It's actually pretty easy once you get used to it.
If that were true, most people wouldn't fail at calorie counted diets. And yet they do. And I certainly have tried the scales approach, and it's absolutely no good for me. Have a busy day, or just forget to add things on, and you're way off. It's far too easy to lapse.
I believe my current system is one that's far easier to keep to. Because it means one accounting session per day, in advance of eating. And no fiddling about measuring ingredients.
But each to their own. If your system truly works for you, great.
I've always found counting calories to be an impossible task. Remembering to note down the number of calories after everything eaten or drunk. It's easy to let that slide, and then you don't know where you are.
And cooking becomes impossible - weighing out every ingredient and looking it up. And how many calories in a spread of this or a glug of that or a spoon of the other.
I got interested in the concept of Soylent. Just stop with the eating choices all together - a single satchet each day gives a calorie count, and gives all the nutrients needed. https://www.soylent.com/
I'd do it, only they don't have it yet in my country.
They do have other meal replacements, such as Slim-Fast and Complan, but they come with disclaimers that they should be part of a diet with other foods. They are not nutritionally complete, and pack too much sugar.
So here's my compromise. I stock the cupboard with diet products (shakes and bars)and other items with fixed portion size and labeled calories (Cereal portions, baked beans, tiny portions of raisins etc) Then I make up a bag for each day of the week that contains approximately my target calories. 2000 for now. I use a spreadsheet to tot the up.
Then each day it's just a matter of picking up the day's bag, and I know I can eat anything in that bag. If there is something I eat that's not in the bag, then I see how many calories in, and remove items adding up to approximately the same from the bag, and return them to the cupboard.
If there's anything not eaten at the end of the day, I put it in a box. And I know that I can eat things from that box any time I like because the calories have already been accounted for. The box becomes a float from one day to the next that can cover me for days when I'm more hungry.
I also take a multivitamin for insurance.
It's only been a week so far, so it's too early to say really, but it seems simple and doesn't need much willpower, and I haven't been hungry yet.
My plan is to stick with the calorie per day number so long as I'm losing weight. But when I hit the inevitable plateau, to steadily reduce the number of calories until I'm losing again.
They don't need it. There's plenty of investors who would be very happy to finance Tesla. So if they need more cash they only need to issue more stock.
I'm afraid your link to the fact that a union is upset with competition from Uber is irrelevant. From day one, Uber has been fully in line with the law, licensing all their UK cars as private hire cars. And Transport for London, who are the licenseing body have confirmed that they are perfectly legal - even your link references that.
That would require Uber to want to work with governments in the first place. They're opposed to regulations such as police background checks; there's not much middle ground there.
Bullshit. In the UK All Uber cars are licensed as private hire cars and the drivers as private hire drivers. Uber is keen to work within the existing regulations where they are allowed to.
Then I'm afraid you don't know what infrastructure means.
noun 1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization. 2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools. http://dictionary.reference.co...
Infrastructure is exactly what the supercharger network is.
Reason? Language isn't defined by reason. It's evolution. If a word form is popular enough to survive, then it's part of the language. Even if it's entirely unreasonable.
The problem in slow is wheels losing traction, and spinning.
All a high gear does in this scenario is make the car less powerful. When you have nothing else, it might make it less likely a heavy foot will spin the wheels. But it doesn't actually address the issue. Worst of all when one wheel has traction and the other doesn't all you'll get is wheel spin. (In the common case of no limited slip diff.)
Traction control addresses the issue of wheel spin directly, allowing you to apply enough torque to lift the car out of the snow hole it may be in, without one or both of the wheels spinning.
That's not a kludge, that is specifically designed technology doing it's job.
Starting off in a higher gear to avoid wheelspin in the snow/ice isn't an option in an electric car.
Your 20th century kludges are not required. Nor is slipping the clutch or other workarounds for the limitations of ICE cars. Press the accelerator gradually, and an EV will start moving gradually.
As far as I can see owners of EVs find them fun, as does everyone that test drives them. Your assumption is that fun is about a roaring (gas) engine. Or some magic property of them that means that EVs can't be fun.
