Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 10 2024 21:53 WombaT wrote: If heavy vehicles are an issue, the American taste for preposterously large trucks probably isn’t the best baseline to begin from.
The Ford F-150, the first pickup truck almost anybody thinks of, has gotten so enormous that Ford literally made a new model, the Maverick, whose entire selling point is that it's not as huge as the F-150.
Real men need real overcompensation though, so most trucks I see on the roads are still the enormous luxury-yacht type.
RFK Jr. has become a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad person. And he's been this way since long before his brain worms disease. Honestly, I'm surprised that Trump didn't dump Vance for him (or for Nikki Haley).
On August 10 2024 21:53 WombaT wrote: If heavy vehicles are an issue, the American taste for preposterously large trucks probably isn’t the best baseline to begin from.
The Ford F-150, the first pickup truck almost anybody thinks of, has gotten so enormous that Ford literally made a new model, the Maverick, whose entire selling point is that it's not as huge as the F-150.
Real men need real overcompensation though, so most trucks I see on the roads are still the enormous luxury-yacht type.
Huh? Why buy big ass trucks or penis pills, when I can just get a gun?
On August 10 2024 21:53 WombaT wrote: If heavy vehicles are an issue, the American taste for preposterously large trucks probably isn’t the best baseline to begin from.
The Ford F-150, the first pickup truck almost anybody thinks of, has gotten so enormous that Ford literally made a new model, the Maverick, whose entire selling point is that it's not as huge as the F-150.
Real men need real overcompensation though, so most trucks I see on the roads are still the enormous luxury-yacht type.
Lots of people do need trucks. But trucks are getting bigger and SUVs more popular to compensate for emissions standards. The bigger the vehicle, the less strict the federal regulations.
On August 10 2024 21:53 WombaT wrote: If heavy vehicles are an issue, the American taste for preposterously large trucks probably isn’t the best baseline to begin from.
The Ford F-150, the first pickup truck almost anybody thinks of, has gotten so enormous that Ford literally made a new model, the Maverick, whose entire selling point is that it's not as huge as the F-150.
Real men need real overcompensation though, so most trucks I see on the roads are still the enormous luxury-yacht type.
Lots of people do need trucks. But trucks are getting bigger and SUVs more popular to compensate for emissions standards. The bigger the vehicle, the less strict the federal regulations.
Which seems a failure of those regulations, or alternatively a strange ‘bigger is better’ culture
To compare to vehicles actually used for commercial reasons, or civilian needs in that kinda category in Europe or Asia, US vehicles are just preposterously large
On August 10 2024 21:53 WombaT wrote: If heavy vehicles are an issue, the American taste for preposterously large trucks probably isn’t the best baseline to begin from.
The Ford F-150, the first pickup truck almost anybody thinks of, has gotten so enormous that Ford literally made a new model, the Maverick, whose entire selling point is that it's not as huge as the F-150.
Real men need real overcompensation though, so most trucks I see on the roads are still the enormous luxury-yacht type.
Lots of people do need trucks. But trucks are getting bigger and SUVs more popular to compensate for emissions standards. The bigger the vehicle, the less strict the federal regulations.
Which seems a failure of those regulations, or alternatively a strange ‘bigger is better’ culture
To compare to vehicles actually used for commercial reasons, or civilian needs in that kinda category in Europe or Asia, US vehicles are just preposterously large
There is a gap in regulations yes. Normal cars are regulated. Heavy vehicles such as real trucks are regulated. In-between there is a gap with lower regulations and thus the vehicles there are the easiest to make for manufacturers and have had the heaviest marketing in the US for a long time.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc.
I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place.
I question how often you use more than one "tank of gas" on a given day. Even if it takes hours to charge, that's not a problem if you can do it overnight.
IF you can do it overnight. The real weakness of these 2035 State mandates which you didn't bring up but probably should have is that the infrastructure isn't there for chargers unless you have off-street parking and install your own charger. It's a surprisingly anti-city mandate (in both my state and yours) for a liberal policy.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc.
I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place.
That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that.
I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when.
Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said?
On August 11 2024 07:22 micronesia wrote: I question how often you use more than one "tank of gas" on a given day. Even if it takes hours to charge, that's not a problem if you can do it overnight.
IF you can do it overnight. The real weakness of these 2035 State mandates which you didn't bring up but probably should have is that the infrastructure isn't there for chargers unless you have off-street parking and install your own charger. It's a surprisingly anti-city mandate (in both my state and yours) for a liberal policy.
If we can price out the poors from driving altogether that’s the most environmentally friendly thing we can do
Even if the 2035 mandate does get pushed back, its probably worth the effort of trying to encourage manufacturers to actually adopt affordable EV production rather than beg the US government to put an embargo on Chinese EVs. Because right now no one is really putting much effort into creating appealing and affordable EVs besides the Chinese.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc.
I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place.
That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that.
I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when.
Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said?
Trump’s take on everything is stupid. He’s a carnival barker that speaks off the cuff for hours on end in the most hyperbolic way possible. If people want to criticize that then sign me up. My point was that it’s weird to pretend that the idea there are weight related concerns on infrastructure due to EVs being heavier is something Trump invented. If posting common truths like heavier vehicles cause more road wear puts me in the “defending Trump” camp then I guess I’ll take the grief for it.
