It is, and unreasonable too.
I don't think having the life essentials and a good healthy life is dull or depressive unless you have been abused or something. but generally speaking no it's not bad.
the all introverts depressive society, well, not everyone is happy around a lot of people. some are, some are not.
I think people loosing the meaning of their lives is their responsibility at the end of the day if they haven't been abused or just feeling dull, I have my purpose and I am striving to get to it with the depression left from unreasonable stuff that happened to me out of my own will.
I understand people need social connections, have them, make them, be the energetic relentless joyfull dude whom every girl would fall in love with, and every guy can rely on, just go out and meet people like you and make social connections. make communities yourself for god sake. if you have the essentials and you can't go homeless or so low, you have literally nothing to fear. just do something about it.
This discussion needs more exposure because it is hammering the nail hard in the head.
I have come to both conclusions on my own too... Is it better to live in competition to avoid thinking... Or... Is it better to derive joy form external factors: family, craft, nature.
I have no good answer but love where the discussion is going.
Currently gasoline has about 50x more energy per unit weight than a tesla battery pack.
Battery energy densities have tripled in the past 10 years. Keeping on that pace, it would take over 30 years for batteries to be competitive with gas.
When you account for the astoundingly bad efficiency of ICE, though, the gap in usable energy decreases. This is why a tesla can go 300+ miles with a battery that can only store the same energy as 2.4 gallons of gas.
You're likely to hit a hard limit to what battery energy density can reach. The next step will be fuel cells which don't have the efficiency limits of traditional internal combustion.
The Tesla can go 300 miles by making it light, aerodynamic, brakes that recharge the battery, not turning on the heater, etc. Yes, it's a significant engineering accomplishment, but in the heavy long haul world when analyzing break-even points what matters is range improvements due to an increasing energy/weight ratio, not range improvements due to reducing air resistance and inertia. This is because the form factors of the boxcar are basically set by shipping container needs and the weight is going to be determined by the load you are carrying. Munro is advocating for hydrogen powered trucks and planes as hydrogen has similar power/weight characteristics to gas -- electrification of these is going to be a challenge.
If there's one thing that EVs are not, is "light". Model S ranges from 4,561 to 4,941 lbs. A model 3, 3,648 to 4,250 lbs. A Nissan Leaf - 3,538 to 3,946 lbs.
In comparison, a Honda Civic weights 2,771 to 3,012 lbs.
Regenerative breaking is nice but it's very dependent on the particular drive and terrain. Heaters are power hungry as there is very little waste heat that can be used (again, due to the high efficiency), unless they are heat pumps.
The main reason they can go so far with so little energy is the efficiency of electric motors.
> as hydrogen has similar power/weight characteristics to gas
No it doesn't! It has horrible energy density per volume, compared to any gas or liquid fuels. You can improve this by using high pressures (energy loss) or cryogenics (even more energy loss). But it's pretty bad to begin with. Turns out that the best way to store hydrogen is by adding some carbon atoms to it.
> If there's one thing that EVs are not, is "light".
sigh
Obviously we are not comparing about the weight of an EV compared to an apple or vehicle that doesn't require a battery. We are talking about extreme measures taken to make the car lighter so it can improve range. Replacing cheaper steel with more expensive aluminum, reducing even surface area of plastics, reducing wires. Truly amazing steps were taken to reduce weight.
> No it doesn't! It has horrible energy density per volume,
volume? Seriously?
"The energy in 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of hydrogen gas is about the same as the energy in 1 gallon (6.2 pounds, 2.8 kilograms) of gasoline."
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_basics.html
You're comparing mass to volume in that last paragraph there. Based on a quick google search, that 1 kilogram of hydrogen is going to take up 3.4 gallons as a cryogenic liquid—so even more as a compressed gas.
> Obviously we are not comparing about the weight of an EV compared to an apple or vehicle that doesn't require a battery.
Well, yeah that was my original intention. Teslas get comparable range to ICE vehicles while using less than 3 gallons of gas. That comparison to ICE vehicles demonstrates the efficiency of electric vehicles.
People have hard time grasping how much energy chemical bonds can hold. 15 gallons of gasoline store 500kWh of energy. That is 5 tesla model s worth of energy.
Efficiency plays role for our day to day car tasks, but when you have to deal with external forces or higher requirements of momentum, then you need more energy period. Towing, beating high-speed drag / waves, climbing high, cannot be addressed with smarter design. You need to be able to store somehow enough energy to deal with these external forces / additional required momentum
The video repeatedly quoted that 25% revenue stat for Taylor, but that didn't sound so high to me. I'd have preferred to see a comparison with similar companies
>Crypto is hard and cumbersome to secure ( paper keys, hw Wallets)
are hardware/paper wallets hard/cumbersome to use? I suppose they're less intuitive locking up a metal bar, but they're not exactly hard to use. If anything they're easier to secure because you can store multiple redundant copies, whereas you can't with gold.
That's about the security of bank vaults, not Bitcoin. Fiat savings (or gold, diamonds, whatever) stored in the bank vault would be just as hard to steal.
Irrelevant because I cannot (a) give the content of the vault from memory to save my life or (b) enter the vault accompanied (so there's an opportunity to alert bank personnel that I am under duress).
Well "irrelevant" to the safety of the wallet at least, not of my squishy bits.
Sure. I can hand you a handful of USB sticks about 20 paper wallets maybe a hard disk or two...and tell you, here are my keys. Now what you do? Do you put down your gun and start verifying which one is with actual funds or, do you know what is a usb drive and what is a hw wallet? Are you gonna ask me for my password too. How do you know you actually stole something worthwhile? How do you know I am not going to be faster transferring the coins to different wallets?
If the criminal is sophisticated enough to target cryptocurrency holdings, they'll probably transfer the coins to their own wallets right there on the crime scene. Exchanges won't help either: they can simply force their victims to log in and withdraw the money.
This also happens with traditional banks where I live. People are kidnapped and taken to ATMs where their accounts are drained.
I'd sit there with you and transfer them through some tumblers. I'd have brought a laptop and set aside time, and will threaten you on your life if you slow down or refuse.
It only sounds hard if you assume I'd take an unreasoanbly incompetent approach. It's like "rape is impossible because a women with her skirt up runs faster than a man with his pants down".
To be fair, because it is so easy to hand over access to crypto wallets vs a bank account (your bank will reverse fraudulent transactions) it would actually be possible to hand the robber a bait wallet with a small fraction of your net worth but enough to keep the robber happy.
