It’s a bit too positive to encompass all that is elitism.
It’s a bit too positive to encompass all that is elitism.
I should have made it clear I was primarily talking about the DCFC situation in the US. Europe is better off since they’re more population dense and their trips tend to be lower mileage.
Around town DCFC are irrelevant for most EV owners since they chsgre at some.
I don’t know if that’s an honest mistake or if you’re just making up things since there are no rest stops with DCFC. It’s against the law to do that on public rest stops.
As I stated, DCFC stations aren’t available everywhere. They’re often 100+ miles apart. So it doesn’t matter if you can make it 185 miles between subsequent charge stops with a comfortable buffer if your only DCFC options are at 100 miles at 200 miles. You’re stuck stopping at the 100 mile stop.
That doesn’t make it a bullshit test. It makes it a different test. IMO range is more important than efficiency.
And if DCFC stations were everywhere, then I’d agree that would be more of a factor. But given that a 15 mile difference in range can be the difference between 100 miles between stops and 200 miles between stops, I’d still say range is more important than charge speed.
Doubly so since the highest range EVs are also among the highest charging speed EVs.
Nah, if Google maps says it takes 10 hours, then it takes 10 hours with stops unless you’re in the bottom 10% of traffic (such as if you’re a truck towing a trailer).
If you’re like most people going 5 to 10 mph over, then you’ll beat Google maps time by about 15 minutes per 2 hours of drive time without stopping.
Not on my phone it’s not.
I disagree, because there are some fugly people out there. Boobs are certainly no longer good boobs when the nipple is below her belly button.
So it looks like most users aren’t seeing a handicap yet, but may start to see one in January if that block list size cap/updating the list is an issue.
What aspects are handicapped in chromium?
Many users there don’t seem to be capable of differentiating those two things.
I disagree with that analogy. There’s a very noticable difference between how the cars goes (and sounds) among those fuel types. They may all get you to your destination, but the experience is moderately different.
And maybe that actually makes it a good analogy. I’m not really sure.
Being friendly is far more effective than trying to punish people to make them agree with you. Especially when there’s no immediate and obvious consequence of their individual actions.
And generally more availability of cars which reduces the markup they can charge.
As well as people still only being able to afford the same monthly payment, but higher interest rates.
It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).
Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.
What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.
The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.
Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.
Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.
Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.
I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.
I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.
However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.
I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.
If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.
It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.
People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.