give explanations for the actual market behavior, but you don't offer any your self other than "they just don't get it and here's why". If your rationalizations worked for the greater market, more cars would be selling.
As the product evolves to meet the needs of larger slices of the market, it will sell more.
If it makes you feel better to describe it that way.. power to you. But I'd be generous to say it is even 40% of the applicable market. Add the fact that you can only get a subset of the market segment for various reasons, and it is, with no doubts, a limiting factor today.
The whole "rental car" fallback is so tired. People want to drive their own cars. They don't want to rent one. Yes, there are some exceptions, but it is small group. And saying the use case is one long trip per year is really reaching as well. That's an even smaller segment of the market.
Total cost of ownership. A big portion of the market cares about that. And just because someone can afford it, or may buy a car in a similar price range, doesn't make an EV a good choice. And 'quite comparable" doesn't cut it for many people, with the sacrifice of range & therefore flexibility.
EVs are best for 2+ car families, with a garage and adequate parking space, with one person working relatively close to home. There are a lot of people in that category, but it is a subset of the entire market.
Your point is important. Many apartment residents basically are not even a candidate to buy one, so a good chunk of the market is not even in the mix. Even houses that don't have garages, requiring outdoor chargers, make ownership less attractive.
Was this some sort of lease to own scheme? Municipalities tend to pay very little for cash less than a leasing company. Are we surrounded by idiots with no impulse control or long term thinking to think leasing is cheaper?
Without discussion of lease terms, length, and end of lease requirements, you really can't determine if there is anything to be saved. Also, installation costs might be a big factor purposely not discussed. It may be easy to lease the lights, but the costs of installation (and maybe even maintenance) drive the real cost up and potential benefit down.
The article really has nothing to do with nuclear power plants, despite the opening references.
He is talking about the poor security at the Oak Ridge facility.
If private security guards are so bad, maybe they should call in the experts from Homeland Security.
He is purposely conflating nuclear power plants with Oak Ridge, which is a trick regularly employed by Union of Concerned Scientists in their anti-nuclear cries. The simple fact they resort to those tactics tells you something about them.
I read that in the sense of, "Let's say that I'm in the position of being a general manager", as a hypothetical rather than something to be taken literally.
You are a liar, that is about all you are. "engineering" doesn't tell a GM to shut the plant down to fix a pump. Operators do that, and its all proceduralized so there is no GM decision to make.
You can't even describe what pumps you are talking about nor their function.
Part of this approach is simply that the offer allows people that are considering new hardware to go ahead and do it, and not wait for W10. In the past, many would hold off as a new OS was on the horizon. So its not necessarily all about saving $$.
I think over half of the US union force is government workers, so that would put them about even in private industry. I also looked for a breakdown country by country, but its hard to find. Some countries don't allow federal employee unions, others its almost 100%, and that makes a big difference in the figures.
Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed. That won't happen until some technology is developed to deal with them. But, at least we would know the end is coming.
The danger of a given person getting killed has not changed, but the chance of a person getting killed may have increased slightly with the increase in human population.
The datacap thing is more worrying. It is supposed to work like "all streaming music is exempt", not "just our streaming music service is exempt", but that has to be enforced by regulators. It's hard to see how they would exempt all streaming music services anywhere in the world, from a technical point of view.
They may have to limit these exceptions to things that require very high bandwidth (HD IPTV) and/or very low latency (Videoconferencing). Then music streaming would not be considered an exception. I agree that how (and how much) they keep those exception lanes open to competitors is the tough question.
I think the exceptions make sense if implemented properly.. there could be devils in the details.You get what you pay for, and you can pay for extra features if you want. They key is that YOU decide and pay, and as long as the options are open with no favorites, it seems it could be done quite fairly.
Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.
Then the very environment that Uber thrives on would be gone. They'd have to adapt as well.
They need drivers, and if they can arrest executives, they can likely arrest drivers as well. Interestingly, France has a heavily unionized workforce...so maybe the Uber drivers need to unionize (jk).
And while France may have a legal basis to take those actions, I hate that they give the union protestors, who damaged and disrupted so much, what they wanted. It sends a message for others to follow suit. France is in a pickle.
Yes, Uber has one goal and that is make as much money as possible. They don't care about the Taxi companies, and in the end they won't care about their own drivers. They will make the plays they can now to capitalize as much as possible on their success to date. They might even agree to purchase licenses, boost driver requirements, etc. In which case they start looking more and more like the taxi companies.
You don't know what failure rate to expect from SpaceX because it hasn't flown enough to establish it with any accuracy, but you seem to rationalize that theirs is OK.
Rocket launching is hard and risky, but it is not new. SpaceX shouldn't be given a pass.
Slashdot Mirror
People certainly don't have to take a test drive in an EV to know if range is an issue. Its is quite easy to use the specs and make that determination.
........ so good day to you.
You are still on the "they just don't get it" track. I see you will remain stubbornly stuck there and not apply any critical thinking
There you go again... starting off with 'my misconceptions'. You'd make a great salesman. I clearly was talking about EV's, not hybrids. Could you not figure that out?
Just because you can rationalize why the market SHOULD be stronger, doesn't mean it really should be. History is littered with those who think they were smarter than everyone else on stuff like this, end the end, a very small few actually were.
Instead of pining on why the market SHOULD be stronger for EVs, try a little critical thinking. You are the one who can't explain what is really happening. Doesn't that tell you something?
You are working hard to explain/rationalize why the market is not doing what you think it should do. I see you are passionate about EVs. But the market is speaking, and your explanations don't reflect what the market is telling you. You seem to want to ignore/dispute those points that give explanations for the actual market behavior, but you don't offer any your self other than "they just don't get it and here's why". If your rationalizations worked for the greater market, more cars would be selling.
