Insurance is a risk-transfer system with premiums set by risk factorization. Frequently, insurance companies take in less money than they pay out, making their profits from interest and investment incomes on their cash holdings. For a while, Progressive took in 98 cents for every $1 it paid to auto insurance claims, and made roughly 8 cents per 98 cents it took in, giving them a 6% gross operating profit. Slim, but doable.
It sounds more like he's trying to implement a medium-wage raise.
Basically, you raise the wages of a subset of workers, resulting in a (slight, fractional) price increase, reduction in total buying power of products in that pipeline, and subsequent reduction in the number of jobs. The people receiving the pay raise receive a larger income at the expense of the people who lose their jobs, and all income is reduced in buying power by the marginal increase in cost of the products made by these recipients. The end result is that the recipients of a wage increase get more buying power (not quite so much as the direct proportion of their wage increase, but nearly); a few people become unemployed; and everyone else becomes slightly-poorer because their dollars don't go so far (it's like facing inflation, except only some people's income increases, and others are just faced with more-expensive good).
Typically the subset is the lowest-wage worker group (minimum-wage raise). Raising wages attached to H1-B jobs is seen mainly as an IT/Technology sector raise, which would probably draw votes from IT workers who think it's great that the poor, the rich, and middle-class workers who weren't subject to H1-B pressure and thus aren't getting their pay increased now all have to funnel more of their income to the Tech crowd and be poorer themselves.
Interesting technique. Bad for the economy, but easy enough to divert attention away, and a subset of voters will feel like they're a favored group and be inclined to support these policies.
The bolt will ONLY accept 40 KWH at a DC fast charger.
Page 232 of the Bolt EV Owner's Manual, "Driving and Operating":
When using a DC charging station supplying at least 80kW of available power, it will take approximately 30 minutes to recharge from a depleted battery to 145km (90 mi) of driving range.
BOOM, HEADSHOT!
So you either know the Bolt will accept and use 80kW DC charging input and load up 90 miles of charge in 0.5 hours or you stuck your tongue to a frozen pole in the fourth grade and it's still there.
Keep in mind that as it fills up, the fill rate will slow way down.
Actually, the lithium ion battery chemistries used in electric vehicles have a generally-flat voltage curve up to 95% of their capacity. The last 5% generally takes a long (frequently fixed) time to fill because of a dramatic increase in voltage at the end of the curve. That means charging from 10% to 30% takes almost exactly as long as charging from 70% to 90%, but charging from 95% to 100% takes a hell of a lot longer than charging from 90% to 95% when using a high-power charger.
Secondly, McD will NOT be putting in fast chargers for ANYBODY. However, Places are installing level 2s.
Not today, but maybe in the future. Duly note that a ChargePoint Express 250 costs $35,800 and supplies 50kW or 62.5kW with two connectors. 24kW DC fast chargers cost $12,500 these days, and are considered slow DC charging. The Express Plus ChargePoint platform can get up to 400kW per port, but they're obviously expensive as balls.
The places most likely to get big DC charge ports in the nearer term are rest stops along the interstate expressways. Hotels are likely to supply DC fast charging in a more-general sense sooner than your average Burger King.
So imagine 20% of all new cars are long-range electric. That's 3.2 million vehicles per year. In five years, that's 16 million vehicles, or 10% of the workforce. You're taking a trip from Pennsylvania to Ocean City MD. Where are you going to stop for lunch? Gotta be some place with a fast-charge port so you can plug in your car and suck down an extra hour and a half's worth of driving while you eat.
Well, shit, that's not McDonalds with its Level-2 charger. At 7.6kW, we're only going to get about 13 miles of range added on during the 45-minute meal. Better stop at the Wendy's across the street--it has a ChargePoint Express 250 and can dump an extra 85 miles into the tank while we eat.
Note, again, that the (expensive) ChargePoint Express Plus is highly-modular (it uses multiple stations hooked up to a separate power supply unit, so you can use more PSUs and fewer stations to get more continuous power delivery) and can deliver 400kW DC. GM's Bolt has an 80kW charging circuit. When EVs have become a significant, common option as such, they'll come with bigger circuits--the 2021 Bolt might have a 160kW circuit, for example. A 160kW circuit adds 180 miles to the Bolt in half an hour; the ChargePoint Express generally supplies 187kW when all stations are in use, but the two-station-per-PSU gives 312kW simultaneous, with up to 400kW on one station. That's available today, even though cars that can accept 2.5 hours of all-electric driving range in half an hour aren't exactly common.
This is cheap shit, man. It's inexpensive; it's just not important right now. Gas station should be shitting their pants.
Now, it is interesting that you mention about the Superchargers being so far from your house. These are NOT meant for daily charging.
They're not on any logical path or in any logical location. Using these things to make a long trip would involve adding tons of miles to the trip; and the trip to and from destination may cut ~50-70 miles off your range so you can get back to
Because casting a vote is "taking action". The GP is claiming that paying a campaign which speaks loudly and tells people about Prop8 in the hopes that people against Prop8 will vote it down is "taking action" and thus wrong. By extension, we can also claim that Eich himself mentioning that Proposition 8 existed to anyone who might vote against it would have also been a physical action which would deprive others of rights, which the GP would thus consider a reason to blackball Eich from employment. By further extension, we can also claim that actually voting either on a proposition or for a candidate who would implement or block rules such as might be on a proposition would be "taking action" and thus wrong.
Speech, voting, and peaceful protest (which is what campaigning is: speaking loudly to the public in protest of a condition so as to induce the public to put their weight behind the development of policy) are all proposed dangerous things for which you should be punished by society taking action to reduce your liberty, for example by limiting your employment opportunities.
South Korea finds Oracle funneled revenues to Ireland, but those revenues actually should have gone to the United States HQ. South Korea thus decides Oracle owes SK taxes.
... if those revenues were not taxed because they were booked as taken in Ireland, and they're actually taken in the United States, doesn't that mean Oracle owes the United States money and owes South Korea nothing?
