How you pay for charging is super weird in those cases. I think you have to enter your card info into the car’s OS or something, or it’s more restrictive? Either way, pretty stupid since there are times when you want to just go to a card reader (like with a work credit card on a work trip) and just pay normally.

I don’t think this will be necessary in the future, if we’re going to have widespread EV adoption, charging stations need to become more like gas stations.

Now I’m curious how easy it will be to retrofit existing vehicles with a NACS connector. Ideally the voltage should be compatible, and you’d just have to change the port. But I’m not completely sure.

The E195 is a bit too small for mainline use, though a good aircraft otherwise. The others however I’m not sure are ready for the prime time.

The Comac has potential, it’s a completely new aircraft developed for the Chinese domestic market, I don’t know if it will be sold in the west though. One issue is that the aircraft market doesn’t lend itself to new players. Planes typically last 30 years give or take, so taking on a new type from an unproven manufacturer is a big risk. It could, however, be successful in the long term.

Irkut is majority owned by the Russian government, and given the war, is likely going to have issues. It has flown, but now they have to move to entirely homegrown parts, which will likely make the aircraft completely shit.

Speaking of, the Tupolev Tu-204. It is still in production, and since the war started it has begun to ramp up again. Unfortunately it still has significant problems. For an aircraft built today, it still uses a three person cockpit crew, and is very underpowered. It also has had nearly no changes since its introduction in 1989, and is way behind pretty much any aircraft of its size.

It’s worth considering how much room there is in the airliner market for more competitors. Since aircraft require a huge amount of R&D, you have to sell a lot of them to break even. So if there’s too many manufacturers vying for a finite market, it gets hard to find any RoI. This has happened a lot historically, it’s like streaming services except you can’t actually get anyone to buy duplicates and very rarely will anyone split their orders.

One thing the article doesn’t make super clear to me is if that figure includes investment funds and whatnot, and to what degree. It sounds like it might but elaborated very little beyond a vague statistic.

Momentum. Plenty of communities on a variety of subjects use twitter as their primary forum, and once something is standard, it’s difficult to change. In my (limited) twitter experience it’s also not too difficult to isolate yourself from a lot of the shit and just follow people who you’re interested in.

It’s still fit for purpose for specific communities of people. And moving to a new platform can cause a lot of problems - tell me with a straight face that Lemmy has reached the same levels of engagement, variety, and diversity that Reddit had.

Aviation has always been reactionary. Change comes from finding the cause of accidents, and unfortunately it’s somewhat difficult to do until after that type of accident happens. In the 60s and 70s it was common for passenger jets to just crash in to mountains when there was nothing wrong with them. We implemented better navigational technology, and warning systems that detect obstacles in the plane’s path to prevent this from happening.

This community is by far my favorite part of Lemmy, and you’re one of my favorite posters here.

That makes you among my favorite Lemmy posters. Do your damndest to have a good Thanksgiving.

Highball!

Finished the first “season” of this and found it quite enjoyable. I’m familiar with both shows, and it’s decently respectful of both lores (though we’ll have to see how some of the pony lore comes in later).

This proved to be one of the first fanfics I got properly interested in, thanks for the find.

Nicely done, let’s keep going.

Edit: Building works.

It’s not profitable, it just lowers the operating ratio, which is what railroads (quite stupidly) judge their productivity on.

Operating ratio =/= more money despite what they think.

The core principal here is open access, where the government owns and maintains the infrastructure, and anyone can make use of capacity on it provided they comply with regulations concerning safety and crew certification. They pay fees to the government agency responsible for the infrastructure to help cover its costs. This is how highways and air infrastructure works in the US, and state-owned rail infrastructure is required to be open access under EU law.

So far it seems to have been successful, state-owned rail operators have historically been the jack of all trades, but that doesn’t always help when people want to travel to odd destinations or at odd times. Open access improves that significant and has been instrumental in helping the EU begin to transition away from air travel.

And the fucking dangerous high front which is completely unnecessary on an electric car, why is it there. Not even the TESLA FUCKING CYBERTRUCK pulls that shit, say what you will about Tesla, but they understand how the differences between gas and electric cars can be taken advantage of.

This is a decent analogy, but ignores the practicality of the situation.

How exactly do you get the UK electorate to support this, there really isn’t any benefit to them, it’s just like throwing money into a bonfire. Besides it’s not like the UK economy is currently doing that well, and given that, it’s unrealistic for anyone to support the government just taking more money away intentionally. You’re basically begging for a far-right populist to come in just because they say this is a terrible idea, which is in and of itself the primary reason why it’s a terrible idea.

Friendly reminder that Uber makes use of public infrastructure to do its thing.

As do all the airlines.

This seems rather conspiratorial in my opinion, though it’s probably true in a few cases, I doubt it’s the majority. I think a lot of the pushback is from older people who are resistant to the idea for a variety of reasons, and they also happen to be more civically active in a number of places.

I see far more evidence do the latter than the former.

I don’t think the “corporate greed” argument is that relevant here, not having to buy all of those things means someone has more disposable income, so spending I don’t think really changes, it’s just you spend less on necessities and more on “fun stuff” so to speak. There’s not much imperial evidence to support it either way, and most of the opposition to zoning reform comes from NIMBys who are scared of any changes in the neighborhood and maybe a little bigoted.

Speaking of which - developers: They have good reason to support denser housing, they’ll get higher returns on selling more houses or apartments on the same land. The reason houses are built huge and expensive is that zoning laws specify large minimum lot sizes, forcing developers to sell what few homes they can build for higher prices. Single family zoning creates artificial scarcity (again mostly out of bigotry and paranoia). If developers weee given more freedom to build what they want, it would be most economical for them to build transit-oriented rowhouse developments. This was standard practice a century ago, but since then it’s mostly been banned.