I have talked with Amazon about this.

> The cost of development for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy were incredibly low

Which is to be expected since governments spent on the order of a trillion dollars and 50+ years developing the technology. Just about every aspect of their operation was conceived, developed, and trialed before Musk was even born.

SpaceX deserves a lot of credit for refining that tech, but do not dismiss the fact they are standing atop a mountain of taxpayer funded R&D without which they wouldn't even have a business model, let alone working rockets.
=Smidge=

I'm sorry, what exactly is the point of this nitpick? That there's some reason it's okay Amazon isn't getting shit to my house because a different person signs the driver's paycheck? Even if it was FedEx or UPS fucking it up (they find my place just fine....) I can't tell Amazon to use a different shipper, so I'd still drop Prime anyway.

And... yeah the branding does matter. Unlike Amazon I don't order shit from FedEx.

For clarification- These are Amazon-branded delivery vehicles and drivers.

Have you done that recently? One of the reasons I dropped Prime was over the course of a year it was progressively harder and harder and HARDER to get an actual human on the line. This was mainly over not getting packages TO MY HOUSE, their core business!!! My wife was recently complaining that Amazon was pushing her towards talking to their objectively-stupid chatbot to resolve issues.

Maybe our experiences are different, but Amazon's been on my "they don't give a shit about good customer service anymore" list for a couple of years now.

This is consistent with what I've seen on Facebook. For the uninitiated- Facebook long ago decided that seeing what our friends are up to wasn't good enough, so they cram sponsored slop into your feed. Picture the comments section here, it's all /. users posting, right? Well imagine if the powers that be added replies to comments, only they're sponsored. So we're talking about 'Right to Repair', or something like that, and somewhere in the middle there's a post about custom paint jobs for John Deere tractors complete with a link on how to get YOUR tractor custom painted! Obnoxious? Fuck yes. BUT... there is an interesting perk, here- That comment can still be moderated. Even better, anyone can reply to that paid-for thread to tell them to f-off! Never had that ability with banner-ads!!

That's basically what FB is doing. So in my case, for example, I'm still super pissed at T-Mobile for reasons I can share if anyone cares. And since I once searched for T-Mob's Customer Support Facebook's Algo thinks I'm a fan of theirs. Soon T-Mob's sponsored posts started appearing in my feed. Not only can I reply to those sponsored posts, I can click 'like' on them... or even better, click the 'Angry' icon! When one interacts with a sponsored post FB actually shows you MORE of them. And that's where I'm actually seeing people engage in 'revenge for customer service hassles'. When T-Mobile pops up in my feed there are already other people there who have clicked the frowny 'like' and posted about their horror stories with doing business with them. They're trying to alert others to the perils of doing business with them.

One hilarious side-effect of FB's approach to monetization is now T-Mobile is paying to show me specifically their sponsored posts because of my frowny-face engagement. Normally I want an ad-free experience but this one is funny because I've told them I'm never returning as a customer, they're wasting their money! Ha ha!

Not something I expect to last forever, but I am seeing people find creative ways to get back at these companies for screwing them.

Apple copied that feature long ago. Do you trust Google on that feature working exactly as you expect it to? Because I don't trust Apple's intentions or competence. Google wants your data and I have no doubt Apple would take a bribe from Meta.

Worried this could one day become a possibility I uninstalled the FB app. Now that I'm saying (typing) this out load I'm realizing Messenger and Instagram need to go, too.

Umm... don't Android users worry about this from Google? I'm legitimately asking.

> First, this isn't a law, it's a clarification of an existing set of laws.

So... it's a law. A piece of legislation voted on by congress and signed by the president. That's what a law is.

> Second, it doesn't make any stipulation about what means of payments must be accepted on anything, let alone gas stations

It's literally about the implementation of digital payment methods, and interoperability with other systems. That's exactly the issue raised with "Imagine if every gas station required you to use their shitty payment app before the pump worked."

> Like this?

That's not an adapter, dumbass. That's a level 2 EVSE.

> Chademo was the only existing one at the time

IEC 62196 connectors for DCFC were in use years and had several revisions before Chademo was created.

> NACS specifies both the physical form factor and the communication protocol.

It does not. You clearly have not read it. Tesla has since removed the files from their site but they've been reposted on the user forums. To quote the document: "For DC charging, communication between the EV and EVSE shall be power line communication over the control pilot line as depicted in DIN 70121." That's it. That's all it says. you know what DIN 70121 is though? It's the same protocol developed for and implemented by CCS. Consequently, NACS is going to have all the same problems as CCS does unless and until someone takes the reins and enforces interoperability.

As for ISO 15118; that's more or less where all the problems are. The ISO and DIN standards overlap but are not compatible, so some DCFC stations speak one or both, some vehicles speak one or both, and there's no guarantee they'll be perfectly compatible because - again because I cannot stress this enough - there is nobody enforcing interoperability testing in the US. That's the very heart of the reliability problems.

