>EV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles.
>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.
> though much of this is attributable to a vehicle mix that is more focused on larger vehicles, as it seems like every EV manufacturer is making huge SUVs and few are making small cars
My point exactly. Your new EV has more tire dust (and probably more brake dust) than my old, smaller ICE.
The credit card tapping option should be required by law. This registering apps and fobs flow is the worst ux imaginable. And while we are at it the car should hold the payment info. Plugging it in should be enough. I know it’s all coming.
You are not yet getting it I'm afraid. The point of the linked post was that, even assuming an equal degree of expected uselessness, scientific explanations have intrinsic epistemic value, while proving pure math theorems hasn't.
I think you lost track of what I was replying to. Thorrez noted that "There are many cases where pure mathematics became useful later." You replied by saying "So what? There are probably also many cases where seemingly useless science became useful later." You seemed to be treating the latter as if it negated the former which doesn't follow. The utility of pure math research isn't negated by noting there's also value in pure science research, any more than "hot dogs are tasty" is negated by replying "so what? hamburgers are also tasty". That's the point you made, and that's what I was responding to, and I'm not confused on this point despite your insistence to the contrary.
Instead of addressing any of that you're insisting I'm misunderstanding and pointing me back to a linked comment of yours drawing a distinction between epistemic value of science research vs math research. Epistemic value counts for many things, but one thing it can't do is negate the significance of pure math turning into applied research on account of pure science doing the same.
"You replied by saying "So what? There are probably also many cases where seemingly useless science became useful later." You seemed to be treating the latter as if it negated the former"
No, "so what" doesn't indicate disagreement, just that something isn't relevant.
Anyway, assume hot dogs taste not good at all, except in rare circumstances. It would then be wrong to say "hot dogs taste good", but it would be right to say "hot dogs don't taste good". Now substitute pure math for hot dogs. Pure math can be generally useless even if it isn't always useless. Men are taller than women. That's the difference between applied and pure math. The difference between math and science is something else: Even useless science has value, while most useless math (which consists of pure math) doesn't. (I would say the axiomatization of new theories, like probability theory, can also have inherent value, independent of any uselessness, insofar as it is conceptual progress, but that's different from proving pure math conjectures.)
So when you said "so what, hamburgers (science) taste good (is useful)", you were implicitly making a point about how bad (mostly not useful) the hot dogs (math research) was? And that's the thing that supposedly wasn't being followed on the first pass?
That brings us full circle, because you're now saying you were using one to negate the other, yet you were claiming that interpretation was a "failure to follow" what you were saying the first time around.
There are 1135 Erdős problems. The solution to how many of them do you expect to be practically useless? 99%? More? 100%? Calling something useful merely because it might be in rare exceptions is the real sophistry.
The before/after box is not well designed. How am I supposed to tell which side is before and which side is after? They're apparently color-coded based on the color circles next to the labels, but the actual content doesn't seem to have anything matching that color code, so I can't tell which label goes with which side.
Even if they don't want to improve, and just do it reluctantly, it's best to reward them for doing something good, because otherwise they'll have no incentive to do something good in the future.
And therein lies the fault, they only do "good" because they were made to do it. Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior. They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive. (I do appreciate your comment because most companies do live in a moral vacuum.)
>They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive.
Those 2 sentences don't really align well. Should they be motivated by the tenfold praise? Or should they be motivated by doing the decent thing? If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?
>Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior.
I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.
> I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.
Suppose Anon says, "I'm going to rob a bank next Monday."
Police respond, "We will be ready there next Monday, and you will be arrested."
Anon replies, "Ah, I see! Never mind, then."
We can certainly say it's good that Anon changed their mind after being met with promises of consequences. But, in my opinion, saying something like "Anon is a fine, upstanding citizen, worthy of praise, unlike those other criminals that actually went through with it! Now that Anon understands it's bad, they'll surely never think to plan something so dastardly in the future!" is leaving reality behind. Anon has done the bare minimum, and likewise deserves the bare minimum of praise. In terms of incentive, I think such a response would only teach Anon to be sneakier, now that they've earned some trust.
I'm not saying we should say the company is overall good. Just that the decision to backtrack was good.
Similarly, we wouldn't say that Anon is overall upstanding, just that the decision to not rob that bank was good.
My point is that we should treat the company better if it backtracks. And similarly we should treat Anon better if he doesn't rob the bank. It doesn't make sense to give Anon the exact same punishment whether he robs the bank or not. If we do that, he has no incentive not to rob the bank. "If I'm going to jail either way, I might as well actually rob the bank."
<If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?>
Not that most corporations care, being trashed for decisions that hurt their consumers is run of the mill these days. Companies that get praise from their customers tend to stay in business and sell lots of product.
<I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.>
Reluctantly improving means they were either going to or already screwed their customers. Companies that admit mistakes are praised. To think that a company who is called out will in the future continue to do good for consumer decisions is a little naive.
Encouragement of good decisions over bad decisions is how people tend towards making more good decisions. "You didn't inherently make the right choice, so even the right choice you made is actually bad" is just... really, really childish.
no, they were not made to do it. they listened to feedback and did the work. this is better than we get in 99% of cases. try to be nicer and meet them half way instead of living in your ideal world.
In my ideal world, corporate responsibility is a must. Making junk products or killing product updates because they can't sell you the updated version is irresponsible. They listened to feedback because they know their products are overpriced for the market, so they decided to do the right thing, but only after they were called out. That's backwards. Corporations don't know the meaning of nice, only money.
There's the whole citizens united ruling stating companies are people, but they're not toddlers. They (the grown adults working there) should not need positive reinforcement to figure out that consumer hostile actions sour said consumers on their product in future purchase decisions. If they want an incentive to be better, start there.
The massive amount of bad publicity on the initial bad decision is a disincentive to not make bad decisions in the future.
The medium amount of good publicity on the course correction good decision is an incentive to make good decisions in the future, both initial good decisions and course correction good decisions.
> // translate will replace all instances; only need to run it once
That comment is not helpful, because it's wrong. The translate() function just is some sort of lookup. It doesn't replace anything. It's the stringToReplace.replace() call that replaces all instances.
reply