>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person"
Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.
He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
Even then, none of this is related to skin tone. It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
>He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.
White Brits are the only indigenous, native Brits to Britain.
>The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.
False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]
QED.
>Even then, none of this is related to skin tone.
Glad you finally agree and admit to this.
>It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.
English culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.
That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions. You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?), then you say this proves they are indigenous.
Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states. This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
The English are neither. The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles. They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native. That's been my argument the whole time. You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
>That's funny, your own statements are in contradiction with your conclusions.
Your failure to understand basic anthropology does not constitute a contradiction. There is not contradiction.
>You say the English are descendants of west germanic tribes from the continent, and "Romano-British" groups (do you think the Romans were an Indigenous people? of the British isles?)
It arose as a fusion of the imported Roman culture with that of the indigenous Britons, a people of Celtic language and custom. [0]
>then you say this proves they are indigenous.
"Indigenous Britons" QED.
>Please do the minimum effort and connect the quote you did to what you claim it states.
I just did and have, multiple times.
>This does not contradict anything in my previous post. QED? Nothing was demonstrated. Demonstrate, please.
It directly contradicts your erroneous claims. Everything has been demonstrated with facts and links. You have nothing.
>It is funny, because I did not introduce the term indigenous to this discussion, you did (for some strange reason).
I did, what's your point? You failed and making any claim to the contrary.
>The term "indigenous" refers to a non-dominant, often colonized group of people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land [1]
Hilarious because White Brits are no the dominant group of people in London, foreigners are. The English are the "people with a connection to the land and traditional living on that land."
Oops, you just proved my point for me! QED!
>The English are neither.
The English are both, native and indigenous, as proven above.
>The Celtic people, if anyone, has a claim to this status on the British isles.
The English descended from the Britons, they're literally British.
>They were living on the land for hundrds of years before they were colonized by the Romans (and other groups later, including the English).
This is hilariously incorrect. As proven above, the English descended from the Celtic Britons. It's quoted directly above.
>I think it's sweet that you're trying to muddy things up by claiming I "finally agree" about skin tone being unrelated to culture or the adjective native.
Glad that you agree DHH isn't a White supremacist since it has nothing to do with skin color.
>You are the one stating that "White British" is the same as "Native Brit".
From your source that defines " indigenous people":
"peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions."
That is literally the definition of the English people, in England, which is part of Great Brittan.
Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK? Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
You seem to love to write QED after a quote. That makes you look dumb. The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions" [1].
This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people. No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd. The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
"According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the system has instead developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
- Historical continuity with pre-colonial and or pre-settler societies
- Strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources
- Distinct social, economic and political system
- Distinct language, culture and beliefs
- Form non-dominant groups of society
- Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities"
Does that sound like the English to you? Hardly. There is no continuity with pre-settler society. The Anglo-Saxon settlers replaced pre-existing culture.
And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture. Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist, a fringe far-right position.
It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult. All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind. I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own. You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia. It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it. Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
>Are you seriously claiming that White Brits are not the dominant ethnic group in the UK?
No one made this claim. White Brits (The English) are the native inhabitants of London, and are no longer the majority there. The definition you provided literally describes the exact scenario of the English in London.
>Who's running the country? Out of the last twenty PMs, how many have been people of color? One?
The current Mayor of London is a person of color (non-native ethnicity). Once again, you're doing all the work for me, proving my point.
>You seem to love to write QED after a quote.
Because I have shown and proven my points.
>That makes you look dumb.
Don't interpret your inability to understand something as "dumb."
> The English did not "fuse" with an indigenous people, they colonized or dominated an already colonized people, and in the process removed their "social, economic, cultural, and political institutions"
You are categorically false. Your source links to the Anglo-Saxons, not the English. "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there."
QED.
Your poorly constructing a straw man, possibly unknowingly, because you're out of your league here.
>This in turn does not fit in with the definition of Indigenous people.
Yes it does, not that the definition of indigenous people is something that you can claim. There is no singularly approved definition: "There is no singularly authoritative definition
of indigenous peoples under international law and policy, and the Indig-
enous Declaration does not set out any definition." [1]
>No scholar would ever claim that the English are indigenous to the British isles.
No scholar would ever claim that the English are not indigenous to the British isles. That would be absurd.
