For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.
Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.
From what they've said before they expect you to eventually return to pick up your original batteries on your way home, though they haven't said how long you can keep driving on your loaners. If you don't they'll create some kind of fee to offset the condition between the battery pack you had and the one you got. If you're permanently relocating and make arrangements I'm sure they'll offer some kind of system to choose a battery in roughly the condition you had if you want it to be free or to swap for a brand new one if you want to restore max range at your final destination. Otherwise you could swap a 7 years old/100k miles battery for an almost new one for free, that wouldn't be right.
It's not about getting it done in 3 minutes, it's about being 3rd in line at 7:20am with 35 minutes left on your drive to work.
If your commute involves a battery swap for a Tesla you should really consider changing jobs. I'm guessing it's more about the weekend rush, Friday afternoon lots of cars will be going on long range trips and return Sunday evening, I'm guessing a battery swap pad is a lot more involved than a gas station pump so they won't have very many of them. They did run a test here recently driving a Tesla ~1000 miles and they said it all worked well but there was a lot of waiting, for every 2-3 hours of driving there's was one hour of charging. I know that when we drive to the capital it takes ~7 hours and we have one 30-45 minute stop, if they could swap batteries on at least one stop they'd be down to one hour charging per 4-6 hours of driving which would roughly be the break time we'd want with an ICE car too. But Friday afternoon I'm one of a thousand lemmings trying to get out of the city, it better go fast.
The first amendment only says "Congress shall make no law..." but everybody understands you don't have much freedom of speech if you end up hanging from the nearest tree afterwards. Because the law isn't supposed to shield me from lawful retaliation like a boycott only retaliation that's already illegal you don't need a specific law for that. But everybody realizes that targeted action against those who exercise a particular freedom is trying to encroach on that freedom. Of course the government can just wash their hands and say we weren't the angry mob holding the rope, but it wouldn't be a very good government.
Any time you refrain from a lawful action because of the risk or threat of illegal action is a failure of the system of law IMHO. If I can't walk through a part of the city at night they're failing to keep the street safe. If they can't show this movie at the cinema without the risk of terrorism they're failing to keep the country safe. At least if it's a genuine risk and not chicken little screaming that the sky is falling, I mean you can't expect them to be everywhere and prevent every crime everyone's trying to commit. And I don't want to sell out all my rights in an attempt to make it so either. There could be a price for not caving but there's a price for caving too, the terrorists don't need to take away your freedoms if your too afraid to use them anyway.
Global cooling: A fringe belief in the 1970s, and never the prevalent theory (but oft reported as such in media which seeks to lampoon actual scientific discovery)
Global warming: The increased heat in the Earth's system (in the atmosphere, seas, etc.)
Climate change: Changes to the climate, which might result from cooling or warming
Climate disruption: The specific changes to the world's climate which cause disruption to the existing industries and societies
You playfully confusing these terms only shows your ignorance, and does not cast dispersion on the people who use them, or on the phenomena they describe.
English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive, so if a word or suffix is used in a particular fashion by enough people, that becomes the meaning. You should probably get over that, as otherwise you'll have a very annoyed life. Language evolves, as do the meanings of the words we use.
There is such technology. On Earth. In space there are limitations of weight and energy consumption to contend with.
Supply, demand, taxes, and regulations all combine to control the prices. If people are willing to pay X, and you're selling all your product, why would you reduce prices? All it would do is lower their profits; if they're even making any.
My guess is there are a lot of hidden factors, like big insurance costs. Most insurance policies have an exemption so they don't pay out if you're doing something illegal. This means they may have to self-insure, or find a company willing to take on the risk of a federal bust - and that likely isn't cheap. Maybe the state has a tax rate designed to keep the costs high to minimize chronic abuse. Maybe the costs of physical security are high. Likely all of the above will continue to keep prices very high.
It's harder to carry a trunkful of "gambling" back across the border to sell to the people back home.
Pot is a noun. Gambling is a verb.
That is a massive amount of guesswork that any rational person would feel ashamed to vomit on the internet. If you can back it up with sources, that would be something different. The sheer number of generalisations you've made, seemingly based solely on the idea of sexism, is incredibly telling.
By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist". It's weird you'd think that would be something to be ashamed of, but in light of your eagerness to throw around allegations of sexism and self-proclaimed omniscience of the business world, one could not really expect you to behave like a rational person.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
