Tell me how much electricity a 200 car parking lot will consume with all vehicles plugged in and charging?
Why? That's something that's never going to happen, so why would you need me to tell you that?
Your range anxiety is laughable, and it's clear you've not spent a lot of time driving an EV.
Everyone I know with an EV has no range anxiety. None. They know how many hundreds of miles their car goes on a charge, and when they're considering driving further than that, they plan a stop.
That's it. Done.
Daily driving? Nobody even thinks about it. It's 100% full when they leave in the morning, and they know it will last them through the day and will still be more than 50% full when they get home at night. Plug it in, and repeat the next morning.
There is about 0 reason to plug in your car while at work or while out shopping. Maybe if you're planning a trip where you're leaving from work? Maybe if you're a dolt and have a round trip commute that's more than the range of your vehicle? Maybe if your home charger is broken?
Charging outside of the home is not a thing that people with EVs are likely to do 99% of the time.
But I personally would be a lot happier if my fire trucks were powered by liquid hydrocarbons that can be refueloed from a can or barrel.
Why? Do you think they're going to drive 300 miles to a fire?
Fire trucks are one very good example of something that should be electric. Simplified power train so it's far more reliable, will last a lot longer, and requires a lot less maintenance. They don't tend to travel very far, so there's no worry about having to recharge. And they're big and heavy, and need a ton of torque to get moving.
Other than taxis in stop-and-go traffic and garbage trucks, I can't think of something better to have as an EV.
Seriously - in most urban/suburban areas, there's a fire station every few miles. In the little city I live in, I just counted 14 fire stations in a 10 mile radius.
Maybe electric won't work way out in the country where fire trucks have to travel 100 miles to fight a fire, but I can't imagine that there are many places where that's true.
Where have you been living over the last 10 years? In a cave somewhere?
They are significantly less complicated. And on top of that, regenerative breaking is extending the life of brakes on the order of the life of the car. Maybe one brake job every 10 years/100k miles. Or even less often.
Talking to some EV owners, they all noted that they had to get used to refilling their windshield washer fluid again. Why? Because they used to take their car in for service often enough that the shop kept it topped off. With their EV, that's the most frequent maintenance that needs to be done. Tire rotations are the next one. After that.....there's nothing. No oil changes, no coolent, no transmission....
I've been to a lot of small and medium sized cities in the US, and most of them would make a great place to settle down and have a nice life. No, you're not going to work for a megacorp there and make six figures, but you're going to do decently well, and will own a nice house for less than a one bedroom rental on the coasts.
The folks I meet on business in their coastal cities love to show them off almost as much as they love to bitch about them. When I ask why they put up with all the things they hate, they pretty much all say, "this is where the jobs are". They ignore the fact that there are hundreds of other cities where that's true as well.
You can find all of that with a reasonable commute in a city 10% the size of NYC. Hell, even 5% the size of NYC. And the cost of living will be something like 50% less.
Visit NCY to see some of the best theater and museums in the US. But live somewhere reasonable so you can be happy and prosperous.
People? The people engineering trains and stations suck. And that's why riding the train sucks.
This is 100% an engineering problem. Separate entry and exit, open the exit doors and give everyone 20 seconds to exit, then open the entry doors and give everyone 20 seconds to enter.
Opening one door and asking people to pass each other in the doorway is asinine.
This is an engineering problem. It's not a technological problem. Someone proposing a technological solution to an engineering issue is wasting everyone's time and money.
This gets the money moving, which is good for the government (taxes), but it doesn't benefit the rich at all;
It does benefit the rich, but for some reason, outside essentially Warren Buffet, they don't see it. For them to enjoy the society they do, they need that society to exist. Take your hundred million dollars and move to Somalia, and I guarantee it's not going to be as pleasant as the Bay Area, Manhattan, or Miami.
For that society to exist, there needs to be a functioning economy. Trapping most of the economic potential in the stagnant wealth of the top 1% cripples the economy for most poor and middle-class individuals. That in turn drags the whole system down, and it's not good for the poor or rich. The difference is that the rich can buy their way around the problems for a lot longer than the poor can. Eventually, however, even that won't be sufficient.
Taxing the rich who then expend resources to produce goods shifts that money (generally) from their wealth to income. That's good, because to get there it tends to go through a bunch of poor and middle-class people, who then contribute to the economy more. As they fuel the economy that funds the government more who thus can afford roads and power and water and food distribution networks and the telecom industry and the military and all the other stuff the rich absolutely can't live without, but who think someone else should be in charge of maintaining.