>The same is true of the Romano-British. Whenever settlers "fuse" with an indigenous culture by importing their customs, the result is not an indigenous culture, it's a settler-colonial one.
Of course it is, especially considering English culture was created in, developed, and is indigenous to... England. It's literally in the name. English culture wasn't created outside of England, it was created in England.
>Did you see the part underneath what you quoted in the UNESCO definition?
The part that literally proves my point, yes? Also, UNESCO definition isn't authoritative as shown above. Even then, English people/culture in London is indigenous considering the definition.
>Does that sound like the English to you?
That is exactly what the English in London are. Every point can be applied to the English in London.
>And, again, skin tone does not relate to culture.
No one made this claim.
>Which is why the fact that DHH tries to claim it does makes him an ethnonationalist
DHH did not make that claim either. You have poor reading comprehension if that's what you took away.
>a fringe far-right position.
There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. This is not a fringe far-right position. Countries like Turkey, Japan, Palestine, South Korea, Israel, China, etc. all share this position.
>It is funny to see you fail to argue like an adult.
It's funny to see me eviscerate you. You're flailing around like a child that can't swim. You thrown insults out, share sources that prove opposite of what you're proposing, and don't understand basic anthropology.
>All the "QED"s and "erroneous claim" make you sound like a tiny Ben Shapiro in my mind.
All the nothing you've provided makes you sound like Trump in my mind.
> I wonder why you would subject yourself to this kind of humiliating self-own.
"I'm getting destroyed by this guy. Quick! Let me pretend like he's humiliating himself and not me!"
>You are constantly misinterpreting terms, simply saying "No" or "False" without ever citing anything but wikipedia.
"He has sources that correctly backup his statements. The sources in Wikipedia are right there, but I'm going to ignore them."
>It's obvious you have no understanding of either anthropology nor of where to find information or how to interpret it.
"I know you are but what am I?" Are you a toddler LOL?
>Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that racists are idiots.
Thank you. It heartens me to get to confirm that (anti-White) racists are idiots.
False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]
QED.
>The best case for an indigenous culture is the Celts, Cornish, and Welsh.
Those are also "White Brits" who are indigenous to their respective areas.
>None of this has anything to do with being white
Glad you finally agree and admit to this.
>it's the language that defines belonging to these groups.
English language and culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.
In other words, exactly what I pointed out: DHH is saying that London is not white enough for his tastes. Nonwhites with British citizenship, apparently, aren’t "real" Londoners or Brits.
White nationalists should own their scummy politics instead of pretending we’re all idiots.
What you're "pointing out" is your failure of understanding what words mean.
>DHH is saying that London is not white enough for his tastes.
DHH explicitly said "native Brits," not "White people." Russians may be "White," but are not "native Brits." London wouldn't feel like London if it was 60% Russian.
>Nonwhites with British citizenship, apparently, aren’t "real" Londoners or Brits.
They are by definition not "native Brits."
>White nationalists should own their scummy politics instead of pretending we’re all idiots.
Nothing he stated is White nationalist. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native/indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
London is a melting pot and a global city. Always has been, always will be. The "natives" have no more of a right to it than British nationals with familial roots outside the UK. (Who, by the way, are not "immigrants" or "foreigners". Many are second or third generation Brits.) If the "natives" don't like it, they can self-deport to a more cloistered town. Good bye.
And this type of nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials won, tough luck." Somehow, whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
Anyway, since this is clearly not a case of white nationalism, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension: https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
>London is a melting pot and a global city. Always has been, always will be.
Falsehoods and ahistorical delusions. You do you though, believe whatever BlueSky posts that preserve the narrative and signal virtue.
>The "natives" have no more of a right to it than British nationals with familial roots outside the UK. (Who, by the way, are not "immigrants" or "foreigners".
They are literally, by definition, "immigrants" and "foreigners." 40% of London is foreign born.
>And this type of nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials won, tough luck." Somehow, whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
And this type of anti-nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials took what wasn't theirs!" Somehow, non-Whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
>Anyway, since this is clearly not a case of white nationalism, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension:
Anyway, since this is clearly a case of Anglophobia/White hatred, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension: https://felipec.wordpress.com/2025/09/23/the-ruby-community-...