It's silly. The fact is people that try EVs love them.
Depends. Not always. Not everywhere. Not for everyone.
Hence "often".
For the vast majority of the population, EV isn't cheaper.
I'd say the exact opposite.
Current IC engines *will* last for hundreds of thousands of miles with nothing more than filters/plugs/oil being changed.
Where "hundreds" equals 2, at best. EVs should easily outdo that - they don't have nearly so many moving parts.
replacing batteries will happen every five - seven years, at a cost that is around $5k - $7k, won't they?
No they won't. Prius has been around for about 15 years, and many of the early models still haven't needed a battery replacement. You're over estimating the longevity of ICE components and underestimating EVs.
The common operations are stuff like tyres, brakes, clutch exhaust, oil change, air & oil filters, and windscreen wipers.
Still need tyre changes. Brake changes much less frequently, due to regenerative breaking. And clutch exhaust, oil change and filters are not needed at all.
In addition there is the need for the occasional battery swap. But probably no more often than the transmission needs swapping in an ICE. And changing the battery is going to be a relatively easy task, given shop lifting gear.
Body work hasn't changed.
It's not that we won't need any mechanics at all. It's just that the work will be much less, so there will be far fewer of them.
I hear some studies say the stock market is a better investment than real estate, while others say the opposite.
The difference of opinion comes about because it depends who you are. For those who work in the investment industry, or have other insider knowledge, the stock market is extremely profitable. But much of those profits are made from the retail investor, who more often than not loses money in the long run.
Overall the stock market goes up, but that doesn't mean the average person has much chance of making any significant money that way.
Property is a much better investment for ordinary people.
Yeah. And my grandfather insisted on carrying a pocket watch. All you are describing is conservatism related to technology. Such technology adoption issues are solved by the turnover of the human population.
On what basis do you make the claim that they are "nicer to drive?
On the basis that everyone that test drives one says the same thing.
I'll put a BMW M3 -- or if you prefer a soft ride a Rolls Royce -- up against a Nissan Leaf any day.
The fact that you have to compare cars from such different classes makes my point. A Tesla is nicer to drive tham an M3. A Nissan Leaf is nicer to drive than a Nissan Versa.
And you have it completely the wrong way around on snow handling. EVs are out in the snow when ICE cars are stuck. It's the low end torque and the extra weight. Don't bother arguing the point, you'll find out if you google.
Biofuels are irrelevant (except for pork barrelling). Virtually all ICE cars run fossil fuels. But when I said in all ways, I clearly didn't just mean the global warming effect. I meant more generally that ICE cars are oily, sooty things.
Current charge times make "recharge when the driver stops for breaks" impossible.
Of course they don't. You don't have to charge an EV from empty to full every time any more than you have to wait for an ICE vehicle to go empty then fill the tank to the top. With an EV the thing is to top it up at every opportunity. The batteries won't be empty, and you don't have to wait till they are full.
And frankly, current ranges on EV's make them pretty much useless for trucks.
EV trucks can carry a lot more batteries than an ICE. The range is whatever you want to make it.
Long distance trucking is probably something that'll come along later, but trucks for local business deliveries is an area that EVs particularly shine in. So much so that some local delivery vehicles have been electric powered for decades, even when the only battery technology available was lead acid.
Slashdot Mirror
In the schematic there's something that slides out from the bed area. I guess it's the second bed.
So is it better or worse than Tower?
Yes I could try it. But just wondering if anyone already has and has got opinions.
No need to count really, just decrease the foods s/he mentioned and weight yourself a bit more often. You will find the balance by feeling.
I'm glad that works for you. It certainly doesn't work for me. In order to keep if up for more than about 3 weeks I need a system.
It's actually pretty easy once you get used to it.
If that were true, most people wouldn't fail at calorie counted diets. And yet they do. And I certainly have tried the scales approach, and it's absolutely no good for me. Have a busy day, or just forget to add things on, and you're way off. It's far too easy to lapse.
