The calculation also leaves out the energy required to mine all of those rare Earth minerals. I think you will find that if this energy expenditure is included, electric vehicles are distinctly ecologically the loser, even if it makes economic sense. Don't get me wrong, I think electric cars are great and are the future, but as they are now they are little more than a base concept with lots of slick marketing and subsidies.

But you did in fact do that.


I put the quote you selectively edited in bold and underlined the parts where you took what I said out of context and pretended as if it were a direct statement from me as a matter of fact.

What I actually said:


You will notice you removed the context of not only the "TL;DR" indicating it was a summary of another user's post, but you also took the time to remove the brackets which are another indication of such so that you could reply to the comments as if it fit the narrative you are trying to manufacture. You did in fact edit my quote and take it out of context. You can repeat that I have not looked into it ad nauseam, but that doesn't make it a fact. You know what is textbook psychological projection? Exactly what you just did editing my quotes and purposely manufacturing new context to push your preferred narrative.

Just because you have some facts doesn't mean they support your every conclusion. You have established a relationship. You haven't established intent, harmed parties, or even missing funds. Your conclusions rely on speculation, assumption, and suspicion, not facts. You have come to a conclusion first then are attempting to arrange the facts around that conclusion. That is called confirmation bias, and it is a logical fallacy.



You are the one comparing apples and oranges. I didn't make a comparison, I pointed out your comparison is a false equivalence because their behavior is no where near comparable. Petty bickering is one thing, perpetual organized attacks on targeted users abusing the forums trust systems and using the force of the state as a weapon is not comparable. One is distinctly more dangerous to this community than the other.

While I certainly do appreciate your enthusiasm for not automatically believing what you are told, I must say I usually avoid interaction with you because this enthusiasm in some people such as your self can reach pathological proportions and makes any kind of rational discussion impossible.

That said, the gaseous atmosphere does in fact have fluid dynamic properties, which was my point.

here is a technical description of the phenomenon: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238789/the-refraction-through-hot-air-around-a-candle-flame

Here is a video of the effect refracting laser light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsyPVevDcJc

If that is not enough for you well too bad, you will have to excuse me I have gates to keep apparently.

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/hashrate-domination-china-controls-two-thirds-worlds-crypto-networks-processing-power

Effectively China can initiate a 51% attack at any time. Given their stranglehold on network infrastructure, this is not at all a stretch.

I would say today I learned you have severe reading comprehension problems, but I already knew that.

"A new state law would allow the state to forcefully "conserve" people with mental illness meaning that if you are homeless and determined to be not "self sufficient" the state can detain you and seize and control your finances until you prove yourself to be "self sufficient.""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVyixBYUTcw

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/10/04/san-francisco-seeks-to-implement-recently-signed-conservatorship-bill/

As some one with professional photography experience, including with astronomical objects, I can tell you with absolute certainty that your image is not at all in focus, and the only fluid dynamics you are seeing is the temperature differential of the atmosphere causing light to refract. You can see the same effect if you look closely about 3 inches above an open flame. This is the same physical mechanism that can cause mirages. Also, if Mars was fluid, it would all just pour over the flat edge. There is no ice wall there after all.

Do you always edit people's quotes and take them out of context to manufacture deceptive conclusions or just when you have no argument to support your personal vendettas?

On second look, it appears to be acrylic. Are you sure it is glass?

Nothing like beating a dead horse.

Internal combustion engines can be made far more efficient than what is currently on the market. Roll out of commercial efficiency improvements have been suppressed, especially when it comes to diesel technology. Also don't forget the batteries will reach end of life much faster than the car itself as well.

"A combustion engine's thermal efficiency is the heat of combustion of the fuel / work produced.

Contemporary automotive combustion engines have a peak thermal efficiency of around 38%. It can be as high as 40% with large volume EGR, direct injection, and a newer cam phase/lift adjustment system. EDIT: As of 2018, the newest engines are over 40%, with Mazda’s Skyactiv-X a tick higher at something like 44%. I think it’s possible we’ll see a near 50% peak efficiency gasoline engine before everything becomes electric.

Unfortunately typical efficiency on the freeway is only 30%, and goes down the lower your engine load is, down to near 0% at idle (where it's only generating a few hundred watts of electricity to run your car).

An electric motor's efficiency is measured by electrical power in / work produced.

It can also be as low as 0% when stalled, but when it gets moving this number is usually pretty high. Peak efficiency depends on a lot of things, but any cheap electric motor can achieve around 80% and the ones you find in electric cars have something like 92-95% peak efficiency, and typically run at over 85% efficiency.

