Yeah, Na-ion is not for cars.

I vacation around the US in an EV all the time, and it's really not an issue. Not unless your vacation travel is of the "pee-in-a-bottle-no-stopping" sort. If you aren't hardcore about minimizing travel time, making stops for decent meals, and stops for bathroom breaks and leg stretching, you'll find that you spend little if any time waiting for the car to charge. What you do is drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for lunch (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for dinner (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for the night (and charging).

Basically, you just make sure that whenever you stop for biological needs, you do in a place you can plug in. This is quite easy to do.

You do want to pick hotels with chargers to overnight. If you don't, then you'll probably have to 30-45 minutes in the morning to charge (during breakfast?).

I've done several thousand miles of road trips with an EV in the western US, where distances are long and cities are far apart. It works fine.

You actually can't in the US, not on the interstates, anyway. Tesla has the US interstates covered, with chargers every ~75 miles. Sometimes this means there's a Supercharger out in the middle of the desert, sure. There's always a gas station/convenience store there, too. Also, you don't actually have to think about when/where you're going to charge. The car's navigation system tells you where you need to stop and for how long.

If you get off the Interstates, you can find larger distances between L3 chargers. In practice I've never found it to be a problem, though.

What EV has a transmission? They have a reducing gear, but AFAIK, that's it.

Can we get a bonus for every battery story that's total garbage?

Not only is sodium somewhere between 500 to 1,000 times more abundant than lithium on the planet we call Earth, sourcing it doesn't necessitate the same type of earth-scarring extraction.

"Earth-scarring extraction" - what sort of nonsense is this? The three main sources of lithium are salars, clays, and spodumene.

Salars = pumping up brine (aka, unusuable water) to the surface of a salt flat, letting it sun-dry, collecting the concentrate, and shipping it off for purification. When it rains, the salt turns back into brine. It's arguably one of the least damaging mineral extraction processes on planet Earth (and produces a lot of other minerals, not just lithium).

Clays = dig a hole. Take the clays out. Leach out the lithium. Rinse off the clay. Put the clay back in the hole.

Spodumene: This one actually is hard-rock mining, but as far as hard-rock mining goes, it's quite tame. It has no association with acid mine ponds and often involves very concentrated resources. Some of the rock at Greenbushes (the largest spodumene mine) for example are up to 50% spodumene. That's nearing iron / alumium ore levels.

Lithium also is only like 2-3% of the mass of a li-ion battery. And the LD50 of lithium chloride is only 6x worse than that of sodium chloride (look it up).

The hand wringing over lithium nonsense gets tiring.

rough a reliable US-based domestic supply chain free from geopolitical disruption

The US has no shortage of lithium deposits. There's enough economically-recoverable lithium in Nevada alone to convert 1/4th of all vehicles in the world to electric. The US has had (A) past underinvestment in mining, and especially (B) past underinvestment in refining - as well as (C) long lead times from project inception to full production. Sodium does not "solve" this. As if sodium refining plants are faster to permit and build?

What it does do is introduce a whole host of new problems. Beyond (A) the most famous one (lower energy density - not only is the theoretical lower, but the percentage achievable of the theoretical is *also* lower), they usually struggle with (B) cycle life (high volumetric changes during charge/discharge, and lack of a protective SEI), (C) individual cathode-specific problems (oxide = instability, air sensitivity; prussian blue = defects, hydration; polyanionic = low conductivity; carbon = low coloumbic efficiency / side reactions); and (D) the cost advantages are entirely theoretical, and are more expensive at present, and are premised on lithium being expensive and no reduction in copper in the anodes, both of which I find to be quite sketchy assumptions. When you reduce your cell voltage, you're making everything else more expensive per unit energy stored, because you need more of it.

That said, it's still interesting, and given how immature it is, there's a lot of room for improvement While sodium kind of sucks as a storage ion in many ways, it's actually kind of good in a counterintuitive way. You'd think that due to it being a larger ion diffusion speeds would be low, but due to its low solvation energy and several other factors, it actually diffuses very quickly through both the anode/cathode and electrolye. So it's naturally advantaged for high C-rates. Now, you can boost C-rates with any chemistry by going with thin layers, but this costs you energy density and cost. So rather than sodium ion's first major use case being "bulk" storage ($/kWh), I wouldn't be surprised to see it take off in *responsive* load handling for grid services ($/kW).

Also, it's tiring, this notion that you just add the mass of a battery to that of an ICE car to get the output mass. Meanwhile, a Model 3 is roughly the same weight as its performance and class equivalents on the BMW 3-Series line.

An EV is not just a battery pack.
An ICE vehicle is not just a puddle of gasoline.