In the end, they trade some of their wealth for slightly less reliable income, and the net change is a vibrant society for them to enjoy. That doesn't sound like the worst thing to most of us.
Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe.
The whole story smells like bullshit to me.
The only way a cable company would feel screwed and like they had to pass on the costs is if there was a competitor carrying the channel, and there usually isn't. They could just drop it and move on with life. Sounds more like they are a monopoly and can charge their customers whatever, so it makes more sense to just skip negotiating down the cost and instead just pass it along to customers.
Broadcast TV is dead. Cable bundles are dead. They're just barely hanging on because of folks like you (and my wife) won't stop giving them a way to make the books show that TV can still turn a profit, and that people still want it.
We don't want it. We want on-demand. We want a back catalog. We want to binge a series. We want more than 22 minutes of content in an hour. We want a fucking search function.
The sooner TV dies, the better. And before some asshat blubbers , "But mah spoorts!", individual sports streams are already a thing. Youtube Live is already a thing. The ESPN and individual sport broadcast apps are a thing. You don't need 1000 expensive channels of garbage to watch sports.
You want sports? Pay your fucking $40 a month to ESPN for your sports. Stop expecting the rest of us to subsidize it with a TV bundle.
I'm slowly working my way through Aron Ra's youtube series the Systemic Classification of Life. He's an acquired taste, as he's a bit brash and very not professor-like, but being able to see subsets of the evolutionary tree of life in detail is really amazing. I always knew that we had a deep fossil record which explains evolution, but I had no idea it was that deep.
What's impressive about the series is that it's showing the path from early animals to humans, and showing where different species branched off along the way.
While you said, "anything I could read on it", and I'm 99% not a video person, this is one of the few times where I find it's really helpful to have dense graphics with someone explaining chunks of it rather than text. Seeing artists' renderings of extinct animals along the tree with a narrative about them I find really helpful, not being all that well versed in biology or phylogeny.
And since it's apparently pre-coffee, images get the image text read. So punch the monkey would depend on what they called the image or div section of the page. "Section advertisement. Image title h23a4890hdoih34lk5.gif".
Screen reading tools identify the areas of the page and allow the user to select what areas they wish to have read to them. Something like "Page contains header, left menu, body, footer, etc." The user then uses hotkeys to select the part they want read to them. The different div sections get called based on the names they are given by the developer.
You made me laugh, but it's oh so true. I recently moved, and in the back of a giant storage box I found a ratty old vinyl gym bag. It was oddly familiar, but I couldn't for the life of me remember what was in it or when I had last seen it.
It was the cable and ethernet card bag! Lots of cables and lots of 10/100 cards, many of them labeled, "probably bad".
A holdover from my LAN party days of the early 2000s. That bag was the equivalent of a doctor's bag. Medicine to make the PCs go.
My media server is a chromebox that's running ubuntu. Same idea. Wireless keyboard and mouse, hdmi out, and it's a 4x4x1.5 inch box that does everything I need to display any website or any media on my home network on the big screen.
Most designs call for an increasing diameter as you go up, to better balance the strain on the cable. They have a center of mass at GSO, with a counterweight past GSO. GSO is where the tension is maximal, but you need the counterweight past that, in order to make the tension work out correctly.
The problem with starting with a single cable is that it's a single point of failure. Most designs call for braided and paired cables, to prevent total loss when the cables are inevitably hit by space debris. Can you build the rest of the cables before a catastrophic impact happens? Are those funding it willing to take that risk?
You also need your power supply, which in a lot of designs is a giant solar array on the counterweight. And to figure out how to handle powering the elevators themselves, which will be really interesting since the cable is likely conductive. That poses its own challenges, since the cable runs through the Van Allen radiation belts, and will be impacted by the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field.
A major issue that nobody really pays attention to is that something this long is going to need resonance dampers on it. So you need to get those on before it just thrashes itself apart in the atmosphere.
This is definitely not the point where we stop laughing at the idea. When a hunk of cable spends a year in the Van Allen radiation belts and comes out unscathed, we can think about stopping the laughter. Because we don't even know if carbon nanotube structures can survive that.
I agree. But porn has had about a century to refine the art. VR porn is radically different from traditional porn, and still different even from POV traditional porn.
Porn isn't easy to do well, as we all know. You need it lit right, you need to get the angles right, you need uncomfortable, weird-ass positions to let the viewer see the good stuff happening, etc.
VR porn has to work through all of these issues just like regular porn did. I'm not a fan of a lot of POV porn because they aren't looking at what I'd be looking at, the lighting is often awful, and it's a little motion-sickness inducing because that's a lot of motion my eyes are seeing that I'm not doing. VR porn hasn't solved any of these issues, as far as I'm aware, and has made some of them worse.
VR porn needs time. It needs that one great director who gets it, and is able to make a leap forward in the art. Once we get a couple of those, VR porn is going to take off.
This, I doubt. Technology moves on. The cell phones of the 70s did not remain bulky. The hard drives of the 80s did not remain bulky. The TVs of the 90s did not remain bulky.
I think that VR was seen as the next iteration of technology, when it's more likely 2-3 iterations away.
The first needs to be lightweight, wearable screens. Google glass for the masses.
The second needs to be high resolution projection on those screens with some sensible and usable controls.
Maybe the third part is lightweight body sensors, to allow for capture of body position and motion.
Once those are all common, I think putting them together into VR will work. Right now, we've essentially stuck a smartphone in a pair of swim googles and slapped them on our heads.
You are only making this failed argument because you haven't done the math. Go do it if you'd like to be smarter today than you were yesterday.
If you don't understand how many rocket flights we would need to put the starter elevator shit in orbit, you're arguing from a place of deep ignorance. In addition, it's not clear that significant bootstrapping would work or be advisable for the elevator. It comes down to the risk of catastrophic cable damage vs the speed of the bootstrapping.
It's going to be the most expensive engineering project humanity has undertaken. My guess is that those funding it aren't going to be interested in a lot of risk.
If we can't do significant boostrapping, add an order of magnitude more rocket flights to your calculation.
And once you realize how insane it would be to try to do that, you'll quickly realize that we'd need hundreds or thousands of really cheap, reliable rockets to get all the material up there.....which is what the whole point of the space elevator is. At that point you're fighting financial, political and engineering challenges the likes of which the world has never seen, in order to accomplish something you're already accomplishing.
The last SpaceX rocket failure was in 2016. They've had something like 35 straight successful launches, a bunch with reused rockets. That's pretty damn reliable. More reliable than a lot of other rocket programs. If you can't extrapolate out that reliability over the time it's going to take us to figure out a space elevator, I don't know what to tell you.
We're 50-100 years from even considering a space elevator. If you don't think rocket reliability will go up over that period of time, I'll point out that 100 years ago we were barely flying at all, and 50 years ago we were just getting the first manned space missions. And if you think we're closer to a space elevator than that, you don't understand space elevators.
Other problems include needing asteroids big enough to serve as counterweights and as raw materials, oscillation and vibration dampers, the van Allen radiation belts and UV/radiation-driven material fatigue, electrostatic charge of the cable due to the solar wind, having a stable enough tether point that you can easily load cargo, dealing with the steady rain of nanotubes at the base, etc.
Space elevators are a great sci-fi invention, but they will never be practical. Rockets are already getting closer to being as reliable as other modes of transport, and once they are airplane reliable, the cost and engineering challenges of building a space elevator will not look to be worth it.
A "1cm cable of the carbon nanofibre" doesn't exist after the first bit of LEO space debris hits it at orbital velocity either. If you're not talking on the order of meters to survive ablation by LEO debris, you're not even engaging with reality. Then you have to figure out where that volume of cable comes from, and how it gets into orbit.
See, this is why I always laugh when the topic of space elevators comes up. So you're going to move the giant barge tethering the end of the space elevator to avoid the 7mile/second LEO debris, huh? Even the paint chips that we can't really see?
If your space elevator isn't on the order of meters thick, it's not going to survive ablation by space debris. And if you'd like to do the math on that, now we're talking a GEO cable manufacturing facility with raw materials supplied by asteroids. Because we simply can't launch that much stuff into orbit, and you can't build it from the bottom up.
Of course, it's only going to take one nation with space military capacity or a bunch with traditional military capacity to stop the idea in its tracks. Because when you build a cable of worse-than-asbestos from GEO down, a failure is going to have world-wide consequences.
Material strength is really the least of the problems a space elevator has. Reality is one of the biggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
Tell me how much electricity a 200 car parking lot will consume with all vehicles plugged in and charging?
Why? That's something that's never going to happen, so why would you need me to tell you that?
Your range anxiety is laughable, and it's clear you've not spent a lot of time driving an EV.
Everyone I know with an EV has no range anxiety. None. They know how many hundreds of miles their car goes on a charge, and when they're considering driving further than that, they plan a stop.
That's it. Done.
Daily driving? Nobody even thinks about it. It's 100% full when they leave in the morning, and they know it will last them through the day and will still be more than 50% full when they get home at night. Plug it in, and repeat the next morning.
There is about 0 reason to plug in your car while at work or while out shopping. Maybe if you're planning a trip where you're leaving from work? Maybe if you're a dolt and have a round trip commute that's more than the range of your vehicle? Maybe if your home charger is broken?
Charging outside of the home is not a thing that people with EVs are likely to do 99% of the time.
But I personally would be a lot happier if my fire trucks were powered by liquid hydrocarbons that can be refueloed from a can or barrel.
Why? Do you think they're going to drive 300 miles to a fire?
Fire trucks are one very good example of something that should be electric. Simplified power train so it's far more reliable, will last a lot longer, and requires a lot less maintenance. They don't tend to travel very far, so there's no worry about having to recharge. And they're big and heavy, and need a ton of torque to get moving.
Other than taxis in stop-and-go traffic and garbage trucks, I can't think of something better to have as an EV.
Seriously - in most urban/suburban areas, there's a fire station every few miles. In the little city I live in, I just counted 14 fire stations in a 10 mile radius.
Maybe electric won't work way out in the country where fire trucks have to travel 100 miles to fight a fire, but I can't imagine that there are many places where that's true.
should be significantly less complicated...
Should?
Where have you been living over the last 10 years? In a cave somewhere?
They are significantly less complicated. And on top of that, regenerative breaking is extending the life of brakes on the order of the life of the car. Maybe one brake job every 10 years/100k miles. Or even less often.
Talking to some EV owners, they all noted that they had to get used to refilling their windshield washer fluid again. Why? Because they used to take their car in for service often enough that the shop kept it topped off. With their EV, that's the most frequent maintenance that needs to be done. Tire rotations are the next one. After that.....there's nothing. No oil changes, no coolent, no transmission....
Want to, or think they have to to get ahead?
I've been to a lot of small and medium sized cities in the US, and most of them would make a great place to settle down and have a nice life. No, you're not going to work for a megacorp there and make six figures, but you're going to do decently well, and will own a nice house for less than a one bedroom rental on the coasts.
The folks I meet on business in their coastal cities love to show them off almost as much as they love to bitch about them. When I ask why they put up with all the things they hate, they pretty much all say, "this is where the jobs are". They ignore the fact that there are hundreds of other cities where that's true as well.
You can find all of that with a reasonable commute in a city 10% the size of NYC. Hell, even 5% the size of NYC. And the cost of living will be something like 50% less.
Visit NCY to see some of the best theater and museums in the US. But live somewhere reasonable so you can be happy and prosperous.
People? The people engineering trains and stations suck. And that's why riding the train sucks.
This is 100% an engineering problem. Separate entry and exit, open the exit doors and give everyone 20 seconds to exit, then open the entry doors and give everyone 20 seconds to enter.
Opening one door and asking people to pass each other in the doorway is asinine.
That's exactly what I came here to say.
This is an engineering problem. It's not a technological problem. Someone proposing a technological solution to an engineering issue is wasting everyone's time and money.
You've never visited the middle 98% of the US, I take it. Space is the problem, not lack of it.
You didn't zoom out to see the full picture.
This gets the money moving, which is good for the government (taxes), but it doesn't benefit the rich at all;
It does benefit the rich, but for some reason, outside essentially Warren Buffet, they don't see it. For them to enjoy the society they do, they need that society to exist. Take your hundred million dollars and move to Somalia, and I guarantee it's not going to be as pleasant as the Bay Area, Manhattan, or Miami.
For that society to exist, there needs to be a functioning economy. Trapping most of the economic potential in the stagnant wealth of the top 1% cripples the economy for most poor and middle-class individuals. That in turn drags the whole system down, and it's not good for the poor or rich. The difference is that the rich can buy their way around the problems for a lot longer than the poor can. Eventually, however, even that won't be sufficient.
Taxing the rich who then expend resources to produce goods shifts that money (generally) from their wealth to income. That's good, because to get there it tends to go through a bunch of poor and middle-class people, who then contribute to the economy more. As they fuel the economy that funds the government more who thus can afford roads and power and water and food distribution networks and the telecom industry and the military and all the other stuff the rich absolutely can't live without, but who think someone else should be in charge of maintaining.
In the end, they trade some of their wealth for slightly less reliable income, and the net change is a vibrant society for them to enjoy. That doesn't sound like the worst thing to most of us.
Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe.
The whole story smells like bullshit to me.
The only way a cable company would feel screwed and like they had to pass on the costs is if there was a competitor carrying the channel, and there usually isn't. They could just drop it and move on with life. Sounds more like they are a monopoly and can charge their customers whatever, so it makes more sense to just skip negotiating down the cost and instead just pass it along to customers.
To be another brick in the wall.
Broadcast TV is dead. Cable bundles are dead. They're just barely hanging on because of folks like you (and my wife) won't stop giving them a way to make the books show that TV can still turn a profit, and that people still want it.
We don't want it. We want on-demand. We want a back catalog. We want to binge a series. We want more than 22 minutes of content in an hour. We want a fucking search function.
The sooner TV dies, the better. And before some asshat blubbers , "But mah spoorts!", individual sports streams are already a thing. Youtube Live is already a thing. The ESPN and individual sport broadcast apps are a thing. You don't need 1000 expensive channels of garbage to watch sports.
You want sports? Pay your fucking $40 a month to ESPN for your sports. Stop expecting the rest of us to subsidize it with a TV bundle.
I'm slowly working my way through Aron Ra's youtube series the Systemic Classification of Life. He's an acquired taste, as he's a bit brash and very not professor-like, but being able to see subsets of the evolutionary tree of life in detail is really amazing. I always knew that we had a deep fossil record which explains evolution, but I had no idea it was that deep.
What's impressive about the series is that it's showing the path from early animals to humans, and showing where different species branched off along the way.
While you said, "anything I could read on it", and I'm 99% not a video person, this is one of the few times where I find it's really helpful to have dense graphics with someone explaining chunks of it rather than text. Seeing artists' renderings of extinct animals along the tree with a narrative about them I find really helpful, not being all that well versed in biology or phylogeny.
And since it's apparently pre-coffee, images get the image text read. So punch the monkey would depend on what they called the image or div section of the page. "Section advertisement. Image title h23a4890hdoih34lk5.gif".
Screen reading tools identify the areas of the page and allow the user to select what areas they wish to have read to them. Something like "Page contains header, left menu, body, footer, etc." The user then uses hotkeys to select the part they want read to them. The different div sections get called based on the names they are given by the developer.
You made me laugh, but it's oh so true. I recently moved, and in the back of a giant storage box I found a ratty old vinyl gym bag. It was oddly familiar, but I couldn't for the life of me remember what was in it or when I had last seen it.
It was the cable and ethernet card bag! Lots of cables and lots of 10/100 cards, many of them labeled, "probably bad".
A holdover from my LAN party days of the early 2000s. That bag was the equivalent of a doctor's bag. Medicine to make the PCs go.
My media server is a chromebox that's running ubuntu. Same idea. Wireless keyboard and mouse, hdmi out, and it's a 4x4x1.5 inch box that does everything I need to display any website or any media on my home network on the big screen.
Most designs call for an increasing diameter as you go up, to better balance the strain on the cable. They have a center of mass at GSO, with a counterweight past GSO. GSO is where the tension is maximal, but you need the counterweight past that, in order to make the tension work out correctly.
The problem with starting with a single cable is that it's a single point of failure. Most designs call for braided and paired cables, to prevent total loss when the cables are inevitably hit by space debris. Can you build the rest of the cables before a catastrophic impact happens? Are those funding it willing to take that risk?
You also need your power supply, which in a lot of designs is a giant solar array on the counterweight. And to figure out how to handle powering the elevators themselves, which will be really interesting since the cable is likely conductive. That poses its own challenges, since the cable runs through the Van Allen radiation belts, and will be impacted by the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field.
A major issue that nobody really pays attention to is that something this long is going to need resonance dampers on it. So you need to get those on before it just thrashes itself apart in the atmosphere.
This is definitely not the point where we stop laughing at the idea. When a hunk of cable spends a year in the Van Allen radiation belts and comes out unscathed, we can think about stopping the laughter. Because we don't even know if carbon nanotube structures can survive that.
I agree. But porn has had about a century to refine the art. VR porn is radically different from traditional porn, and still different even from POV traditional porn.