On August 11 2024 08:43 frontgarden2222 wrote: Even if the 2035 mandate does get pushed back, its probably worth the effort of trying to encourage manufacturers to actually adopt affordable EV production rather than beg the US government to put an embargo on Chinese EVs. Because right now no one is really putting much effort into creating appealing and affordable EVs besides the Chinese.
Lots of happened it seems, but as for this: Bolded - there is no need to encourage manufacturers to adopt affordable ev's because it is actual goldmine for them, if you consider that biggest competition for car manufacturers are 2nd hand cars. Forced EV swap pretty much wipes out this market.
In news that isn't related to the US election, Elon Musk is attempting to sue a group of companies who pulled advertising from Twitter. I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal for companies to choose when and where they advertise.
These are the types of people we're putting the future of space travel into the hands of.
Yikes.
Considering that this seems eerie similar to Lysine price fixing situation, he may have a point:
On August 11 2024 11:10 Razyda wrote: JD Vance - it is rather awkward for Dems to complain about what one does in his own bedroom with consent of all the people involved.
On August 11 2024 11:10 Razyda wrote: JD Vance - it is rather awkward for Dems to complain about what one does in his own bedroom with consent of all the people involved.
What are you talking about?
Unless he's talking about whether JD Vance got his couch's consent, I'm not sure. Otherwise he must be confused, since taking issue with what other people do in their bedrooms is Republican issue #1, not the Democrats.
On August 11 2024 11:10 Razyda wrote: JD Vance - it is rather awkward for Dems to complain about what one does in his own bedroom with consent of all the people involved.
What are you talking about?
Unless he's talking about whether JD Vance got his couch's consent, I'm not sure. Otherwise he must be confused, since taking issue with what other people do in their bedrooms is Republican issue #1, not the Democrats.
Yeah seriously, but the jokes about him having sex with living room couches aren't: - "complaints"; - consent between "people"; - in the "bedroom".
And, as you pointed out, Vance and Trump and other Republicans are clearly on record for caring about what people do in the bedroom, such as whether or not people have kids.
On August 11 2024 08:43 frontgarden2222 wrote: Even if the 2035 mandate does get pushed back, its probably worth the effort of trying to encourage manufacturers to actually adopt affordable EV production rather than beg the US government to put an embargo on Chinese EVs. Because right now no one is really putting much effort into creating appealing and affordable EVs besides the Chinese.
As far as I know there are multiple non-Chinese brands trying for this. Even a few US ones. Problem is scale of operations since China is ahead in the race due to good Chinese policy decisions. The advantage legacy companies have doesn't carry over as easily to electrical vehicles since the investment is lower than for combustion vehicles to hit the environmental regulations. Thus the competition will be fierce and a few companies likely will get bought up.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc.
I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place.
That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that.
I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when.
Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said?
Trump’s take on everything is stupid. He’s a carnival barker that speaks off the cuff for hours on end in the most hyperbolic way possible. If people want to criticize that then sign me up. My point was that it’s weird to pretend that the idea there are weight related concerns on infrastructure due to EVs being heavier is something Trump invented. If posting common truths like heavier vehicles cause more road wear puts me in the “defending Trump” camp then I guess I’ll take the grief for it.
This is a cycle that repeats itself almost as much as GH/Kwark's imaginary revolution exchange.
1. Trump says dumb thing 2. People in the thread comment on how dumb the thing is. 3. BJ comes in saying that he actually has a point guys 4. Multiple posts get exchanged until we get to 5. BJ: no, I didn't fundamentally disagree with the first poster, I just wanted to stir the pot a little.
It adds about as much quality discussion as GHs "If you vote democrat you are complicit in genocide" posts.
On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote: So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve.
TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle.
He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars.
I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame.
It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them.
The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city.
Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles.
Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers
Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said.
It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.”
This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain.
The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree?
I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc.
I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place.
That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that.
I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when.
Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said?
Trump’s take on everything is stupid. He’s a carnival barker that speaks off the cuff for hours on end in the most hyperbolic way possible. If people want to criticize that then sign me up. My point was that it’s weird to pretend that the idea there are weight related concerns on infrastructure due to EVs being heavier is something Trump invented. If posting common truths like heavier vehicles cause more road wear puts me in the “defending Trump” camp then I guess I’ll take the grief for it.
This is a cycle that repeats itself almost as much as GH/Kwark's imaginary revolution exchange.
1. Trump says dumb thing 2. People in the thread comment on how dumb the thing is. 3. BJ comes in saying that he actually has a point guys 4. Multiple posts get exchanged until we get to 5. BJ: no, I didn't fundamentally disagree with the first poster, I just wanted to stir the pot a little.
It adds about as much quality discussion as GHs "If you vote democrat you are complicit in genocide" posts.
Except I did fundamentally disagree with the first poster I replied to. Serm called Trump’s rant about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure a “revolutionary war airport moment.” So I quoted a politifact article that showed some high positioned civil engineers also concerned about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure. So it’s not some batshit senile idea Trump invented.
So then we could say “you’re right BJ, the added weight of EVs being a problem isn’t an airport revolutionary war moment but I think Trump is overstating it for the following reasons…”
But instead the discourse continues on as “why you defend orange man, BJ? Do you like orange man? You must say orange man bad now.”
EPT
