Firefox uses twice the ram, and pages loads slower.
It's worth the RAM usage. Do yourself (and every fucking developer of front-end code) a favor and ditch Chrome. It's the IE of our era.
I'm also not noticing a difference in page load on my machine. Granted, it's high-end.
Now with AI.
Having a choice is appealing, is it not?
Absolutely.
I vote for all public transport programs in my municipality.
I'm all for choice, and the more people who are off the roads because they find public transport palatable, the nicer my drive is
I'm absolutely willing to pay for my convenience- particularly if it helps other peoples' as well.
The corollary assumes that cars are fundamentally a higher class option than public transport.
The corollary does, and they are.
First Class on Emirates is more comfortable than coach, and probably more efficient (in terms of fast check in, etc.).
More efficient... than coach? No.
The economy of a plane is a simple formula having to do with how many people you squeeze into the sardine can.
With a first class ticket, you are paying to increase the CO2 cost of your specific transport.
I would accept that in the US, public transport does equate to "coach", with cars more associated with "first class" in the analogy.
I've been on rail in London and Paris.
You're delusional if you think that's a great experience.
But in Tokyo that is not the general perception.
I will grant you I've not been to Tokyo.
I am aware of a profession that exists in Tokyo though- one by which they literally cram people into the train.
A person who owns a car, and can afford to travel by car, might still choose public transport
If you make the experience itself bad enough- ya. Like say, cut down roads and replace them all with bicycle lanes, even though only 1.8% of the city rides bikes.
No idea why after years of this shit the Slashdot admins don't do anything about it. Slashdot doesnt allow spamming of commercial ads
That's because Slashdot is first and foremost a place to sell ads. It has enormous SEO. It does both traditional ads and astroturfing.
but does allow the spamming of user harassment for years on end?
That's because more engagement means more ad impressions.
My Toyota Prius, at 300,000 miles, only got ~250 miles on a tank of gas.
Sounds like you had it on the "Tesla maintenance schedule" (which is to say, not at all)
Did I pay to get it fixed? No. Because it was still perfectly usable. Just as a Hyundai Ioniq 6 that gets ~50% of its original range at 300,000 miles would still be perfectly usable.
Sure. But you could have. Pretty fucking cheaply too.
Me, I'd shit my pants if my car only got 250 miles on a tank.
Hell- that's my cutoff for how shitty of mileage my sports coupe is allowed to have before I want a new one.
And ultra-high-mile older EVs are getting better than 70% at 200k miles.
They are indeed.
70% would be really bad.
However, 80-85% after 100-200k isn't abnormal. If you look at the scatter plots, nobody gets the average.
Some usage patterns cause large drops in capacity, some cause relatively small.
As a final note- that wasn't in response to 200k. Parent was claiming 500k.
200k is within a normal car's claimed lifetime, so the degradation doesn't factor in the equation.
We were discussing what the "lifetime" of an EV was, since apparently capacity is a non-consideration (which is strange, since there's a lot of dollars made between different ranges in the sold models, now isn't there
That's not realistic. By the time an EV loses 60% of its range, the battery has probably caught fire from dendrites, not to mention that the rest of the car will have succumbed to rust twenty years earlier.
No, that's not true in the slightest.
That's not even remotely accurate. Most Tesla vehicles that are at 200k miles have around 85% of their original range, not 70% as you claim. You're literally doubling the amount of degradation compared with what happens in the real world. And given that you usually lose the first 5% within the first year, losing an additional 10% range over a decade and a half is really not that interesting.
I actually claimed 75, not 70- but that was a typo- I meant 85.
A 25% range loss really isn't a problem for more than maybe 1% of drivers. For daily commuting, most EV owners charge their cars at night every night, and add maybe 60 miles of range each time, so for a vehicle that is just used for commuting (the vast majority of cars, and ~100% of second vehicles in a household), the range loss has zero impact on them whatsoever.
That's just poppycock.
A full quarter loss of capacity is a big deal for all drivers.
Further, even the 25% is questionable. There are many, many, many complaints of batteries being at 80% capacity after 70k miles.
Videos of people with their cars at 85% at 100k
What you are doing here, is trying to pretend a large fitness degradation does not exist in order to expand what you call the "lifetime" of the vehicle.
It is not an Apples to Apples comparison. It's an Apples to Turds comparison.
Both models reflect policies in effect for their respective years; policies enacted between 2021 and 2023, along with cost and technology innovations, have led to a significant reduction in projected lifecycle emissions for electric vehicles.
As I said, it's not necessarily their fault- they couldn't predict the future- but it's worth pointing out that that can often be the problem when comparing the lifecycle emissions of something in a rapidly changing environment in comparison to something with virtually static emissions.
Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow.
