Teslas are not aluminum monocoque. Thanks for playing.

Like all cars, they're made from a mix of metals. I can only assume that you're thinking of the gigacastings, which are deep interior components, and if you're damaging one beyond usage, you've utterly obliterated your car already. They're not crush structures; the crush structures are mounted to them. They're also not the only main structural elements. The pillars for example are UHSS (ultra-high strength steel). But you're generally not going to be replacing or welding UHSS either. Once again, Tesla is not at all unique in this regard.

And technically you could fix mangled gigacastings, with body pulling. But body pulling isn't recommended on any monocoque car, only body-on-frame, as force transfer in monocoques is unpredictable.

As for "impinging on battery components", again, the battery is nestled between the gigacastings, making it even more internal. If you're penetrating that deep into the car, you're already talking about a writeoff.

People seem to have these weird images in their head of cars that are utterly mangled just being fixed for a practical price. That doesn't happen. Cars have outer panels and crush structures that are designed to be repaired / replaced. If you're penetrating deeper than that into primary structural members, the insurance is just going to write the car off.

Lastly: I have a Tesla. There is no "high cost of insurance". It's perfectly reasonably priced for a car of its price.

Meanwhile the entire Model 3 rear drive unit and suspension can be removed with just four bolts and a couple connectors, but you tell yourself whatever you want. And there were parts shortages in the first like 6-12 months as production ramped, but haven't been in a long time. The only thing you might have a shortage on is something new like the Cybertruck.

Batteries are not consumables. They're designed to last similar lifespans to engines + transmissions. They're warrantied for 8 years / 200k km, and you don't warranty something that you expect to die the day after warranty, or half the failures will be under the warranty period. And if you replaced an engine and a transmission, at a dealership, with a brand new one, that wouldn't exactly be cheap either. You get a better deal with third parties and salvage parts, and the same applies to EVs.

The main source of depreciation of EVs is simply how much better EVs keep getting and how quickly it's happening.

Insurance companies do not "insist that even a small ding in battery cover should lead to a total battery replacement". This is entirely made up. Nor are EV premiums "insane levels".

Just utter tripe.

Maybe they hint at something useful, anyway.

• TIOBE gives some idea of how many jobs are out there and how many people are working in specific areas.
• PYPL gives some idea of how many newbies are starting to learn a language.

How to interpret those two numbers, of course, likely depends on the language. Swift, for example, is being learned by a lot of newbies because folks are replacing Objective-C code with Swift code, and people are being kind of forced to learn it, which pushes it artificially higher on PYPL, and pushes Objective-C artificially lower. The same is probably true for Typescript, which is #7 on PYPL and #50 on TIOBE.

In other cases, it's a hint that the language is popular among non-programmers. R is #5 on PYPL, #24 on TIOBE. It is mostly used by people for whom programming is a means to an end, rather than their primary job responsibility, e.g. people working in biotech and other non-software firms, so those jobs show up as "bioinformatics engineer" rather than "R engineer".

In still other cases, it's a hint that way more people want to learn the language than can actually get jobs using it, because programmers think it's neat, but not very many companies actually want to pay people to use it. Rust immediately springs to mind.

So I guess they try to tell us something, but it's hard to tell what they're saying without lots of additional context, so folks are unlikely to actually agree with one another about how to interpret them.

It's not just a knowledge and effort thing. New Shepard is 20,6t dry mass. Falcon 9 is 22,2t dry mass and could lift an entire New Shepard to LEO using 5 times the delta-V. It's such a different difficulty level that they're not even playing the same game; New Shepard is just a carnival ride.

I would imagine there was something wrong with that specific vehicle, but also, Teslas just aren't made that well. Nobody expects them to last. But then, nobody gets to expect any EVs will last yet, because so many of them don't and none of them are all that old.

That's the thing, dealers make a lot of money on service — not just parts, but also labor. Dealers, therefore, have a perverse incentive to discourage people from buying EVs. The more they sell, the more the manufacturers will build. If they convince buyers that they really don't want an EV, then they never have to deal with them, and don't have to worry about that future loss of income.

So the answer to the original question is "No, car companies aren't sabotaging the EV transition. Car dealerships are."

