True but...

By that logic hybrids in cars wouldn't make any sense either but they do. They are demonstrably more efficient at comparable horsepower even in the face of the conversion losses. Doesn't matter if they are plug in hybrids or not. Plug-in technology helps but it isn't a necessity.

Being able to plug in helps but hybrids without plug-in tech still make sense economically. I think for something like a semi or a UPS truck it would be almost a no brainer. Honestly unless there is something huge I'm overlooking I think hybrids make WAY more sense for commercial trucks than they do for passenger cars.

Didn't think it was all that complicated. Your ICE car can go 200-500 miles between refueling. The Tesla Model S can go 200+ miles between refueling stops. That is good enough for plenty of people and hence it is competitive.

No it does not because you still have to refuel it no different than an EV. The only difference right now is that it for long distance trips it is much quicker to refuel a ICE vehicle. If you drive less than the full range of the vehicle on a given day (most people drive 50 miles per day) then the EV is actually more convenient since you can refuel it at home when the car is not in use. For local driving I'd MUCH rather have an EV in most cases. For long distance driving you want a ICE or a hybrid right now. In time that may change.

You won't see pure EV trucks for a long time. What you'll see is a power train similar to that on locomotives. Diesel engine charging electric motors with a battery bank to deal with the excess. It's very efficient, huge torque and the technology is well understood. I'm kind of surprised we aren't seeing it already.

All of which are solvable problems. With scale EVs eventually could be cheaper than gas cars since they have fewer parts. There already are EVs with range competitive with gas cars (see the Model S) and they are only getting better. As for apartment dwellers, eventually apartments will end up providing charging infrastructure though I fully expect this to happen late in the game because the cost isn't trivial.

Electric vehicles will probably reach a tipping point when either A) recharge times get to less than 15 minutes with a 200 mile range or B) EVs with a 500+ mile range are developed and economically feasible. Until that happens we'll see hybrids serving as a technology test platform until such time as the battery technology matures sufficiently. I fully expect most luxury cars to be plug-in hybrids within the next 10-15 years. I think you'll start to see semi trucks and long haul vehicles becoming hybrids with a power train similar to locomotives (diesel with electric motors driving the wheels).

EVs won't reach the tipping point tomorrow or even probably 5 years from now but I do think they are the likely future with hybrids being a stepping stone to get there.

That is correct. The business model is basically that it is a concession stand that uses fuel as the means to lure people to the store. Kind of similar to how a movie theater makes all their money on concessions because the revenues for the movie (around 80%) go back to the company distributing the movie. Pretty much all the profits in the oil and gas industry are made by the big oil and gas companies. They might have service stations (like ExxonMobil) to vertically integrate the entire supply chain but independent fuel stations really don't make any money on the fuel itself.

You can do that today but you'll have to move to someplace like Manhattan.

Their perception of danger is of no concern to me. I'm concerned with the actuality of danger. They are adults and not children who ought to be afraid of the dark. If they don't feel safe outside then I'd suggest they spend their money improving their policing or move some place where they feel safer. Again, if they are scared of nothing (and the data indicates that they are) and decide to stay home rather than face the night then I don't see an actual problem.

Real security isn't going to come from a bunch of wasteful street lamps. At best it is security theater and it definitely is a huge waste of resources.

I press my remote entry and it lights up the car. No handheld light necessary. But even if you didn't have that what is the big problem with using a light? It's not clear to me why you need to have a large and wasteful light constantly lit on the off chance you might decide to get in your car at some point during the night. At least have it be motion activated.

I have no idea why you would bother checking the tires before driving off as a routine activity. Do a lot of tires in your neighborhood wind up unexpectedly deflated?

Ok, if that is true then where is the actual problem?

So we should waste money and resources and pollution lighting up roads so you can bike home? I'm all for biking but I think this is a needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few situation.

