It was his choice to smoke pot, which led to his skipping school. It makes sense that it affects different people differently, if you want to assume otherwise go ahead. Compared to those who have accidents, "a considerably larger number of people" who drive drunk arrive at their destination with no incident. That would be foolish logic to apply.

My friend knows very well it was smoking pot, he admits it freely and regrets it. It is quite clear in this situation that if he didn't start smoking he would not have dropped out.

The answer is absolutely yes, it can cause some kids to drop out of school.

I have witnessed my best friend go from a straight A student throughout high school to dropping out the last half of his senior year so he could smoke pot. This set him back a long way, and he had to go back and get a GED 3 years later. It was a clear case of pot's impact on this particular kid, it didn't have the same impact on my or other close friends who all started about that time.

No, he wasn't taking home all that money. That is why the author used the word "accepted" because he knew it could be misconstrued as take home pay. A lot of folks here seem to jump to the conclusion that the author intended.

Do you really think if you asked a news reporter from any major news outlet if they could describe the difference between the two, they would be able to? Or 90% of the general public for that matter. Its not like one title gives him more credibility than the other in the eyes of most, so I think its an odd thing to focus on.

I hope I didn't imply cars are scrapped due to engine failure. Very old engines can be replaced or rebuilt, motors can as well. It impacts cost of ownership.

Picking a couple of cases or prices isn't a real good indicator of the true market. KBB uses large numbers of actual sales combined with mileage and condition to provide a pretty good estimate for value of a given car, that data isn't yet in for EVs yet, IMHO. When I Google resale values for EV's, I see a lot of different results, including some pretty pessimistic outlooks. I'm really not focused on Teslas as much as the EV market in general, nor do I care about assumptions on what they might be in the future. There is not really a good historical database yet, as there is for gas cars, so the risk is certainly present.

I would not assume "the motor does not wear" in EVs. They certainly will wear, but it is also very possible that they may last a lot longer than ICEs. We'll see in 10 years when we have a lot of cars with a lot of miles on them under a lot of different conditions. Body resilience & condition is a large part of resale value as well.

What is your source? A price, an actual sale, or book value? That particular car is more likely considered rare/collectible and I wouldn't take that as representative of a more typical EV resale value. Multiple data points needed.

Its not. I hope I didn't imply it was, I was just answering the question.

Interestingly, the Nissan Leaf outsold the Tesla last year, but there is this desire to focus on Tesla as the game changer. I think your point is a very good and it is quite likely that a higher percentage of Leaf purchases are based more on practicality than Tesla purchases. A lot of Tesla buyers get them simply because they are really cool and unique cars.

Total cost of ownership is really what matters. That must consider purchase price and resale value, maintenance & repair, fuel/electric costs, the need for a second vehicle, insurance, etc.

I think the greatest unknown for EVs is resale value, and maybe cost and frequency of battery replacement.

If the car is in the garage it is already relatively warm, it is the car sitting outside that benefits the most from preheating.

The best PR move Lenovo could make right now would be to file a lawsuit against Superfish for damages caused.