But 200 miles certainly covers any and all local in-town and in-area travel possibilities, and nearly everything but very long distance travel.

Nope. You need 250 plus a safety margin - on mountains for part of the trip.

In my case that's half a commute between my Silicon Valley townhouse and my edge-of-Nevada ranch. But that's virtually the same trip as between Silicon Valley / San Francisco Bay Area and many weekend vacation spots: Lake Tahoe ski resorts, Reno gambling, gold country camping, etc.

Make a car that can do 30-mile-one-way commute efficiently and has this 250-and-chage range, and a Northern Californian who works near the coast and blows off steam near the CA/NV interface only needs ONE vehicle. (So it takes four to six hours to charge when you get there and when you get back - so what? It'll be parked longer than that anyhow.) Less and he/she needs TWO, with all the environmental impact of building both. Further, the long-range one is a gas hog by comparison.

Does a loaded F-150 even get 500 miles on a single tank of gas?

Yes, it does.

But it's a 37 galon tank.

I love everything about my F-150 Lariet EXCEPT the gas mileage (and the refusal to pan the weather map except when the vehicle is stopped). Unfortunately, when you have to haul several tons up and down a mountain or across an unpaved desert from time to time, it's hard to avoid a tradeoff in that department.

And the "I" is India.

The obvious counter is that Germany was aggressive (both with a vast military buildup and multiple invasions and forced annexations before the Second World War officially began) and Japan was not keeping to itself (such as their invasions of Korea and China and their well-telegraphed war with the US and the UK).

And a military push by France in 1936 to reverse the remilitarization of the Rhine, would have been pretty easy. But having said that, it would be easy to underestimate Nazi Germany in 1936. They had over the course of a few years rebuilt a world-class military from the stunted post-Versailles remnants. I believe the Second World War would have been easy to prevent in 1936 or 1937, but I also believe that it wasn't that clear what course to take.

Still when one looks at the bizarre things that France did, such as building a vast and expensive defensive network of fortresses (the Maginot line), but not actually defending against the invasion path taken in the previous war (and which Nazi Germany used again), it's painfully clear that they weren't making good decisions even given the uncertainty of the times.

And do what? They have no power base outside of the Ukraine. And a few thousand "battle-hardened fighters" won't make much of a difference politically or militarily.

I'd look rather at the people surrounding Putin or domestic unrest.

Actually, it is a case of "in anger". The term has nothing to do with anyone's emotional state or any particular defense/offense scenario under which they might find themselves. "Used in anger" with respect to a weapon means that the weapon is being used as designed with intent to kill someone.

Since the already beaten enemy was still fighting.

It means that those Silicon Valley workers can fund their drug habit. The high stress part is motive. The high pay part is opportunity.

mdsolar indicates that he is referring to some estimate rate of 1 such accident in several million. But that sounds like a theoretical rate for a limited class of failure modes under ideal maintenance and regulation conditions. Can't say any more about that until I find out what he's speaking of.

But that is the case whether one downloads the music or buys a SD. The latter requires actual movement of physical objects, which I think is more costly relatively speaking.

Ok, where's the reference then?

I see when I googled, an estimate for "large" "loss of coolant accidents" around 5*10^-6 per year per plant. That sounds like your number. It's worth noting that the accident category in question hasn't happened yet since they're speaking of loss of coolant from pipe corrosion and mechanical failure in a plant with proper maintenance and the following of procedures, not the many other sorts of loss of coolant accidents that can happen to a nuclear plant (such as the real world examples caused by earthquakes, incompetence, and poor maintenance).

mdsolar stated that the NRC estimated the odds of a "nuclear accident" at 1 in 10,000 and then claimed that such accidents occurred at a frequency of 1 every 18 years. What I noted is that there are 435 reactors currently (according to Wikipedia) and that accident rate he claims corresponds to one such accident per 8,000 years of operation of the nuclear reactor. That is very much in line with the estimate.

This has nothing to do with "nuclear FUD websites". This is just rudimentary statistics.

So you're so concerned by my behavior that you post an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack anonymously? Do tell.

18 years*435 current reactors=7830 reactor years. Which is close to the claimed 10,000 reactor years of your original post.

How did the music get on that SD?