Some people apparently have a belief that they should be allowed to engage in consensual sexual relationships with 14-year-olds--that was the old law, anyway. If they didn't, then we wouldn't need a new law restricting their freedom to act--which is basically what a human right is: you're allowed to take actions freely. We don't have a list of the 5 things you're allowed to do, and then name off the rest as legal privileges your masters granted you out of benevolence; some crazy people 200 years ago tried to define human rights as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and that whole "Liberty" thing essentially means the freedom to do things unless society has decided those things are illegal.
In other words: "Liberty" is a human right, and a funny thing, because it's essentially defined as the right to do whatever you want, except for what we decide you shouldn't do.
As for children being harmed by the age of consent, I don't know. That's actually a tough question. We consider it "harm to children" if we instill a different moral standard upon them than our own--that is, if a 16-year-old is exposed to pornography, we claim they're learning to violate the moral standards set by God and Jesus and be more-promiscuous, and that slutty women are evil and against Christ and thus are harmed.
The nature of an "age of consent" is that we're essentially saying it's okay for someone at that age to be sexually active, and so we won't accuse you of harming them by being sexually active with them; it doesn't change the definition of sexual assault, so it's still possible to actually rape a non-consenting teenager. Likewise, even in jurisdictions with low ages of consent, it's explicitly a sex crime to coerce someone or to engage in any sexual behavior with someone below you in certain power structures--most notably teachers with students, meaning that it's considered statutory rape if a 22-year-old teacher sleeps with an 18-year-old student in a jurisdiction with a 16-year-old age-of-consent allowing a 45-year-old stranger to sleep with a 16-year-old.
Most likely none of that came up in session; someone raised the issue and everyone got uncomfortable. There was probably a lot of talk about becoming more "modern" and having laws matching "civilized nations around the world".
As for proposition 8, as I already stated, marriage is a welfare institution in which other people's tax dollars pay for a non-working spouse and (presumed) children. It doubles your (lower-to-middle) tax brackets so you pay half as much taxes if you have one income between two people. That means the burden of support is taken from other people. Perhaps all legal marriage is immoral.
In a more-general sense, if people can be blackballed from employment or higher employment for exercising their legal right to vote, campaign for, and support campaigns for their opinion, maybe nobody should vote anymore. Voting is dangerous. It puts the voter in danger. I guess democracy isn't a human right, though.
You're trying to assess complex topics from simplistic viewpoints and ignoring both the nuances inherent and the external collateral damage. That's what happens when you have a narrow mind and have never had to change your opinions. When you grow up, you learn to accept how much it hurts to be wrong, and to just swallow it and move on so you don't embarrass yourself.
Somebody voted to raise the age-of-consent in Canada from 14 to 16. Please explain how they haven't violated everyone's human rights by forcing their beliefs on others.
Same formula, different direction. They do that a lot. Breath of the Wild is getting a lot of commentary on how it's different and confusing, because it's still Zelda but maybe not Zelda. We were used to Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker (not sailing), Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword, and now there's... this... which isn't so different, but not so much the same.
Nintendo did that with Metroid Prime 2 and 3. Prime had elevators and areas; Prime 2 had a dark world to go with the light world, and multi-dimensional puzzles; and Prime 3 had multiple planets and landing sites (meaning basically free-select transits rather than site-to-site), as well as some cooperative scenes where you had to lead generic marines into an area and not let them get killed. When they brought out Federation Force, people freaked out for... no reason; but Federation Force is a completely-different, mission-based game more in line with the generic FPS scene than the 3D FPS-Metroid style of the Prime series. It feels less open, as-you-go exploration and more explicit, short-term missions because it is.
Nintendo is constantly innovating. Sometimes they do something people like; sometimes they do something very wrong. Most of the time, people are comfortable with smaller steps; often the bigger steps are uncomfortable; and the really big steps tend to overshoot what people eventually like, rather than just exiting the comfort zones. Part of controlling that is using the same series and structure so that deviations in gameplay style are backed by something familiar, thus anything that's not actually bad is more-easily swallowed. New ideas with new faces scare the hell out of people.
People wanted more games on the NES Mini. If Nintendo had put a VC store on the damnable thing, they'd have made a mint. Likewise if they unified their VC platform.
Too bad it ran at 60fps instead of 59.94. I'd have preferred hardware NES with a proper hardware clock and software mappers. It'd be trivial to add some boot software that comes up with a register mapping to a system controller, giving access to access a flash filesystem, configure Wifi, and make network calls.
In the best-case engineering, the hardware control could be on a separate chipset, such as ARM, which takes you right down to system requirements similar to a Pi Zero W--a $10 board with 1GHz ARM, 512MB RAM, built-in Wifi, and an SD slot. You wouldn't need an actual Pi Zero W; there'd be some specialized hardware in there instead, which would include that kind of CPU, RAM, and wifi. Sound and video would go through a hardware HDMI encoder, coming off the NES hardware itself; likewise, controller input goes to the NES-on-a-Chip, not to the main CPU.
In Classic NES mode, an MMU would give DMA between the hardware NES ROM/SRAM/PRAM and the appropriate RAM area, so the Pi could load appropriate data in memory and handle it as-needed. This MMU would need to respond to some programmable mapper calls to emulate the NES properly, and trigger an interrupt when writing to SRAM-labeled area. That allows the OS to read a ROM, load it into RAM, describe the mappers, describe the locations of appropriate pages in RAM, and reset the NES. Suddenly: Gameplay.
In Extended mode--the default boot mode--the NOAC comes up with a special mapper pointed at a set of registers. This allows communication with the host OS. On startup, the primary user interface loads by loading an Extended Mode program as an NES ROM. This program shows you the games available, lets you select them, lets you configure Wifi, lets you configure the main OS, etc. The main OS can even write picture data or otherwise on-the-fly, allowing for things like access to huge amounts of storage, complex graphics, and so forth.
Obviously, you could create an EM game that takes advantage of this, whereas a normal NES game would unmap the communications line to the OS.
Too bad they didn't go that route. It would have cost something like $20 more though, after you got through all the specialized chipsets and communications buses.
