Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | shinryuu's comments login

Not sure about that. Use emissions is the majority

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/life-cycle-emissions-evs-vs...


Yes, for equivalent cars purchased new. The point was that a 10 year old used sedan than you drive for another 10 years will still produce fewer tailpipe emissions than a new EV's manufacture.

You can still choose to buy your electric car from some other company. At this point I think that would be my preferred choice.

People flagged it. Seems like it got moderated and is now unflagged.

Disappointed that this got flagged.

Fixed :)

There are more reasons to be sceptic about self-driving cars. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0

Can you summarize?

Very grateful for those translations. Use them a lot!

This disregards how systems interacts with each other. For instance how more car traffic in cities leads to economic decline (because there is less people shopping, it's gotten less hospitable to walk downtown).


I don't think car traffic leads to economic decline. It changes how people spend their time.

Let's say in 15 minutes, I can walk 1 km, go 5 km on a bike, 10 km with a public transport and 15 km with a car.

Area = pi * radius*2 Walking = 3.14sqkm Bike = 78sqkm Public transport = 314sqkm Car = 706sqkm (All is just example ignoring parking, looking for bike stands, waiting for public transport or changing stations)

If I want to do Yoga, and it is in 706sqkm around me, but not in 314km, I have to use car and no other transport is going to get me there in 15 minutes. When the city have a policy that prohibits me from using the car, I need to choose the second most preferred activity, which might be for example going to a café nearby.

Cities that slow down transport are in fact harming people's interests by limiting their choices and pushing them to suboptimal choices. (Which also inherently means that faster is always better and people who want to slow down traffic in cities are evil, but that off-topic)

If there were no subsidies for cars, public transport and bike lines and all this was based purely on contributions from users, it would create a self-optimising feedback mechanism. Going to yoga could for example cost $2 to build & maintain roads. I might not want to spend it and I might go to a café instead because everyone living in the city already pays for his sidewalk anyway.


That's not what he's saying. He is saying that your father and my father shouldn't be supremely unequal. Ie your father being a CEO and earning 10s of millions every year and my father working a product manager role at a small company.

Very often there is a huge factor of pay difference between roles like these.


Let's ignore CEOs.

In my parents' generation it would not be absurd to buy a small house here to raise the kids in, with a single parent working and the other caring for the kids, even if you don't have a well-paying job. A decent job will do.

Compare to now, double income, no kids, both earning above average wages. Buying a house before you are 50, or at all? Forget it.

Just that those people who inherited the house now basically have enough to buy 2 houses out somewhere on the countryside if they decide to move.


What if the CEO wants to make 10s of millions to ensure he can support his family for generations to come??


Enter a game that simulates what genshin impact does but without the money element. To be banned next?


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: