Teslas and Cybertrucks…random thoughts

[Faith-manor]

42 minutes ago, frogger said:

Other options for commuting would be the fastest easiest way to reduce carbon. Making multi modal transportation options and adding in public transport would do loads more for the enviroment than EV's. Depending on the local power source EVs can be somewhat helpful or even worse for the enviroment plus stress the energy grid. In areas with nuclear they do better but in areas where coal is the electricity source, especially if the coal must be transported then EVs start losing their carbon footprint advantage.

Cars contribute not just fumes (though fumes literally stink for walkers, bikers, and homes near roads), but also tire wear, washer fluid, leaks, noise pollution, and the need for more asphalt which soaks up heat. Because EVs weigh more they cause more road damage and it takes running equipment etc to fix roads. It also means more tire wear. Cars driven for personal use destroy the local enviroment not just the atmosphere and often simply kill others besides taking up valuable real estate.

This. It is a very complex issue, and there is no one size fits all answer, except that in general, public transportation is a good thing. I would love to have more rail options in Michigan. I went to Chicago last October by Amtrak. It cost me only $20 less than driving, and got me there 2 hours later than if I had gone by car. So more options are desperately needed. Still, I loved it! Very relaxing.

Now that said, heavy EV cars are nothing in terms of road damage compared to semi trucks. The average semi weighs 35,000 lbs unloaded and 70,000-80,000 loaded. One of the the single greatest investments we could make for the environment would be to bring back hauling the bulk of goods by train with short haul trucking to get it to its final destination. But Big Oil and tire companies like Firestone make sure politicians have no personal interest in this. Sadly, rail shouldn't make a comeback until the BSNF and others are kicked squarely in the ass with FULL worker rights, and overhaul of the system.

We should have been tackling this stuff 30+ years ago. Nothing is going to get done, and the USA will continue to pollute like crazy as it burns to the ground. Same old same old.

[KSera]

35 minutes ago, frogger said:

Other options for commuting would be the fastest easiest way to reduce carbon. Making multi modal transportation options and adding in public transport would do loads more for the enviroment than EV's. Depending on the local power source EVs can be somewhat helpful or even worse for the enviroment plus stress the energy grid. In areas with nuclear they do better but in areas where coal is the electricity source, especially if the coal must be transported then EVs start losing their carbon footprint advantage.

Cars contribute not just fumes (though fumes literally stink for walkers, bikers, and homes near roads), but also tire wear, washer fluid, leaks, noise pollution, and the need for more asphalt which soaks up heat. Because EVs weigh more they cause more road damage and it takes running equipment etc to fix roads. It also means more tire wear. Cars driven for personal use destroy the local enviroment not just the atmosphere and often simply kill others besides taking up valuable real estate.

I have a mix of things I agree and disagree with in this. People who live in places where they can switch to public transportation, or lowest impact EV‘s like bikes and scooters, that’s fantastic and ideal. Many people aren’t in areas with any viable public transportation options though, and to implement such would take longer than for those people to switch to EVs. One good thing is that people living in areas where they currently are car dependent usually live in a home where it’s easy to just charge overnight at home. 
 

While the energy source absolutely does impact just how much benefit on EV gives, even in the worst case scenario, which is typically burning coal, there’s still a significant benefit over burning gas. Electric motor is so much more efficient than an internal combustion engine that there’s not nearly as much carbon produced to generate the same amount of power. Countless articles explaining this. I just grabbed the first one:

Yes, Electric Cars Are Cleaner, Even When The Power Comes From Coal

Wear and tear on roads, yes, definitely a thing though something that they are actively tackling. Oil leaks though is totally an ICE thing. There’s no oil in an EV. There are only a few fluids—windshield washer fluid, brake and coolant, and some models do have transmission fluid. If all ICE cars were EV instead, there would be so much less oil and other fluids used and washed into waterways. 
 

So basically, while I agree that reducing car use is a great goal and would be really helpful, for the cars that are going to be out there, EVs are an immediately viable way to reduce carbon emissions and in places where they are already popular, many of the myths perpetuated by the gasoline and ICE industry have been put to rest. People against switching to cleaner cars always talk about it like it’s a terrible thing the government is forcing on people, but the majority of people when they actually drive an EV discover they are powerful and fun to drive. And so quiet! A lot of naysayers, even those writing about them, have never even driven one.

[frogger]

Certainly, it is complex and it makes more sense to start in the areas that are most economical.  You would get the most bang for your buck if urban areas moved this way and did not prolong the misery using  EVs especially with roads taking up way too much real estate that needs to be used for housing. Locally there is a group fighting expanding a road to more lanes and taking out even more housing during a housing shortage. We need fewer vehicles on the road and I still do not see a single reason why it doesn't benefit us to move that direction. 

EVs can be a good for what the lower 48 calls "rural" areas that can't move to public transport, especially in areas with nuclear and hydro. They aren't great in rural Alaska because there is often no power grid established and the batteries will not survive long term in 50 below zero weather (no, I am not including windchill) and you don't plan on going to town for months because it is far away. In other words, I can understand that different places have different needs but understanding different places have different needs doesn't negate those things that will have the biggest impact overall which is definitly increasing multi modal and public transportation in urban and suburban areas. I am not a nay sayer as I think they will continue to improve and have made big strides but they take a lot of resources and cause a lot of enviromental degradation compared to other modes of transport outside of large ICE vehicles that we are in agreement are not good at all. 

Regarding semi's of course they are heavier but there are way more private vehicles than trucks and they tend to be used less efficiently. It will be easiest to get rid of private vehicles in dense areas while it is difficult to get rid of hauling goods. So yes, I agree finding the best method of transporting goods is wise, I still think that getting rid of a large percentage of heavy personal vehicles is going to be more useful and easier. Even with trains you will need trucks for "last mile" trips. 

Edited August 30 by frogger

[SKL]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

EVs are an immediately viable way

Not really.  They are still way too expensive for broad use.

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Not really.  They are still way too expensive for broad use.

New cars in general have become that way, but the average price of a new EV is still higher than the average price of an ICE car, but there are some lower cost options, though nothing in the US I consider a real budget model. That goes for new ICE vehicles also though (average price of a new car this year is $47,000, which is very expensive to me). That’s not a technological barrier though, which was my point. There are lower cost options in other countries and it could be so here if there was the will. Currently, subsidies apply even to used EVs, so someone who wants one can actually get a pretty good price on a used EV. Had the subsidy been in play when we bought our first EV, it would’ve cost us $10,000. Even without the subsidy, I think it’s the best car purchase we ever made. But yes, prices coming down will help. And they will.

[Happy2BaMom]

7 hours ago, Corraleno said:

TIL that amplifying Nazi propaganda = "changing the world for the better..."

"Elon Musk’s X is a thriving hub for Nazi support and propaganda, with paid subscribers sharing speeches by Adolf Hitler or content praising his genocidal regime. NBC News found that at least 150 paid “Premium” subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months, often in apparent violation of X’s rules. The paid accounts posting the content all consistently posted antisemitic or pro-Nazi material. Examples included praise of Nazi soldiers, sharing of Nazi symbols and denials of the Holocaust. 

The pro-Nazi content is not confined to the fringes of the platform. During one seven-day period in March, seven of the most widely shared pro-Nazi posts on X accrued 4.5 million views in total. One post with 1.9 million views promoted a false and long-debunked conspiracy theory that 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. More than 5,300 verified and unverified accounts reshared that post, and other popular posts were reshared hundreds of times apiece. 
.....
The verified users sharing the pro-Nazi content have entered into a mutually beneficial relationship with Musk’s X, paying $8 a month or more for premium services that are available to all premium subscribers. In exchange, they get “prioritization” when they reply to posts and the opportunity to monetize their content through ads, according to the subscription terms. The result is that X is bringing Nazi sympathizers in from the dark corners of the internet to a massive platform where they can pay to amplify their content. X had 174 million daily active users worldwide on its mobile app in February, according to the research firm Sensor Tower. X claims to have many more than that."

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020

Musk has also admitted that he purposely turned off Starlink while Ukrainian forces were in the middle of an attack, cutting off their communications and saving Russian ships. 

You missed mentioning the number of times he has promoted/boosted conspiracy theories, him telling X's advertisers publicly to "go f*ck themselves" (& then whining about, and suing, those who left), and welcoming Alex Jones (the man who started and led the campaign to endlessly harass parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims) back to the X platform (after promising that he wouldn't). Among many other things.

You'd think there are certain things people could agree on as being just plain unacceptable behavior, but....here we are.

[Faith-manor]

7 hours ago, frogger said:

Certainly, it is complex and it makes more sense to start in the areas that are most economical.  You would get the most bang for your buck if urban areas moved this way and did not prolong the misery using  EVs especially with roads taking up way too much real estate that needs to be used for housing. Locally there is a group fighting expanding a road to more lanes and taking out even more housing during a housing shortage. We need fewer vehicles on the road and I still do not see a single reason why it doesn't benefit us to move that direction. 

EVs can be a good for what the lower 48 calls "rural" areas that can't move to public transport, especially in areas with nuclear and hydro. They aren't great in rural Alaska because there is often no power grid established and the batteries will not survive long term in 50 below zero weather (no, I am not including windchill) and you don't plan on going to town for months because it is far away. In other words, I can understand that different places have different needs but understanding different places have different needs doesn't negate those things that will have the biggest impact overall which is definitly increasing multi modal and public transportation in urban and suburban areas. I am not a nay sayer as I think they will continue to improve and have made big strides but they take a lot of resources and cause a lot of enviromental degradation compared to other modes of transport outside of large ICE vehicles that we are in agreement are not good at all. 

Regarding semi's of course they are heavier but there are way more private vehicles than trucks and they tend to be used less efficiently. It will be easiest to get rid of private vehicles in dense areas while it is difficult to get rid of hauling goods. So yes, I agree finding the best method of transporting goods is wise, I still think that getting rid of a large percentage of heavy personal vehicles is going to be more useful and easier. Even with trains you will need trucks for "last mile" trips. 

It is the physics of the issue. Bridges crumble because of the mass at a single spot. So an 11,000 lb car moving across it is fine. An 80,000 lb truck is not. At any given moment, the truck is too much weight. Unless there is an accident of 8 EV cars, vehicles do not occupy the same spot simultaneously. Consider it the same issue as an elevator. There is a maximum weight that elevator can handle at one moment without putting significant stress on the apparatus. Over its lifetime, it lifts a crap ton of weight. Just not all at once. Many of our roads get unto a state of disrepair rapidly not at all from cars, even heavy cars, but from semi trucks, and trailers. We see in our area semi trailers hauling windmill parts on roads that cannot handle the weight, and the effects have been absolutely awful. But EVs could travel the same distance and not do the same damage because the load at any single point in the journey is not too much for the road. Now that said, certainly if ALL the vehicles on that road became heavier over time, if will wear out faster. However, that damage is more spread out. Distribution of weight is a big issue.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/04/19/heavy-truck-damage-michigan-roads/3474156002/

The cumulative effect on the environment of constantly repairing roads and bridges is a huge issue. The Michigan limit is just insane. The federal limit is already WAY too high. The answer for now is rail and less consumption of goods, higher quality of goods so items do not need to be in a constant state of being replaced. But nothing is being done about rail, and nothing will ever be done about crap goods, and sh*tty appliances that last only 5 years, and a freaking host of fast, cheap stuff. The oligarchs must have their massive profits after all. The world burning is nothing but a shoulder shrug to them.

 

 

[Faith-manor]

6 hours ago, KSera said:

New cars in general have become that way, but the average price of a new EV is still higher than the average price of an ICE car, but there are some lower cost options, though nothing in the US I consider a real budget model. That goes for new ICE vehicles also though (average price of a new car this year is $47,000, which is very expensive to me). That’s not a technological barrier though, which was my point. There are lower cost options in other countries and it could be so here if there was the will. Currently, subsidies apply even to used EVs, so someone who wants one can actually get a pretty good price on a used EV. Had the subsidy been in play when we bought our first EV, it would’ve cost us $10,000. Even without the subsidy, I think it’s the best car purchase we ever made. But yes, prices coming down will help. And they will.

The ICE model 2025 equinox price tag is $31,000-35,000. The 2025 EV equinox is $34,700ish.  Many manufacturers are still very high on their EVs, but I think that is going to change soon.

[Ting Tang]

Politics aside because many of us feel one way or the other....

I've actually not heard about them being flimsy.  But I live in an area that has had several deadly interstate accidents recently.  None involved Teslas.  I believe sometimes the vehicle you drive offers a false sense of safety. It's the nature of the accident that matters.  A jeep recently rolled over on an interstate bridge, and the driver was ejected and thrown off the bridge into the river. Nobody will say he was speeding and not wearing a seatbelt. They blamed the road.  Who knows!  But he didn't survive.  I also saw the aftermath of a deadly accident in which a van rear ended a semi---it was horrible.  Speeding, distracted driving, not leaving enough following distance... those things can kill you and others.

[frogger]

4 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

It is the physics of the issue. Bridges crumble because of the mass at a single spot. So an 11,000 lb car moving across it is fine. An 80,000 lb truck is not. At any given moment, the truck is too much weight. Unless there is an accident of 8 EV cars, vehicles do not occupy the same spot simultaneously. Consider it the same issue as an elevator. There is a maximum weight that elevator can handle at one moment without putting significant stress on the apparatus. Over its lifetime, it lifts a crap ton of weight. Just not all at once. Many of our roads get unto a state of disrepair rapidly not at all from cars, even heavy cars, but from semi trucks, and trailers. We see in our area semi trailers hauling windmill parts on roads that cannot handle the weight, and the effects have been absolutely awful. But EVs could travel the same distance and not do the same damage because the load at any single point in the journey is not too much for the road. Now that said, certainly if ALL the vehicles on that road became heavier over time, if will wear out faster. However, that damage is more spread out. Distribution of weight is a big issue.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/04/19/heavy-truck-damage-michigan-roads/3474156002/

The cumulative effect on the environment of constantly repairing roads and bridges is a huge issue. The Michigan limit is just insane. The federal limit is already WAY too high. The answer for now is rail and less consumption of goods, higher quality of goods so items do not need to be in a constant state of being replaced. But nothing is being done about rail, and nothing will ever be done about crap goods, and sh*tty appliances that last only 5 years, and a freaking host of fast, cheap stuff. The oligarchs must have their massive profits after all. The world burning is nothing but a shoulder shrug to them.

 

 

I can agree with a lot of that, especially not going through cheap garbae and then throwing it away constantly. But wear on roads and tire pollution is big and ignoring those is frustrating. Also, ruts strangly match personal vehicle size not semis where I live. 

[Frances]

9 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

You missed mentioning the number of times he has promoted/boosted conspiracy theories, him telling X's advertisers publicly to "go f*ck themselves" (& then whining about, and suing, those who left), and welcoming Alex Jones (the man who started and led the campaign to endlessly harass parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims) back to the X platform (after promising that he wouldn't). Among many other things.

You'd think there are certain things people could agree on as being just plain unacceptable behavior, but....here we are.

Sadly, not only do people accept it, but they very, very much reward it. We simply can’t seem to remotely learn from history.

[AmandaVT]

We were looking at the Subaru Solterra and were super excited they had an electric car but dang the price tag is nuts. 

 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, AmandaVT said:

We were looking at the Subaru Solterra and were super excited they had an electric car but dang the price tag is nuts. 

 

Well if it makes you feel better, it’s not considered a great EV. It’s a compliance EV that they never wanted to build anyway. They should have some better options down the road. A few companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to EVs, but it’s surprising that Subaru was one of them. It’s actually built by Toyota (who *really* didn’t want EVs to survive and were one of the last to the party, so they’re way behind). 

[AmandaVT]

20 hours ago, KSera said:

Well if it makes you feel better, it’s not considered a great EV. It’s a compliance EV that they never wanted to build anyway. They should have some better options down the road. A few companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to EVs, but it’s surprising that Subaru was one of them. It’s actually built by Toyota (who *really* didn’t want EVs to survive and were one of the last to the party, so they’re way behind). 

It's the spite EV! 😂 That's really interesting, our sales rep was also telling us that it kind of sucked and said he'd personally not buy one, which I thought was a little odd given his job of trying to make sales. I love Foresters, and I'm perfectly happy driving one for as long as I need!

[Ausmumof3]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:06 AM, Catwoman said:

Aside from the fact that I think the Cybertrucks are hideously ugly, I would never buy anything that would support Elon Musk in any way, shape, or form.

 

I feel like this but we finally gave in and have starlink. For the first time in years we can actually work from home without speaking hours waiting for stuff to load. Gah… it bothers me, but there is literally no other functional solution in our location anymore since the gov decided to stop maintaining the ADSL network 

[Indigo Blue]

54 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

It's the spite EV! 😂 

Lol!! 😂 

[Resilient]

Expensive!  Not necessarily to buy but to maintain. 

My friend has an S and because of the weight of the car, she has to replace the tires every 15,000 miles. The battery will have to be replaced at some fairly low-mileage time and that’s over $20k at this time.  She has to have two cars because the range of the Tesla won’t take her to her vacation home and back.  It seems like a toy for the rich.  
 

I giggled when she told me she liked it in part because of its 0-60 acceleration. She is the most cautious driver I know (almost tooo cautious, if you know what I mean) and barely drives the speed limit   

As re: the cybertruck, I read that other day that replacing the single windshield wiper is in the thousands of dollars.  (I can’t believe it but that’s what I read.) Each tire is $3,000.  EACH. They’re made only for this vehicle. There are two of them in my very small town and I get creeped out when I see one. It feels too much like a military coup is in process.  

I know of one family who benefited by one. They bought an S for $20k and the dealer gave them brand new tires and the promise of a new battery within two years.  They still had to pay to get the electrical upgrade to their house, but it’s a nice commuter for daily work…under the circs.  

[Resilient]

We looked at hybrids in an effort to Do Our Part.  The hybrid gas mileage was 1 mpg better than each of our combustion engine cars get; it would take 21 years to make up the price-of-car difference. And the mining and production and coal-generated electricity impacts to the environment are far greater than the impact of one more mile per gallon of gas.  We did the research and the math.  

So we’ll drive our cars for another ten years, do a better job consolidating errands, and call it square.  

[KSera]

4 hours ago, AmandaVT said:

It's the spite EV! 😂 That's really interesting, our sales rep was also telling us that it kind of sucked and said he'd personally not buy one, which I thought was a little odd given his job of trying to make sales. I love Foresters, and I'm perfectly happy driving one for as long as I need!

Lol! I'm going to start calling them spite EVs instead of compliance EVs because that's accurate! That seriously is what they are. It's like they looked for ways to make them bad so they could say, "See?! I told you Evs sucked!!" You're in good company with Subaru lovers who are just waiting for an electric Forester.

3 hours ago, Resilient said:

Expensive!  Not necessarily to buy but to maintain. 

My friend has an S and because of the weight of the car, she has to replace the tires every 15,000 miles. The battery will have to be replaced at some fairly low-mileage time and that’s over $20k at this time.  She has to have two cars because the range of the Tesla won’t take her to her vacation home and back.  It seems like a toy for the rich. 

Maintenance costs are far lower for EVs--you do tires and top up your windshield wipers and occasionally service your brakes. I've had mine for almost 5 years and have never taken it for anything but tire rotation so far. I just had to look up where the nearest dealership is because there is a software patch and this will be the first time I've had to take it in. So much saved money over my previous ICE Toyota which was very reliable and didn't have anything break but needed oil changes and all those various belts and transmission services at intervals.

Maybe your friend is super hard on her tires? And never rotated them? EV tires typically wear about 20-30% faster than tires on an ICE car. 40,000 miles would be a typical replacement time, though some people get 50-60,000 from them.

My EV battery is warrantied for 10 years or 100,000 miles, and that warranty is transferrable when vehicle is sold (i'm the second owner, and still under warranty). I'm good with that. Teslas are looking to make it 150,000-200,000 miles on their battery.

As far as the vacation home issue, that's surprising, because with the Tesla charging network, roadtripping is pretty easy.

An S is more expensive than their other models though and one of the earlier models produced--maybe she was an early adopter and has a very early one that wasn't as good?

[KSera]

Nt 

Edited September 1 by KSera

[TravelingChris]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:00 PM, Corraleno said:

TIL that amplifying Nazi propaganda = "changing the world for the better..."

"Elon Musk’s X is a thriving hub for Nazi support and propaganda, with paid subscribers sharing speeches by Adolf Hitler or content praising his genocidal regime. NBC News found that at least 150 paid “Premium” subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months, often in apparent violation of X’s rules. The paid accounts posting the content all consistently posted antisemitic or pro-Nazi material. Examples included praise of Nazi soldiers, sharing of Nazi symbols and denials of the Holocaust. 

The pro-Nazi content is not confined to the fringes of the platform. During one seven-day period in March, seven of the most widely shared pro-Nazi posts on X accrued 4.5 million views in total. One post with 1.9 million views promoted a false and long-debunked conspiracy theory that 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. More than 5,300 verified and unverified accounts reshared that post, and other popular posts were reshared hundreds of times apiece. 
.....
The verified users sharing the pro-Nazi content have entered into a mutually beneficial relationship with Musk’s X, paying $8 a month or more for premium services that are available to all premium subscribers. In exchange, they get “prioritization” when they reply to posts and the opportunity to monetize their content through ads, according to the subscription terms. The result is that X is bringing Nazi sympathizers in from the dark corners of the internet to a massive platform where they can pay to amplify their content. X had 174 million daily active users worldwide on its mobile app in February, according to the research firm Sensor Tower. X 

First of all, I don’t consider NBC news as an unbiased news source.  Thetv are in direct competition w other media sourcex like independent journalists who are surviving on X, substack, YouTube,  Rumble, etc.   I know thatvthe ADL did a very rigged so-called 'study-'  where they manipulated the algorhythm to make anti-semetic posts to show up allraging  raging  thr tjme and next to ads from major corporations.  You can manipulate any algorithm like that. Other  honest journalists tried to duplicate studyS but no set up the algorithm. It just isn't true that a regular  person who is on X is following anti-semites (some are hust to call out. Know your enemy). And yes. sometimes people completely change their views.Atheists find Cnrist and Christians turn intio non-believers.   Conservative Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough becomes raging hiax- spreading MSNBC host.  Bipolar Kany West or ye or whateve is all ov3r the place, including anti-semite.  People turn from reasonable folks to to total nutcases w beliefs like moonshots were fake ans earth is flat.

I am a very strong supporter of free speech.  I want to khow what people who are posting them are garbage people like terroris leaders, tyrants like Maduro and Xi.,and yes, I do see others posting anti-semitic posts but the people posting them are ones calling them out or showing orhers what is happening somewhere.  Like there is a person I used to follow but stopped after it turned our after 10/7 that she was an anti-semite  She was fired from Dqily Wire, and now has become a totally nutcase - but I only know that from another person's posting her post from somewhere and stating how sad it waa.

[TravelingChris]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:57 PM, Frances said:

I’m confused. We knew about Maduro and the horrors in Iran long before Musk took over Twitter or before Twitter even existed. What resignations of very offensive people directly came about because he took over Twitter? How is it helping to identify criminals and terrorists in ways that wasn’t possible before his takeover?

Yes, I knew about Maduro and so did most hereb ut not millions of others all overvthe world.  With rhe recent fraud election, countries started condemming the fake election results right away- and unfortunately,  again the US was late to action.  Appare Maduro thought X was powerful.  He was complaing about Musk a lot thought he would shoot him e space lasers, challenged him to a boxing match, etc

Yes, there are other ways to catch criminals and terrorists and callmiut vompanies w idiotic practices.but X is a particularly effective pkatform fior activism.

 

 

On 8/30/2024 at 2:10 AM, Happy2BaMom said:

You missed mentioning the number of times he has promoted/boosted conspiracy theories, him telling X's advertisers publicly to "go f*ck themselves" (& then whining about, and suing, those who left), and welcoming Alex Jones (the man who started and led the campaign to endlessly harass parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims) back to the X platform (after promising that he wouldn't). Among many other things.

You'd think there are certain things people could agree on as being just plain unacceptable behavior, but....here we are.

I am not a fan of Alex Jones but he has a right to speak. Am I  following him, no.  And as to Go f yourselves.  -I loved it,  There are plenty of things I don't agree w/ Musk.  As I said I am bot a fan of EVs.  He is a vegetarian and I am not and wouldn't impose that on others.  I a. Bot a an of his personal behavior but I certainly wasn't a fan of Thomas Edison's either.

[HomeAgain]

3 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

 

 

I am not a fan of Alex Jones but he has a right to speak. Am I  following him, no.  And as to Go f yourselves.  -I loved it,  There are plenty of things I don't agree w/ Musk.  As I said I am bot a fan of EVs.  He is a vegetarian and I am not and wouldn't impose that on others.  I a. Bot a an of his personal behavior but I certainly wasn't a fan of Thomas Edison's either.

Am I getting that you think targeted harassment is free speech?  And that free speech includes such illegal things like doxxing and defamation?  Yet censorship of words like "cisgender" falls into your idea of free speech?

 

[Happy2BaMom]

52 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I am not a fan of Alex Jones but he has a right to speak. Am I  following him, no.  And as to Go f yourselves.  -I loved it,  There are plenty of things I don't agree w/ Musk.  As I said I am bot a fan of EVs.  He is a vegetarian and I am not and wouldn't impose that on others.  I a. Bot a an of his personal behavior but I certainly wasn't a fan of Thomas Edison's either.

That's a whole lot of rationalizations.

Having a right to speak is different than having Musk boost him by granting him open access to a huge platform. Freedom of speech does not mean automatic freedom from consequences, including banning from a venue if one's conduct violates listed standards. And I don't believe that someone who actively harms others (including inspiring death threats) by telling non-stop lies and falsehoods about them, esp in their most vulnerable moments, has an automatic right to any public platform. Different moral compasses, I guess.

And I'm sure you do / did love the "Go f*ck yourselves". Many others did as well. Just remember that when someone says it right back to you, and to whatever values you claim to hold. You can't love it being said, without being willing to hear it back.

(ETA: for the record, I do not believe that saying "go f*ck yourself" is EVER an appropriate thing to say, especially publicly. Not even for the people I consider most vile. It is a breakdown of civil discourse in the most offensive of ways. But if someone is gonna support going there, they can't complain when told that in kind.)

This thread isn't about Thomas Edison, and I'm not even sure how that is relevant. There are plenty of leaders who's moral centers are clearly broken, and people make all sorts of choices about which companies to buy/support based on their observation of those choices. It's just depressing - and enlightening at the same time - that so many followers actively celebrate those broken moral choices.

Edited September 1 by Happy2BaMom

[KSera]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

As I said I am bot a fan of EVs

Since this is the one statement that brings it back on topic, I’m always very curious about why it is that people who don’t have their own financial stake (car companies, oil companies) have this gut reaction to EVs. There is very clearly a large portion of the country who are just really against switching from gasoline powered cars to electric powered cars, on a very gut level. They will trot out various reasons they don’t want one that they have read from other people who hate EVs, most of which turn out to be completely false, but it all seems to stem from a visceral “I just don’t like EVs” place and the justifications spawn from that. All I can think of when I’ve tried to figure it out is fear of change? Is that part of it? Or maybe it has something to do with the fact the switch has government regulation behind it, so people react similar to how some did with masks during a pandemic even though masks and especially vaccines could save their lives? 
 

It’s a genuine point of curiosity for me because no one is taking away anyone’s gas powered car, so that’s not a problem and millions of people drive EVs and would never choose to go back to gas because it’s really that much better to most people once they actually try it, yet so many have bought into oil company propaganda about how bad they are and say they “aren’t a fan” of EVs, but it tends to sound much deeper than “not a fan”. I’m not a fan of Porches for example, but those feelings aren’t so strong that I would have a list of reasons why or care to talk about. It just doesn’t matter. Something is different with the EV thing. People really want to say they are bad and I do wonder where that comes from. Especially when I hear it from otherwise environmentally conscious people. That’s when I am especially interested to know why the line is EVs for them. Like, people will care enough to heavily avoid any disposable products and will be a big recycler, but they’re fine with buying a new gas powered car. 
 

eta: I just came up with my own rebuttal to the dumb Porsche example lol. I’ll put it here so no one else has to go down that road: maybe it’s like if everyone had to have a Porsche and that was your only option. Yeah, I wouldn’t like that. But I also don’t think this is quite like that. You can get most any kind of car you want in electric. There’s no minivan yet. That’s a big space that needs to be filled. And they shouldn’t mandate them until there are EV equivalents at every cost point that exist for ICE vehicles (which are so expensive now as well! It’s difficult to even find a new car under $20,000. There are a few choices of compact cars and that’s it.)

Edited September 1 by KSera

[SKL]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Since this is the one statement that brings it back on topic, I’m always very curious about why it is that people who don’t have their own financial stake (car companies, oil companies) have this gut reaction to EVs. There is very clearly a large portion of the country who are just really against switching from gasoline powered cars to electric powered cars, on a very gut level. They will trot out various reasons they don’t want one that they have read from other people who hate EVs, most of which turn out to be completely false, but it all seems to stem from a visceral “I just don’t like EVs” place and the justifications spawn from that. All I can think of when I’ve tried to figure it out is fear of change? Is that part of it? Or maybe it has something to do with the fact the switch has government regulation behind it, so people react similar to how some did with masks during a pandemic even though masks and especially vaccines could save their lives? 
 

It’s a genuine point of curiosity for me because no one is taking away anyone’s gas powered car, so that’s not a problem and millions of people drive EVs and would never choose to go back to gas because it’s really that much better to most people once they actually try it, yet so many have bought into oil company propaganda about how bad they are and say they “aren’t a fan” of EVs, but it tends to sound much deeper than “not a fan”. I’m not a fan of Porches for example, but those feelings aren’t so strong that I would have a list of reasons why or care to talk about. It just doesn’t matter. Something is different with the EV thing. People really want to say they are bad and I do wonder where that comes from. Especially when I hear it from otherwise environmentally conscious people. That’s when I am especially interested to know why the line is EVs for them. Like, people will care enough to heavily avoid any disposable products and will be a big recycler, but they’re fine with buying a new gas powered car.

Maybe it's a reactionary response to the fact that people with certain ideologies think they have a right to force this on our population.

I'm not against EVs per se.  I would just like to get factually informed and make a logical decision.  Sometimes my factual information may not be about the car itself.  For example, I used to buy GM, but I boycotted GM after the government decided to step in and tell the company which models to keep and toss.  As far as I'm concerned, GM stood for Government Motors after that.  However, obviously I also want factual information about the car itself.  Safety, mileage, maintenance headaches, etc.  I don't want to hear BS.  This thread contains some BS about both the vehicles and the boss of Tesla.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

... that they have read from other people who hate EVs, most of which turn out to be completely false, but it all seems to stem from a visceral “I just don’t like EVs” place and the justifications spawn from that. All I can think of when I’ve tried to figure it out is fear of change? Is that part of it? Or maybe it has something to do with the fact the switch has government regulation behind it, so people react similar to how some did with masks during a pandemic even though masks and especially vaccines could save their lives? 

I think it's exactly like anti-mask sentiment: "The politicians and pundits I follow tell me that covid and climate change are hoaxes that are being used by The Government to control me and take away my rights, so I am anti-mask/anti-vax/etc. and anti-EV/anti-renewables/anti-EPA/etc."  In both cases there are rationalizations that sound scientific (along with plenty that don't), and a resistance to hear any refutation of the "facts" they've been fed.

[Corraleno]

Every news story on EVs that comes across my feed, at least half of the reactions will be laughing emojis and the comments will be inundated with claims about how stupid and inefficient EVs are, they're so much worse for the environment, etc. I've seen several news stories recently about schools swapping their ICE buses for electric ones, and there are always tons of comments expressing outrage that "my tax dollars" are being wasted on a "political stunt," just wait till all these buses break down and strand little kids in the middle of nowhere, they're going to have to raise MY taxes when they soon have to replace these pieces of junk with "real" buses, etc. And when anyone bothers to post actual facts and figures, the retort is just something about being a sheep and drinking the koolaid. It's actually hard to tell how many of the comments are actual humans who really believe what they're posting and how many are just bots.

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

Maybe it's a reactionary response to the fact that people with certain ideologies think they have a right to force this on our population.

Thanks for this explanation. That’s where my brain was going this morning as I thought about it more. It’s helpful to at least know where it’s coming from. 
 

I’m personally glad for certain standards—that the government makes restaurants adhere to certain food safety regulations, that we have building codes and most homes are unlikely to collapse in an earthquake, that companies aren’t supposed to just dump whatever they want in our waterways, etc. The Western US (and Canada) are burning every year now and temperatures around the world are creeping closer to being unbearable. I wish people didn’t have to be brought kicking and screaming to doing something to slow this down, but it appears the only way (I guess this matches mask mandate research again— it was having a mandate in place that made the biggest difference in reducing hospitalization and death. Sometimes people only do things if they have to, even if they are beneficial for them. In the case of the environment or a global pandemic, those things impact the rest of society as well, so it can’t really be an every person for themselves kind of thing.)

 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

It's actually hard to tell how many of the comments are actual humans who really believe what they're posting and how many are just bots.

Agree. It’s become completely predictable anytime I see an EV mention. I can basically count down three, two, one and name all the false arguments that people are going to come along and make. It’s one thing to just say, “I don’t really care if it helps the environment, I don’t want to make the switch because the government is saying we should” but it’s just annoying when instead people are saying all kinds of things that are completely untrue (and often ridiculous) and that make it clear they’ve never owned or likely even driven an EV. 

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

Thanks for this explanation. That’s where my brain was going this morning as I thought about it more. It’s helpful to at least know where it’s coming from. 
 

I’m personally glad for certain standards—that the government makes restaurants adhere to certain food safety regulations, that we have building codes and most homes are unlikely to collapse in an earthquake, that companies aren’t supposed to just dump whatever they want in our waterways, etc. The Western US (and Canada) are burning every year now and temperatures around the world are creeping closer to being unbearable. I wish people didn’t have to be brought kicking and screaming to doing something to slow this down, but it appears the only way (I guess this matches mask mandate research again— it was having a mandate in place that made the biggest difference in reducing hospitalization and death. Sometimes people only do things if they have to, even if they are beneficial for them. In the case of the environment or a global pandemic, those things impact the rest of society as well, so it can’t really be an every person for themselves kind of thing.)

And reasonable minds will continue to differ, and as long as we have free speech, people will continue to argue about it.  To balance your examples, we can mention controversies over whether the government should be allowed to tell people they can't have abortions at 40 weeks of pregnancy, or take someone's 13yo for an abortion without parental knowledge after raping/trafficking her, or schedule "bottom surgery" for someone who isn't old enough to choose a piercing/tattoo or bring an aspirin to school.

Edited September 1 by SKL

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

..."because the government is saying we should”

And because the government is extremely likely to be (a) insufficiently informed and/or (b) carrying out an agenda based on ideology/politics/kickbacks at the expense of facts.

Edited September 1 by SKL

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

To balance your examples, we can mention controversies over whether the government should be allowed to tell people they can't have abortions at 40 weeks of pregnancy, or take someone's 13yo for an abortion without parental knowledge after raping/trafficking her, or schedule "bottom surgery" for someone who isn't old enough to choose a piercing/tattoo or bring an aspirin to school.

I’m not actually understanding your point here with those examples, but that’s okay. Clearly people will continue to disagree and argue about things on the internet 😂 Fortunately driving an EV isn’t nearly as fraught or emotional as any of those examples. It’s just interesting that for some people it seems like EVs actually are that emotional!

[KSera]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

And because the government is extremely likely to be (a) insufficiently informed and/or (b) carrying out an agenda based on ideology/politics/kickbacks at the expense of facts.

Could happen sometimes. Is that the case when it comes to switching from the biggest source of carbon emissions in the country to an option that drastically cuts those carbon emissions? Do you have any evidence for this?

[Corraleno]

Exhibit A, news story that came across my feed just now, and some of the comments. At least 99% of the comments on this story are negative, and the vast majority of those are are just "EV bad" without even any attempt to explain why they think that:

[SKL]

Just now, KSera said:

Could happen sometimes. Is that the case when it comes to switching from the biggest source of carbon emissions in the country to an option that drastically cuts those carbon emissions? Do you have any evidence for this?

Back to the fact that a very small percent of Americans can even afford to consider buying an EV.  How are they supposed to get to work / feed their families?

And I don't think it makes a ton of sense to try to sabotage one of the few companies that are trying to make it actually work at some point.

The quantity of emissions is going to vary based on many factors.  I'm not going to get into that.  I said I'm not against EVs per se.  I drive a hybrid because it's a relatively affordable way to move in a positive direction IMO.

[SKL]

As for comments after news stories ... I definitely don't read them.  They are almost certain to be low quality.  😛

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

Back to the fact that a very small percent of Americans can even afford to consider buying an EV.  How are they supposed to get to work / feed their families?

I don’t actually think it’s a relatively small percent that can afford them— there are lots of choices in the same price range as the average price Americans paid for a car last year. That said, I’ve already agreed prices need to come down, but there are some in the price range that are considered budget cars. I bought mine used and it cost way way way less than the average car price in this country. And as I said above, after nearly 5 years ownership It’s never had a problem and I’ve saved a ton of money. I don’t think cost is going to end up being the thing that’s a barrier to people making the switch eventually. No one is asking everyone to do it immediately, all at once anyway.
 

 

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

And I don't think it makes a ton of sense to try to sabotage one of the few companies that are trying to make it actually work at some point.

I don’t either. I’ve said positive things about Tesla the car multiple points to this conversation. It’s a good, safe car. Unfortunately, their CEO is the one who has done the most to sabotage the company, bizarrely. I know many people who would otherwise be happy to buy a Tesla but have decided on a different EV because they won’t buy anything from him.
 

 

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

The quantity of emissions is going to vary based on many factors.  I'm not going to get into that.  I said I'm not against EVs per se.  I drive a hybrid because it's a relatively affordable way to move in a positive direction IMO.

Hybrid is certainly better than driving a gas guzzler. No arguments there. I just like to make sure people car shopping know that going with a hybrid comes with the downsides of both types of vehicles while missing out on a number of the EV upsides. But certainly hybrid is a step in the right direction (I’ll say again, car dealerships want to sell the hybrid model as the solution because they continue to make all the money on servicing and repairs. That’s just not a profitable area when it comes to EVs. So think about who actually benefits from the idea that everybody should really be driving a car that needs constant maintenance and servicing.)

[KSera]

A realization is crystallizing in my head that should have been clear earlier, but I’m still finding interesting: Some people think the government has all kinds of nefarious motivations but seem to think that corporations have their best interest at heart and can be trusted. That’s interesting to me when you consider who benefits from what. 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

So think about who actually benefits from the idea that everybody should really be driving a car that needs constant maintenance and servicing.

Nowhere did I say or imply that everyone should be driving anything in particular.

It was the right choice for me when I made the purchase in 2014.  IME the maintenance situation is comparable to non-hybrid cars I've owned.  I've been a car owner for about 35 years.  I research before I buy.  I'm not telling anyone else what to do.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Some people think the government has all kinds of nefarious motivations but seem to think that corporations have their best interest at heart and can be trusted.

The first half, yes.  The second half, no.  IME people who distrust the government also distrust corporations.

Honestly how can one not believe that there are questionable motives in the government?  I think the difference is that everyone alive has long known that corporations have their own interests at heart.  Some are only recently realizing that politicians do as well.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Nowhere did I say or imply that everyone should be driving anything in particular.

It was the right choice for me when I made the purchase in 2014.  IME the maintenance situation is comparable to non-hybrid cars I've owned.  I've been a car owner for about 35 years.  I research before I buy.  I'm not telling anyone else what to do.

I'm pretty sure hybrid cars require all the same maintenance as an ICE car does.

It's electric vehicles that don't need as much.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Nowhere did I say or imply that everyone should be driving anything in particular.

 

Sorry, I must’ve phrased that confusingly. I didn’t mean that you were the one telling people that, I meant the strong anti EV narrative that has been propagated by those with a financial stake in keeping people buying ICE vehicles. Particularly the fact that many car companies are really trying to push hybrids as being better, because they benefit from them. 

 

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

IME the maintenance situation is comparable to non-hybrid cars I've owned. 

Agreed. That’s part of what I mean when I say you get the downsides of both worlds. With a hybrid, you’re still having to do all that maintenance and spend the time and money on that.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Agreed. That’s part of what I mean when I say you get the downsides of both worlds. With a hybrid, you’re still having to do all that maintenance and spend the time and money on that.

And there are also downsides to EV cars.  At the present time, the downsides outweigh the upsides for the majority of Americans.

Hybrids do save a lot of gas / reduce emissions.  They are not the same as ICE cars.  Some of your comments seem to imply that people should view ICE and hybrid cars as essentially the same.

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Honestly how can one not believe that there are questionable motives in the government?  I think the difference is that everyone alive has long known that corporations have their own interests at heart.  Some are only recently realizing that politicians do as well.

Oh, I think lots of people (most?) know that sometimes government can have questionable motives. I think it’s more often specific politicians than the government as a whole though. Whereas the purpose of a corporation vs that of our government are different. If we were under a different form of government, the differences might be less clear.

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

And there are also downsides to EV cars.  At the present time, the downsides outweigh the upsides for the majority of Americans.

I specifically said, “you get the downsides of both”

And I’d amend your last sentence to say, “the perceived downsides outweigh the perceived upsides for most Americans.” The only reason I even entered this conversation was because of the amount of misunderstanding perpetuated about what those downsides and ups are. There are a lot of things stated that are objectively untrue and can be corrected. At least then people can have correct information to base their opinion on rather than propaganda (that again, has been propagated by those who stand to benefit financially from it). I promise I have absolutely zero financial stake in what kind of car people buy 🤣. 
 

Edited September 1 by KSera

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Hybrids do save a lot of gas / reduce emissions.  They are not the same as ICE cars.  Some of your comments seem to imply that people should view ICE and hybrid cars as essentially the same.

I’ve said that a hybrid is an an improvement (emissions wise) over an ICE. I mean, on a factual basis, they still have an internal combustion engine, so they are still ICE cars, but they are at least burning less fuel and producing fewer emissions. The break even point is trickier though. I’m pretty sure that calculator of total emissions over the lifetime of a car includes hybrids. I’m curious actually to plug some of those in; I haven’t done that.

[Idalou]

5 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

First of all, I don’t consider NBC news as an unbiased news source.  Thetv are in direct competition w other media sourcex like independent journalists who are surviving on X, substack, YouTube,  Rumble, etc.   I know thatvthe ADL did a very rigged so-called 'study-'  where they manipulated the algorhythm to make anti-semetic posts to show up allraging  raging  thr tjme and next to ads from major corporations.  You can manipulate any algorithm like that. Other  honest journalists tried to duplicate studyS but no set up the algorithm. It just isn't true that a regular  person who is on X is following anti-semites (some are hust to call out. Know your enemy). And yes. sometimes people completely change their views.Atheists find Cnrist and Christians turn intio non-believers.   Conservative Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough becomes raging hiax- spreading MSNBC host.  Bipolar Kany West or ye or whateve is all ov3r the place, including anti-semite.  People turn from reasonable folks to to total nutcases w beliefs like moonshots were fake ans earth is flat.

I am a very strong supporter of free speech.  I want to khow what people who are posting them are garbage people like terroris leaders, tyrants like Maduro and Xi.,and yes, I do see others posting anti-semitic posts but the people posting them are ones calling them out or showing orhers what is happening somewhere.  Like there is a person I used to follow but stopped after it turned our after 10/7 that she was an anti-semite  She was fired from Dqily Wire, and now has become a totally nutcase - but I only know that from another person's posting her post from somewhere and stating how sad it waa.

Well so much for no politics. Really Chris, you should be ashamed 

[Shelydon]

19 hours ago, Resilient said:

Expensive!  Not necessarily to buy but to maintain. 

My friend has an S and because of the weight of the car, she has to replace the tires every 15,000 miles. The battery will have to be replaced at some fairly low-mileage time and that’s over $20k at this time.  She has to have two cars because the range of the Tesla won’t take her to her vacation home and back.  It seems like a toy for the rich.  
 

I giggled when she told me she liked it in part because of its 0-60 acceleration. She is the most cautious driver I know (almost tooo cautious, if you know what I mean) and barely drives the speed limit   

As re: the cybertruck, I read that other day that replacing the single windshield wiper is in the thousands of dollars.  (I can’t believe it but that’s what I read.) Each tire is $3,000.  EACH. They’re made only for this vehicle. There are two of them in my very small town and I get creeped out when I see one. It feels too much like a military coup is in process.  

I know of one family who benefited by one. They bought an S for $20k and the dealer gave them brand new tires and the promise of a new battery within two years.  They still had to pay to get the electrical upgrade to their house, but it’s a nice commuter for daily work…under the circs.  

The Tesla warranty for their battery is 8 years and 150,000 mi. I wouldn't call that low mileage. For us tires are replaced at the same rate as a ICE car. It sounds like your friend really isn't familiar with her vehicle. They are definitely significantly less expensive to operate than a gas vehicle. 

[AmandaVT]

I have a very small sample size, but whenever I have used uber, the driver is frequently driving a Tesla. I really noticed it when I was in NYC and DC last year. So I'm assuming that there's a miles/year balance point where they become a much better deal to drive than a gas car (is that the ICE car?) otherwise there wouldn't be so many tesla ubers. This is me making large leaps of logic, though - I live in rural Vermont and have unfortunately become more of a wide-eyed tourist than I've ever been when I'm in cities. More comfortable with logging trucks than city traffic these days. 🤣