[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago

I have zero tolerance for abuse, especially in a relationship. If you're an abuser go get fucked with a cactus. Get therapy or heal before you take your shit out on someone else.

I don't think being abused gives that person a free pass to be shitty themself. That doesn't just apply to cheating. For example, if you have a partner who's verbally abusive, and you start verbally abusing them (NOT just self-defense, but instigating yourself) then you're wrong too. Perhaps less wrong, but still wrong.
To be clear- self-defense is always acceptable. Words with words, force with force. Nobody is EVER required to be a victim. I feel very strongly about that.

'I'm gonna stay in my shitty abusive relationship I'll just cheat on them' is not a good POV IMHO.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago

A larger motor solves the problem of mechanical wear by replacing mechanical components with solid state ones. Yes you need bigger IGBTs, bigger current handling capacity starting at the cell level, parts must be stronger to handle more torque, etc. There are downsides.

But in almost all engineering situations, it's well understood that replacing mechanical components with solid state ones is almost always the right call and leads to better reliability / durability. I can think of MANY situations where the evolution of a product went from mechanical to solid state (with quality and reliability increasing as a result), I can't think of any situations where a solid state system was replaced with a mechanical system and it ended up being better or cheaper.

My mind is open though, feel free to provide some examples.

If you’ll recall, Eberhard was trying to keep costs down so that ordinary folks could afford the vehicle.

What I recall was the plan from the beginning was always that Roadster would be an expensive ~$150k+ rich people toy that would finance development of the $80k luxury car that would finance development of the $30k car for everyone. I don't remember anyone talking about 'ordinary folks' driving a Roadster.

I remember many journalists were allowed to drive early versions of the car, but locked in 2nd gear.

If you want to argue that there was a negative trickle down effect- that starting with Roadster, sizing the motor and power handling for extreme accel led to higher costs, it's a valid argument but I personally disagree.
I think a more valid argument is that putting such extreme accel in a car set an extremely high standard and it became expected that an EV would be quick off the line. Whereas, an EV that has 'normal gas engine accel' (say 0-60 in 6-8 seconds) could use smaller motors, smaller IGBTs, smaller wiring, etc and thus cost less but wouldn't sell as well since Tesla set the bar so high. That's a valid argument.
Personally I don't agree- I drive a Tesla Model Y long range, and the rapid acceleration is one of my favorite features of the car. Other than just being fun, it means there's never a question of 'can I accelerate fast enough to turn in front of that guy?' or 'do I have space to pass this person?'.

I also note that mainstream automakers were focused on large format pouch cells for their battery packs, which suffered issues of thermal expansion and containing a runaway reaction. Tesla used a couple crates of 18650s and coddled them, and in time 'large number of small cells' became the industry standard.

I also note that other automakers are now talking about 'shifting' EVs but they're simulating the effect with motor control tricks and a speaker that plays fake engine noise. You could say big auto had no imagination 10-20 years ago, but now EVs are going mainstream and that excuse no longer holds up. If an automaker is going to the trouble of making a fake electronic 'transmission', why wouldn't they just put a real transmission and a smaller motor / smaller power handling system?
I'd argue because even without a need for extreme accel, the big mechanical transmission costs more in cost and weight than the larger motor and power system would.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago

Coming damn close at least.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 0 points 8 hours ago

He is not actually CEO of two companies. That is not even possible.

You betray your own ignorance. It's absolutely possible to be CEO of multiple companies. Ask any entrepreneur- a great many of them are running multiple businesses.

If you want to argue that it's not possible to be a GOOD ATTENTIVE CEO of multiple companies because there's not enough hours in the day, that's valid and a lot of people have criticized him for that.

He doesn’t take care of his twelve kids

I'm sure he gives them lots of money. But in terms of real time- I doubt he spends much time being a dad because he simply doesn't give himself the time to spend. I'm sure his kids get like an hour or two a week or something.

He is instead a drug addict

Why, because he smoked a joint on a podcast? I get that you hate him but when you make criticisms like this you betray your own position, that you're striking out because you hate him not because you have valid criticisms. It takes away from your actual criticisms (some of which are valid).

Everyone says he is a raging asshole.

I never said he wasn't. In fact I personally know multiple people who have worked almost directly for him. They quit because in Elon world there's no work life balance there's just the work and you're expected to devote all your time to it like he does.

I'd probably never want to work for him. From what I hear, he is quite an asshole sometimes especially to his employees. That doesn't mean he's never done anything good, or that he's incapable of good.

Few things in life are black and white. Most are shades of gray.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago

In your first reply.

I said here that being abused doesn't make it okay to cheat and doesn't justify cheating (even on your abuser). I said if you're being abused you should leave your abuser rather than cheat on them.

