It already is much cheaper and slower than flying; so what if they go slower if it ends up cheaper... If it costs the same and is slower then we really should do something to make polluting boats pay more for the harm they cause.

FYI: The top 12 mega cargo ships pollute more than ALL the cars combined; I forget the exact number but it's around a dozen! If I was presi-dictator, I'd sink every mega ship and offer non-profit nuclear powered ships managed by the navy (since they are the only ones who competently and securely handle nuclear power.) Given the scope of the global problem is a bigger threat than any war and this cost would be trivial. Furthermore, if it's ok to blow up fishing boats in the name of drugs it's certainly more justified to sink a dozen mega cargo ships.

What I'd like to see is an electric boat with solar and wind; obviously with generators picking up the slack. Yes, solar wouldn't generate hardly anything close to what is needed; however, it's the cheapest electricity and would quickly pay for itself. Generators can easily be swapped out at anytime while giant ICE engines can not... I know there are electric boats running from generators already; I don't know how widespread that has become. I'd also have solar covers over the shipping containers; wouldn't take much time to attach/detach those given how automation is taking over loading/unloading... I bet the extra human labor time is still worth it. Not that we should be shipping things cheaply around the world like we do. It's absolutely insane that something like US organic chicken gets shipped to china to be processed then shipped around... or how dozens of cows of beef from all over get ground into burgers etc. Those are some really cheap shipping costs...

not ideal. batteries are ideal. hydro is ideal. Simply using distance grid transport is great too. They are still not great to flip on and off constantly. For short spikes, flywheels are probably better.

Still, base load power for the grid is a myth; it's not going to be cost effective, it probably isn't already - not too many run those turbines very long.

It has to open in a fire. I can't imagine otherwise; however, I can imagine a slim chance it stops working when the power goes out... but unlikely. Cut the power or light a fire and you are out. Or simply ask an employee. If they won't let you out, call the police which likely they would be doing since you probably are stealing if they won't let you out... or you're robbing them and they don't want you to beat/shoot them to get out... I bet a gun gets you out pretty fast.

What I'd like to know is if they set off an alarm, does that make it impossible to get out? So now out of panic the perp has to be convinced the employee can't do anything after the alarm was triggered and also not get angry and shoot... not like they are all sane enough to consider the consequences of murder and a certain capture; one would like to think they'd be mindful enough to try breaking out before getting revenge on the employee.

Not that we don't have bigger problems with a lack of public restrooms and businesses denying access to theirs!

The (R) is next the retards' names. If you want proof, just pay attention to what they are doing.

No way they didn't plan for Fires. Many decades of automatic escape doors existed to handle fire.

You simply light up near the smoke alarm and you get out.

Even as someone who votes left more than any other way, I'd be entirely okay with killing the AMT. It is a huge pain to deal with.

The real problem, IMO, is that Congress needs to get off its a** and pass laws requiring brokerages and retirement plans to provide all of the tax data in a fully computed form so that you can fill in the boxes on your tax worksheet and be done, rather than having to look through every single line and figure out which ones were short-term, which were long-term, which had foreign tax, etc. Even with TurboTax, even with basically everything coming from Edward Jones, it *still* takes me two or three hours every year to fill in the information correctly for my taxes. I can't imagine trying to do that by hand on paper.

The real problem with requiring icons to be a specific shape is that it makes apps harder to recognize. Just look at how much confusion Google's icon rebranding has been, with every icon looking a lot like a multicolored square, and you'll understand what I mean. Now imagine every app icon on an entire operating system being a rounded square.

Certainly true for highways, yes. There's also next to no good alternative to individual cars for highway driving, though. Amtrak is very, very limited, Greyhound is slow *and* very limited, airplanes are grossly fuel inefficient and are generally limited to relatively long distances, and that's about it.

Not sure why you think people would drive fewer miles. Most people in cars are trying to get to a specific place, not driving just to drive. Would people plan shorter trips? Maybe for some small percentage of leisure driving, but leisure driving is already a small percentage of driving, so that's a small reduction in fuel use for a small percentage of a small percentage of trips. That's hardly worth the negative impact on everything else.

That's not how stock grants work. That trillion dollars doesn't come from Tesla. It comes from the stock market through share dilution. The company can absolutely still be profitable no matter how much equity it chooses to give out.

Yeah, your definition of "mega-mansion" definitely is a starter house. My parents' home was two stories plus a basement. I can think of plenty of three-story houses that aren't even remotely mansions (e.g. row houses in San Francisco).

Penalizing people for using space efficiently by building up just leads to more suburban sprawl and lower housing density. It's the opposite of what any sane urban planner would recommend.

I would argue that having newer houses in your neighborhood is a sign that your neighbors probably aren't crackheads, so it should make your house look more attractive by comparison. The only time that might not be true is when the nicer house is also for sale at the same time yours is.

Also, those "mega-mansions" (which, based on having known a bunch of people who use phrases like that, are probably what we used to call a starter home back where I grew up) mean higher property taxes, which means better schools, which also increase the value of your property.

Wow. I looked it up, and today I learned that it actually is available to non-seniors. I'm kind of surprised. Of course, the median wait time is measured in significant fractions of an hour, so even the elderly prefer to get rides from other people when they can. Either way, there's no advantage to a van that drives around and picks up one or two people at a time and takes them to their destination compared with a private car (and actually a huge disadvantage from a fuel economy perspective). It's just a glorified Über service, but with the most fuel-inefficient vehicles on the road.