As the product evolves to meet the needs of larger slices of the market, it will sell more.
It's a huge subset.
If it makes you feel better to describe it that way.. power to you. But I'd be generous to say it is even 40% of the applicable market. Add the fact that you can only get a subset of the market segment for various reasons, and it is, with no doubts, a limiting factor today.
The whole "rental car" fallback is so tired. People want to drive their own cars. They don't want to rent one. Yes, there are some exceptions, but it is small group. And saying the use case is one long trip per year is really reaching as well. That's an even smaller segment of the market.
Depends on what you mean by cost.
Total cost of ownership. A big portion of the market cares about that. And just because someone can afford it, or may buy a car in a similar price range, doesn't make an EV a good choice. And 'quite comparable" doesn't cut it for many people, with the sacrifice of range & therefore flexibility.
EVs are best for 2+ car families, with a garage and adequate parking space, with one person working relatively close to home. There are a lot of people in that category, but it is a subset of the entire market.
Your point is important. Many apartment residents basically are not even a candidate to buy one, so a good chunk of the market is not even in the mix. Even houses that don't have garages, requiring outdoor chargers, make ownership less attractive.
Price. Range. Recharge time. Recharge stations!
Next dumb question, please!
It is laughable when an article discussing why people do or don't buy EVs completely ignores the cost factors.
There are no additional installation costs. These LED lights are designed to be drop in replacements for the older halogen and sulfur types.
It still cost money to send guys out on bucket trucks to replace lights.
Was this some sort of lease to own scheme? Municipalities tend to pay very little for cash less than a leasing company. Are we surrounded by idiots with no impulse control or long term thinking to think leasing is cheaper?
Without discussion of lease terms, length, and end of lease requirements, you really can't determine if there is anything to be saved. Also, installation costs might be a big factor purposely not discussed. It may be easy to lease the lights, but the costs of installation (and maybe even maintenance) drive the real cost up and potential benefit down.
We can lease LEDs for all our outdoor lighting for $4,000 per month and save $8,000 on electricity right away
You can't save $8000t "right away". That's just bullshit.
What they are doing is depending heavily on tax subsidy/credits... not actual cost. Then twisting the numbers.
Include 'time spent reading slashdot' in your study list.... and maybe foul odors....that should do it.
The article really has nothing to do with nuclear power plants, despite the opening references. He is talking about the poor security at the Oak Ridge facility. If private security guards are so bad, maybe they should call in the experts from Homeland Security.
He is purposely conflating nuclear power plants with Oak Ridge, which is a trick regularly employed by Union of Concerned Scientists in their anti-nuclear cries. The simple fact they resort to those tactics tells you something about them.
I read that in the sense of, "Let's say that I'm in the position of being a general manager", as a hypothetical rather than something to be taken literally.
Then take his insight as hypothetical as well.
I am GM of a nuclear power plan ....
You are a liar, that is about all you are. "engineering" doesn't tell a GM to shut the plant down to fix a pump. Operators do that, and its all proceduralized so there is no GM decision to make.
You can't even describe what pumps you are talking about nor their function.
Let them go on strike... then outsource to Utah!
Part of this approach is simply that the offer allows people that are considering new hardware to go ahead and do it, and not wait for W10. In the past, many would hold off as a new OS was on the horizon. So its not necessarily all about saving $$.
I think over half of the US union force is government workers, so that would put them about even in private industry. I also looked for a breakdown country by country, but its hard to find. Some countries don't allow federal employee unions, others its almost 100%, and that makes a big difference in the figures.
Yeah, I stand corrected. However, I'd like to see the numbers for industry only and not including federal employee unions.
Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed. That won't happen until some technology is developed to deal with them. But, at least we would know the end is coming.
The danger of a given person getting killed has not changed, but the chance of a person getting killed may have increased slightly with the increase in human population.
The datacap thing is more worrying. It is supposed to work like "all streaming music is exempt", not "just our streaming music service is exempt", but that has to be enforced by regulators. It's hard to see how they would exempt all streaming music services anywhere in the world, from a technical point of view.
They may have to limit these exceptions to things that require very high bandwidth (HD IPTV) and/or very low latency (Videoconferencing). Then music streaming would not be considered an exception. I agree that how (and how much) they keep those exception lanes open to competitors is the tough question.
I think the exceptions make sense if implemented properly.. there could be devils in the details.You get what you pay for, and you can pay for extra features if you want. They key is that YOU decide and pay, and as long as the options are open with no favorites, it seems it could be done quite fairly.
Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.
Then the very environment that Uber thrives on would be gone. They'd have to adapt as well.
They need drivers, and if they can arrest executives, they can likely arrest drivers as well. Interestingly, France has a heavily unionized workforce...so maybe the Uber drivers need to unionize (jk).
And while France may have a legal basis to take those actions, I hate that they give the union protestors, who damaged and disrupted so much, what they wanted. It sends a message for others to follow suit. France is in a pickle.
Yes, Uber has one goal and that is make as much money as possible. They don't care about the Taxi companies, and in the end they won't care about their own drivers. They will make the plays they can now to capitalize as much as possible on their success to date. They might even agree to purchase licenses, boost driver requirements, etc. In which case they start looking more and more like the taxi companies.
You don't know what failure rate to expect from SpaceX because it hasn't flown enough to establish it with any accuracy, but you seem to rationalize that theirs is OK.
Rocket launching is hard and risky, but it is not new. SpaceX shouldn't be given a pass.