However this isn't really a fair comparison. Before the electricity reaches the electric motor, it has to (in reverse order):

    Pass through the motor controller where it gets converted to AC and its voltage is adjusted, plus all the wiring which has some nontrivial voltage drop at higher current. (around 95% efficient on electric cars)
    Be released from the battery, by converting the chemical energy in the battery to electricity (~98% efficient on lithium ion batteries)
    Get stored in the battery in the form of chemical energy (depends on how fast you charge it, but ~98% efficient).
    Be transmitted from the power plant to wherever your car is charging (varies widely, but fairly efficient)
    Be generated at the power plant from thermal energy, or some renewable source (varies widely depending on heat source and type)

If we use a 40% efficient non-combined cycle coal power plant for example, the electric car actually has lower efficiency from coal to wheel vs. the gasoline car from tank to wheel. However gasoline is an expensive, high quality fuel which costs many times more per unit energy than natural gas, coal, nuclear power, etc. which is why an electric car is far cheaper to run as far as fuel goes. Part of the cost of gasoline is the energy and resources it takes to extract, refine, and transport the oil, and if those are included in the energy cost of gasoline then electricity usually wins, as evidenced by the lower cost per mile."

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines?share=1

NAKEDWINES.COM/STEAK2001E

CODE: OMH1219E
PASSWORD: ASP32XYN

It is regular soft glass. If it was tempered it would have shattered during engraving.

I am not really sure what ways I can make it more clear that the need to be liked is extremely low on my hierarchy of needs, but it always seems people like to remind me of this when I am critical of them as if it is an effective motivating force. It's not.

Also, much like TwitchySeal it seems you also like to project emotional states upon me rather than respond to the substance of what I posted. You can all collectively wag your fingers at me and tell stories if you like, this Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs. If I need to be the whipping boy for a while until everyone else realizes they need to collectively stand up to this as well then so be it. All it takes is enough people saying no. The people doing this can't target all of us, their bullshit only spreads so thin.

I was watching this video and it had a great letter from a former Chinese student of his I thought was worth sharing: https://youtu.be/1WNLEicinw8?t=332

They are both forms of belief systems to some extent. They are both frames of references for putting metrics on, understanding, and interacting with the world. One thing that atheists often don't seem to understand is even if you don't logically believe in God, the part of your brain that revolves around religion and faith is still there, and is filled with secular rather than religious concepts. This is one of the primary reasons communism and socialism are so hostile to religion, because they seek to occupy the position of God. Without God there is nothing above the state, thus the state becomes God.

This whole debate reminds me a lot of the myth that electric vehicles are better for the environment. It is all just marketing. Instead of burning gas you are burning coal at some far away plant, less efficiently than an internal combustion engine I might add. That is not to mention all of the rare Earth minerals that have to be mined to make the thing work and all of the pollution that creates. Facts are irrelevant though, because like low flow toilets, it is about virtue signalling and adding another layer of bureaucratic controls and taxes, not really about protecting the environment.

I feel like you have a bad habit of imagining shit and projecting, it then imagining it as fact. The article clearly states using factual numbers that the fraud was most abundant in areas where Clinton won. You have fun imagineering and speculating about the cherries you picked.

TL;DR

[I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway. Victims might not have known they were robbed. Who needs victims anyway? We can still use this as an opportunity to allow certain people here to pursue personal vendettas. After all what is important is that we pass judgement on people even if there is no harmed party seeking redress.]



Literally no one is alleging you are alleging victims are coming forward. That is a cute little semantic trick though to make it superficially seem like I was accusing you of making that claim rather than accusing you of pursuing a personal vendetta for your own self serving purposes. All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight. There are no victims seeking redress, meaning you are here to target OGNasty, not to serve any sort of justice.




I did not. Feel free to quote if you think I am wrong. I don't support your false equivalence. Vod has a long history of perusing his personal vendettas using every forum rule, community, and even the state to attack people who dare speak critically of him. OGNasty does not. They are no where near the same, so your "what goes around, comes around." colloquialism is meaningless in this context.




I see you are borrowing TwitchySeal's semantic deceits as well. None of this information is new. This isn't about seeking redress for any harmed party. This is about targeting a specific user because it serves you and your friends personally. I am "getting all bent out of shape over it" because I am not a fan of little men trying to make themselves feel big by rallying mobs and using the state as a tool to punish people who are critical of them. That's all this is. You can postulate about the law like Vod all you like, everyone sees what this is even if they aren't as vocal about it as me.

Like I said...


This is so predictable I had to get it out of the way first thing.

I did actually. Your quote doesn't offer compelling contrary information. What you have there is the opinion of one man and pure speculation. The part I quoted consisted of facts.