Paid DNC (US Democratic Party) staffers were caught swaying/manipulating some of the largest political and regional subreddits: https://archive.is/XfL8h
Interesting, but this is still done inefficiently by a relatively small group of actual humans.
The damage that a Thiel/Musk owned industrial bot swarm can do is much greater imo. I've seen Discord bots (shapes.ai) that can converse responsively in gen Z slang, react emotionally when praised or insulted, display great political astuteness, and are virtually indistinguishable from real people. Someone with enough money can deploy those at massive scale and keep the operation secret.
62 day old account with 12 karma making claims that are patently bunk and then linking to a dubious website that seems to want to run a whole buncha scrips...
The tiered drive setup is more featured if you're interested in combining SSD+HDDs. Unlike other cache drive setups like ZFS's L2ARC/SLOG and even bcache, the SSD drives in this setup are still usable space. Otherwise I wouldn't want to use a 1TB SSD as a cache in front of a 4TB HDD for example.
Another use case would be on a handheld like Steam Deck: internal SSD tiered with a microSD for unused games I keep installed 'just in case'.
I would even want it on my home NAS. Instead of a separate root SSD and all my files on an HDD ZFS array (maybe with smaller cache SSDs), combine it all into a single bcachefs filesystems. Maybe with a subvolume root that stays pinned to the SSD(s). And also being able to use the full capabilities of different size drive unlike ZFS because it's a home NAS for cheap. No erasure coding yet though, so I'm in no rush to migrate my home NAS
One reason is to use the Linux page cache instead of dedicating RAM to ZFS, given how expensive memory is now. I am very happy with MGLRU and won't miss ZFS's ARC.
Why does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?
I say this as someone who owns an electric scooter and whose next car will be an EV—the sales pitch for EVs right now is basically pay more (especially now that the tax credit is gone) to have a worse time and maybe eventually claw some of it back over the lifetime of the car in fuel savings. The environmental impact is the pro in the pro con list. So if that doesn't pan out, or doesn't pan out enough it's going to be a tough sell.
Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.
What do you mean by a worse time? The advantages are substantial- No oil changes ever again, performance that is on par with high end sports cars, less moving parts which should lead to higher reliability, in my state you don't even need to do an annual inspection. Those types of unexpected appointments are what really aggravate me when they are unexpectedly needed and eat up weekend time.
Depending on your commute length, you may be able to just use your regular plug to top up over night. Infra upgrades to support the future are unfortunate, but it should be a one and done kind of thing. It was probably time to update the panel and get 200 Amp service- you will recoup a portion of that if you ever sell the house.
The best part is batteries get signficantly (for some values of signficant) cheaper and better each year. Gen 1 Nissan Leaf owners can now actually replace their batteries for about 1/5th the initial pack cost and increase their range.
When operating beyond your comfortable range you have to strategically plan charging the way shitbox owners have to stop and top up fluids. If it's your only car it's absolutely a degradation in the ~monthly ownership experience though you (in my opinion) make it back not doing oil changes and the like.
Even without the tax credit I still think that EVs are a great buy for most though. Charging shenanigans is simple and a "known known" whereas ICE maintenance is far more unclear at the time of purchase
So I was actually looking at it yesterday, and the top end ranges of todays EVs are actually the same range as my 2007 Honda Accord. Maybe I am unique, but I have never taken a road trip so long that I needed to get gas midway going one way, maybe this is more common out west. I have done some round trips for sure though that would require a top up on more than a charge.
I was surprised though that ranges, at least on the top end and very expensive EVs, are now comparable to ICE cars. This will continue to improve and hopefully alleviate any form of range anxiety in the future, especially as chargers just become more ubiquitous. I feel people really fail to realize they can just essentially top up each night and start out with a full "tank." I don't know, it all just feels very overblown with today's EVs.
It's not the overall range that gets you. It's when all the chargers in the work parking lot are taken and you need to go somewhere that doesn't have chargers after work and it's also winter that results in an inconvenient stop or cutting it uncomfortably close. It's absolutely surmountable but it requires planning you didn't have to do before.
IMO what you save by not going to the gas station is a wash if you have to habitually charge more than just at home. You're replacing one habit with another.
I still think they're worth it since you basically never get hit with an exorbitant repair bill for the engine/trans.
