I figured it was more software. In a filing with the state government of California, manufacturer ABB said that they repair 75% of charger faults remotely, which means their software must be garbage. If it was hardware, wouldn't they need to fix it in the field?
Yup.
I like to look in the ElectrifyAmerica app periodically at the ~5 stations nearby, and its just a sh*tshow at all times.
9 times out of 10 there are more stalls out of service than in use.
And it's always the same ones, because they aren't getting fixed.
And it's not just old hardware, because this includes stations that only went live in the last 6-9 months.
If US makers ever sold enough CCS cars, it would have been a huge problem. We are moving over to NACS instead..
If VW wanted to slow EV adoption in the US market, there's not much they would have done differently in their management of EA.
They've been "working on the reliability problems" for years.
First it was going to be the new hardware.
Then it turned out they were having new, possibly even more reliability problems with that hardware, lol.
Can't wait to get my car on NACS and never have to think of EA again.
Not really. ABB is good at hardware protection, which is why the faults don't usually result in failures. Tesla is ahead in terms of anticipating, avoiding, and automatically handling such issues. The variety of cars absolutely creates a challenge, but Tesla is better positioned to meet the challenge.
I think it's probably fine. It adds options for those who would rather die fighting. The exact placement of the line the FDA draws for approval doesn't align perfectly with everyone's values and situation, so there should be a little wiggle room.
Mocking a politician is protected political speech. Complaining that the politician you support has been mocked violates the no-politics rule here. Your understanding of what's allowed is completely backwards.
One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit.
The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place.
My take is that SeanLuke quoted a contentious description of PV's activities. wnevets said the description was an outright lie. ifyoubuildit asked for details. rootusrootus responded that the description implied neutrality, and said they aren't neutral because they target and slander one side particularly. sourcegrift gave an example of other media not being neutral. Then you said that media aren't obliged to be neutral.
Slander was only relevant insofar as the slander evidenced a lack of neutrality. But the lack of neutrality was never truly relevant in the first place; rootusrootus erred when he said the description quoted by SeanLuke implied PV is neutral. BurningFrog and streamer25 were correct in pointing this out. Describing PV as journalism doesn't imply neutrality, nor does anything else in that contentious description.
You also erred when you assumed sourcegrift considers mockery to be slander. From the context of the conversation, I think it's clear that sourcegrift considered the mockery to be evidence that the rest of the media lacks neutrality; in other words sourcegrift was correctly disputing the supposed contradiction between partisanship and journalism. Journalists aren't neutral; journalists mocking people with plain partisan bias demonstrates this.
Those exceptions won't stop police from thinking you can't record them and using that as a reason to bust your phone followed by busting your lip. Him and his 5 buddies will go on to say that you provoked them and you'll never see justice.
In general, North American police are ignorant bullies who couldn't hack it through high school or college. Their maturity level is stuck in the past as well, usually never maturing past a 12th grade level.
Ok, so let's remove the ban and the exceptions and make it legal to record anyone.
Then you record a cop who doesn't want to be recorded. The cop beats you up, breaks your phone, and busts your lip. He and his five buddies say you provoked him, and you never see justice.
You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to privacy or safety or whatever other reasons they want to make up and they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you.
Do you ever wonder why cops don't want bodycams on them recording 24/7? Their job is supposedly so difficult and dangerous (their words,) that you'd think they would want to show the entire world how difficult and dangerous their jobs are. Maybe people would agree with them about increasing their funding instead of calling to defund them if they had video proof of the difficulty and danger in their jobs instead of taking their word for it?
> they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you
But like you said, they lied about you provoking them and destroyed the evidence showing that you didn't. Nobody will ever know that they beat you up just because you were recording.
You quoted my conclusion without any context and ignored multiple crucial details:
> You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to privacy or safety or whatever other reasons they want to make up and they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you.
There won't be a lie they can spin because they won't have any justification for attacking a cameraman. Note I also said may and spoke of probabilities. Furthermore, I admitted it's only a partial solution so I'm not sure what gotcha you're going for here. I know it's not foolproof or perfect, it's merely better than what we currently have.