Replace "donate money" with "cast my vote for a candidate who will ban it".
Besides that, Proposition 8 was about legalizing same-sex marriage. The campaign against Proposition 8 can only do one thing: tell people there is a proposition for which they can vote to legalize or oppose legalization of gay marriage. The whole campaign relies on exciting people who aren't for gay marriage to cast their vote.
In some sense, enabling that kind of campaign is approximately the polar opposite of disenfranchising voters. Did you want to prevent those people from voting? Don't tell them gay marriage is happening. It'll ring loudly with proponents who frequent forums and read news sites targeting their demographic, and less-loudly with opponents who don't already perceive a movement to legalize or who aren't sufficiently-motivated to constantly keep tabs on that particular issue. That gets you a non-representative vote slanted in favor of proponents.
As consequence, any such campaign carries risk. If more people support the proposition than actively oppose it, you're informing them as well. People who have friends who are directly-impacted by the proposition and who have a null position will tend to follow the social behavior of voting for what's good for their friends (sympathetic voting); people who are in the null position without such friends probably won't bother voting on the proposition. Informing these people gets more votes in favor and doesn't get nearly as many votes opposed, so such a campaign makes sense only if you believe there are more people opposed.
Likewise, such campaigns are strategic in that they'll loudly campaign in areas where the demographics oppose, but pass over areas where demographics favor. They don't want to excite the people who will vote for the proposition. A large enough campaign still becomes regional news--national news in this case--and fails that particular risk control.
Welcome to politics, by the way. Your opinions only show you're a big enough asshole to want to restrain people from voting if they don't vote the way you want them to.
Eich stepped down. He stepped down because of the public outcry and because he's a pretty cool guy. Mozilla, Inc. didn't force him out as a matter of its board making a PR move; Eich left because people with no power to remove him were upset about him being where he was.
The entire argument is that a bunch of people whined to the point of having real consequences against someone who is all and all a decent person because his opinions on what should and shouldn't be legislation differed from theirs.
Some bestiality folks describe themselves as "zoosexual" or some such shit, because they're whackjobs. Granted, the universal belief was once that gays were possessed by demons or taken by psychiatric trauma from bad childhood experiences, and so we should somehow cure them; I can't say someone in the future won't disagree with my assessment that people whose sexual attraction is to animals are nutty.
Still. That does raise the question: is it wrong to deny people the legal right to marry their dog (and get tax deductions)?
That's not the issue here, though, is it?
Is it wrong to discriminate against someone for funding a lobby group to deny people the legal right to marry their dog?
Don't tell me the answer depends on whether you, personally, think one or the other is weird. Don't tell me it depends on whether most people think it's weird, either, because there was a time when sex with animals was considered more-normal than sex with other men. Without the right to act as a group and raise our voices for or against things we believe, society is not allowed to change these things. Imagine if, in the 1920s, people simply weren't allowed to suggest women were competent enough to be allowed to vote.
It's a sexual fetish. He likes to see women submit. That's the whole point: he was engaging in a form of sexual fetishism with like-minded partners.
Did you know there are black girls who like white guys to slap them around, call them racial slurs, and force them into humiliating sexual acts? They get a thrill out of the racial degradation and submission on racial inferiority. Most of the people involved are normal people outside of context, largely because actual hard-core racists can't control themselves and it quickly becomes an unsafe environment--meaning the women aren't enjoying it because you crossed the line twice and they're too busy feeling like they're in actual danger to enjoy their kink.
It weirds me out, too, but so does sex in general (and social behavior at large). I like being in control, because social situations are terrifying and confusing; but I don't like mistreating and degrading others, because I don't want to be an asshole, which is also part of having some social issues (various social anxieties--including some Cluster-A personality disorders--amount to not wanting to be a bother to anyone). I can see why people enjoy the power dynamic, because it makes sense to me to either want to be in control or to want to be led; I can't see why people enjoy mistreating others, or being mistreated.
Here's the thing: I can still grasp that these people are putting themselves there because they like it. They want to be there. People in abusive relationships are trapped there because of various psychological insecurities. People who actively seek these relationships out haven't simply accepted it, but have structured their lives to pursue some deviant form of desire. Those people have formed groups on both sides, and so they engage with each other because they get what they want and they retain the security of a mutual agreement on the form of their relationship (instead of the instability of finding a random abusive relationship and trying to survive it).
Human reasoning allows for a broad range of defense mechanisms. There are immature and pathological defense mechanisms that go right down to labeling and attacking groups, like pathological splitting (e.g. black people are the cause of all crime, men are all misogynists, anyone on welfare is a lazy societal parasite--no exceptions). There are also mature defense mechanisms like humor, tolerance, mercy, and suppression. At the height of maturity, a human can suppress strong emotional responses and examine the situation on its merits, and thus can select an appropriate response--that means, in this case, identifying the scope (sexual behaviors between informed, consenting parties) and what is outside that scope (abusive behaviors inflicted beyond the consent of involved parties or onto non-consenting parties (=victims)), which would suggest tolerance as an appropriate response.
Proposition 8 prevents some people (gays) from receiving certain tax advantages (combined tax bracket cuts your taxes in half on a single income household). To offset this, general taxes need to go up (ending with gays paying slightly less and not-gays paying slightly more), or government services need to go down (ending with everyone losing the benefit provided by those services).
Nobody seems to want to discuss if we should give you a tax break just for being part of a traditional male-female, single-income nuclear family--a tax break intended to make everyone else pitch in to pay for your spouse, with additional tax breaks coming when you have (presumed) children. Why am I paying slightly-higher taxes as charity to people who entered a tax-advantaged legal contract?
It seems reasonable to me that someone could have issues with these in any combination. Some people may believe we have a tax-advantaged system to support families for the purpose of child rearing, and believe the environmental development of a child cared for by gay parents is somehow worse than a child cared for by a heterosexual couple (this may be for objective reasons such as base-psychology-driven confusion, or for subjective reasons such as essentially encouraging the child to explore bisexuality/homosexuality through parental example under the assumption that this is "bad").