Not just a waste of money. Most of them are a waste of fuel, serve no meaningful social purpose, create needless light pollution as well as emissions and waste resources in their creation and installation. We could eliminate vast numbers of street lights in all likelihood with no adverse effect at all while saving a lot of money and reducing pollution. I'm always astonished when I fly over a city at night how many empty parking lots, unoccupied buildings, unused streets and other things we pointlessly and wastefully light up.

Unlikely to happen any time soon. Too much installed base of AC power. Not like people are going to rip open their walls to switch from AC to DC and virtually everything you plug into the walls is designed with AC in mind. The only wide spread DC cabling standard is USB and that's mostly low power stuff.

I have no principled objection to DC power but I think any switch will take many decades if it happens at all.

Demonstrably not true. Certainly a lot of the studies are industry funded but there are plenty that are not. Not to mention that we've been eating the stuff for decades now as a sort of in-vivo test without any evidence of problems attributable to GMO crops or animals. If people want to be paranoid that's their problem - don't make it mine.

Nice strawman. Saying something is GMO without any further details is nearly meaningless. GMO by what technique, using what genes, with what evidence of harm? If I tell you something is GMO and you make a decision based on that information alone with no further details then you are not making any sort of meaningfully informed decision based on actual evidence. You are simply being scared of something you don't fully understand.

As a parallel, there is basically no evidence that organic foods are more nutritious and it is not clear that they are better for the environment. The argument for organics is more one of logic than of actual evidence. It sounds good in principle but sounding good doesn't make it true. They require more inputs to get the same yield, the "organic" pesticides used (and they are used) are often more toxic than the synthetic options, etc. If someone wants organic food that is fine but you label what is different, not what is standard. You have the person who wants the specialty good pay extra for it.

Most food is non-organic just like for many types of food GMO has become standard. If there is a market for non-GMO food (like there is for organic) then that is fine. It might not mean much but let those who care pay extra for it. Personally I don't care but until there is some actual evidence of harm I don't care to pay for labeling that I think is unscientific and pointless and frankly amounts to scare-mongering.

The term "power user" is fairly meaningless. It typically references someone who knows all sorts of arcane stuff about an application or system. But it reinforces my point. If they need to know all this arcane stuff and the system is so clumsy they need shortcuts then the system needs to be designed better. I could be considered a power user of quite a number of applications but I still think shortcut keys are usually a clumsy workaround in most cases. There are exceptions but they are exceptions that prove the rule. I think keyboard shortcuts are a perfect example of the "if the only tool you have is a hammer everything is a nail" principle.

Exactly my point. I do the same thing (when possible) but I maintain that generally if I need to do that it very often means the interface needs some rework.

It's not that they aren't useful or that they don't work. The problem I have with them is more of a design principle than a specific complaint. For example I happen to know that the shortcut to display the History in my browser is Ctrl+Shift+H. In my opinion if I'm using that so much that it needs a shortcut then it should be a more prominent part of the interface. As a general rule I think keyboard shortcuts should not be application specific any more than absolutely necessary. Cut/Copy/Paste are fine. Ctrl+Shift+A to open the Add-Ons in Firefox should either be user defined or simply not be given a shortcut or be made more prominent in the GUI.

That depends heavily on exactly how harmful the delusion is. Some are harmless, others not so much. But public policy should be based on actual facts and real evidence.

Why do they have a "right to know"? Is there any actual evidence that they are harmful even a little bit? If the answer is yes then maybe you have an argument. But since the answer so far is an unequivocal no, despite large amounts of research into the question, then I cannot agree with you. I prefer my public policy decisions to be made on scientific facts and not made on ill informed paranoia.

If there is a market for people who want to know if a food is GMO-free then you will see labeling to that effect on some products and that is fine. Although if they are truly paranoid I'm not sure how they could ever be sure the label was actually true.

That's quite a long list and I have NO interest in memorizing all that. If it works for you that's great but personally I detest arbitrary keyboard shortcuts. I use a handful that are common but to me its a sign of a poorly designed system. If the interface is so clumsy you need to memorize a page long list of shortcuts then I'll just use something else. It's a big part of why I detest both vi and emacs.

(For the record I also hate tiny icons you have to mouse over to figure out their function)