There are some good reasons others have stated as to why the comparison was not truly meaningful. Engineering Explained made a video on the physics here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .

Fact is, two things matter in a tug-of-war: traction and stall torque. Tesla pulled a 2WD vehicle with no weight in the back using a 4WD vehicle. And given all the batteries and copper and steel the electric motors are made out of, the Tesla truck is probably ridiculously heavy (and since it takes more work to move more weight, it's less efficient). Of course it was going to win, but because of physics, not because of any special or desirable physical property of the Tesla truck.

Something else that always gets me though is the claim that "oh yeah, electric motors produce TONS of low-end torque! Gas(or Diesel, whatever) engines produce 0!"........ Yeah? Yeah. You need a transmission. But we have those. There are also these nifty things called torque converters, so coupled with selectable gear reduction and a torque multiplier fluid coupling, I really question whether the stall torque at the wheels on an electric vehicle is higher than a comparable gas or diesel pickup truck... Could be, but I've never heard of anyone testing it, so I assume everyone's just talking out their butt because they heard someone say it on the internet and now they're an expert in engineering...

End of the day, internal combustion engines still have a higher energy density, which means your range for a given amount of weight is likely going to be better (You can get absurd range on a pickup truck by adding a second tank, which people do, and it still surely weighs less than the batteries in a Tesla truck). And you can refuel in a short period of time...

Actually, during the day I set the thermostat to 74F, and at night down to 72F... Though for my bedroom, I just installed a minisplit so I can make it even colder, somehow became a hot sleeper in recent years. Friends that I know usually run the A/C at warmer temperatures than I do rather than colder. I think 70F as you mentioned is pretty uncommon here.

Anything can break down unexpectedly. For an older car, it's an issue of how well you maintain it(Aside from the regular stuff, pay attention to things like unusual noises or feelings while you're driving it and track them down. Then they won't strand you if you catch it before the point of failure). For instance, my dad's old 84 dodge only ever let me down once, and because of a modification we made to the vehicle to try something. One of the fusable links blew, not the vehicle's fault. Aside from that, it was never less reliable than a brand spanking new 2015 truck. Also consider the simpler a system is, the fewer things there are that can go wrong. Cars become more complex with each passing year with new technology and failure points to consider. For instance, I used to work at an automotive parts manufacturer for electronic power steering gears. The gears have a 3-phase electric motor, a belt, ball screw, and a complicated electronic control unit which also depends on communication with other vehicular modules in order to work. Think of all the resistors, inductors, capacitors, DSPs, EEPROMs, MOSFETS and crap that's built into that thing. That's a lot of points of failure vs a hydraulic system, or if you really want to go back in time, a full manual steering gear.

What if I type using the tab key, but VIM inserts spaces for me instead?

OK, so if I want to decrease my C++ vulnerability per MB of code metric, all I need to do is, depending on your definition of code, write a C++ program to produce large statically allocated arrays of garbage, or write a c++ program that... OH YES... FUNROLL LOOPS ON NOP INSTRUCTION..... I'm sure gcc will comply if I make that the only optimization, right?! Just increase the loop iterations to increase security! GENIUS!

This reasoning also extends, IMO, to new programming languages as well. A lot of my friends hop on the bandwagon every time something like C#, or Scala, or Node(Ok, it's not technically a language is it?), or Go pops out.. "OMG a new language, so much better than C++, so much more productive I'll be!".. I don't honestly believe in most cases that the language is what's going to make you productive, but your ability to think and just do the work. And obviously C++ has some things that are pretty WTF-y but usually when I watch Scott Meyers' videos on it, they tend have a reason for why it is the way it is.

I had 8GB in my desktop and was occasionally running out of memory due to either Chrome or Firefox(I didn't have swap activated). I upgraded to 16GB to alleviate this problem, which it didn't. I run out of memory just as frequently thanks to shitty browsers. Aside from that, yeah 16GB would be plenty for me. I just recently activated 2GB of swap to give me a little bit of time to kill Chrome myself before OOMkiller took over and froze my machine for an indefinite amount of time.

Wait! Moving a head and just slightly bumping the car ahead would lower the acceleration (and thus whiplash) posed by the rear ending by effectively increasing the mass of the driverless car! A brilliant idea? F=MA? ;)

One might be puzzled by my response, but I say no because technically anything can be fixed, the only question is how.

