> I'm the asshole.

Well I'm glad there's something we agree upon.

The fact that you can't discern a difference between a blown fuse causing a temporary loss of brake assistance and a degenerative physical defect that threatened safety isn't what makes you an asshole, however.

I have a coffee cup with a slight chip in the handle. Still holds coffee. I can still hold it as easily in my hand. but it's slightly less comfortable. So that means my coffee cup IS BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!

I bought a house 4 years ago. When I moved in I discovered that an outdoor plug wasn't working. So I called up the seller and shouted "The house you sold me is BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN!", he laughed, hung up on me, and I proceeded to reset the circuit breaker, thereby fixing my BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN BROKEN house...

Wah wah wah what a lot of crying you do...

Top Gear got caught cooking up the results, just like the NY Times author. They've made admissions, but you can't even come to accept these.

THE BRAKES WERE FUCKING WORKING PERIOD. All you attempts to lie about it notwithstanding. You wrote, and I quote: "When I push down on my brake pedal, and when my car does not then brake, my brakes are broken." In Top Gear the car braked! Can you not fucking understand such basic shit? You're the asshole who refuses to admit you LIED and got caught doing so, only coming with "semantics" arguments after the fact... Puts you in the same class as Top Gear and Jon Broder...

Of course there are standards issues, which eventually get settled. I shouldn't have to explain this on slashdot.

Subsidies? Do you know how much subsidies the ICE (manufacturers as well as petroleum) industry gets still today?!?!?!

I performed a cost analysis for the hybrid car I own. Break even was 30k miles. Well past that. Many people still say hybrids don't pay. They did for me... Cost anaylses are very subjective, and should be.

A Tesla Model S is not every man's car, but it isn't the Roadster for which I might agree on being a "rich people novelty status toy", but I don't think that moniker applies for the Model S. It competes quite well with other vehicles in its class--luxury sedans. Check out how much similar BMWs, Merceds etc. cost. Tesla (Musk) has always said he's working his way down the food chain. The Model X is to be much cheaper than the S, in turn cheaper than the Roadster.

No I haven't read all the manuals nor memorized the syntax nor wanted to become a TeX guru.

Those who want a tool that is easy to use should use a word processor.

If you read what I wrote you'll see I noted the value of continuous rendering explicitly.

Charging while you sleep does not require "quick charges expensive". I rented a Nissan Leaf for a month and they only gave me the 110v charger. I plugged it in when I got home, and it was always done by the morning.

If I had owned this vehicle, I would have punched a small hold in the garage wall opposite my 220v electric dryer, and installed my own outlet. Not exactly a massive investment there. And plenty of people have already decided that EVs are in fact worth the cost *today* (capital cost in money, but also time of recharging cost). Near future situation with 600 mile capacity will also enable faster charging (in terms of range gained per minute of charging) when such current is available.

Of course there are limitations, issues, change over costs. No one is claiming that EVs are superior to ICE in every aspect today, or even ever. But they are reasonable to many today. And they'll only become more reasonable to more people as technology progresses.

While there is certainly value in continuous as-you-type output rendering of LaTex, remember that the purpose of LaTeX is typesetting, not word processing. The value is that you describe to (La)TeX how you want things to be rendered and rely upon it doing the right thing, which it nearly always does, beautifully.

You can change something, restructure, re-order, re-design etc. and everything falls perfectly (usually) into place. This is not the case with the WYSIWYG word processing systems--the closest they get to this is the rather limited "styles" presets.

This is getting tedious, as you seem to feel Top Gear can do no fault. As I've said before: yes, I get it, you love Top Gear. Hooray.

The brake issue is not like the pregnancy thing (you can't be a "only little bit" pregnant). The brakes still worked. This was not catastrophic failure and you know it.

I'm not diving into your strawman argument to "detail the difference" as I don't accept your implied premise that cooking up results in advance is acceptable journalism due to expediency.

I don't think PBS' Motor Week decides results prior to receiving cars.

A hatchet job is still a hatchet job whether or not others do it, or it's more efficient to do so...

Now you're simply lying, and Top Gear's response to the lawsuit show this. No wheel seized up. A fuse failure led to loss of power braking, but the *brakes still worked*. Top Gear says broken is broken, but the difference between brakes not functioning (spectacular crash, death, etc) and having to press slightly harder, is immense. Top Gear claimed the fuse failure "immobilized" the vehicle. It did not.

Not in the least. Charging where you sleep is not re-engineering society--it's the exact opposite--it's technology matching the existing state of society. Driving to filling (or recharging stations) is society adapting to technology.

Yes things would have to change, but they are not so onerous as to prevent the gradual adoption of electric vehicles for normal everyday usage. But guess who is actually pushing hard for electric vehicles to succeed--the very power companies that will have to upgrade distribution.

Oh my god you're such an idiot! THE BRAKES STILL WORKED!

If you pushed down on the brake pedal the Roadster still braked! They only required somewhat more foot pressure. And this is a common effect, if temporary, on *all* vehicles with power brakes. It happened to my Prius this morning as I pulled out of the garage, but I didn't end up pushing it to the dealer for effect.

What would've been more to my liking is if they *ACTUALLY* tried the car first, and reported actual results, instead of *WRITING THE NEGATIVE SCRIPT BEFOREHAND*!

Yes, I get it--you love Top Gear, and you're willing to accept that they WROTE THE SCRIPT BEFORE RECEIVING THE CARS and pretended that it had run out of charge.

Tesla's lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality despite the judge, as explained by Jalopnik:

"Top Gear intentionally said something untrue, as opposed to intentionally misrepresenting true facts."

But that's just silly--the gasoline cars would indeed be built because the alternatives were way worse--people on long trips had to exchange horses (renting them) every 30 miles.

You're thinking is too constrained by the current scenario--refueling *stations*. The solution is not to make the new technology work under the constraints of the old industry, but to solve the needs of the new technology the right way. Consider recharging available at home, hotels, etc. Recharge at night, where/while you sleep, and *never* drive to a specific place to refuel.