You said I have no empathy for abuse victims. The obvious conclusion from that is that you believe it IS okay for an abuse victim to cheat, and I'm wrong to hold abuse victims to the same standard as other partners who aren't abused.

If I'm wrong, if I've misinterpreted your words, please explain your position in more detail.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 0 points 8 hours ago

I don't feel attacked. You're just another internet person. I'm concerned that there's an awful lot of people like you these days, who take some position and then mock anyone who disagrees. It shows a serious lack of critical thinking.

Quick example: gears add contact friction, but also significantly reduce bearing loads on the motors, among other things. You trade some efficiency for better lifetimes on the parts experiencing the most pressure.

Quite true. Electric motors want high RPM, so you NEED a reduction gear to turn a motor's high-RPM output into a car's low-RPM wheel rotation speed.

But the problem isn't gears, the problem is SHIFTING. At highway speed an electric motor can be going at 15,000-20,000 RPM and is quite happy in that situation. A gearbox is too. But SHIFTING at that speed, even with a synchromesh, puts extreme stress on the system. THAT is the problem. Eberhard was focused on getting shifting to work, and for over a year was trying various designs of two-speed shifting gearbox from various manufacturers. This wasn't something that existed, that anybody had bothered to design. And Tesla had working specimens, they just didn't last long at all because the extreme stress of shifting at highway speed would shred the gears. Eberhard was letting that technical problem hold up delivery of the car.

Elon then said 'scrap the shifting, put a simple one speed reduction gear and increase the motor torque to provide whatever we lose by not having a 1st gear'. And I'd say that is objectively the correct answer, proven by the fact that now EVERY EV from EVERY automaker uses that design.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago

That’s not something controlled solely by the executive branch.

Not entirely. Not solely controlled by the president for sure. But this is where we get into the question of law vs. regulation. Law gives DEA the right to regulate drugs and substances. DEA classifies marijuana as harmful, thus it becomes illegal. Law requires the 4473 form question on illegal drugs. Political decisionmaking and bureaucratic policy decide whether state medical marijuana registries should be imported into NICS deny lists. And Biden is of course responsible for the actions and communications of his own office.

So if Biden wanted to go hardcore pro-weed, he could simply order DEA to de-schedule marijuana, and if they refuse demand the resignation of the DEA head and replace them with someone who'd deschedule weed. That then effectively removes the federal prohibition on marijuana. As a softer action, he could order FBI to not import state MMJ registry lists into NICS. And he could direct his office that while he and they may be anti-gun, marijuana won't be used against gun owners.

But it has been the position of various parts of the executive branch that marijuana users must still be prohibited....

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 11 points 9 hours ago

Personally, virtually 100% of the chatter I've seen online is pro-Luigi. Rooting him on in his escape/evasion, hoping he doesn't get caught, or outright praising his actions.

Thus, my point is if the sharpest anti-Luigi commentary the author can find is discussion of his background, that shows he's pulling at straws to get a 'both sides' story when the reality is among rank and file people, there's a strong near-universal sentiment that Thompson had it coming.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 0 points 9 hours ago

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle

You've proven yourself uneducated and closed-minded. I'm not saying that because we disagree, I'm saying that because you are asserting a position without evidence and an ad hominem attack (making fun of me personally rather than attacking the position I have).

For example- a bigger motor solves the problem of shifting by removing the shifter. Eberhard was hung up on the shifting problem for over a year, let that issue stall Tesla's development. You don't have to be an engineering genius or pro-Musk to read the history on that. And I was literally watching it happen- reading the Tesla blog where they were talking about the engineering problems with making the gearbox shift at high RPM and switching from one design to another, one supplier to another, etc.

You don't have to be a professional engineer or pro-Musk to understand the logic behind 'the best part is no part'.

And you don't have to be an auto expert or pro-Musk to see that most automakers were stuck in a constant '10 years away' cycle of EVs. You just have to follow a little history or be alive longer than Tesla (that's not an age insult, just pointing out that for automakers EVs were essentially a pipe dream. For reference watch "Who killed the electric car?").

I'd encourage you to open your mind, set aside your personal political biases and recognize that there are few absolute black and white / angels or devils in the world. Good people are imperfect, bad people sometimes do good things. Taking an 'absolutist' view on almost any issue leaves you blind to the nuance of the world and that leaves you uninformed.

Best of luck.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 18 points 9 hours ago

It's NYT. If you can't defend Thompson as being worth keeping alive, may as well play the woke race card and say we only like him because he's an attractive white male.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 7 points 9 hours ago

Several commentators on social media noted Mangione’s privileged background as a member of a prominent Baltimore, Maryland family, as compared to Thompson’s working class upbringing in rural Iowa . . .

That's not the same as condemning him. Just saying.

view more: next ›

SirEDCaLot

joined 1 year ago