Cops can get away with literally shooting you in the back. Even outside qualified immunity cops can get away with a lot of things that are technically illegal. If it's a matter of testimony and it's five cops saying one thing and you saying something else, your chances aren't great.
But they already do that. There have already been cases of cops in the US arresting people for filming them. Not to mention cops have literally attacked journalists (not just "citizen journalists" but actual TV crews) at protests and destroyed their equipment.
The guide is just an overview to help potential customers ("users") decide if the Ariane 5 would work for their payload and mission. Nothing to do with Arianespace operating the rocket.
They wouldn't make a more detailed manual for customers that they couldn't show to those customers. They do provide more detailed interface and system documentation, but they don't share the restricted implementation details. Even for internal use, they'd want to confine the controlled information to a smaller subset of documents because otherwise it's difficult to circulate information.
Very true. What I was saying was they probably couldn't provide what MrGilbert was maybe thinking this would because it would constitute restricted arms information. As neat as it would be to get some juicy details about the rocket even as it's being retired that info is very tightly regulated in most countries.
Gotcha. Most of the system-level information is under less restrictive control than ITAR or MTCR, but the effect is the same.
Honestly though, the information isn't all that juicy. What most people would find interesting has been out there for a long time. The hardware in any rocket looks basically the same since Saturn V, and the only remarkable thing about the software is that it's organized.
I know people who work in mission operations, where they're basically on a Skype call with the ISS all day. Several years ago, there was one astronaut in particular who had to be frequently reminded to cover up. Once they're up there, no one can prevent them from doing what they want, especially if it's their last flight. They're professional in the sense of completing the mission, but they're humans with pilot personalities and nearly zero privacy to begin with.
There was an article in Playboy many years ago that I read (and the search results in that domain are now far too polluted - and yes, I did read the articles) that basically said "either you're going to need a lot of velcro or assistants.
The problem being that every action has an equal and opposite reaction makes certain activities more likely to result in new force vectors which in turn results in velocity that may lead to bumping into things you'd rather not bump while trying to bump uglies.
If the two of you are weightless in the middle of a room shouldn't you remain in the middle of the room so long as you don't throw anything?
Like if you wiggle your arms you won't start to swim through space so as long as your bodies are wiggling then you also shouldn't start to swim? As long as you kick your shoes after before not during it seems to me that there shouldn't be an issue.
You're working on a one body problem there. This is a two body problem where some force applied will cause a transfer of momentum from one body to another. Without something to tether the two bodies together, it is quite likely they'll move apart.
But medallions don't actually do that, because all of the extra revenue that drivers get due to the limited supply, and then some, gets paid out as rent for the medallion.
I'm saying the increase in pay due to medallions restricting the supply of drivers is less than the decrease in pay due to having to make payments to keep the medallion, so they'd be able to earn even more of a living without that system.
I agree with you that it sucks, and I don't see any disagreement with what I said. Again, the medallion only goes as far as ensuring that all drivers get a sustainable wage. Ride share has driver attrition because they don't. Whether it's a fair system is a different question.
The purpose of the medallion is to create a guild. In practice, the coexistence of ride-sharing defeats that purpose, subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages, and penalizing guild members with dues.
> subjecting all drivers to the risk of unlivable wages
but how? the market would decide how much a taxi driver earns based on the simple law of supply and demand. Unlivable wage for one might be a very livable wage for another one.
The consumers would massively benefit from increased competition.
You answered your own question. The simple law of supply and demand can create unlivable wages for one. By controlling supply, you decide what types of people can make a livable wage.
Maybe you want locals with families to have the opportunity to drive. So you control the supply until they can afford local rents and still have time to spend with their kids.
Of course, cities often turned it into extortion, but they don't have to do that.
That's really cool research. Using quicklime heats up the concrete a bunch more than some other methods, and the result is concrete that fills its own cracks.
People who think A.I. will kill us should be worried that concrete will kill us.
There are many materials that could be superior in quality and environmentally benign than Portland cement-based concrete not least the Sulfur concrete which is commonly used in China today
It's not a conspiracy. Fly ash contains heavy metals that would leach out of the cement. There are more challenges remaining to be solved than the Wikipedia article suggests.
I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.
Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.
The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher.
The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.
