TSLA has delivered around 150,000 cars this year; Toyota has delivered about 12,000,000 cars this year. There's roughly a few orders of magnitude in there. Tesla has a LONG way to go before it's even 5% of Toyota, let alone larger than Toyota.
It's about 12 feet in diameter - about the same as a Boeing 717 or other small, regional jet. Figure at its widest you can get about 8 feet or usable width.
Meanwhile in the real world, Tesla consumes more EV batteries than everyone else in the world combined, with Giga alone making about half of the world's total (~20GWh/yr out of ~40GWh/yr). Tesla's US sales make everyone else's look like a rounding error.
US vehicle sales in Q3 were around 1.5 million; Tesla's 83,000 is a rounding error.
Hatecrime is defined as hatred of protected classes.
Wouldn't putting some people in protected classes actually be hate against those left out or protected classes? You're literally telling them they have less value as humans...
So, greed and jealousy instead - both of which spring from hate? Or is hate extremely narrowly defined now to be effectively politically correct thought crime?
The only people that hate Nazi speeches are Communists who act like Nazis to attack those Nazis.
They are both the same, using the same brownshirt tactics and demands to ideological purity. It's just that Nazis talked about racial purity, but Communists talk about ideological purity. Both are the same type of oppressive Fascists.
Because he's not using it for input, he's not digitizing analog signals? (ADC - Analog to Digital Converter).
Now, if you mean the mid-range DAC - Digital to Analog Converter - then that's not as big of an issue. The DACs in most phones are pretty good, it's the amplifier stage after them that sucks, typically. So an external amp is a good thing and significantly improves the audio quality.
And in pretty much all cases, the DAC and amp in a cell phone is better than Bluetooth, unless you're talking about AptX HD or LDAC. Of course, he has an iPhone right now, and it does not support AptX HD or LDAC, so you're limited to pretty poor 320 kbps Bluetooth. Or using the Lightning Audio Module (a midrange DAC/amp module from Apple). Or use a camera Lightning adapter so you can use an outboard decent DAC on your iPhone.
But then, DSD, high res WAV and FLAC, and other high-res formats are difficult if not impossible on iOS, whereas they are natively supported in Android. If you really care about audio quality in a phone, the iPhones are way down the list...
PLA: We have not been able to figure out how to make stealth aircraft. We know our currently illegal expansion into the South China Sea will result in conflict in the next few years, with aircraft we cannot see. And our enemies will be able to see everything we have. So we have to figure out a way to make them think we're on equal footing, at least in terms of seeing aircraft, so they will delay stopping our imperial march through Southeast Asia.
Look at the total cyclonic energy over a longer term, you'll see it's trending down over the last 25-26 years. Or is a trend of a few years enough to consider it now on a permanent rise?
No, the data is NOT available. In the top of that page is the massaged results. Further down the page there is link to the HadCrut Met office data - but the link (this one) is dead. You cannot down the raw data, you can only get the data after it's processed. Go check.
So Atlantic is global? We ignore all the other (and larger) oceans? Does the climate only affect the Atlantic ocean, not the globe? If so - then if I find a small, local downward temperature trend somewhere in the world we can - via your logic - agree that the temperature is actually falling, right?
We can control how we deal with the effects even if we can't control the effects. Ie, put in earthquake codes for new buildings even if you can't prevent earthquakes.
Fully agree! You can work to mitigate the damage from the event. But if prevailing wisdom was that sacrificing virgins would stop earthquakes, yet we don't know what really causes earthquakes, should be up our sacrifice rate?
But we know that human activity is indeed contributing to the climate, no one with a brain should be denying that, the disagreement should only be over how much we are affecting it. Which means that limiting greenhouse gases is a good idea even if it is only a small contributor to the overall warming.
Yes, how much. Is 2% more going to be catastrophic? Do we know that more CO2 will actually increase the temperature? Because that is what the models assume but the models don't track reality, probably because the IPCC and the models don't have a clue about how to accurately model the effects of clouds. Maybe CO2 doesn't drive the temperature change we're seeing, meaning focusing on it is wasted effort. That would also explain why we see the same temperature changes in the late 1800s and late 1900s, even though the rate of change and magnitude of CO2 in the atmosphere was radically different.
