119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
119 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
190 readers
378 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
You could hit the president's vehicle with an RPG and I sincerely believe it would shrug it off having seen how thick the armour is. The Cybertruck is a tin toy by comparison. This is a stupid idea and Trump would never go for it, he knows.
The beast has self contained climate control so it can survive a gas attack it's got full systems to recycle internal air.
The cybertruck can't go through a car wash because it's just got wires sitting in channels that fill up with water.
Tin toy with a massive incendiary device built into its chassis
Don't forget the doors fail and lock you inside the car in the event of battery failure! (i.e car battery fire) ๐ฅ๐
๐ต๐ธ [click me]
Please help Aya in Gaza โค๏ธ ๐ต๐ธhttps://gofund.me/1222af19Please help Mahmoud from Gaza โค๏ธ ๐ต๐ธhttps://gofund.me/5156f6e9https://www.gofundme.com/f/getting-food-for-my-brothers
https://www.gofundme.com/f/younis-family-relief-and-evacuation-from-gaza
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-yamen-undergo-surgery-in-gaza
(work in progress ๐ง)(as opposed to a tank of gasoline, which as we all know isn't incendiary)
You can at least put out a gasoline fire through conventional means and gasoline has a much higher autoignition temperature than you'd expect. Lithium fires, on the other hand, hoo boy... It's the difference between a moist firecracker and a brick of C4.
Edit: Typo/fact check, again -- gasoline has an absurdly low flash point (minimum temp to emit fumes), but a somewhat high autoignition temperature (what it sounds like); I was thinking of diesel.
Gasoline's flash point is -45 degrees celsius, what you're referring to is the autoignition temperature, which is up at 280.
It's true that lithium fires are much more intense than gasoline fires, but Data from the National Transportation Safety Board showed that EVs were involved in approximately 25 fires for every 100,000 sold. Comparatively, approximately 1,530 gasoline-powered vehicles and 3,475 hybrid vehicles were involved in fires for every 100,000 sold.
I'm not here to defend
, but misinformation is misinformation. Stop wasting your time scaremongering about EV fires when they happen about 1% as often as gasoline fires.
edit: There's a better source on this from a study in Sweden, because the NTSB doesn't claim to have complete data on EVs in America. Quoting from the article:
I wasn't talking about rates, I was talking about severity, specifically with Tesla's shit-ass engineering and quality control. The discussion was about the most hilarious way for Ol' Donny Trump to wriggle his way into self-immolation, not whether EVs are statistically safer than ICE vehicles. But go off, I guess.