There are some left over CNG buses, but the greatest use of natural gas for transport is LNG for trucks (well those and LNG carriers, but those are a shoe in).
Yeah, I left out "private" vehicles as the context was "filling up at home"... For commercial vehicles liquid tanks are more an option but commercial vehicles are likely to have an industrial infrastructure for fuel storage and refueling available to them.
Natural gas is only liquid at cryogenic temperatures. That's okay for trucks, but doesn't work for most consumers. Maybe for EV range extension for roadtrips or towing loads, but having a cryocooler at home just for that is a bit of a stretch.
Natural gas vehicles don't use cryogenic tanks, they have high pressure tanks storing natural gas in compressed gas form at 200-250 bar. Natural gas has enough energy density to allow decent mileage without having to liquify it.
Said that, the compressed gas is still dangerous and natural gas cars might me barred from underground parkings and tunnels and require certified gas compressors for refueling.
Natural gas vehicles offer the means to fill up at home offering that same convenience of never having to make an out of the way trip, and the convenience of always leaving home with a full tank.
Depending on your country that might not be an option or might be a pretty inconvenient one actually.
I don't think installation of a gas compressor for private vehicle refueling is allowed in many European countries and those who do allow them I'm pretty sure it's under very strict regulations.
Furthermore, cars with a natural gas tanks are usually prohibited from accessing some parking places, especially underground ones, and even from traversing some tunnels.
The convenience of an electric car is every time you leave your house you already have a "full tank". "filling up fast" means you have to go somewhere to fill up that you don't want to be.
I agree 100% but this is something some EV advocates seem to miss: that convenience is out of reach for many people.
I live in an apartment complex and I have my dedicated parking spot in the underground garage but the landlord has no plan to install or allow tenants to install charging stations. A lot of people don't even have a dedicated parking spot and park on the streets with a residential permit.
Without the convenience of overnight charging an EV is not an option I'm willing to consider and I'm definitely not alone in that respect. Had I the right to install a charging station my next car would likely be an EV, but as of now it will likely still be ICE based. For those parking in the streets a whole different infrastructure would be needed to afford them overnight charging.
When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt. You may have been unknowingly complicit, but you are still guilty of participation in a crime.
That's incorrect. For stolen goods, mere possession without knowledge as long as it's reasonable to not know is not a crime. For copyright infringement for it to raise to criminal offense it also requires knowledge of the infringement.
Whether what Nintendo is doing is legal or not depends on jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have stricter consumer protection laws than others that might prevent Nintendo to do things they can do in other places.
As if replicating Norway is somehow a bad idea, or that Norway is somehow a villain for exporting oil.
The point is that any country can replicate Norway's success as long as they are willing to subsidize EVs in similar fashion.
People will always choose the most convenient solution, with environmental concerns being a secondary issue for most, so if you want everyone to buy EVs you have to make EVs the most convienient solution for everyone.
As example, I'm never going to consider an EV until I will be able to charge it in my parking place at my apartment. In Norway I would have the right by law to have a charging station installed, but in my country is up to the landlord which is not interested so far, so still ICE for me for now.
Definitely n9t - much too herky-jerky, you need an EV’s super-linear acceleration and deceleration to make this work really well, and an absence of gears (and thus gear shifts)
Nobody questions that a gearless drivetrain is superior in terms of smoothness, but that doesn't change the fact that you can definitely focus on driving smoothly on any drivetrain.
Actually given the limitations of traditional drivetrains, especially manuals, the driver plays a much bigger role in how smooth the ride will be and it's part of what makes driving manuals much more engaging and fun.
I happen to think one of the other joys of EVs is that you can focus on driving super-smoothly if you want, as well.
To be fair you can do the same with an ICE.
I wanted to remove a product entry from a web view and (innocently) thought I could just delete the product name from the list of products in table. I didn't understand that removing that entry would remove all the customers that were tied to that product. It is pointless to debate whether the schema design was properly designed or not. I had to deal with the consequence of what I did
I might not be expect a cascading delete either. This stresses the importance of testing before pulling the trigger in production and that's true either with or without AI assistance.
Pretty much - I just went back to my ChatGPT history - I forgot that I also had to reinsert that information into Drip (customer management tool we were using).
