Don't be silly. Automatic is as readily available as stick shift, AC likewise. The problem isn't availability.

I didn't say they were.

Just as likely on the car ride to the airport for the plane to Arizona.

Or, on my side of the pond, as I heard someone say recently: people drive their cars from Hamburg to Alicante, where they're then scared of being eaten by a shark.

afaik:

only one gear switch, completely different location and bigger

gear up: switch up; fuel cutoff: switch down

fuel switches are mechanically locked against accidental operation

Mod parent up. What's with all the innuendo about early 737 models and cutoff switches without mechanical lockout that should have been changed long ago?

They found the bloody switches. They would have known immediately if they were the wrong type, and somehow I think that information would have found its way into the preliminary report.

Happy and content individuals live longer. Big reveal.

Unfortunately, the ability to be constantly happy is largely a function of our genetic disposition. It's not a choice, it's an accident. Unhappiness drives the ever oingoing change, which is why I think so many people are unhappy.

The point is simple. NO may have implemented clever polices, good on them, but I simply don't believe that any of them are pivotal to their being so drastically ahead. Good policies are necessary, but not sufficient. I also don't believe that policymakers in NO are vastly smarter than those in other western countries - no offence.

By and large, good governance tends to converge in its results between comparable political systems, and policies can only optimize, not revolutionize. If a country is so vastly ahead as NO in this instance, it must be down primarily to other factors. I have outlined above what I think these are. I also don't believe that it is down to a lucky strike of unique wealth/geography and unique political genius. Rather it is 1% the latter and 99% the former.

If you're picking NO as an inspiration for good policies, then you are mislead by the wrong metrics. The way I see it, NO's success is not down to innovation enabled by lots of funding, but down to lots of funding and unique geography, luckily not hampered by bad policies, even supported by good ones.

Worldwide figures are not relevant in this context, the question is why NO is ahead of the world by leaps and bounds. Population size is not relevant in isolation but all the more so in conjunction with the other factors. Short answer: they're ahead because a/ they want to be and b/ because they have unique structural advantages, which other countries, who also very much would like to be ahead, do not have.

I'm not talking about the climate at all, that's not a relevant factor imo. Being loaded from fossil sales and having oodles of electricity available for a relatively small population is.

Mmmh. So the metric isn't "100%"!!!, it's how smartly they removed incentives such as bus lanes. We'd see Norway pitched all over the place, even if, in the absence of the actual elephant factors in the room, such measures had only taken them from average to slightly better. Right?

It's the smart incentives and clever policies, not the highest EV adption by far, supported and enabled virtually exclusively by the glaring structural advantages, that get Norway mentioned constantly as the EV trailblazer country.

It also does not matter all that much, in my view, how successful and competent Saudi healthcare is in reality; it's more a question of intent, and if they had a government even 1/10 as competent and functional as Norway's, I'm pretty sure it would work out well, given that money is no object. Yet even then it would make no sense to point to them as visionaries, because it's no great feat to pull something like that off if it causes no pain.

E.g., while I am in no way a supporter of the Cuban government, their universal healthcare, which they stick to on principle and with great pains on all levels, would be a better candidate for a visionary policy.

That Norway has a very small population, primarily. Which is one, but certainly not the only point in their advantage.

Great that China is doing comparatively well. Doesn't alter the fact however that it's somewhat silly to point to Norway, hoping to demonstrate that like them we could all have 100% EV right now if only we really wanted to, rather than stubbornly sticking with ICEs for general principle.

It is not a straw man. Why else would one want to present the Norwegian figure as front page news, if not to insinuate "See! Proof! Easy!" ? If the intended audience could be relied upon to be completely aware of Norway's outlier status and unique conditions, loudly pitching their figure would be in between redundant and silly.

There is nothing out of the ordinary or visionary about Norway's individual policies that would merit copying them especially and not others. They can do what they're doing because it's relatively easy. For them. It's like praising Saudi Arabia for their visionary "free" universal health care - well, easy if you're sitting on more cash than you know what to do with.

I am not arguing that other countries could not do anything to accelerate. I'm arguing you can't selectively bring up a unique country to argue that it's a breeze.

is dragged into the limelight in this fasion, the agenda is obvious. It is quite tiresome.

Small population. China alone has about 20 cities with a population larger than that of the country Norway. There are about 60 of them worldwide.

Natural resources. Norway also has something like 0.5% of the global oil reserves, which may not sound like a lot, but it only has around 0.075% of the global population. Per capita, these are riches. This fortune is properly invested and managed by a functioning government in the interest of the entire population. They have money to spare. Waiving VAT for all EVs is a breeze for them, financially, as is subsidizing the surrounding infrastructure.

Hydropower. Their unique geography, relatively large area and small population gives them the option to run off nearly 100% non-fossil sources, of which 80-90% is hydropower. The rest is mainly wind. They use as good as no fossils, have no nuclear, yet have been a net exporter of electricity for 20+ years.

Having nearly 100% EV market share sounds great and all, but don't think even for a moment that just because this is possible in Norway, everyone else just has to want it.

Cutler is clearly closer to the camera but obscured by Torvalds. Not saying it's a fake, but may be an unfortunate auto montage.

Virtually irrelevant.

For writing documentation, reports, review comments, teams chat, etc etc? Invaluable.

No, you are facing the 21th century version of the "Great Horse Manure Crisis".