431–440 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>EV cars are most likely not going to be exported to have a second life. What reason do you have to believe that?
that's what's already happening
I grew up around cars, and car builders. I've worked on quite a few very famous cars. My father built custom cars and ran "Barris Kustom" for years. I learned how to build custom cars, including race cars. I also spent years designing and building cars (vans) that quadriplegics could drive and lots of those were for guys who crashed, or got ran into by cars/motorcycle, at high speeds. Personally, I think if anyone cr…
This attitude ignores the elephant in the room: a Civic is plenty fast enough to paralyze a person. And it doesn't even need to be speeding to do so, t-boning a car going 45mph is going to really mess someone up, especially if the car they are driving is not very safe. It's easy to demonize "irresponsible" drivers, but the fact is that everyday Joes hurt and kill people with their cars all the time. My good friend's…
And this subject is not about someone doing 20mph and banging into someone because they were looking at their phone. It's about selling tech that will let you go 160mph and crash into someone.
I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…
But you should then also be able to opt out of the battery warranty.
The best EV is an electric bus with trolley lines or a tram. I hate that I have to own a monstrous depreciating asset to have reliable transportation. If you think people are buying this to drive on a track you are naive. They are paying $60/month to make their already unsafe overweight vehicle even more unsafe. I hope they go bankrupt.
tram will never come to the farm land. cars seem useful in low-density, very spread out regions.
I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easily fact-checked: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...
This isn't a related fact check. It seems like it is, but read it closely. Reuters here is not debunking the phrase was said by a WEF politician, they are debunking that is is a goal of Agenda 30. Nobody made that claim in the first place.
The article I linked provides context and paints a different picture; not sure why you consider that to be unrelated.
I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…
I agree but why does the software world get away with the same behavior? Why are we only outraged when it comes to physical goods?
Physical goods like cars 'get away with it' for things like fuel; hosting is in some sense similarly 'consumable'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's another huge failure point of more software and significantly increases cost and complexity when the aerodynamic gains from no mirrors are negligible, especially considering the absolute monstrous size and brick like shape (terrible cda) of SUVs, trucks, and 'crossovers' that are extremely popular today.
> gains from no mirrors are negligible This study says 3% - 6%. [0] The fact that inefficient vehicles exist doesn't seem like a reason to make more efficient ones even more efficient. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111001682...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that doesn't mean a subscription is the consumer-friendly way to manage those costs. If a buyer wants 500hp instead of 300hp, there should be a 1-time fee assessed at the time that feature is unlocked (traditionally at purchase because it required a whole different engine; now via app/cloud/magic because it's all software). The only reason a subscription model should be foisted on the consumer is when the v…
If you bothered to click on the article before commenting, you would know that Mercedes gives customers the option to buy it outright or pay a subscription.
Does the next owner of the car also get it? No? Then it is not "bought outright", it isn't a purchase at all.