Readit NewsAlcohol is still cheaper than pretty much all the substances that are replacing it and you don’t need to go to a bar to have it. You can get 30 rack for about $20 and hang out in a park with your buddies to finish it.
For reference, that will get you and your friends absolutely blasted for way more than a single evening.
Tesla gives 8 years for battery warranty.
Interpret that as you may.
In reality, too early to tell. But probably not 20+ years like a Toyota/Honda engine or even a Mercedes/BMW/Porsche engine.
8 years is standard and implies a substantially longer expected lifetime of the vehicle on average.
This is really missing the point. Tesla could have called it “unicorn mode” and the result would still be the same.
The true issue at hand is that Elon Musk has been banding about telling people that their cars are going to drive themselves completely for over a decade now and overstating teslas capabilities in this area. Based on the sum totality of the messaging, many lay consumers believe teslas have been able to safely drive themselves unsupervised for a long time.
From a culpability standpoint, you can’t put all this hype out and then claim it doesn’t matter because technically the fine print says otherwise.
Environmental pollution very reasonably can be hypothesized to be a causal mechanism behind cancer rates. Exposure to which is going to be heavily correlated with race and socioeconomics.
I may be misinterpreting OP, but their statement came off as “cancer maps are just maps of where poor non white people live, so it’s not the pollution”, but you can’t just “control” for things that way. Given the fact that environmental pollution is a hazard, there’s a reason why that demographic lives there that makes the exposure to pollution not independent from the demographic characteristics of the population.
It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point.
The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California.
Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.
Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc.
I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
For reference I’m on a small Data Eng/analyst team.