You have to compare full systems masses - and not just adding in powertrain masses either. Everything has knock-on impacts in terms of what can bear what kind of loads / adds what kind of structural strength, what you need to support it, what you need to provide in terms of cooling air / fluid or other resources, how it impacts the shape of that vehicle and what that does to your energy consumption, and on and on down the line.

There's a lot of mythology around who Trump voters are. Part of it is that statistics can be confusing, especially if you're prone to jump to conclusions. Yes Trump wins the voters without a college degree, and people without college degrees tend to make less money, but we can't leap to the conculsion that Trump voters are poor. In fact, data shows Trump lost the $50k and under income group solidly in both 2016 and 2020. In 2016 he won every income group greater than $50k, although only *strongly* in the $50k -$99k group. In 2020 he solidly lost every income group betlow $100k, but but won the over $100k group by an enormous 12 point margin.

Putting it all together, Trump's core voter group are people with limited educational attainment who are economically comfortable of (good for them) well off without having a college degree. However he doesn't own any particular socioeconomic group; really elections are determined by changes in turnout in key swing states. There was strong turnout among Trump's *share* of $50-$99 ke voters in 2016; I don't think many of those voters changed their mind, but their compatriots who sat 2016 out came out to vote in 2020.

Just because the cigarette industry pictured doctors recommending smoking in its advertising didn't mean that *all* doctors, or even most thought smoking was healthy for you. This was largely in the 30s and 40s when they took advantage of a positive attitude toward science and particular medical science. They began to pull back from this after 1950 when evidence was mounting for the link between smoking and cancer, for fear of pushback from the medical community.

What does this have to do with lab grown meat?

Even without bookmarks, there's no need to keep tabs open. Just hit "Ctl-H", then enter a word related to what you want to go back to. You'll almost always find what you're looking for in your own history list within seconds.

I could never understand why anyone would keep more than half a dozen tabs open at any given time. The WWW was designed to be stateless: "Ctl-W" is your friend.

This is interesting. I've noticed that most of my parrot's senses seem duller than mine (unlike with, say, dogs) - not as picky with taste (except staleness), no meaningful signs of a significant sense of smell, has trouble seeing things that are right near him sometimes, etc - but he seems more atuned to having rapid reactions to anything unusual than I am. Like, at my old place, whenever a chunk of ice would break off the roof and crash down to the ground below, he'd be reacting before my senses even registered the event. I wonder if the "high framerate" thing is in general a "fast communication with the senses" in parrots. Certainly there's a very short distance between most of their sensory organs and the brain. And it's certainly useful for a prey animal to be able to react to sudden events (like, say, a striking snake, or a diving hawk glinting through the branches)

"I'm here live . I'm not a parrot." ;)

They're intelligent social animals. Even just a change in eye contact from me alters my Amazon's behavior. He's incredibly attuned to my posture, tone of voice, mannerisms, etc, to clue in whether he's going to e.g. be getting a treat or scolded for misbehavior or whatnot. I can't imagine that a video without that back-and-forth would stimulate him.

I don't watch TV anymore, but he used to just tune it out. Rather, he'd tune into *me*. He'd laugh at the funny parts of shows and the like, not because he understood the humour, but because he was paying attention to me, and I was laughing, so he wanted to join in. And then I'd react amusedly to his taking part, he'd get attention, and getting attention was in turn a reward to him. They like getting reactions to the things they do. A video won't do that.

And yeah, he understands what screens are - same as mirrors. Some smaller psittacines are known to strongly interact with mirrors as if they're other birds, but in my experience, the larger ones don't do that; they quickly learn it's their reflection and stop caring. As a side note, I actually tried the mirror test with my Amazon twice, but each time I got a null result. You're supposed to put an unusual mark or lightweight object on their head where they can't see it, put them in front of a mirror, and if they interact with the mirror like it's another animal, they don't recognize it's their reflection; while if they use it to try to preen the hidden mark/object, it's a sign of recognition. But my Amazon didn't give a rat's arse. I might as well have put him in front of a wall for all it mattered; he gave the mark zero attention. Didn't care about the reflection of a bird. Didn't care about the mark on his head. Just sat there waiting for me to put him back on his cage :P I couldn't get him to interact with the reflection at all. Nor does he react to birds on TV. By contrast, he'll VERY MUCH interact with a real bird (he hates them all... he's very antisocial with nonhumans).

As I said, you clearly don't have children, and therefore have no idea what you're talking about. In general I'm opposed to arguments of the form "You're not an X so you can't comment", but when it comes to raising kids, it's just the truth. No one who hasn't done it has any idea what it's really like.

Doesn't matter, because if you had children you'd know that no one is capable of being sufficiently attentive.

As a Googler... I think this comment hits the mark, far more than any of the others.