From that standpoint, they can legitimately believe Proposition 8 is harmful to society, while also not attacking people for being weird.
The Bolt is standard J1772 accepting 7.6kW AC 240V/32A charging (e.g. a ChargePoint home station) for a charge rate of 25 miles range per hour. Their J1772 connector also accepts DC charging at 80kW, with 180 miles of range added per hour. Standard charging stations will show up with demand, typically at the expense and supporting the profitability of the premises (e.g. McDonalds will pay to add DC charging stations, rather than Chevrolet paying to put DC charging stations everywhere in case you have a Bolt).
On the flip side, the Tesla can take advantage of the 80kW DC fast chargers and up to 9.6kW of AC 240V. All the J1772 popping up for the Volt, Bolt, Leaf, i3, and Zero R will also feed the Tesla. Tesla will probably see their expense for supplying power through their supercharge network dwindle as people find these stations more-convenient than locating a Tesla Supercharger.
By the by, the nearest Tesla Supercharger is 23.3 miles from my house, 39.9 miles from my job. I've found 4 in a 200-mile radius from Baltimore.
[Our model has] an average transaction price of $60,000. We think that the kind of people that will put in an order for that carthey won’t want the $35,000 version. While they technically could deliver that, we think once it’s spec’d up with the range and performance and safety capabilities that the average customer will activate, very few customers will actually walk out the door at that entry level price
So they believe customers will load the $35,000 car up with $25,000 of options, not that Tesla can't deliver the advertised $35,000 car.
Actually, gasoline refinement used to be a highly-complex process requiring larger amounts of total labor (in part due to consuming much more fuel). Diesel was always cheap and easy to refine. We developed improved gasoline refinement processes, and the price of gasoline didn't increase as fast as the price of oil and inflation--diesel followed along as prices went up, gasoline lagged behind.
Supply-and-demand isn't the basis of economics. There's enough supply of gasoline and diesel and a big enough demand market of each that the margins applied from refinement out are controlled by actual costs. That is to say: all refineries have access to the same oil suppliers; and there are enough refineries with the capacity to produce more or less gasoline or diesel that they can profit in volume by undercutting the competition until they get relatively close to costs. Neither gasoline nor diesel is scarce, so refineries don't have to scale up beyond linear capacity, thus they aren't adding real costs and driving the price up in that manner.
That was also the stable state a few decades ago, and then someone figured out a better way to make gasoline. That means one refinery could start scaling up gasoline production and undercut the entire market, using the profits to buy out its competition (it's safe to just let your competitors have the diesel market while you do this); since every refinery had both the capacity to capture more market share and the threat of being undercut by competition, they all started doing this.
Now if you double or triple the demand for gasoline or diesel overnight, the capacity just won't be there. They'll have to run in an inefficient manner to get more output by expending more fuel and bringing in more personnel while they scale up facilities, which will raise actual costs (scarcity), and thus push the price up. If production still can't physically meet demand, you have a shortage, which means speculators get in on it and start buying from suppliers and selling to the highest bidder, driving prices up by way of large profit margins. Note the complex set of conditions involved and the various states to which the market may exist.
If your vehicle tracks as straight as an arrow, you're wheels likely are properly aligned. Even so, it's a good idea to have your alignment checked annually, such as when you have your tires rotated. You certainly should have it done when you buy new tires so they don't immediately start to wear unevenly.
Wheel alignment is generally checked annually, at a minimum. The same goes for things like brakes--note my brakes only need replacement after about 7-10 years (manual transmission engine braking, or electric car regenerative braking), yet I have the brakes checked twice a year during tire rotation. Brake fluid gets a flush and full change every two years, not that you ever really need to change brake fluid in a real car--you just don't want to find out you've pushed it a tad too far.
A K&N filter is life time.
I ran a K&N filter and killed my car, kind of. What happened was I didn't annually take it out and clean it, and had lost something like 10% of my power by the end of the second year. Four years in, the car barely ran; when I took it out, it was murky and had actual bugs in it.
In general, you run a paper air filter for some 30,000-45,000 miles between replacement. With a K&N filter, you generally clean them annually, which is more-frequent service than paper filters.
This no car that requires this. It's not ever a thing.
I've had to adjust the tensioner in Mazdas and Saturns (although any Saturn car was a qualified piece of shit). The belts are rubber with fiber (cloth) radial, and can wear and stretch. Most often, the belts actually deteriorate and require replacement; you need to inspect timing, drive, and AC belts annually if you want your car to not suddenly destroy its engine head.
This kind of wear is more-pronounced on motorcycles, which use a chain in open air to transmit power. Car engines use timing chains inside the engine and bathed in oil (which last 100,000 miles without adjustment) or timing belts in open air (which last 30,000 miles, usually). Open-air chain drive leads to excessive wear on the drive sprockets if not continuously cleaned and lubricated. Belts are somewhat better because they require less maintenance; they require frequent inspection because they can wear much faster than their expected service life, and often need adjustment or early replacement.
All due to the teslas massive weight.
5,000 pounds is pretty hefty. The Volt is 3,500; the Ford F250 has a curb weight of between 5,500 and 6,700; and the F-150 weighs about what the Tesla Model S weighs. Of course the S-150 runs normal tires, rather than the low-profile tires the OP was running.
The Chevy Camero weighs up to 4,100 pounds, by the way.
Based on what? They're already taking orders at the $35,000 price, on which they're contracted to deliver. There are already EVs with better range and acceleration near the $35,000 price point. There's no reason to believe the Model 3 will cost over $35,000.
My point was that electric vehicles require less maintenance, so buying an electric vehicle is (presumably) an investment spanning decades; if your business risk appetite and tolerances are tuned such that you're willing to risk the cost of using old-style diesel to stretch for a few years to upgrade to driverless lorries without having to somehow sell off your (now severely-devalued) electric lorries at a huge loss, you might decide to wait 3-5 years to save yourself hundreds of millions of dollars with only a risk of small millions.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance is a risk-transfer system with premiums set by risk factorization. Frequently, insurance companies take in less money than they pay out, making their profits from interest and investment incomes on their cash holdings. For a while, Progressive took in 98 cents for every $1 it paid to auto insurance claims, and made roughly 8 cents per 98 cents it took in, giving them a 6% gross operating profit. Slim, but doable.
