10,537 karma · joined November 19, 2011
In some ways it is, yes. The engine design is not the same, it doesn't need gearbox, variable power output etc to charge battery. In some ways it can be more efficient.
No, this design is not totally new. Despite the article implying this.
because it obviously has both a battery+electric motor system and a gasoline storage+ICE motor system? It has both systems. It can only be much more complex than a pure EV.
I take the point that EREV could be simpler than other designs that have both motor systems - the PHEV option, in the "it could always be worse" sense. But pure EVs are actually much simpler than ICE vehicles or hybrids.
Either way, the cost is that the vehicle has the complexity of both systems. The benefit is variable, YMMV (Your milage may vary). There must be cases where it's a good idea. Especially at present, while the energy supply systems are in transition.
Even if that is true, UK gambling really is not a force for good, quite the opposite. And becoming worse as it moves from a betting shop on the high street into a betting app in a persons pocket.
And in larger aircraft, multiple independent engines. See for instance ETOPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
From the pictures, I see that this new aircraft has 4 engines. So it should be adequately resilient to single engine failure.
And the crazy.
It's not true of them all, but it definitely is true of at least some of them.
I know this because I heard it said in those words in a vox pops interview shortly before the Brexit vote.
Alan Keyes apparently set the floor at 27%, which is not far below 30%
> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. ... Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement.
https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_Senate_elec...
And lizardman's Constant is 4% https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lizardman%27s_Constant
Pick any of the leader's third-rate third-tier henchmen or failsons for example of a worse option. Don't dismiss it out of hand.
People in the UK voted for Brexit because "well it can't be worse, can it?" They were suckers.
I don't disagree with the "The reality is" line.
Yes, AC is harder in old building with solid walls as is common in UK & Europe. We have a portable AC unit since March this year, and are very glad of it. It doesn't solve everything but it helped us through the worst of the heat.
All of that is nuance, and nuance is notoriously ineffective when replying to propaganda that relies on black and white thinking, volume and on changing the subject to something related, emotive but not as consequential.
Yeah but nah. I think there are at least 2 things going on
1) articles tend to hype.
2) Only a small percent of "lab breakthroughs" translate into real-world performance gains in production systems, and they do not do so immediately. But the fact of the matter is that there have been a large number of lab breakthroughs in batteries - this indicates what a key and productive area it is. A small percent of a large number is still an appreciable number.
If you think that batteries are much the same as 10 years ago, you're wrong. If you think they won't improve a lot in the next ten years, wrong again. Would you notice an "upturned market" if it happens over that timescale? - That's how real change, not hype comes.
For some value of "correct" but not others. For EV's, most of the time, the "correct" thing to do is to plug it in overnight, and let the software do the rest to optimise charging. Which might look something like:
Charging to start at midnight (or whenever the cheap rate starts) and complete by 7am (or usual wakeup time) and minimise wear by charging below a fastest rate, and take the battery level from where it is now (e.g. 50%) to the configured stopping point (e.g. 80%)
This is clearly different from "charge as fast as possible and be done in 20 minutes". Although that is occasionally the requirement. But not most of the time.
Curiously, this submission is listed as 8 hours prior, yet at the time I submitted, I first checked and could not find any other submission.
Also, the usual number of troglodytes on this topic have emerged right on cue.
- The Great Garth Marenghi
https://www.garthmarenghi.com/about/
(If you're unfamiliar, it's a comedy bit about a bad writer, somewhat the opposite of a genuine role-model)
That's not even close to an accurate number now. There are many sources e.g. (1)
It's a shame that people mostly learn the hard way, and forget easily. But that's not the support now.
1)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-approval-falls-33-low...
But you cannot hope to change everyone's minds, and so that should not be a goal. A system that depends on that won't work. Typhoid Mary is a counterexample.
Actual metals are never 100% pure any one element. There are always alloys and impurities that speak to it's origins and history.
e.g. "The significant nickel concentration and consistent occurrence of cobalt confirm the meteoritic origin of the iron blades"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S12962...
And yet, people travel with one or often more than one battery devices as a matter of utterly unremarkable routine.
This is how Typhoid Mary understood her status:
> It did not take Mary long to react to this suggestion. She seized a carving fork and advanced in my direction. ... Mallon's refusal was based on her belief that she was not infected. ... To stop her struggles, he had to sit on her chest for the journey.
And yet, locking her up over her objections her was itself a rational decision. This is the debate.
I'm not saying that this kind of intervention is appropriate today, just that her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation.
Why is it more "important to understand why she objected"? Isn't it far more important to understand that she infected? The thing is, a virus doesn't care what you believe, or your political stripe. To a pathogen, you're a mass of warm cells, nothing more. Human beliefs are irrelevant to a virus, so why centre them?
Stopping the spread of e.g. measles depends on vaccinating just about everybody, that's statistics and epidemiology. At the end, that is what determines if there will be an outbreak. Cutting people slack on that because they choose to believe nonsense is not helpful and will not work. Actions matter more than beliefs, voluntary or not.
I'm not buying it and you shouldn't be selling it.
Yes, and it's worse than that for the parent commenter, the unvaccinated population also got some cases of myocarditis - often after Covid. And they got myocarditis at a higher rate than the vaccinated.
> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in patients exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was lower than in those who were not vaccinated
There is a legitimate discussion (dating back at least to Typhoid Mary (1) ) on excluding people from public spaces when they refuse to take basic public health measures. Taking a vaccine for a spreading deadly pandemic is one of those measures.
Doing something so violently anti-social is not simply a "bodily autonomy" issue, and framing it only as such is deeply misguided in a way that seems particular to some USA norms.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
> In 1907, she was forcibly quarantined at the Riverside Hospital