> For instance, can a Tesla super charger charge a BMW or GM EV and vice versa?

This isn't an issue in Europe; The EU had the sense to force Tesla to use the CCS2 standard before they became entrenched with their proprietary connector and protocol. All EVs in Europe use CCS2 so you can use any charger from any brand no problem.

In North America, Tesla is opening up their network to other manufacturers and other manufacturers are gearing up to have their vehicles use the J3400 connector. Ford and Rivian owners already have access to the Tesla network via adapters. Everyone else is expected to follow in turn. In the coming years all vehicles sold in NA will have the J3400 port. The caveat is older Tesla stations that use the old protocol need to be physically replaced with compatible hardware, so it's still not 100%. Yay "free market!"

If you drive a Tesla, you can use every charger out there with an adapter.

Worth noting that this is only possible because the EU forced Tesla to use CCS2, which is identical to CCS1 except for the physical connector, so all Tesla vehicles produced after late 2020 already use the underlying GreenPHY protocol that connects vehicle to charger. Not only does this mean all vehicles are physically compatible with both networks via adapter, but it actually makes V2X possible for Teslas if they ever get off their ass and implement it.
=Smidge=

Let's set aside that FOX News - which is only one part of News Corp owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch (see my last post) - boasts viewerships roughly equal to CNN and MSNBC combined which undermines your argument quite substantially...

CNN is not left. At least, nobody left of center considers them left... they have been carrying a lot of water for the Republicans over the past decade in a cynical attempt to appear more "balanced" which actually tanked their reputation.

If you're going to include ABC, NBC and CBS then you'll need to include Newsmax, Infowars, OANN and Blaze because those all exist and they are all comparable in terms of reach and actually larger in terms of influence. Basically you're confusing number of outlets for influence of those outlets, while simultaneously ignoring just how many right and far-right outlets there are. You also ignore how virtually all right-wing media is centrally controlled by a handful of individuals (again, see my previous post), meaning they are more coordinated in their attempt to warp your perception of reality and push their agendas.

So the only issue I see here is you apparently need to lie to make your point (as right-wingers are wont to do)... which consequently means you do not have a point.
=Smidge=

> could that be because the left runs the media?

What "Left" runs the media? Rupert Murdoch owns like half the newspapers and new media companies on the planet. Sinclair Broadcasting probably owns your local TV news station(s). Go ahead and block Sinclair scripts from your web browser and see how many news sites stop working. Conservative to far-right talk shows dominate broadcast radio and podcasts in ratings.

What left-run media are you talking about? That's a real question.

=Smidge=

...the ouroboros of AI fuckwittery has finally caught its own tail. "Garbage In, Garbage Out" applied recursively.

People who use AI to write science papers will use this detection tool to refine their methods to avoid detection, which of course will require tweaks to this tool to detect the improved AI written papers. Repeat ad nauseam.

And nothing of value was created.
=Smidge=

The issue appears to be collision repair costs. This is probably in large part to Teslas use a lot of aluminum which is harder to repair, so body components are more likely to be swapped out entirely rather than be hammered back into shape.

I have to wonder if reluctance of repair shops to work with EVs thanks to all the fear mongering is also a factor, though you'd think Hertz would have enough clout to work around that.
=Smidge=

I don't want to imply causation, but there is an overwhelmingly strong correlation between "right wing" media and lies, sensationalism, and defamation. It's at the point where assuming the two are synonymous is going to be more often correct than not.

It's not too difficult to find "left wing" media that is equally untrustworthy, but for whatever reason it never gets the mainstream traction that "right wing" disinformation enjoys... and you very rarely find anyone on public message board and forums tripping over themselves to defend it.

> and keep the same narative. If it doesn't, then it is clearly misinformation

Well, when the "narrative" in question is objective reality then yes, anything that doesn't "keep the same narrative" is indeed misinformation... and when a particular source has developed a reputation for misrepresenting the facts then it's fair to be critical of it, is it not?
=Smidge=

> If you want to sell sneakers, remember that Republicans buy sneakers too. So best not to try to attach a political valence to tour product.

Hey, remember when Nike made a deal with Kaepernick for their ad campaign? Remember when Republicans lost their god damn minds and started shredding/burning their Nike branded athletic wear in protest? Nike's net worth increased like $6 billion dollars as a result. So maybe it is best to try and attach a political valance to your product. Apparently making conservatives throw fits of impotent rage is very profitable!

> Similarly, there'd probably be a lot more liberals who have a gun in the house if the NRA hadn't attached itself to the Republicans so tightly.