It's a great way for Uber to hide the real price and convince consumers the prices are cheaper than what they'll actually pay.
It sounds more like he's trying to implement a medium-wage raise.
Basically, you raise the wages of a subset of workers, resulting in a (slight, fractional) price increase, reduction in total buying power of products in that pipeline, and subsequent reduction in the number of jobs. The people receiving the pay raise receive a larger income at the expense of the people who lose their jobs, and all income is reduced in buying power by the marginal increase in cost of the products made by these recipients. The end result is that the recipients of a wage increase get more buying power (not quite so much as the direct proportion of their wage increase, but nearly); a few people become unemployed; and everyone else becomes slightly-poorer because their dollars don't go so far (it's like facing inflation, except only some people's income increases, and others are just faced with more-expensive good).
Typically the subset is the lowest-wage worker group (minimum-wage raise). Raising wages attached to H1-B jobs is seen mainly as an IT/Technology sector raise, which would probably draw votes from IT workers who think it's great that the poor, the rich, and middle-class workers who weren't subject to H1-B pressure and thus aren't getting their pay increased now all have to funnel more of their income to the Tech crowd and be poorer themselves.
Interesting technique. Bad for the economy, but easy enough to divert attention away, and a subset of voters will feel like they're a favored group and be inclined to support these policies.
The bolt will ONLY accept 40 KWH at a DC fast charger.
Page 232 of the Bolt EV Owner's Manual, "Driving and Operating":
When using a DC charging station supplying at least 80kW of available power, it will take approximately 30 minutes to recharge from a depleted battery to 145km (90 mi) of driving range.
BOOM, HEADSHOT!
So you either know the Bolt will accept and use 80kW DC charging input and load up 90 miles of charge in 0.5 hours or you stuck your tongue to a frozen pole in the fourth grade and it's still there .
Keep in mind that as it fills up, the fill rate will slow way down.
Actually, the lithium ion battery chemistries used in electric vehicles have a generally-flat voltage curve up to 95% of their capacity. The last 5% generally takes a long (frequently fixed) time to fill because of a dramatic increase in voltage at the end of the curve. That means charging from 10% to 30% takes almost exactly as long as charging from 70% to 90%, but charging from 95% to 100% takes a hell of a lot longer than charging from 90% to 95% when using a high-power charger.
Secondly, McD will NOT be putting in fast chargers for ANYBODY. However, Places are installing level 2s.
Not today, but maybe in the future. Duly note that a ChargePoint Express 250 costs $35,800 and supplies 50kW or 62.5kW with two connectors. 24kW DC fast chargers cost $12,500 these days, and are considered slow DC charging. The Express Plus ChargePoint platform can get up to 400kW per port, but they're obviously expensive as balls.
The places most likely to get big DC charge ports in the nearer term are rest stops along the interstate expressways. Hotels are likely to supply DC fast charging in a more-general sense sooner than your average Burger King.
So imagine 20% of all new cars are long-range electric. That's 3.2 million vehicles per year. In five years, that's 16 million vehicles, or 10% of the workforce. You're taking a trip from Pennsylvania to Ocean City MD. Where are you going to stop for lunch? Gotta be some place with a fast-charge port so you can plug in your car and suck down an extra hour and a half's worth of driving while you eat.
Well, shit, that's not McDonalds with its Level-2 charger. At 7.6kW, we're only going to get about 13 miles of range added on during the 45-minute meal. Better stop at the Wendy's across the street--it has a ChargePoint Express 250 and can dump an extra 85 miles into the tank while we eat.
Note, again, that the (expensive) ChargePoint Express Plus is highly-modular (it uses multiple stations hooked up to a separate power supply unit, so you can use more PSUs and fewer stations to get more continuous power delivery) and can deliver 400kW DC. GM's Bolt has an 80kW charging circuit. When EVs have become a significant, common option as such, they'll come with bigger circuits--the 2021 Bolt might have a 160kW circuit, for example. A 160kW circuit adds 180 miles to the Bolt in half an hour; the ChargePoint Express generally supplies 187kW when all stations are in use, but the two-station-per-PSU gives 312kW simultaneous, with up to 400kW on one station. That's available today, even though cars that can accept 2.5 hours of all-electric driving range in half an hour aren't exactly common.
This is cheap shit, man. It's inexpensive; it's just not important right now. Gas station should be shitting their pants.
Now, it is interesting that you mention about the Superchargers being so far from your house. These are NOT meant for daily charging.
They're not on any logical path or in any logical location. Using these things to make a long trip would involve adding tons of miles to the trip; and the trip to and from destination may cut ~50-70 miles off your range so you can get back to
Because casting a vote is "taking action". The GP is claiming that paying a campaign which speaks loudly and tells people about Prop8 in the hopes that people against Prop8 will vote it down is "taking action" and thus wrong. By extension, we can also claim that Eich himself mentioning that Proposition 8 existed to anyone who might vote against it would have also been a physical action which would deprive others of rights, which the GP would thus consider a reason to blackball Eich from employment. By further extension, we can also claim that actually voting either on a proposition or for a candidate who would implement or block rules such as might be on a proposition would be "taking action" and thus wrong.
Speech, voting, and peaceful protest (which is what campaigning is: speaking loudly to the public in protest of a condition so as to induce the public to put their weight behind the development of policy) are all proposed dangerous things for which you should be punished by society taking action to reduce your liberty, for example by limiting your employment opportunities.
South Korea finds Oracle funneled revenues to Ireland, but those revenues actually should have gone to the United States HQ. South Korea thus decides Oracle owes SK taxes.
Some people apparently have a belief that they should be allowed to engage in consensual sexual relationships with 14-year-olds--that was the old law, anyway. If they didn't, then we wouldn't need a new law restricting their freedom to act--which is basically what a human right is: you're allowed to take actions freely. We don't have a list of the 5 things you're allowed to do, and then name off the rest as legal privileges your masters granted you out of benevolence; some crazy people 200 years ago tried to define human rights as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and that whole "Liberty" thing essentially means the freedom to do things unless society has decided those things are illegal.