I believe my current system is one that's far easier to keep to. Because it means one accounting session per day, in advance of eating. And no fiddling about measuring ingredients.
But each to their own. If your system truly works for you, great.
Congratulations on losing 6 stone.
I've always found counting calories to be an impossible task. Remembering to note down the number of calories after everything eaten or drunk. It's easy to let that slide, and then you don't know where you are.
And cooking becomes impossible - weighing out every ingredient and looking it up. And how many calories in a spread of this or a glug of that or a spoon of the other.
I got interested in the concept of Soylent. Just stop with the eating choices all together - a single satchet each day gives a calorie count, and gives all the nutrients needed.
https://www.soylent.com/
I'd do it, only they don't have it yet in my country.
They do have other meal replacements, such as Slim-Fast and Complan, but they come with disclaimers that they should be part of a diet with other foods. They are not nutritionally complete, and pack too much sugar.
So here's my compromise. I stock the cupboard with diet products (shakes and bars)and other items with fixed portion size and labeled calories (Cereal portions, baked beans, tiny portions of raisins etc) Then I make up a bag for each day of the week that contains approximately my target calories. 2000 for now. I use a spreadsheet to tot the up.
Then each day it's just a matter of picking up the day's bag, and I know I can eat anything in that bag. If there is something I eat that's not in the bag, then I see how many calories in, and remove items adding up to approximately the same from the bag, and return them to the cupboard.
If there's anything not eaten at the end of the day, I put it in a box. And I know that I can eat things from that box any time I like because the calories have already been accounted for. The box becomes a float from one day to the next that can cover me for days when I'm more hungry.
I also take a multivitamin for insurance.
It's only been a week so far, so it's too early to say really, but it seems simple and doesn't need much willpower, and I haven't been hungry yet.
My plan is to stick with the calorie per day number so long as I'm losing weight. But when I hit the inevitable plateau, to steadily reduce the number of calories until I'm losing again.
Hope I am as successful as you have been.
They don't need it. There's plenty of investors who would be very happy to finance Tesla. So if they need more cash they only need to issue more stock.
You're still wrong.
I'm afraid your link to the fact that a union is upset with competition from Uber is irrelevant. From day one, Uber has been fully in line with the law, licensing all their UK cars as private hire cars. And Transport for London, who are the licenseing body have confirmed that they are perfectly legal - even your link references that.
Yes, I do know what infrastructure means.
Clearly you still don't.
Nor does it fit the second definition - which refers to public services and utilities, not private businesses.
You're an idiot.
That would require Uber to want to work with governments in the first place. They're opposed to regulations such as police background checks; there's not much middle ground there.
Bullshit. In the UK All Uber cars are licensed as private hire cars and the drivers as private hire drivers. Uber is keen to work within the existing regulations where they are allowed to.
"The American government thinks it's OK for cops to shoot innocent black guys."
^ An equally moronic statement to yours.
Then I'm afraid you don't know what infrastructure means.
noun
1.
the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2.
the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
http://dictionary.reference.co...
Infrastructure is exactly what the supercharger network is.
Amazon's lack of profitability was/is in some ways artificial - they spent (are spending) a goodly chunk of cash on infrastructure.
Infrastructure. You mean like building a free supercharger network across the country and internationally?
Reason? Language isn't defined by reason. It's evolution. If a word form is popular enough to survive, then it's part of the language. Even if it's entirely unreasonable.
The problem in slow is wheels losing traction, and spinning.
All a high gear does in this scenario is make the car less powerful. When you have nothing else, it might make it less likely a heavy foot will spin the wheels. But it doesn't actually address the issue. Worst of all when one wheel has traction and the other doesn't all you'll get is wheel spin. (In the common case of no limited slip diff.)
Traction control addresses the issue of wheel spin directly, allowing you to apply enough torque to lift the car out of the snow hole it may be in, without one or both of the wheels spinning.
That's not a kludge, that is specifically designed technology doing it's job.
Starting off in a higher gear to avoid wheelspin in the snow/ice isn't an option in an electric car.
