IrateAnteater @ IrateAnteater @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

969

Joined

2 yr. ago

At this point, I've seen far more people being almost violently anti-rust than I've seen people being weirdly enthusiastic about rust. If Rust people are Jehovah's Witnesses, then a lot of the anti-Rust people are ISIS.

And this is why no one should ever buy any smart devices that require internet connections.

This is equipment that uses all statically addressed devices. And ignoring the fact that IPv6 is simply unsupported on most of them, there are duplicate machines that share programs. Regardless of IP version you need NAT anyway if you want to be able to reach each of the duplicates from the plant network.

We use NAT all the time in industrial settings. Makes it so you can have select devices communicate with the plant level network, while keeping everything else common so that downtime is reduced when equipment inevitably fails.

You do realize that no-one gives a flying fuck about who you block, right?

The grid could be powered by 100% coal and an EV would still be better than an ICE car. The efficiency difference between car motors and power plants is staggering.

The flatter torque curve (peak torque on electric cars is usually very comparable to ICE) is irrelevant, unless you are a shitty driver who treats the gas pedal like a two position switch.

Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There's no reason why it has to be "transit+ICE" instead of "transit+EV".

Doing what? As far as road surfaces go, asphalt is the most environmentally friendly (other than just having only dirt roads). Concrete emits CO2 as an inherent part of the process, and a brick road would be hilariously expensive, and non-durable. Asphalt also has the distinction of being the most recycled material on the planet. And not just in a "10% get recycled and everything is less" sense. Almost all asphalt ends up being recycled into more asphalt.

Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

This choice you've presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.

It's because on the modern internet, everyone is all-or-nothing when it comes to their chosen issue. Nuance has become unacceptable.

This community in particular can get a little out of touch at times. In North America in particular, even if every level of government agreed to begin working towards a car free society immediately, we'd still be facing a decades long construction campaign as entire towns and cities would have to be restructured. In the meantime, a shift to electric vehicles is something that can drastically help the global warming issue, and can be implemented in less than a decade.

In reality, we should be shifting to electric cars in the sort term, while we work towards eliminating the need for them in the long term.

Also, I'm convinced that the brake dust/tire wear particulates talking point is the result of oil industry astroturfing. The brake dust thing especially is actually better on electric cars, since regenerative braking reduces the amount of brake wear.

Which "solar isn't good enough" crowd are you talking about? I have never heard of anyone saying that we should build less solar capacity just because a 100% solar powered grid may not work best in all areas. Rooftop solar especially is a non-issue for anyone who wants to move off fossil fuels.

The only time I've seen people arguing against solar is in locations where winter drops the solar energy production for half the year. Even then, people are talking about grid scale installs and alternatives, not rooftop.

The transaction fee is not paid by the consumer (directly), and lord knows sellers are not going to lower prices based on payment method.

That's much harder to do, both technically and (more importantly) politically. A lot of big businesses rely on VPNs.

Who said the device based service has to be closed source?

Same bed size, probably same payload capacity, and you can actually grab something out of the bed on the old truck without needing a stepladder. Really the only thing that the new truck does better is towing, simply due to added engine power and bigger breaks.

You missed my point completely. It's not specifically about carbon emissions, it's about all the environmental issues, and the personal responsibility we all have to do what we can to solve it. There are thousands of little things that individuals can do. Each of those people doing a thing on their own adds up. I get annoyed when comments like yours discourage those little actions. If all 8 billion people on the planet would do little things like recycle properly, things like the Pacific garbage patch wouldn't exist.

But hey! Remember to separate your recyclables! We need to do something to help the planet.

This mentality is incredibly irritating. There is no silver bullet of any sort that is going to solve our many environmental issues. The actual solution is going to be an accumulation of thousands of small "meaningless" actions. So quit with the nihilistic bullishit.

Why? The company shouldn't have to eat the cost just because you decide after the fact that you don't actually want/need the item. The company should be liable for warranty claims, but not simple returns.

It says right in the article that it supports having up to 20 of these batteries in parallel, which gives you much more than 20kwh.