Oh dear sweet summer child... liberals own guns too. Lots of guns. We just don't fetishize them like conservatives do because we're not desperately trying to convince ourselves we're worthy as human beings.
=Smidge=

> Rather like the way light can appear to be either particles or waves depending on how you measure it?

No. As in we literally get different answers depending on the method used.

One method of measuring distances is to use objects in other galaxies that have a known brightness, like a specific type of star or supernova. By comparing the observed brightness to what we know it should be, we can determine how far away it is. Combine that with a phenomena called red shift (the doppler effect applied to electromagnetic waves due to the universe expanding) and we calculate the rate of expansion of the universe.

The other method is to use the cosmic microwave background. We have a detailed "map" of the early universe's structure, and we can use that to mathematically model and calculate what the structure of the universe should look like. We refine the model to make it match the universe as we actually see it. That model includes how fast the universe is expanding, so that's one of the things we indirectly measure using this method.

As of about ten years ago, these two methods gave essentially the same result. As our methods improved, however, the results started to diverge... and now it's at the point where the difference between the results as so different they can't be explained by errors in measurements alone. The harder we try to check and verify either method, the more confident we are that either method is correct, but the more divergent the results become.

This means something, somewhere, is wrong. Nobody knows what it is yet, but there's a lot of things to verify and some theories to test yet.
=Smidge=

It's actually from this 2003 article;

https://secularhumanism.org/20...

But yes, the Holocaust Museum (and other places) sell a poster with a brief summary version.
=Smidge=

> I'm merely saying that we shouldn't expect to have an understanding in the first place.

Except we DO have an understanding... we have made observations and developed a model that explains those observations with adequate predictive power to be diagnostically useful. However, the model we've been using relies on measurements that give different results depending on how they are made, and we don't (yet) know why. The crisis part comes from how the disagreement in results is getting worse as measurements get better, diverging rather than converging.

> lack of proper quantization of gravity is merely one of them

Not necessarily. I'd ask you to show your reasoning but if you were capable of that you'd be working on your Nobel Prize acceptance speech instead of posting on /.

=Smidge=

I can't tell if you "git it right" because what you said makes no sense. Would you like to rephrase?

=Smidge=

> Because crisis is long term and severe deviation from normalcy

Show me a dictionary that includes that definition...

> Proper cosmology would at least depend on quantum gravity

Quantum gravity has not yet been experimentally verified, so you can't even say it exists. "Proper cosmology" is under no obligation to consider your pet theory until you have some actual evidence to suggest it's real. (Even then, the offered explanation for the observation may be subject to debate.)

What we DO know, is we get two different answers for how fast the universe is expanding depending on how we measure it. This suggests something very fundamental in our current understanding might be wrong, hence the word "crisis". You don't just slap "quantum" on it and call it good though...
=Smidge=

Lead-acid batteries produce hydrogen during charge cycles because the charging voltage per cell is enough to break down the water in the electrolyte. This is a normal and expected part of operating these devices. These saltwater electrolyte batteries also use an aqueous electrolyte, and operate at an even higher voltage.

The paper doesn't really address this. They talk about hydrogen-evolving reactions but seemingly only in the context of adverse chemical reactions. There's only one passing acknowledgement that formation of gas bubbles reduces (or can reduce) performance.

In any case, as I'll say in any "battery breakthrough" story: It's not real until I can buy one.
=Smidge=

> In actual capitalism (as opposed to corporate fascism) you don't get to "win" by making sure your opponents lose

Yeah, you just buy them out.

Actual capitalism, as you put it, invariably and inexorably leads to monopolies. It also results in horrific abuses of labor up to and including slavery and genocide, but that's another story.

So no, we already tried actual capitalism and turns out it's shit, so we had to make all sorts of laws to mitigate the damage. Please read some history before you advocate repeating it, because if it's gonna be any different next time it will only be because it's far worse.
=Smidge=

> None of these are PHEVs.

As astute observation. But remember when you said this?

> All PHEVs and EVs have some amount of "reserve" battery capacity

That's called doing a lie, innit?

> No cars are experiencing such major capacity loss at 1 year as was claimed above.

Correct! But it's not because the battery packs are larger than advertised which is unlocked over time to compensate for lost capacity. That appears to have never been the case, actually... best I can figure, PHEVs have larger buffers because they are significantly smaller and experience deeper cycling than BEVs. The larger buffers give enough headroom to avoid high and low SoC where damage takes place. Basically the advice* for BEV owners is to keep the SoC as close to the middle as feasible, and with PHEVs they are basically enforcing that through software.

(* Offer not valid for LFP packs which apparently not only do very well with deep cycling but actually require periodic 100% charges for optimal health)
=Smidge=