Loyalty comes in different forms. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

There was never any long-standing taboo against meeting and negotiating with governments of allied countries. It’s always been “we do not negotiate with terrorists”, with Hamas being among the worst, but here we are, finally.

I think an important difference is that Hamas has been prevailing against Israel and they haven’t done anything directly against Trump as far as I can recall. Ukraine is not doing well against Russia and Zelensky had supported the Biden and Harris during the election. Trump has a distain for disloyal losers, and Netanyahu’s loyalty is hardly a sure thing.

The lesson that university administrations will probably fail to learn is that it’s better to stand up for your students from the start rather than give in to political demands to violently punish them over baseless allegations of antisemitism.

Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but does anyone else think it’s a good sign that he decided to negotiate directly with Hamas?

Lol

D:

What you’re describing only works if an increasing number of parking spots have chargers installed at them. I just don’t think it’s sustainable or feasible.

My main contention is that long range BEVs are a bad idea. They might mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but that comes with the above infrastructure problems, increasing demand on the problematic battery industry, and in turn creating more battery disposal problems. Furthermore, they perpetuate the living room on wheels paradigm that holds us back from the real solution to transporting people over land: rail. Meanwhile, short range BEVs are great because they make the most of their batteries, barely require any new infrastructure, and save their owners the hassle of needing to visit a gas station or find a “fast” charger at all.

BEVs aren’t compatible with the gas station model because they take too long to charge. ICE vehicles and even FCEVs are in and out of a gas station in five minutes, so you don’t need a big footprint to fuel up a lot of vehicles. BEVs need to park for a while to get a substantial charge, not even full one. The fast chargers get Teslas to 80% in something like thirty minutes. So, if these fast charger were installed adjacent to gas pumps, the price to charge your BEV would have to be something like 6x the cost to refuel in order to cover the missed fuel sales.

As for what type of vehicle a someone should own for the scenario you describe, a long range BEV is overkill. Either keep a ICE car for all your driving or keep a small BEV for local trips and rent a more appropriate vehicle for infrequent long trips. Better yet, take a train or bus for those long trips and rent a short range BEV closer to your final destination.

Are employers participating in the boycott by not buying any labor today?

Fuel pumps are operated by gas station attendants by law in NJ.

Maybe there’s a battery range/charge time sweet spot, but I think it’s easy to underestimate what common enough would look like. These chargers are going to have to be everywhere and they’re probably not going to be taken care of properly. It’s just more e-waste.

To answer your question: no, that is not my suggestion.

When these batteries burn, they can’t be put out except by cooling them down somehow because they contain their own oxidizer. So fire departments tend to just let them burn and send whatever metals and other chemicals into the atmosphere. A gasoline fire can be put out with fire suppressants that deprive it of air. Apart from that, the batteries are also hazardous in terms of their manufacturing and disposal lifecycle and also just by making vehicles heavier. Heavier vehicles mean more energetic collisions and they also require bigger brakes, which means more brake dust pollution.

What do domestic roles have anything to do with this topic?

Aren’t EV batteries already big enough? As in, you probably shouldn’t drive more than 8 hours or so in a day without taking a long break and getting a good night’s sleep. There many models on the market with that capability, right? Also, if that’s the type of driving you’re doing frequently, an ICE vehicle or ideally an FCEV would be a better choice, just in terms of avoiding battery wear and tear and reducing the amount dead weight you’re schlepping around. If you’re only going on long drives occasionally, just rent a suitable vehicle or consider another from of transit like a train or a bus and then rent a little EV near your destination.

RIP

The press release is insane. I encourage everyone to read it.

If you take a lot of long distance trips that it probably makes most sense to just keep a single ICE car. If you only take long trips occasionally then just rent one. Hopefully, buses and trains are also on option for you.

If you’ve got one of those BEVs capable of hundreds of miles of range, but you’re only driving tens of miles everyday, you’re not any better than an F150 owner with a clean bed.

Which buses are those?

My position is that the development of long range BEVs (and all the externalities associated with manufacturing and disposing of these batteries) has been an incredible detour. We already had the technology for fuel cell EVs with as much range as ICE vehicles. Meanwhile, short range BEVs are great because they solve the problem of refueling and avoid the problem of recharging, since you can do it while you sleep work. Long range BEVs just trade refueling for “fast” recharging, which is actually slower and more inconvenient than refueling. Where we really need innovation and development is in mass, public transit.

Take a bus or a train. Public transit is of course the real solution. Transitioning from ICE personal vehicles to personal BEVs doesn’t really solve much and arguably creates more problems.