> What the hell are you talking about? Tesla alone outnumbers all other cars on the road nearly 2:1 even to this day.

There are more non-Tesla charging locations in the US than Tesla ones. Tesla barely eeks out a lead if you count individual cables because they have some large installations, but Tesla Supercharger locations are out numbered over 3:1.

> I don't know why the hell Eurotards keep bringing Europe into this when that was never the context of the discussion

I'm American. I mention Europe because we are talking about standardization and reliability, and European laws have played a pivotal role in standardizing EV charging across the globe. The EU formally standardized and they have no reliability issues to speak of, the US let the private sector figure it out and it's a shitshow. It's extremely relevant to the discussion.
=Smidge=

> ICE cars that aren't turned on generally don't just spontaneously combust

They absolutely do, though. In fact that's exactly what happens in the vast majority of vehicle fires that are not attributable to an accident (e.g. very recent and severe physical damage). You would probably be very alarmed at just how common and widespread safety recalls for vehicles are citing risk of fire.

On that note; https://www.ntsb.gov/investiga...

This is a case of a car carrier ship catching fire because an ICEV, having an outstanding safety recall for risk of spontaneous fires, spontaneously caught fire.
=Smidge=

> I don't think there are vaccinations against fat.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.10...

=Smidge=

> When was the last time a new ICE vehicle fire sunk a ship?

Certainly more than EVs have, because to date zero cargo ship fires have been definitively attributed to EVs.

The Grande Costa D'Avorio caught fire in 2023. That one was confirmed to have been started by an ICEV.

There was also the Hoegh Xiamen in 2020 which was carrying used ICEVs, which caught fire because the 12V battery in one of them was not properly disconnected.

In 2019, the a fire broke out on the Honor damaging the cargo before being put out by the crew. The cause was determined to be the starter motor solenoid on one of the crew's personal vehicles that was being transported.

In 2015, the Courage (same US-based owner as the Honor) ended up being scrapped after a fire destroyed $40M in new vehicles and cargo. The cause was determined to have been a faulty ABS module in one of the new cars on board. (Hint: not an EV...)

Then there was the Freemantle Highway, carrying 3000 vehicles, caught fire in the North Sea. Early reports and speculation blamed one of the ~480 EVs that were on board for the fire, but during investigations they discovered that all the EVs on board were intact. AFAIK the official cause of the fire remains undetermined but it definitely was NOT one of the EVs on board as everyone sensationally claimed at the time.

The cause of the fire and ultimate sinking of Felicity Ace in 2022, despite all the speculation and lawsuits from the insurance companies, has not been positively linked to any of the handful of EVs amid thousands of ICEVs on board.

So let's see,,, total ship fires confirmed to have been caused by ICEVs: at least 4. Total fires confirmed to have been caused by EVs: zero so far. Maybe y'all will finally get lucky with this one, eh? Get the lube and tissues ready 'cause I'm sure it'll be a massive anti-EV wankfest if it happens!
=Smidge=

They're not random; they're statistically weighted!

=Smidge=

> Which ones in particular?

One easy example.

> It wasn't a counter-proposal.

It was though. You attempted to replace the given bad analogy with an even worse one.

> No it's not, and it never was. In the earlier days

In the early days, nobody kept adapters in their cars because adapters didn't exist. Only a handful of Tesla chargers include their "Magic Dock" adapter which is only technically possible because, again, EU law forced Tesla to adopt CCS. You obviously have no practical knowledge of this situation so I'll say it explicitly: Prior to 2017, Tesla used their own proprietary DCFC protocol (derived from Chademo) and connector. Only Tesla vehicles can use V1 and V2 superchargers, and Tesla vehicles made 2017 or earlier can only use V1 and V2 superchargers unless they've had their charge controllers replaced. Tesla CCS adapters were physically impossible for nearly a decade because the vehicles and chargers spoke different languages.

After the EU forced everyone to start using CCS2 circa 2014, with full compliance due this year (2025), Tesla started building EU market vehicles with CCS2 ports and compatible hardware. To save money, Tesla then switched to using CCS hardware in all their vehicles and, a few years later, adapters started to become available.

If the US had put their foot down in a similar way, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Everyone would be using the same physical connector and the same protocol, and they would be legally required to work together instead of relying on the honor system like we have now so they would actually be tested and certified to work lest someone get their asses sued.

Needless to say, the EU has virtually no problems with their charging networks while the US remains a shitshow.

  >And we've since standardized around NACS, which is what most EVs and chargers already had

NACS is only the physical connector. The underlying protocol is CCS as I've already explained.

As for it being "what most EVs and chargers already had" is incorrect. NACS was declared adopted as standard J3400 in 2023; CCS cables outnumbered Tesla cables by nearly 3:1. The difference is all the Tesla cables were Tesla but CCS is spread out among a dozen plus brands and manufacturers. Tesla also enjoyed all the publicity and sexiness/clickbait attention which made them seem more prolific than they were.
=Smidge=

What do you mean by roaming?