> Just the cost to get my garage outfitted with a charging port is about to be in the thousands because it requires me to replace the entire breaker panel. Now this is a me problem because that panel is ancient but it does add to the total cost of "doing this" and going EV.
You likely don't need to replace the panel, as load management options exist. Wallbox, in particular, has an option where you can add a modbus doo-dad (carlo gavazzi energy management module) to your panel and it will monitor the overall usage and drop the EVSE current to keep it at a safe level.
It's more expensive than if you had a modern panel, but less expensive than replacing the panel itself.
Another option is just stick to a smaller circuit.
80% of 15A x 120V = 1.4 kW
80% of 20A x 240V = 3.8 kW
Just going from a standard 15A outlet to a 20A/240V nearly triples the amount of power, and many homes that would need a new panel for a 50A charger have room for one more 20A circuit. Cars typically spend 8-16 hrs per day stationary in their own driveway, so 3.8 kW translates into tons of range.
While 40A or 50A is nice to have, it's far from necessary.
How many amps is your current service? I have 200A service where I live, but the house is 100% electric -- water heater, range, heat pump, washer, dryer, etc. All electric. There's even a little medallion on the front of the house about it: https://i.imgur.com/BrHj1XQ.jpeg The 70s were weird.
And when you say that your panel is old, just how old are we talking?
You likely don't need to install a special charger or breaker panel. A regular 120V wall outlet will give probably give you 30+ miles of range just charging overnight. If your commute is longer, you might want a better charger, but don't let someone upsell you on a high-speed charger if your average daily travel is under 30mi and 90%ile under 100mi.
Watch out for electricians who try to rip off new EV owners. Make sure you get a few estimates. When we added a charger, bids were $2000, $2000, and $500.
My EV is the best most fun car I've ever owned. I had a V8 Mercedes E430 and my EV is faster and more fun to drive. You have it backwards. Having and ICE car is accepting a worse time in exchange for government subsidies on Oil.
Says the person who has never owned an EV. Fifteen years of EV ownership, I’m never going back. Environmental factors aside, an EV is the overall better vehicle. You can keep your rattling ICE vehicles that need special fluid from specific vendors.
I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars. I know some people swear by them being more fun to drive but that's the last thing on my list of requirements for a car. I will say I think you're giving ICE cars a bad rap, my little Honda Fit that will be replaced by the EV is at 150k miles with nothing other than like three oil changes (yes i know) and a new set of tires.
I guess I should have said "a more inconvenient time" where owning an EV kinda revolves around your charging setup/schedule in a way that you don't have to think about with ICE cars.
I plug it in when I get home, and when I get in it again the "tank" is always full. I think about the EV a lot less than I do our ICE car, which seems to need gas at the most inconvenient times. You might have an argument for road trips, but even that's almost a no-brainer these days. Sure, I can't just get off at some random exit in the Utah desert and expect to find a charger, but my experience says this whole "charging on a road trip" is way overblown, as if even the slightest bit of look-ahead planning is just too much for people to handle.
“Full” meaning 80%. With a 300 mile range, that’s plenty for day-to-day.
But to your question: I don’t know, does it still? Seems BMS has gotten a lot better from the early Nissan Leaf days, so I don’t if it yet time to retire that along with “discharge batteries all the way so they don’t get ‘memory’”.
One of the biggest bonuses for me is never needing to go to a gas station. So much more pleasant to charge at home overnight, or at charge stations if I’m on a road trip. I can’t imagine buying an ICE car ever again.
I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs.
If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.
> Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California.
> Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
Consumers like SUVs. They are convenient, easy to get in and out of, flexible for hauling large items, many can pull trailers, offer good visibility for the driver, and do well in the snow.
They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which is why car companies push them. In their current ICE form they also benefit from massive government subsidies of the Oil companies. If you took those away it is unlikely that the convenience would be worth the additional cost.
>They are also heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of relaxed regulations. The profit margins are higher which...
Look in the mirror, that's who's responsible for this.
You people levied regulations. You levied them in half baked ways that resulted in the demise of sedans and station wagons. And now you complain that SUVs are "subsidized". Get out of here with that nonsense and take your stupid regulations with you so the rest of us can have diversity of vehicle choice back.
None of this stuff is a subsidy, construing "exempt from the screwing some other product category gets" is just a lie.