I've been struggling with this issue lately myself as my own laptop (which is not underpowered by any means) has been experiencing incredibly slow login times for the Windows 7 install I have on my HDD. I also have an install on my SDD, but aside from bootup the performance difference is negligible for me(I also use it a lot less so it doesn't have all my software installed). The hard drive in this case is a 2TB Samsung Spinpoint M9T at 5400 RPM. Slower RPM, but it's a super dense 2.5" laptop drive.

I've made some progress in speeding it up, especially the login time which was atrocious... Removed an update that caused some Windows crap to be re-verified or something all the time, removed several things from startup and switched non-essential services to automatic. Eventually I did get the logon process to not be too bad and Windows would become responsive after maybe 40 seconds instead of 5-10 minutes. It's still not as fast as I'd like, but it's much improved.

But the problem with this is that I'm shooting in the dark and have to rely on trying pretty much every suggestion on the web there is. And here is the difference between my Windows installs and my Linux installs. GNU/Linux is open source, virtually everything you use in it is. The system is also designed to be tinkered with and the bootup processes are all opened up for any level of configuration that you desire. You can screw with your init system, the kernel itself, your bootloader, anything... So with the sources to all these pieces, I think figuring out what's wrong is relatively easy.

Come Windows, everything is closed source. The problem can be fixed, but you're stuck with decompiling and trying to debug perhaps even the kernel itself if you want to solve any problems. How are you going to profile bootup or login times? Can you easily find a sink for disk or CPU usage in certain functions in the Windows source code? Probably not. It's really challenging to figure out what's going wrong in this case. The best I can hope for is to look to people who have gotten a lucky guess or someone who is so absolutely hardcore that they've debugged a closed source operating system.

Just my 2 cents.

While I agree with another comment that I think this is more likely to hinder the industry, there is a simple answer to your question.

The FAA and FCC are regulatory groups. They're just bureaucracies that pretend to know enough about a subject to set sensible rules for it (and often I question whether that is actually true).

NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They've always been involved in actually researching new aerospace related technologies, that's what they're supposed to do. The FAA and FCC are not research/design organizations.

There was a discussion on a particular image site the other day about Bill Nye complaining that creationism is anti-intellectual. What I find ironic is that most people here, and 'scientists' including Nye seem to understand what science is or how it works.

This is science: You perform experiments to confirm or deny that some theory is likely to be generally true, to come up with some level of prediction of how things will play out. It is always possible that it won't play out in a well tested way, but with every successful experiment the chance grows smaller, but never to zero. This is the key, you can't prove that things "are not" or "do not." You can observe, and show that something is, any number of times but not infinity. That, realistically to anyone who can admit the limits of their own knowledge and methodology, is science.

Instead, everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally. Or somehow the fact that some people can come up with the idea of evolution that it must therefore be true if we can argue there's some infinitesimally small chance that it is actually capable of producing the results it has. Nobody here has been standing around for billions of years to observe that.

One last thing... Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist. Except when it does in the case of evolution or the big bang, because that's the side they've chosen and it's convenient for their argument.

Found it. It was a show called "Dark Matters: Twisted But True", the neurosurgeon's name who performed these operations was apparently Robert Joseph White.

Or something like that. There was one of those creepy "you won't believe dis shizit" shows on history channel or Discovery or one of those others a few years ago that I downloaded... It had a warning about disturbing content before each episode. In one of the episodes, it talked about a doctor several decades ago who tried head transplants on monkeys. Of course, they died a day later at the most as well, and the situation was described as being terrifying for the apes or monkeys because they'd be paralyzed and whatnot.

It's been done. The question is, is the technology we have now enough to provide a full or nearly full recovery afterwards?

How ready is Perl 6 to succeed Perl 5?

I was just trying to be facetious with that comment, but then I thought of asking "How ready is C++ to succeed C?" or other silly things. As someone who programs in C++, I see little reason to use pure C, yet people do. When using Python, I use Python 3 and see little reason to use python 2.7, yet people do. People just don't like change, and they often won't do it unless absolutely forced to. Others here have already made this point, but the whole world isn't going to switch to pure IPv6 without some incentive, to practically force them to do it, it seems.

Recap: It's not a question of how ready IPv6 is to succeed IPv4, it's a question of how ready people are to adopt IPv6, at the ISP and consumer level. Services will follow when there's a demand, as someone else also noted.

Don't worry, folks! It's not a bug, it's a feature!