The data is not available - only the massaged results are available. The raw data would probably show a different result, much like the raw GISS data shows a different result after it's heavily massaged.
So in 1999, less than 20 years ago, we had the 1930s warmer than today. Then in 2012, the data was edited to reverse that position. It was purely statistical manipulation that caused the change. The data is still the data, but the way it's massaged was changed. There is no justification for that - flat out. It's falsifying the past. But that's OK, you can be be happy, the old days of 30 grams of chocolate are gone as we've now seen Big Brother increase our allotments to 25 grams!
We know, conclusively, that GISS data is heavily manipulated to show a slight decrease become a major increase and also the historical, published record is revised to completely change the narrative. How about HADCRUT? And Dr. Spencer conclusion is pretty definitive - everything starting at zero in 1979 (when the satellite and radiosonde data record begins) and the models do NOT agree with reality. So why believe the models?
The Dr. himself. NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal winner, and "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." Or the word of #random guy on/. - I'll take the Good Doctor versus your slander.
PS: you prove my case; you don't like his conclusions, so you slander the man, and ignore his NASA data (not models - DATA) which shows that the IPCC models do not agree with reality. And then you choose the models over reality.
Does that include facts that are changed to push a narrative? Because not only is data edited to show a downward trend becoming a positive trend, historical data (we're talking just 20-30 year old data) is edited to completely rewrite history. I guess you can have your own facts if the real ones don't match your models...
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary was co-President with BIll, they used to talk about a two-for-one deal if he was elected!
TSLA has delivered around 150,000 cars this year; Toyota has delivered about 12,000,000 cars this year. There's roughly a few orders of magnitude in there. Tesla has a LONG way to go before it's even 5% of Toyota, let alone larger than Toyota.
It's about 12 feet in diameter - about the same as a Boeing 717 or other small, regional jet. Figure at its widest you can get about 8 feet or usable width.
Electric boring machines were in service in 2010, 6 years before The Boring Company was founded. This is nothing new.
Columbus, OH was using electric boring machines in 2010. Electric power for underground operations is hardly a new concept...
Meanwhile in the real world, Tesla consumes more EV batteries than everyone else in the world combined, with Giga alone making about half of the world's total (~20GWh/yr out of ~40GWh/yr). Tesla's US sales make everyone else's look like a rounding error.
US vehicle sales in Q3 were around 1.5 million; Tesla's 83,000 is a rounding error.
Hatecrime is defined as hatred of protected classes.
Wouldn't putting some people in protected classes actually be hate against those left out or protected classes? You're literally telling them they have less value as humans...
So, greed and jealousy instead - both of which spring from hate? Or is hate extremely narrowly defined now to be effectively politically correct thought crime?
The only people that hate Nazi speeches are Communists who act like Nazis to attack those Nazis.
They are both the same, using the same brownshirt tactics and demands to ideological purity. It's just that Nazis talked about racial purity, but Communists talk about ideological purity. Both are the same type of oppressive Fascists.
What crime is not based in hate?
Because he's not using it for input, he's not digitizing analog signals? (ADC - Analog to Digital Converter).
Now, if you mean the mid-range DAC - Digital to Analog Converter - then that's not as big of an issue. The DACs in most phones are pretty good, it's the amplifier stage after them that sucks, typically. So an external amp is a good thing and significantly improves the audio quality.
And in pretty much all cases, the DAC and amp in a cell phone is better than Bluetooth, unless you're talking about AptX HD or LDAC. Of course, he has an iPhone right now, and it does not support AptX HD or LDAC, so you're limited to pretty poor 320 kbps Bluetooth. Or using the Lightning Audio Module (a midrange DAC/amp module from Apple). Or use a camera Lightning adapter so you can use an outboard decent DAC on your iPhone.
