Never post your resume or sign up for LinkedIn in the course of a job search? Never use a dating site? Never buy a domain? Never pay property taxes? Never go to court? I see your point, but never revealing your info online isn't realistic or even a choice for most people.

No.

Okay, but this application only requires 1.9MWh on board. That would be about 57kg of hydrogen. The required capacity would actually be less since the hydrogen refuel time should be significantly less than recharging a battery. Anyway, I just doubt very much that 11,900kg storage vessels and fuel cell would be required. There's simply less dead weight in a hydrogen vehicle as well as better performance and less externalities associated with battery production and disposal/recycling.

As for the efficiency of hydrogen production and delivery, it shouldn't matter. We need to produce it anyway for emissions free steel and fertilizer production. The real problem is that we don't have enough emissions free energy production, which isn't one that battery vehicles or storage facilities solve. The current paradigm is one of deficit in order to create a market and I think battery storage unfortunately facilitates that. Instead, we need to build out capacity so that there's almost always a surplus of electricity with the extra getting diverted to hydrogen production. It should be rare that the process is reversed to turn hydrogen back into electricity for the grid. That hydrogen is currently too expensive is the result of bad policy, which BEVs just reinforce.

Lol wow.

Locking my account helped me cut down my Twitter usage a lot by making it pointless to reply in most cases.

Apparently the only socialist parties on the ballot are Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality, and Socialist Workers Party. The others are just specific to those candidates and don't seem like real parties. The ballot is a little bit confusing because those candidates were on the same rows as candidates from the socialist parties, leading me to incorrectly assume that they were affiliated.

I meant apart from the hydrogen fuel costs. It's not obvious to me why the labor and maintenance costs of hydrogen powered mining vehicles wouldn't be greater than that of the battery powered versions and the attendant charging/battery swapping equipment.

Why would the operating costs be higher?

Ah you're right. Assuming an energy density of 160 Wh/kg that's still almost 12,000kg. That much hydrogen contains about 400MWh.

A 240 tonne battery? That's almost 240 tonnes less payload. They should make one that runs on hydrogen or ammonia.

I understand how having a higher income and tax rate in retirement makes a Roth attractive. However, the comparisons I've seen don't fully account for the opportunity cost of paying the taxes up front in the case of a Roth, since a traditional IRA lowers your taxable income by the amount you contribute. This tax break allows for a greater contribution. In other words, I think a fairer comparison would show a greater initial contribution for a traditional IRA.

I used to not have any doubts about a Roth, but I've been considering that maybe it's a little too much like giving the government a free loan. Do you know if there's a thorough comparison anywhere between a traditional and Roth IRA that takes into consideration the opportunity cost of paying tax on the contributions?