I take a less libertarian view on this. It because trucks and truck-like vehicles are under-regulated. The result being excess pollution and pedestrian fatalities. We need to remove the loop hole.
They can, the main difference being they ride lower (like a sedan) and tend to have less headroom in the cargo area so might not be quite as good at transporting "stuff."
I had a Ford Focus wagon for quite some time, loved it. Cheap to buy, cheap to own, nothing exciting but very dependable and useful. With a small 4-cylinder engine it could not tow (at least not much) and rust eventually claimed it. Still ran like new with over 200K miles.
Because when you're talking about particulates in the air, one of the main local environmental harms from cars, EVs aren't the 100% clean people expect them to be.
EVs are heavier than equivalent-sized ICE vehicles, but they do enjoy regenerative braking. The answer is to make smaller-sized cars but the auto industry has been pushing the farmer cosplay for decades because the profit margins are a lot higher on a $75k truck or SUV than $30k sedan.
It's a tough area, honestly, and will be until public charging is better. You need a bigger battery to get the range that people need (want?) to be able to reach the next charging station. Realistically, though, most people don't really venture far from home but they don't like the idea that they can't venture far from home without finding a place to charge.
EV charging availability has drastically improved over the last few years, so maybe there is hope for smaller EVs.
The Chevy Suburban has been one of the largest vehicles on the market since 1934. [1]
If you wanted an EV to match the Suburban it would probably be that Cadillac Escalade IQ in terms of size, comfort, and towing capacity -- that's got a curb weight of 9,100 pounds which is 1.5x heavier than the Suburban.
I'd think the BMW 3 Series has a similar vibe to the Model 3 and that has a base curb weight of 3536 which is about 10% less than the Model 3.
[1] it's the oldest nameplate that's been made continuously
Tires yes, brakes no. Friction brakes are barely used on EVs outside of specific scenarios. Mine will engage in three situations:
1. The brake pedal is pressed hard
2. The battery is 100% charged and the energy from braking can not be used
3. I am backing up
For #3, the only reason why the brakes are used when backing up is to ensure that they are used even the tiniest amount and to clear any rust from the rotors.
Tire wear is probably a thing - although I suspect the per-wheel control allows them to better respond to slips and sudden acceleration. I've noticed test driving a Tesla that it accelerates rapidly much more smoothly with no tire slippage than a combustion car.
Brake wear is likely nulled out by regenerative braking. And you're probably not driving highway speeds through Manhattan, either.
Tire, yes. But not brakes. With an EV most of the kinetic energy is converted back to electricity thanks to regenerative braking instead of being turned into heat through friction.
Overall the EV emit fewer airborne particles even without counting the exhaust.
Why does everyone immediately pivot to SUVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan Tesla Model Ys that weigh as much as a Ford Bronco and EV trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US consumer habits and the demand for huge vehicles to pick up groceries?
huh well TIL, thank you. My definitions of Sports Utility Vehicle are outdated. They have almost no clearance, and the suspension is not tuned for anything more than small washboards.
non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.
Tire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle.
The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life.
>Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.
And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century).
If you substitute with “don’t travel far [or at all]”, it’s a big savings. If you substitute flying 1000 miles on an airliner with “drive 1000 miles instead”, or flying US to Europe with a cruise ship trip to Europe, you’ve probably made it worse; in that regards, it’s less the mode of travel and more the total distance in these trades.
The observation that stuck with me is how much of my county's total carbon emissions are due to air travel which begins/ends at our regional airports (~3%), vs what percentage of the population flies in a given year.
The distribution of air-travel emissions, to me, seem pretty gross when juxtaposed with the number of people who are doing this travel. The incentives for business travel, in particular, seem misaligned.
I don't think you can just look at the "number of people who are doing this travel", as those same planes are also carrying air cargo and US mail. Not everyone flies, but almost everyone in the county receives mail, cargo, or benefits from same. (It would be easier to replace cargo than passenger transport with a more efficient and comparable total trip time mode of transport if such was available.)
The reason you get asked whether your USPS parcel contains hazardous substances X, Y, and Z and why the fines for violations are so stiff is partly because of passenger airline safety concerns.
Rail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here.
A bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better.
>Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads..
On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>
There's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction.
For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.
What material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of?
Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs.
Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health.
Because a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.
“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago?
I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.
reply