But then, DSD, high res WAV and FLAC, and other high-res formats are difficult if not impossible on iOS, whereas they are natively supported in Android. If you really care about audio quality in a phone, the iPhones are way down the list...
So the data says it's either flat or downward, but somehow that supports the conclusion that it will be higher. See the problem here?
PLA: We have not been able to figure out how to make stealth aircraft. We know our currently illegal expansion into the South China Sea will result in conflict in the next few years, with aircraft we cannot see. And our enemies will be able to see everything we have. So we have to figure out a way to make them think we're on equal footing, at least in terms of seeing aircraft, so they will delay stopping our imperial march through Southeast Asia.
Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Freeman Dyson? Those scientists? Or only the ones who believe their models over empirical data?
Look at the total cyclonic energy over a longer term, you'll see it's trending down over the last 25-26 years. Or is a trend of a few years enough to consider it now on a permanent rise?
No, the data is NOT available. In the top of that page is the massaged results. Further down the page there is link to the HadCrut Met office data - but the link (this one) is dead. You cannot down the raw data, you can only get the data after it's processed. Go check.
So Atlantic is global? We ignore all the other (and larger) oceans? Does the climate only affect the Atlantic ocean, not the globe? If so - then if I find a small, local downward temperature trend somewhere in the world we can - via your logic - agree that the temperature is actually falling, right?
Not to mention it's claimed this impact started an ice age, and 12,000 years ago we were coming out of an ice age - and have been doing so since.
We can control how we deal with the effects even if we can't control the effects. Ie, put in earthquake codes for new buildings even if you can't prevent earthquakes.
Fully agree! You can work to mitigate the damage from the event. But if prevailing wisdom was that sacrificing virgins would stop earthquakes, yet we don't know what really causes earthquakes, should be up our sacrifice rate?
But we know that human activity is indeed contributing to the climate, no one with a brain should be denying that, the disagreement should only be over how much we are affecting it. Which means that limiting greenhouse gases is a good idea even if it is only a small contributor to the overall warming.
Yes, how much. Is 2% more going to be catastrophic? Do we know that more CO2 will actually increase the temperature? Because that is what the models assume but the models don't track reality, probably because the IPCC and the models don't have a clue about how to accurately model the effects of clouds. Maybe CO2 doesn't drive the temperature change we're seeing, meaning focusing on it is wasted effort. That would also explain why we see the same temperature changes in the late 1800s and late 1900s, even though the rate of change and magnitude of CO2 in the atmosphere was radically different.
The data is not available - only the massaged results are available. The raw data would probably show a different result, much like the raw GISS data shows a different result after it's heavily massaged.
So in 1999, less than 20 years ago, we had the 1930s warmer than today. Then in 2012, the data was edited to reverse that position. It was purely statistical manipulation that caused the change. The data is still the data, but the way it's massaged was changed. There is no justification for that - flat out. It's falsifying the past. But that's OK, you can be be happy, the old days of 30 grams of chocolate are gone as we've now seen Big Brother increase our allotments to 25 grams!
We know, conclusively, that GISS data is heavily manipulated to show a slight decrease become a major increase and also the historical, published record is revised to completely change the narrative. How about HADCRUT? And Dr. Spencer conclusion is pretty definitive - everything starting at zero in 1979 (when the satellite and radiosonde data record begins) and the models do NOT agree with reality. So why believe the models?
The Dr. himself. NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal winner, and "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." Or the word of #random guy on /. - I'll take the Good Doctor versus your slander.
PS: you prove my case; you don't like his conclusions, so you slander the man, and ignore his NASA data (not models - DATA) which shows that the IPCC models do not agree with reality. And then you choose the models over reality.
Yet strength of storms ( and overall rainfall ) are seen to have increased double fold and more in just the last 20 years.
Citation needed.
Does that include facts that are changed to push a narrative? Because not only is data edited to show a downward trend becoming a positive trend, historical data (we're talking just 20-30 year old data) is edited to completely rewrite history. I guess you can have your own facts if the real ones don't match your models...