Your 20th century kludges are not required. Nor is slipping the clutch or other workarounds for the limitations of ICE cars. Press the accelerator gradually, and an EV will start moving gradually.
As far as I can see owners of EVs find them fun, as does everyone that test drives them. Your assumption is that fun is about a roaring (gas) engine. Or some magic property of them that means that EVs can't be fun.
It's silly. The fact is people that try EVs love them.
"often have a lower total cost of ownership,"
Depends. Not always. Not everywhere. Not for everyone.
Hence "often".
For the vast majority of the population, EV isn't cheaper.
I'd say the exact opposite.
Current IC engines *will* last for hundreds of thousands of miles with nothing more than filters/plugs/oil being changed.
Where "hundreds" equals 2, at best. EVs should easily outdo that - they don't have nearly so many moving parts.
replacing batteries will happen every five - seven years, at a cost that is around $5k - $7k, won't they?
No they won't. Prius has been around for about 15 years, and many of the early models still haven't needed a battery replacement. You're over estimating the longevity of ICE components and underestimating EVs.
This makes it popular and gives it a party trick (insane mode) but doesn't do much for driving enjoyment.
Party trick? You could say that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Get back to me when anyone ever has that much fun with an M3. :-)
The common operations are stuff like tyres, brakes, clutch exhaust, oil change, air & oil filters, and windscreen wipers.
Still need tyre changes. Brake changes much less frequently, due to regenerative breaking. And clutch exhaust, oil change and filters are not needed at all.
In addition there is the need for the occasional battery swap. But probably no more often than the transmission needs swapping in an ICE. And changing the battery is going to be a relatively easy task, given shop lifting gear.
Body work hasn't changed.
It's not that we won't need any mechanics at all. It's just that the work will be much less, so there will be far fewer of them.
It absolutely is what's needed. As long as it's in control. And with electric it is.
The advice to go google EV performance in the snow before trying to argue the toss applies to you too.
I hear some studies say the stock market is a better investment than real estate, while others say the opposite.
The difference of opinion comes about because it depends who you are. For those who work in the investment industry, or have other insider knowledge, the stock market is extremely profitable. But much of those profits are made from the retail investor, who more often than not loses money in the long run.
Overall the stock market goes up, but that doesn't mean the average person has much chance of making any significant money that way.
Property is a much better investment for ordinary people.
Yeah. And my grandfather insisted on carrying a pocket watch. All you are describing is conservatism related to technology. Such technology adoption issues are solved by the turnover of the human population.
Even in places where car ownership rates amongst young men is low, they still manage to get dates. There must be something else to it.
On what basis do you make the claim that they are "nicer to drive?
On the basis that everyone that test drives one says the same thing.
I'll put a BMW M3 -- or if you prefer a soft ride a Rolls Royce -- up against a Nissan Leaf any day.
The fact that you have to compare cars from such different classes makes my point. A Tesla is nicer to drive tham an M3. A Nissan Leaf is nicer to drive than a Nissan Versa.
And you have it completely the wrong way around on snow handling. EVs are out in the snow when ICE cars are stuck. It's the low end torque and the extra weight. Don't bother arguing the point, you'll find out if you google.
Biofuels are irrelevant (except for pork barrelling). Virtually all ICE cars run fossil fuels. But when I said in all ways, I clearly didn't just mean the global warming effect. I meant more generally that ICE cars are oily, sooty things.
Current charge times make "recharge when the driver stops for breaks" impossible.
Of course they don't. You don't have to charge an EV from empty to full every time any more than you have to wait for an ICE vehicle to go empty then fill the tank to the top. With an EV the thing is to top it up at every opportunity. The batteries won't be empty, and you don't have to wait till they are full.
And frankly, current ranges on EV's make them pretty much useless for trucks.
EV trucks can carry a lot more batteries than an ICE. The range is whatever you want to make it.
Long distance trucking is probably something that'll come along later, but trucks for local business deliveries is an area that EVs particularly shine in. So much so that some local delivery vehicles have been electric powered for decades, even when the only battery technology available was lead acid.