For a few miles, anyway. And then they're back to being as noisy as an ICE car.

Almost half could potentially have charging just by installing it or having their apartment complex install it, statistically speaking. If you live in a place where "most people can't even get a parking spot", you should consider either A. moving or B. not having a vehicle, because charging is the least of your problems.

What the heck are you talking about? Key fob hacks happen on ICE cars all the time, and ICE cars have 24/7 tracking, etc., too. And no EV has to "approve" your trips. And no, the battery isn't an integral part of the frame. It's the floorboard. It is structural, but it is also pretty well protected against collision impacts.

To within the margin of error, ignoring the pre-Model-3 period when Teslas came with free lifetime supercharging, free charging has never really existed except when provided by specific employers to their employees. It isn't "getting less and less" common. The employers that provide it are generally still providing it, and in greater and greater quantities.

Umm... if it is doing everything an EV does (e.g. driving silently on electrical power), then you're putting strain on the grid.

So can EV chargers. Tesla temporarily deploys superchargers in certain places for big festivals, and those can either use diesel generators or giant battery packs, depending on how long it is going to be there.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This seems like an incredibly bad idea to me for multiple reasons — high fuel consumption per watt, limited amount of power availability, extra wear on the car's battery, etc.

A lot of folks like to fantasize about situations like that, but having driven across the country multiple times in an EV, that just isn't reality. The places where there are long lines outside of charging stations are basically all in areas with incredibly high EV deployment, and the superchargers are filled up by locals. The superchargers on major interstates outside of the major cities are approximately never full, with the exception of one on I-10 south of Phoenix (and I can't find that one anymore, so maybe when they opened the bigger one across the street, perhaps they ripped it out).

A few hundred bucks to bore under the sidewalk, and it will be. That's an excuse, not a reason.

Meaningful things in space are not like this, they're like this. Getting "to space" is the easy part - the X15 got "to space" just by going fast and then steering up. It's orbital velocity and the energies involved that are the hard part.

It's kind of pressing now because fuel prices are so high here. I drive 26 miles to work, and my '08 Versa's 28 combined (pretty accurate actually) is unsatisfying. I really wish I could just take light rail. The rail line is sort of there from here to there, though it isn't really, but it makes me sad every time I drive over it.

All of what comprises a vehicle can burn, with enough oxygen, but that information isn't really useful.

Capitalism has never raised anyone out of poverty without controls on who can profit. As we have weakened those controls, capitalism has become less of a force for lifting people from poverty and more of a force for keeping them there.

UBI isn't anti-capitalistic any more than taxation. Both are ways to make the system work sustainably.

That is not a cleanly managed process with working social systems to handle the overlap. The social safety net payout amounts are all based on a federal minimum wage which is not sufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of living in any state. Some of the numbers we still use today to determine eligibility, benefit amount, share of cost etc. are from the eighties, while others are from the sixties.

Each major disruption has literally caused people to die because there has not been enough management of the transition. If you say that AI will be no different, and you also say that the change should be celebrated, then you're saying we should celebrate negative effects up to and including deaths.

The Democrats differ from Republicans in important respects, but few of them are economic. The differences are mostly in the area of human rights. They are united in selling out our future for kickbacks from profit today. Democrats crowing about how well "the economy" is doing when the wins are all for the ultra-wealthy is typically on brand, but the Republicans do the exact same thing so that doesn't illustrate any difference between the parties or any reason to vote for one over the other. Those reasons are all somewhere else.

Hire some people that people will listen to, and release some articles telling people what to do.
You will find it helpful to have financial backers, and of course you will only find those who can profit from what you intend to say...

It's common throughout the parts of this county that aren't way out in bumfuck, or IOW, the parts which have any significant number of people in them.

But that's where the available capacity is supposed to be coming from. Otherwise they'd have to run new wiring. The LEDs are a lot better focused (sometimes excessively so) so you don't need as many total lumens output, which also reduces the power consumption.

They do if they're doing the low-level charging we can get from streetlights without a project to retrofit the wiring, increasing the cost of the installation. And there isn't the money to do what we could do without that. The state is running a deficit right now, so there's no state funding available. The federal funding available now is only for installation on interstates. So it's flatly just not happening.