Porn isn't easy to do well, as we all know. You need it lit right, you need to get the angles right, you need uncomfortable, weird-ass positions to let the viewer see the good stuff happening, etc.
VR porn has to work through all of these issues just like regular porn did. I'm not a fan of a lot of POV porn because they aren't looking at what I'd be looking at, the lighting is often awful, and it's a little motion-sickness inducing because that's a lot of motion my eyes are seeing that I'm not doing. VR porn hasn't solved any of these issues, as far as I'm aware, and has made some of them worse.
VR porn needs time. It needs that one great director who gets it, and is able to make a leap forward in the art. Once we get a couple of those, VR porn is going to take off.
It'll always be bulky
This, I doubt. Technology moves on. The cell phones of the 70s did not remain bulky. The hard drives of the 80s did not remain bulky. The TVs of the 90s did not remain bulky.
I think that VR was seen as the next iteration of technology, when it's more likely 2-3 iterations away.
The first needs to be lightweight, wearable screens. Google glass for the masses.
The second needs to be high resolution projection on those screens with some sensible and usable controls.
Maybe the third part is lightweight body sensors, to allow for capture of body position and motion.
Once those are all common, I think putting them together into VR will work. Right now, we've essentially stuck a smartphone in a pair of swim googles and slapped them on our heads.
You are only making this failed argument because you haven't done the math. Go do it if you'd like to be smarter today than you were yesterday.
If you don't understand how many rocket flights we would need to put the starter elevator shit in orbit, you're arguing from a place of deep ignorance. In addition, it's not clear that significant bootstrapping would work or be advisable for the elevator. It comes down to the risk of catastrophic cable damage vs the speed of the bootstrapping.
It's going to be the most expensive engineering project humanity has undertaken. My guess is that those funding it aren't going to be interested in a lot of risk.
If we can't do significant boostrapping, add an order of magnitude more rocket flights to your calculation.
We'll send a starter weight up by rocket.
No, no we won't. Go do the math on that one.
And once you realize how insane it would be to try to do that, you'll quickly realize that we'd need hundreds or thousands of really cheap, reliable rockets to get all the material up there.....which is what the whole point of the space elevator is. At that point you're fighting financial, political and engineering challenges the likes of which the world has never seen, in order to accomplish something you're already accomplishing.
The last SpaceX rocket failure was in 2016. They've had something like 35 straight successful launches, a bunch with reused rockets. That's pretty damn reliable. More reliable than a lot of other rocket programs. If you can't extrapolate out that reliability over the time it's going to take us to figure out a space elevator, I don't know what to tell you.
We're 50-100 years from even considering a space elevator. If you don't think rocket reliability will go up over that period of time, I'll point out that 100 years ago we were barely flying at all, and 50 years ago we were just getting the first manned space missions. And if you think we're closer to a space elevator than that, you don't understand space elevators.
Other problems include needing asteroids big enough to serve as counterweights and as raw materials, oscillation and vibration dampers, the van Allen radiation belts and UV/radiation-driven material fatigue, electrostatic charge of the cable due to the solar wind, having a stable enough tether point that you can easily load cargo, dealing with the steady rain of nanotubes at the base, etc.
Space elevators are a great sci-fi invention, but they will never be practical. Rockets are already getting closer to being as reliable as other modes of transport, and once they are airplane reliable, the cost and engineering challenges of building a space elevator will not look to be worth it.
A "1cm cable of the carbon nanofibre" doesn't exist after the first bit of LEO space debris hits it at orbital velocity either. If you're not talking on the order of meters to survive ablation by LEO debris, you're not even engaging with reality. Then you have to figure out where that volume of cable comes from, and how it gets into orbit.
See, this is why I always laugh when the topic of space elevators comes up. So you're going to move the giant barge tethering the end of the space elevator to avoid the 7mile/second LEO debris, huh? Even the paint chips that we can't really see?
If your space elevator isn't on the order of meters thick, it's not going to survive ablation by space debris. And if you'd like to do the math on that, now we're talking a GEO cable manufacturing facility with raw materials supplied by asteroids. Because we simply can't launch that much stuff into orbit, and you can't build it from the bottom up.
Of course, it's only going to take one nation with space military capacity or a bunch with traditional military capacity to stop the idea in its tracks. Because when you build a cable of worse-than-asbestos from GEO down, a failure is going to have world-wide consequences.
Material strength is really the least of the problems a space elevator has. Reality is one of the biggest.