In other words: "Liberty" is a human right, and a funny thing, because it's essentially defined as the right to do whatever you want, except for what we decide you shouldn't do.
As for children being harmed by the age of consent, I don't know. That's actually a tough question. We consider it "harm to children" if we instill a different moral standard upon them than our own--that is, if a 16-year-old is exposed to pornography, we claim they're learning to violate the moral standards set by God and Jesus and be more-promiscuous, and that slutty women are evil and against Christ and thus are harmed.
The nature of an "age of consent" is that we're essentially saying it's okay for someone at that age to be sexually active, and so we won't accuse you of harming them by being sexually active with them; it doesn't change the definition of sexual assault, so it's still possible to actually rape a non-consenting teenager. Likewise, even in jurisdictions with low ages of consent, it's explicitly a sex crime to coerce someone or to engage in any sexual behavior with someone below you in certain power structures--most notably teachers with students, meaning that it's considered statutory rape if a 22-year-old teacher sleeps with an 18-year-old student in a jurisdiction with a 16-year-old age-of-consent allowing a 45-year-old stranger to sleep with a 16-year-old.
Most likely none of that came up in session; someone raised the issue and everyone got uncomfortable. There was probably a lot of talk about becoming more "modern" and having laws matching "civilized nations around the world".
As for proposition 8, as I already stated, marriage is a welfare institution in which other people's tax dollars pay for a non-working spouse and (presumed) children. It doubles your (lower-to-middle) tax brackets so you pay half as much taxes if you have one income between two people. That means the burden of support is taken from other people. Perhaps all legal marriage is immoral.
In a more-general sense, if people can be blackballed from employment or higher employment for exercising their legal right to vote, campaign for, and support campaigns for their opinion, maybe nobody should vote anymore. Voting is dangerous. It puts the voter in danger. I guess democracy isn't a human right, though.
You're trying to assess complex topics from simplistic viewpoints and ignoring both the nuances inherent and the external collateral damage. That's what happens when you have a narrow mind and have never had to change your opinions. When you grow up, you learn to accept how much it hurts to be wrong, and to just swallow it and move on so you don't embarrass yourself.
Somebody voted to raise the age-of-consent in Canada from 14 to 16. Please explain how they haven't violated everyone's human rights by forcing their beliefs on others.
Same formula, different direction. They do that a lot. Breath of the Wild is getting a lot of commentary on how it's different and confusing, because it's still Zelda but maybe not Zelda. We were used to Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker (not sailing), Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword, and now there's ... this ... which isn't so different, but not so much the same.
Nintendo did that with Metroid Prime 2 and 3. Prime had elevators and areas; Prime 2 had a dark world to go with the light world, and multi-dimensional puzzles; and Prime 3 had multiple planets and landing sites (meaning basically free-select transits rather than site-to-site), as well as some cooperative scenes where you had to lead generic marines into an area and not let them get killed. When they brought out Federation Force, people freaked out for... no reason; but Federation Force is a completely-different, mission-based game more in line with the generic FPS scene than the 3D FPS-Metroid style of the Prime series. It feels less open, as-you-go exploration and more explicit, short-term missions because it is.
Nintendo is constantly innovating. Sometimes they do something people like; sometimes they do something very wrong. Most of the time, people are comfortable with smaller steps; often the bigger steps are uncomfortable; and the really big steps tend to overshoot what people eventually like, rather than just exiting the comfort zones. Part of controlling that is using the same series and structure so that deviations in gameplay style are backed by something familiar, thus anything that's not actually bad is more-easily swallowed. New ideas with new faces scare the hell out of people.
People wanted more games on the NES Mini. If Nintendo had put a VC store on the damnable thing, they'd have made a mint. Likewise if they unified their VC platform.
Too bad it ran at 60fps instead of 59.94. I'd have preferred hardware NES with a proper hardware clock and software mappers. It'd be trivial to add some boot software that comes up with a register mapping to a system controller, giving access to access a flash filesystem, configure Wifi, and make network calls.
In the best-case engineering, the hardware control could be on a separate chipset, such as ARM, which takes you right down to system requirements similar to a Pi Zero W--a $10 board with 1GHz ARM, 512MB RAM, built-in Wifi, and an SD slot. You wouldn't need an actual Pi Zero W; there'd be some specialized hardware in there instead, which would include that kind of CPU, RAM, and wifi. Sound and video would go through a hardware HDMI encoder, coming off the NES hardware itself; likewise, controller input goes to the NES-on-a-Chip, not to the main CPU.
In Classic NES mode, an MMU would give DMA between the hardware NES ROM/SRAM/PRAM and the appropriate RAM area, so the Pi could load appropriate data in memory and handle it as-needed. This MMU would need to respond to some programmable mapper calls to emulate the NES properly, and trigger an interrupt when writing to SRAM-labeled area. That allows the OS to read a ROM, load it into RAM, describe the mappers, describe the locations of appropriate pages in RAM, and reset the NES. Suddenly: Gameplay.
In Extended mode--the default boot mode--the NOAC comes up with a special mapper pointed at a set of registers. This allows communication with the host OS. On startup, the primary user interface loads by loading an Extended Mode program as an NES ROM. This program shows you the games available, lets you select them, lets you configure Wifi, lets you configure the main OS, etc. The main OS can even write picture data or otherwise on-the-fly, allowing for things like access to huge amounts of storage, complex graphics, and so forth.
Obviously, you could create an EM game that takes advantage of this, whereas a normal NES game would unmap the communications line to the OS.
Too bad they didn't go that route. It would have cost something like $20 more though, after you got through all the specialized chipsets and communications buses.
Replace "donate money" with "cast my vote for a candidate who will ban it".
Besides that, Proposition 8 was about legalizing same-sex marriage. The campaign against Proposition 8 can only do one thing: tell people there is a proposition for which they can vote to legalize or oppose legalization of gay marriage. The whole campaign relies on exciting people who aren't for gay marriage to cast their vote.
In some sense, enabling that kind of campaign is approximately the polar opposite of disenfranchising voters. Did you want to prevent those people from voting? Don't tell them gay marriage is happening. It'll ring loudly with proponents who frequent forums and read news sites targeting their demographic, and less-loudly with opponents who don't already perceive a movement to legalize or who aren't sufficiently-motivated to constantly keep tabs on that particular issue. That gets you a non-representative vote slanted in favor of proponents.
As consequence, any such campaign carries risk. If more people support the proposition than actively oppose it, you're informing them as well. People who have friends who are directly-impacted by the proposition and who have a null position will tend to follow the social behavior of voting for what's good for their friends (sympathetic voting); people who are in the null position without such friends probably won't bother voting on the proposition. Informing these people gets more votes in favor and doesn't get nearly as many votes opposed, so such a campaign makes sense only if you believe there are more people opposed.
Likewise, such campaigns are strategic in that they'll loudly campaign in areas where the demographics oppose, but pass over areas where demographics favor. They don't want to excite the people who will vote for the proposition. A large enough campaign still becomes regional news--national news in this case--and fails that particular risk control.
Welcome to politics, by the way. Your opinions only show you're a big enough asshole to want to restrain people from voting if they don't vote the way you want them to.
Eich could have spoken loudly against homosexuals, drawing his own campaign by his own voice. Is that action or thought?
Eich stepped down. He stepped down because of the public outcry and because he's a pretty cool guy. Mozilla, Inc. didn't force him out as a matter of its board making a PR move; Eich left because people with no power to remove him were upset about him being where he was.
The entire argument is that a bunch of people whined to the point of having real consequences against someone who is all and all a decent person because his opinions on what should and shouldn't be legislation differed from theirs.
Some bestiality folks describe themselves as "zoosexual" or some such shit, because they're whackjobs. Granted, the universal belief was once that gays were possessed by demons or taken by psychiatric trauma from bad childhood experiences, and so we should somehow cure them; I can't say someone in the future won't disagree with my assessment that people whose sexual attraction is to animals are nutty.
Still. That does raise the question: is it wrong to deny people the legal right to marry their dog (and get tax deductions)?
That's not the issue here, though, is it?
Is it wrong to discriminate against someone for funding a lobby group to deny people the legal right to marry their dog?
Don't tell me the answer depends on whether you, personally, think one or the other is weird. Don't tell me it depends on whether most people think it's weird, either, because there was a time when sex with animals was considered more-normal than sex with other men. Without the right to act as a group and raise our voices for or against things we believe, society is not allowed to change these things. Imagine if, in the 1920s, people simply weren't allowed to suggest women were competent enough to be allowed to vote.
It's a sexual fetish. He likes to see women submit. That's the whole point: he was engaging in a form of sexual fetishism with like-minded partners.
Did you know there are black girls who like white guys to slap them around, call them racial slurs, and force them into humiliating sexual acts? They get a thrill out of the racial degradation and submission on racial inferiority. Most of the people involved are normal people outside of context, largely because actual hard-core racists can't control themselves and it quickly becomes an unsafe environment--meaning the women aren't enjoying it because you crossed the line twice and they're too busy feeling like they're in actual danger to enjoy their kink.
It weirds me out, too, but so does sex in general (and social behavior at large). I like being in control, because social situations are terrifying and confusing; but I don't like mistreating and degrading others, because I don't want to be an asshole, which is also part of having some social issues (various social anxieties--including some Cluster-A personality disorders--amount to not wanting to be a bother to anyone). I can see why people enjoy the power dynamic, because it makes sense to me to either want to be in control or to want to be led; I can't see why people enjoy mistreating others, or being mistreated.
Here's the thing: I can still grasp that these people are putting themselves there because they like it. They want to be there. People in abusive relationships are trapped there because of various psychological insecurities. People who actively seek these relationships out haven't simply accepted it, but have structured their lives to pursue some deviant form of desire. Those people have formed groups on both sides, and so they engage with each other because they get what they want and they retain the security of a mutual agreement on the form of their relationship (instead of the instability of finding a random abusive relationship and trying to survive it).
Human reasoning allows for a broad range of defense mechanisms. There are immature and pathological defense mechanisms that go right down to labeling and attacking groups, like pathological splitting (e.g. black people are the cause of all crime, men are all misogynists, anyone on welfare is a lazy societal parasite--no exceptions). There are also mature defense mechanisms like humor, tolerance, mercy, and suppression. At the height of maturity, a human can suppress strong emotional responses and examine the situation on its merits, and thus can select an appropriate response--that means, in this case, identifying the scope (sexual behaviors between informed, consenting parties) and what is outside that scope (abusive behaviors inflicted beyond the consent of involved parties or onto non-consenting parties (=victims)), which would suggest tolerance as an appropriate response.
So grow the fuck up.
He got pounded pretty hard for wanting to bang his daughter.
Proposition 8 prevents some people (gays) from receiving certain tax advantages (combined tax bracket cuts your taxes in half on a single income household). To offset this, general taxes need to go up (ending with gays paying slightly less and not-gays paying slightly more), or government services need to go down (ending with everyone losing the benefit provided by those services).
Nobody seems to want to discuss if we should give you a tax break just for being part of a traditional male-female, single-income nuclear family--a tax break intended to make everyone else pitch in to pay for your spouse, with additional tax breaks coming when you have (presumed) children. Why am I paying slightly-higher taxes as charity to people who entered a tax-advantaged legal contract?
It seems reasonable to me that someone could have issues with these in any combination. Some people may believe we have a tax-advantaged system to support families for the purpose of child rearing, and believe the environmental development of a child cared for by gay parents is somehow worse than a child cared for by a heterosexual couple (this may be for objective reasons such as base-psychology-driven confusion, or for subjective reasons such as essentially encouraging the child to explore bisexuality/homosexuality through parental example under the assumption that this is "bad").
From that standpoint, they can legitimately believe Proposition 8 is harmful to society, while also not attacking people for being weird.