My actual small town that I lived in until I was 22 currently has almost no houses within a twenty minute walk of any of the grocery stores. Maybe a few of the houses closest to the front of one of the wealthiest neighborhoods are close enough to Walmart. E.W. James (oops, that apparently just became a Save-A-Lot) is on a highway with almost no houses for probably a mile. Ruler Foods is within a mile of maybe a half dozen houses.

The Big Star store that went under in the 1980s (IIRC) was within walking distance of maybe a dozen mostly low-income houses, plus some university married student apartments, and *barely* within walking distance of some of the other university housing, but that has been gone for decades. The old E.W.'s was within walking distance of maybe low-double-digit houses before it moved across town in the late 1990s to where Ruler is now, and then again to its current location. IGA was also kind of near some houses, but again, that closed in the 80s or 90s when all the businesses moved to the west side of town to be near Walmart after it moved.

But even if you distributed them as evenly as you could, with only three real grocery stores, you'd still only have maybe 10% to 15% of residents within a reasonable walking distance of a grocery store. At 850 people per square mile, you just can't sustain a lot of grocery stores. And that's before you factor in all the people out in the country. For that matter, my current city has trouble keeping more than about three grocery stores in business at anything approaching *bikeable* distances even with 7k people per square mile. The economies of scale just lend themselves to a smaller number of larger grocery stores, rather than a larger number of smaller stores.

Except that this isn't true. Yes, above a certain speed, you rapidly lose energy from wind resistance. But at lower speeds, you're not getting the maximum advantage of higher gears. That's why most cars are more efficient at 55 to 60 MPH than at 40 MPH. So lowering the maximum speed will NOT necessarily reduce emissions.

Here's a graph of a few vehicles' efficiency versus speed. Going significantly over 60 MPH usually results in a significant reduction in efficiency. Below that, though, you're just as likely to make emissions worse by slowing people down as you are to make it better. It depends entirely on what speeds just happen to be at the sweet spot in the torque curve of a particular engine with a particular gear ratio. You really can't fix the environment with that approach. All you'll do is make people late all the time.

Nit: To the best of my knowledge, there are no rare earth minerals in EV batteries. They are, however, used in a lot of EV *motors*. Lithium, cobalt, manganese, iron, etc. are anything but rare.

The full extent of the damage will take years to fully appreciate. That's half the reason people like him get elected. By the time the full extent of the damage is know, you're two presidential cycles later or even three.

It's really not *that* bad. They just have to sell them for more money. The tax credit doesn't magically make them unprofitable unless they haven't paid off the R&D costs. Otherwise, it just reduces their sales volume or forces them to take a lower profit per unit to keep the volume up.

It's stock. It's funny money.

Not at all true. The numbers are kind of nuts, but they are also tied to growth targets, so if Tesla doesn't grow, he doesn't get anything. It doesn't really devalue the shares, and this style of compensation scheme is pretty typical, though again, I won't argue that the numbers seem questionably high.

It already did, at least in the U.S. As soon as the tax credit expired, buying cratered. The company most likely to weather this is Tesla. Tesla already lost their tax credits, and their sales didn't crater before, so they probably won't crater this time, either.

But the rest of the industry? Dealers at the major car companies want to *avoid* selling EVs, because they don't get all that lucrative service business — oil changes and brake jobs and oxygen sensor replacements and so on. They have no incentive to sell EVs, and without tax credits to push people to choose EVs, sales dry up.

In other words, Ford ditching their electric trucks is *entirely* plausible. (I could maybe even see Tesla ditching the Cybertruck, because its sales suck for... let's just say design and implementation reasons.)

A *school* bus? Or a city bus? Because nowhere I've ever lived had school buses that took people home except at the end of the regular school day.

Where I grew up, a town of about 10,000 people, the total extent of "public transit" was a van service that served the elderly and disabled. Zero buses, zero *taxis*. You drove or you didn't get there. So I'm not sure what your definition of "rural" is, but it sure as h*** doesn't match up with the decades that I lived in a rural area.

WTF are you talking about? You're talking about huge cities here. I'm talking about small town USA. So unless your idea of "different choices" means not living in a rural area (and good luck finding food on your table if everyone did that), you really don't know what you're talking about.

Sure. But my point was that trying to eliminate cars can't work in rural areas, and doesn't work well even in suburbs. That first part is not solvable by moving everyone to cities, because we still require food, and you can't grow that in a dense urban areas, because there's not enough arable land. And people live in suburbs precisely because they don't like living in cities, so eliminating cars in suburbs isn't going to fly, either.

School buses only work if you don't have after school activities. Band, sports, theater, etc. are all fundamentally incompatible with a carless society unless you have high enough density to warrant a proper city bus system. Same with AP classes before school.

Potato, potahto. There are places that you have to go, e.g. work, school. If the amount of time it takes is too long, it completely breaks your ability to function. Whether the reason for it taking too long is because of distance or because somebody thought it would be fun to make cars go horribly slowly to convince you to bike for an hour is mostly an implementation detail.

I bike two to three hours every Saturday and Sunday. But there's no way I'd be willing to accept an hour of biking each way as a minimum requirement to get to work or school. Life's too short, and I'd be too exhausted when I got there to do anything.

True, but you're still kind of missing the point, which is that not everybody lives in cities. Public transit is provably not cost effective at rural densities.