As far as the battery is concerned, the vehicle may cost Tesla the same to build, but 1) building a physically smaller version might not be appreciably cheaper overall for Tesla, and 2) bigger margins in the battery might lower the rate of warranty repairs, which would definitely cost Tesla money. In any case, the bigger battery was already more cost-efficient, since it offered something like 10% of extra range for 5% of extra price or something.
It said "Jaguar" and "Mercedes", not "Hyundai", though. In any case, your speculation as to what Tesla can or can't sell profitably is pointless, unless you work for their management. And how is something "not going to happen" that has already happened?
Actually, that has nothing to do with the fact that most of the exposure is absorbed by the atmosphere, precisely because air flight takes place *above* most of the atmosphere, and thus you get exposed to a higher dose, as I already pointed out. You apparently didn't read my comment properly. Obviously if you go out of your way to avoid this radiation protection, you will get dosed by extra radiation. Big surprise, heh?
"But these exposures were greater than on typical flights at lower latitudes, and confirmed the concerns about commercial flights at high latitudes."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cosmic-rays-burst-magnetic-shield
with Jaguar and Mercedes offering luxury electric vehicles
What have *luxury* electric vehicles have to do with Tesla sales when Tesla is headed for mostly selling a consumer car? Do you think the people who want a Model 3 will buy a Jaguar instead? In what alternate reality?
This submitted article literally says the opposite, as does your second link, since airliners fly above most of the atmosphere but below most of the magnetic field, so obviously it's the atmosphere making most of the difference. As to atmospheric stripping, I suggest you easily find with google the mean molecular velocities of gases and escape velocities of individual planets and that you read up on the basics of a topic before trying to refute it.
Considering that solar wind has been correlated with so many aspects of life and health and that our magnetic shield (which has lost 15% in last century or so and is accellerating) is what protects us from these I find this hard to believe.
Atmosphere protects you, too. It's ten tonnes of mass per every square meter above your head. Hardly an insignificant shield.
Solar and wind are far far far to energy sparse (ie not energy dense) to provide enough heat to power these processes.
There's thing thing called "grids"... You may have heard of it.
If you were to try to use wind or solar you would create more CO2 moving and heating the water or air than if you just used natural gas to power the process.
A guesstimate by means of rectal extraction? You need to immediately notify the engineers that they have forgotten to consider these requirements!
Not to mention the land you would have to clear for the wind and solar plants (you can't just use solar cells, you would need a solar concentrator like Ivanpah)
Why would you do such a thing when there's enough unused land and coasts? Clearing land makes no sense.
*Any* English dictionary? MW says: discriminatory: 1) : DISCRIMINATIVE sense 1, 2) applying or favoring discrimination in treatment.
As for discriminative, it says: 1) making distinctions, 2) DISCRIMINATORY sense 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably replacing a (compact) engine is quite a bit easier than replacing a (flat, wide, long) battery that forms the entire floor of your chassis.
demand for cars has collapsed
Are we in an economic crisis already?
As far as the battery is concerned, the vehicle may cost Tesla the same to build, but 1) building a physically smaller version might not be appreciably cheaper overall for Tesla, and 2) bigger margins in the battery might lower the rate of warranty repairs, which would definitely cost Tesla money. In any case, the bigger battery was already more cost-efficient, since it offered something like 10% of extra range for 5% of extra price or something.
It said "Jaguar" and "Mercedes", not "Hyundai", though. In any case, your speculation as to what Tesla can or can't sell profitably is pointless, unless you work for their management. And how is something "not going to happen" that has already happened?
"But these exposures were greater than on typical flights at lower latitudes, and confirmed the concerns about commercial flights at high latitudes."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cosmic-rays-burst-magnetic-shield
The quote is not found in the linked page.
with Jaguar and Mercedes offering luxury electric vehicles
What have *luxury* electric vehicles have to do with Tesla sales when Tesla is headed for mostly selling a consumer car? Do you think the people who want a Model 3 will buy a Jaguar instead? In what alternate reality?
This submitted article literally says the opposite, as does your second link, since airliners fly above most of the atmosphere but below most of the magnetic field, so obviously it's the atmosphere making most of the difference. As to atmospheric stripping, I suggest you easily find with google the mean molecular velocities of gases and escape velocities of individual planets and that you read up on the basics of a topic before trying to refute it.
You get all three. Unless the implementation is bugged, of course.
Considering that solar wind has been correlated with so many aspects of life and health and that our magnetic shield (which has lost 15% in last century or so and is accellerating) is what protects us from these I find this hard to believe.
Atmosphere protects you, too. It's ten tonnes of mass per every square meter above your head. Hardly an insignificant shield.
Why would you need to quadruple those? Makes no sense.
They would not, this is what you have computers for. Fortunately there's no quirky pedestrians in the air to deal with.
Something that is legally required can't logically be denied. Otherwise there's a contradiction.
We have health care system that is the envy of most of the world.
Including many Americans?
Safer, simpler, more expressive
...something like Scheme, then?
I thought the goal posts were "crimes committed while in actual government positions".
If it's "ultra high precision", it's not 15 centimeters in diameter, and vice versa. Unless it's an X-ray telescope, of course.
it decides it wants to get high and smokes all the profits away.
And by "get high", you mean Earth's orbit, and by "smokes all the profits away", you mean orbital bombing?
Solar and wind are far far far to energy sparse (ie not energy dense) to provide enough heat to power these processes.
There's thing thing called "grids"... You may have heard of it.
If you were to try to use wind or solar you would create more CO2 moving and heating the water or air than if you just used natural gas to power the process.
A guesstimate by means of rectal extraction? You need to immediately notify the engineers that they have forgotten to consider these requirements!
Not to mention the land you would have to clear for the wind and solar plants (you can't just use solar cells, you would need a solar concentrator like Ivanpah)
Why would you do such a thing when there's enough unused land and coasts? Clearing land makes no sense.
I'll bookmark the parent comment as "destroyed by facts, don't trust in the future". Thanks, jeff474747.
Which elected Democrat official shot Reagan?!
Copper is not explosive. The whole impactor unit that was dropped was.
*Any* English dictionary? MW says: discriminatory: 1) : DISCRIMINATIVE sense 1, 2) applying or favoring discrimination in treatment. As for discriminative, it says: 1) making distinctions, 2) DISCRIMINATORY sense 2.
American companies, hahahaha... Did they finally stop building those monster trucks for normal commuters or what?
That definition seems bogus.
Because then he wouldn't make any money based on differences between buying and selling price?