The Bolt is standard J1772 accepting 7.6kW AC 240V/32A charging (e.g. a ChargePoint home station) for a charge rate of 25 miles range per hour. Their J1772 connector also accepts DC charging at 80kW, with 180 miles of range added per hour. Standard charging stations will show up with demand, typically at the expense and supporting the profitability of the premises (e.g. McDonalds will pay to add DC charging stations, rather than Chevrolet paying to put DC charging stations everywhere in case you have a Bolt).
On the flip side, the Tesla can take advantage of the 80kW DC fast chargers and up to 9.6kW of AC 240V. All the J1772 popping up for the Volt, Bolt, Leaf, i3, and Zero R will also feed the Tesla. Tesla will probably see their expense for supplying power through their supercharge network dwindle as people find these stations more-convenient than locating a Tesla Supercharger.
By the by, the nearest Tesla Supercharger is 23.3 miles from my house, 39.9 miles from my job. I've found 4 in a 200-mile radius from Baltimore.
My license lets me drive any combination of vehicle and trailer with up to 12,000kg GVW. Once you break 12,000kg, you're in Class B.
[Our model has] an average transaction price of $60,000. We think that the kind of people that will put in an order for that carthey won’t want the $35,000 version. While they technically could deliver that, we think once it’s spec’d up with the range and performance and safety capabilities that the average customer will activate, very few customers will actually walk out the door at that entry level price
So they believe customers will load the $35,000 car up with $25,000 of options, not that Tesla can't deliver the advertised $35,000 car.
Actually, gasoline refinement used to be a highly-complex process requiring larger amounts of total labor (in part due to consuming much more fuel). Diesel was always cheap and easy to refine. We developed improved gasoline refinement processes, and the price of gasoline didn't increase as fast as the price of oil and inflation--diesel followed along as prices went up, gasoline lagged behind.
Supply-and-demand isn't the basis of economics. There's enough supply of gasoline and diesel and a big enough demand market of each that the margins applied from refinement out are controlled by actual costs. That is to say: all refineries have access to the same oil suppliers; and there are enough refineries with the capacity to produce more or less gasoline or diesel that they can profit in volume by undercutting the competition until they get relatively close to costs. Neither gasoline nor diesel is scarce, so refineries don't have to scale up beyond linear capacity, thus they aren't adding real costs and driving the price up in that manner.
That was also the stable state a few decades ago, and then someone figured out a better way to make gasoline. That means one refinery could start scaling up gasoline production and undercut the entire market, using the profits to buy out its competition (it's safe to just let your competitors have the diesel market while you do this); since every refinery had both the capacity to capture more market share and the threat of being undercut by competition, they all started doing this.
Now if you double or triple the demand for gasoline or diesel overnight, the capacity just won't be there. They'll have to run in an inefficient manner to get more output by expending more fuel and bringing in more personnel while they scale up facilities, which will raise actual costs (scarcity), and thus push the price up. If production still can't physically meet demand, you have a shortage, which means speculators get in on it and start buying from suppliers and selling to the highest bidder, driving prices up by way of large profit margins. Note the complex set of conditions involved and the various states to which the market may exist.
Oh really?
If your vehicle tracks as straight as an arrow, you're wheels likely are properly aligned. Even so, it's a good idea to have your alignment checked annually, such as when you have your tires rotated. You certainly should have it done when you buy new tires so they don't immediately start to wear unevenly.
Wheel alignment is generally checked annually, at a minimum. The same goes for things like brakes--note my brakes only need replacement after about 7-10 years (manual transmission engine braking, or electric car regenerative braking), yet I have the brakes checked twice a year during tire rotation. Brake fluid gets a flush and full change every two years, not that you ever really need to change brake fluid in a real car--you just don't want to find out you've pushed it a tad too far.
A K&N filter is life time.
I ran a K&N filter and killed my car, kind of. What happened was I didn't annually take it out and clean it, and had lost something like 10% of my power by the end of the second year. Four years in, the car barely ran; when I took it out, it was murky and had actual bugs in it.
In general, you run a paper air filter for some 30,000-45,000 miles between replacement. With a K&N filter, you generally clean them annually, which is more-frequent service than paper filters.
This no car that requires this. It's not ever a thing.
I've had to adjust the tensioner in Mazdas and Saturns (although any Saturn car was a qualified piece of shit). The belts are rubber with fiber (cloth) radial, and can wear and stretch. Most often, the belts actually deteriorate and require replacement; you need to inspect timing, drive, and AC belts annually if you want your car to not suddenly destroy its engine head.
This kind of wear is more-pronounced on motorcycles, which use a chain in open air to transmit power. Car engines use timing chains inside the engine and bathed in oil (which last 100,000 miles without adjustment) or timing belts in open air (which last 30,000 miles, usually). Open-air chain drive leads to excessive wear on the drive sprockets if not continuously cleaned and lubricated. Belts are somewhat better because they require less maintenance; they require frequent inspection because they can wear much faster than their expected service life, and often need adjustment or early replacement.
All due to the teslas massive weight.
5,000 pounds is pretty hefty. The Volt is 3,500; the Ford F250 has a curb weight of between 5,500 and 6,700; and the F-150 weighs about what the Tesla Model S weighs. Of course the S-150 runs normal tires, rather than the low-profile tires the OP was running.
The Chevy Camero weighs up to 4,100 pounds, by the way.
They're delivering in July of 2017.
Based on what? They're already taking orders at the $35,000 price, on which they're contracted to deliver. There are already EVs with better range and acceleration near the $35,000 price point. There's no reason to believe the Model 3 will cost over $35,000.
My point was that electric vehicles require less maintenance, so buying an electric vehicle is (presumably) an investment spanning decades; if your business risk appetite and tolerances are tuned such that you're willing to risk the cost of using old-style diesel to stretch for a few years to upgrade to driverless lorries without having to somehow sell off your (now severely-devalued) electric lorries at a huge loss, you might decide to wait 3-5 years to save yourself hundreds of millions of dollars with only a risk of small millions.