That's an excellent use-case for AI and I have no doubt that it can work well. If the data delivered by the source API matches well what needs to be inserted in the target system that's almost a textbook example of the kind of boilerplate code an AI agent can implement very easily.
That is the dumbest take. The kinds of mistakes that humans make are fundamentally different from the kinds of "mistakes" that LLMs make. Humans are also capable of evaluating their work and making appropriate changes and corrections. LMMs are not.
You wouldn't tolerate a 1% error rate from any other kind of program, let alone >60%. Using an LLM to write code requires more effort than just doing it yourself, not less. That makes it useless.
It ultimately doesn't matter from where the mistake comes from: you either have processes in place to detect it before it goes productive, or you have unhappy customers. Humans can definitely "self-correct", but often enough fail to do so, hence the need for formal review, testing and Q&A processes long before AI became relevant.
You think a 60% error rate is high, but I think you are not making the correct comparison: the comparison should be with a human coder trying to implement the solution. You are never going to convince me you only need 1 try to implement anything non-trivial.
The AI will likely not get it right the first time, but so would not the human. Iterating and going through some trial-and-error is likely going to be necessary regardless of whether the AI or the human is doing the coding.
Whether the former or the latter is more efficient, depends. I have encountered cases when it was more efficient to use an AI code agent and others where it was not. Ultimately these are new tools and learning when and how to use them is likely going to become part of the job for most.
Which is exactly what makes "A.I." completely useless. If everything has to be extensively tested and verified, what is the point? If you can't trust the output then you might as well just do the work yourself.
Why would that make it useless? You cannot assume a human would do things right either. Unless you are doing something not that critical, you need to extensively test and verify anyway.
Furthermore, not everything needs the same level of "correctness". As example, AI can implement prototypes or proof-of concepts which can have different requirements in terms of "correctness" and can be valuable even if not completely "right".
You are assuming that someone who is dying of terminal disease can meet the conditions. And part of that is the ability to drink the cocktail of drugs.
The requirement in Switzerland is that the action that triggers the death must be made by the person wishing to die. It does not require the person to drink: it's merely the most pragmatic method for those able to do so, but there are alternatives for those who cannot.
Not sure how old the BBC story is but I'm pretty sure nowadays a machine can be set up to inject the lethal cocktail with the patient being able to "trigger" the injection with a specific sequence of eye blinks.
I don't think there are solutions today for people that cannot even control their blinks, but there is research technology which is able to decode brain activity, so I guess that would be the future solution.
There was a woman in Canada who was approved for MAID, and her reason was that she was poor and couldn't pay her rent.
And so what? If that's her reason for wanting to end her life, who do you think you are to tell her that it's not a good enough reason? The whole point of self-determination is to give a person the ability to decide for themselves, without having to defer to other people's opinion on the matter.
What you are arguing is that society should decide whether someone's reasons are good enough, but in the matter of one's own life we are dealing with quintessential subjectivity. No other opinion should matter.
The only reason you wanted that woman to be prevented from ending her own life is because you personally disagree with her decision, but you have to accept that as long as she was her will, your disagreement should not be her problem.
- An elderly person who is perfectly healthy, with a life expectancy of a decade or more - but who has severe dementia.
- A child with hydranencephaly, i.e., all of the higher functions of the brain are missing, but the child is otherwise healthy.
Those cases would be more euthanasia than assisted suicide as the persons in question would lack the ability to decide for themselves.
Obviously, there do need to be controls. And there can and should be a lot of debate as to exactly where you draw the line. But refusing to end a life just because the person is not terminally ill? That is far to limited. If there is no hope, if life is not enjoyable and never will be, be kind and end it.
IMHO the only line that needs to be drawn is the person's will. As long as it's voluntary, I don't see a reason to put additional limitations to the access to assisted suicide. I don't think it's anyone's business to decide what some other person has to "endure" or find "tolerable".
In a system where the state pays medical and pension costs, the state has an incentive to end the lives of anyone who is unlikely to produce more for the state than their cost of care.
And so what? It's what the person that wants to access assisted suicide wants that matters, not what the state or even the medics want.
Assisted suicide is technically not even categorized as medical procedure in Switzerland. The procedure is not provided by the state: private non-profit organizations do that with the state only providing the legal framework.
Note that in case there is some confusion, we are discussing assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a whole different topic and it's not legal in Switzerland.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo
