> “This was a first for Autauga County,” the fire department wrote. “Electric vehicle fires are unusual and present unique challenges and dangers to firefighters.” The smoke from these types of fires contains toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, officials said. The batteries can also reignite even after they blaze has been put out, the fire department added.
"I read about accidents people had in their nice 5 year old gas cars" So the question becomes why is "I've read about" a valid response and how does it stand up against "I read about how dangerous EVs are in a random article somewhere online sometime"?
Now post a link abut how often fires happen in gas vehicles versus EVs.
"I read about" is only part of my response, and the rest of my response speaks for itself. One does have to poke beyond what one reads.
Poke beyond the dramatic headlines and you see that if EV batteries ever burn, which they usually don't even in accidents, they always make the news, but they burn slowly, giving occupants ample time to get away assuming they avail themselves of the easily grasped and intuitively placed manual door releases.
Fires happen less often with EVs... but if they are 20x worse and spew worse toxic chemicals? Then how is it "better"? People get away slower but in exchange for batteries that cost tens of thousands to replace? Strip mining to get the rare earth minerals? etc.
"one has to poke" definitely... which is why the "i read" line really stands out as a limited comment which I am poking at. The notion that EVs are "better" is an interesting view considering the cost to make, the dangers and the waste left behind.
1.5 years to have spent less on gas compared to electricity is what I assume you're saying... YOU get paid back for getting a car marked down by government programs that make the car cost less than it should and in exchange you have a vehicle that will be last a lot less because the batteries can't be affordably replaced.
I question that assertion as most of the math that I've seen behind those equations gloss over the creation of "green" tech (battery creation is not green. megatons of windmill blades in landfills is not green. unrecyclable stuff, etc). It also glosses over the long tail problems (recycling, or to be more accurate the lack of).
I'm not buying that assertion because it's pointing at a tree and ignoring the forest of problems. Its a rosy glass tinted answer designed to ignore the greater conversation.
No, for pollution. You spend less than on gas on day one, and your car doesn’t stink to boot. Gas cars stink and cost more. You can get a Model 3 for less than a Corolla now.
>less on gas compared to electricity
I think you had a typo there, it is backwards.
Cars are recycled all the time. Nothing new there. If you’re thinking of batteries, one, they don’t need to be replaced for hundreds of thousands of miles, and two, it is affordable, and, for recycling of materials in batteries, JB Straubel who used to be an executive at Tesla has a startup that is solving that problem cold. A lithium battery is one of the richest sources of lithium out there; there’s no way they would not be recycled now that we have scale.
"its backwards" Probably but we both got the idea I was pushing - which I stand behind. The cost in electricity vs gas does tilt towards electricity but that excludes the cost creating and the lack of recycling options.
"recycling happens all the time" Sure for some stuff... but electronics are not in a good spot on recycling.
Batteries are expensive. Insurance is expensive. Getting materials is expensive (and destructive). Recycling electronics and batteries is expensive (and thus filling up landfills).
I'm sorry but at the end of the day? The "solution" of green tech is no solution so far. It's simply promises and ignoring the problems because gas "stinks".
"Shit is real" my above statement is real as are the problems with "green".
In the grand scheme of things. In a world billions of years old? 3 years isn't much of a delay. And those features, with the small "delay", still weren't "always" available - which was the claim ("the api always had those features").
"most would immediately jump" and why is that? because Safari is a subpar experience.
You can try to justify it all you want because "Google Bad" (and not that I disagree at least in spirit) but at the end of the day? Apple is giving users a worse experience as a method to lock them into the App Store and get their 30% cut.
> and why is that? because Safari is a subpar experience.
I think that's an oversimplification and mostly wrong. People don't uniformly use one reason for things. Some are too lazy to change a default, are used to one browser, genuinely like it, use it reluctantly because the big company developer is doing its best to hobble the competition (hey, here's a challenge, guess which one I'm talking about), or simply think Google (Chrome) is the internet. Based on usage alone compared to Google Chrome every other browser offers a subpar experience right? I don't agree with that. To take the most obvious example, the fact that Firefox allows me full control over the adblocking experience is the single biggest quality of life improvement over Chrome in using the internet.
> You can try to justify it all you want
I didn't "justify" anything. What works for me doesn't have to work for you. Two things can be true at once. My personal data and privacy are a priority for me so Google cheating me out of them trumps any fuzzy argument that doesn't hold water even over a two line comment. Because...
> Apple is giving users a worse experience
Wait, let me try your argument for size. Apple is close to being the biggest phone manufacturer on the planet, as voted by people with their wallets, despite making the most expensive phones. And why is that? Because everyone else offers a subpar experience, right? I voted for Firefox and I'd rather use Safari than Chrome because we have different priorities and definitions of what makes for a good experience.
Sibling comment had the right idea. The only fix for this is one that globally addresses via regulation the issues any company's dominant positions poses.
"mostly wrong" except it's not. Safari is under developed, restrictive and... bad.
"Based on usage" Chrome is doing something right but that doesn't mean better options don't exist. JS exists and is massively popular but that doesn't make it the "best". Most popular also doesn't mean it's not horrible in its own right - like Safari (and JS, etc).
"firefox" You use firefox because it's better... better than what? Safari for one.
"let me try your argument for size" Just because people pay doesn't mean it's better and because it's popular doesn't mean it's better. People buy ripped up clothes at a massive markup because it's "better". You keep saying Firefox is better even though it's not "in" or cool.
Nothing in your response addresses the fact that SAFARI is subpar amoungst its peers because Apple uses that to push people to the App store. Likewise, they "pair bond" stuff to phones so 2ndary markets can't fix their stuff. Not because safari is better... not because their parts are better... because they get 30% on the store and they get the fees for fixing stuff "properly". Same for their custom connectors (which are on the way out)
Your focused on Safari vs Firefox. You're ignoring the forest for the tree.
Apple as a whole can be a better product (arguably, the complete package is "better" because it's more consistent and "secure" and all that than say Android) while also having parts that are worse. Safari is a part that's worse (and as incentive, the 30% cut on app store $$$).
"different priorities" I'm all for better regulation and some places are headed in the right direction (IE: USBC requirements, sideloading requirements, banning google from monopoly practices on their store, etc)... but that doesn't change the fact that safari is the IE of today - forced on customers, ignored by its creator and clearly worse as you admit in your stalwart defense of Firefox.
Cool story ad-tech bro. Apple not supporting “features” designed to track/steal data isn’t a subpar experience.
No one is forced to buy an iPhone, just like no one is forced to buy an Xbox which also takes a 30% cut via its locked down online store.
Don’t worry, the M$ CEO will bring back windows phone soon because he now realizes how it can be ad/spyware filled junk like windows 10/11/12 and Solitaire…
Safari, without hesitation doubt or debate, is subpar compared to the alternatives. You can claim "privacy" all you want but at the end of the day Safari is lackluster and neutered to "nudge" people into the Apple Store so Apple can get a 30% cut.
Privacy? Riiiiiight. Apple isn't using it's market place to stifle competition and limit choice out of the kindness of their hearts.
"M$ CEO" yeah... good thing you have IE 2024 installed on phones without the alternatives available that existed on Windows. Nope... you're stuck like a good slave who's $mart enough to not use M$ and instead you get the joy of being a good donator to Apples bottom line instead of Googles.
At the end of the day... nothing in your response changes the fact that Apple limits choices and holds the industry back with Safari which is a shit option that couldn't compete against real options.
"XBox" xbox is a gaming console not a phone. It's tied to a TV and not the center of your life. It also has competition in PS, Nintendo and gaming alternatives like Android and iPhone.
XBox doesn't have shitty safari on it as a core app to force people into the XBox store. You can also load CDs/DVDs into it purchased outside of it. Can you resell iPhone games? No? didn't think so. tons of reasons why "derp xbox" is a bad comparison.
I'm personally okay extending forcing alternative app stores onto XBox... but the scope is different and you know it - no matter that you try to deflect from how shitty Safari is. Your hate of "M$" doesn't make Apple any better.
To add to this... it's not just that they've failed to implement standards: They have actively denied the ability to install alternatives.
It's one thing if Chrome was Chromium and was simply blocked from low level stuff because "reasons"... but that's not where we are.
Chrome, for example, is at its core on the Apple Store a reskinned Safari because alternatives simply aren't allowed.
This isn't a regression and failure to implement standards... this is active activity to lock people into a lesser experience while actively blocking better.
This is worse than IE on Windows as at least with IE on Windows you could install alternatives.
I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide".
Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't?
Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you seem to be.
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.” “Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit."
So Netty says that hamAss is an existential threat? no shit. hamAss needs to be removed? Definitely. No peace as long as hamAss exists. Can't have peace with terrorists.
But is Netty saying to remove ALL Palestinians? remember... Net (as well as others) have tried to negotiate peace with "Palestinians" and have been denied over the years (since recreation of Israel). So Israel has been willing to negotiate while "Palestine" has only been open to solutions that are "from the river to the sea" (read: Genocide).
Infitada and Sea comments are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably calls to remove Jews from the area.
I love the parallels from 2009 to today... the "overreaction" (read: disproportionate reaction by Israel to a terrorist action of oct 7th) in response to an "existential threat" caused by terrorists killing innocents, hiding like cowards and using human shields.
But I digress. Don't be expected to be taken seriously in your attack on "genocidal" Israel while downplaying and ignoring genocidal hamAss. The war sucks but was started by terrorists and Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. No peace as long as hamAss exists.
Netanyahu’s governments coalition agreement explicitly states that the Jewish people have an exclusive right on all the land” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
I would interpret it as a stance and balance it against the fact that Israel - including Net - has been willing to negotiate a 2 state solution in the past. Solutions that "Palestine" refused. Which is why we are in the situation we are in today. Because one side has refused all attempts.
Remember... hamAss'oles were founded with a charter that denies Israel's right to exist and has been designated a terrorist organization by... well... the entire world. Oh, they are in charge of Gaza.
And just FYI... your biased article? laughable. Try something less blantatly biased.
"In a 2022 interview, Netanyahu admitted he was offering Palestinians something far short of political equality. "I don't hide that for a minute. I say it openly," he said. Palestinians are just as open that they aren't interested."
Both sides have to be willing to negotiate... and it's clear that Net has to keep the security of Israel in mind and it's also clear that Palestine isn't interested in solutions. remember - not my words. Clear history.
Also in article: Israel has been working on peace in the region without "Palestine". Was working towards peace with surrounding nations. Also was trying to bring "Palestine" prosperity and it was looking good until Oct 7th when terrorists do what terrorists do.
Now we see the consequences. Do terrorist things and get responses.
>I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
From the book of samuel.
Not coincidentally, putting death to women, children and infants is what they are currently doing - in vast numbers. Theyre fairly open about this, too.
It's pretty clear what Netanyahu means and it's pretty clear that Israel supporters in the United States (mostly older and always on the more racist side) endorse this.
Whereas "will be free" is a call for exactly what it is. Freedom.
"vast numbers" if Israel wanted to kill everyone? They're doing a piss poor job of it. The number of bombs they've dropped vs kill counts are less than 1 death per bomb and they could EASILY do a "better" job if their goal was to kill all "women, children, cattle, sheep".
"they're fairly open" they also drop leaflets, tell people to leave and have given more warning than any other country would do given a remote bombing campaign.
They give more warning than the terrorists did on Oct 7th.
"on the more racist side" "aNyThInG I DiSaGrEe WiTh Is RaCiSt" /eyeroll
People like you are why the claims of "racism" and "nazi" mean nothing. When everything is LITERALLY racism then nothing is.
You're clearly unable to have a real conversation. Freedom will not happen for Palestinians until terrorists like hamAss'oles are removed.
It is clear what Israel wants - safety from terrorists - and they, unlike "Palestine" have in the past been willing to work towards a 2 state solution. We are in the situation we are currently in because "Palestine" refused previous offers and instead elected terrorists into power. No freedom is possible until those hamAss'ole terrorists are gone.
The problem I have with that argument is what's the comparison to, say, drunk driving or impaired driving?
While a car "dragging" someone can be traumatic and horrible in it's own right... objectively, if we could get rid of thousands of deaths a year in exchange for fewer "mishaps"?
In 2021 2,116 people age 15-20 died in car crashes. 13,384 people for DUI related deaths in 2021. 42,939 car related deaths.
If we could exchange 42k deaths for 1,000? wouldn't that be worth the tradeoff?
Basically the trolly problem where you have to choose between letting a train go forward and kill 5 people or hitting a button to change tracks and kill 1.
If we can get into the "9's" in accuracy and trust bypassing humans... why wouldn't we?
You’re going to compare self-driving cars to drunk drivers so you can grade them on a curve?
If you’re drunk you’re going to have pay for a ride either by a person or possible by program or you can break the law. I don’t see anyone who was going to drive drunk not do it because they could pay for a robot taxi over a real taxi.
Here’s my comparison. If your self-driving car kills or maims someone in a situation where a normal sober person driving wouldn’t have it shouldn’t be on the road.
Drunk driving was one of many examples and one of many reasons people die driving. Did you not notice I also mentioned teen drivers (inexperienced drivers). And the full numbers of people killed by drivers - NOT just drunk drivers?
"if your thing makes a mistake it shouldn't be on the road" yet the roads are full of people that make mistakes. (Hint: thousands of them die every year learning. See above about kids dying each yar).
So you'll focus on one of many reasons to sidestep the question (bias of some sort?) so I'll say it again:
At some point computers will be smart enough, fast enough and safe enough to do a better job at driving than people. Mistakes will be made but - like drunk drivers - humans make mistakes too. So if we can move to a safer way... why wouldn't we? Why are you willing to sacrifice thousands of kids lives if we can eventually progress to a better and safer option?
Is this a problem that needs solving? Would you be comfortable dying in a car crash where it's due to faulty software? What if you replace the humans with machines and after that as a result of a bug you get 200k deaths in a year?
that's like asking "do you trust a spreadsheet where the math is done by a computer and not verified by a human".
At some point in history... the answer would be "no way I'd trust numbers not checked by a human".
Today? It's easy to say we can trust software produced numbers.
The question becomes what is that cross over point?
Are you saying you don't think we'll get to a point where computers drive better than humans? I think we're closer to that point than you think and with defensive programming we can do so safely.
sure but... commercialized? Where do you think these hyperconnected subcultures live? Online... if not inside of TikTok, Youtube, Instagram or other large entity then they'll exist on someone else's servers.
You think those servers are free and those subcultures aren't going to get commercialized by companies that need $$$ to live?
But those "someone else's servers" aren't always commercial. Communities run on sweat/passion and donations feel a lot different than those that make their money more commercially. It's not always so black and white either, more of a spectrum.
Eh... the issue I have with that is a few dozen communities run on Patreon or what have you won't offset the gorillas in the room (Youtube, TikTok, discord, etc).
I think "we have no clue what's going on online" is never been more true as actions like cancel culture have moved huge swaths of people off of the big guys and created other areas like Rumble - and the smaller alternatives. but to think that these smaller more diverse cultures aren't being commercialized and monetized - except for a few rare cases - just seems, to me, silly.
I think it's true they won't offset the large platforms, but I also don't think those communities are rare. I too use Discord and YouTube (begrudgingly), but I also use IRC, wikis, and old school forums. There's also Matrix, mastodon, lemmy, mailing lists, heck even usenet. But what's rare probably stems from us being in different communities?
My opinion is that the communities I've found the most fulfillment/happiness in have are not funded primarily as a commercial operation. Sometimes they are related to commercial things (fandoms, user groups), but the community itself is not trying to sell itself, its users, its data, etc. My opinion is that it would be better for all internet-based communities if there were lower-friction ways to start an online community without giving yourself up to commercialization of a platform. Through the many layers of tech that would require changing/tweaking to fix this. All the way down from network layer DDoS mitigation to application layer maintenance and hosting.
You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't.
However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.
This kind of reasoning is perfect if you want to halt all future innovation.
Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?
What? Aren't AMD, ARM, and Intel advancing the state of the art of CPUs because they have open platforms, and have no monopoly or gatekeeper position on what software can run on their platform?
I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.
What about fridges, toasters, smart TVs, playstations, watches, etc.
All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform.
Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?
In one sentence you say "direct comparison," and in the next you contradict yourself by using the words "single purpose devices." A phone is a general computing device. A smart refrigerator is not. Is there even an app store on a smart fridge which contains third party apps?
Everyone hates Facebook but everyone uses it. Why? That's where the people are. Same for Instagram, Reddit, etc.
Everyone hates JavaScript. Buggy and counter intuitive. Mess in all the different browsers - historically. But everyone uses it because everyone uses it so it gets the community.
Maybe Delaware is the best... or a victim of circumstance. Or being good enough and one of the early states to get that foot hold.
https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2024/01/02/unusual...
> “This was a first for Autauga County,” the fire department wrote. “Electric vehicle fires are unusual and present unique challenges and dangers to firefighters.” The smoke from these types of fires contains toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride, officials said. The batteries can also reignite even after they blaze has been put out, the fire department added.
"I read about accidents people had in their nice 5 year old gas cars" So the question becomes why is "I've read about" a valid response and how does it stand up against "I read about how dangerous EVs are in a random article somewhere online sometime"?