Now we are comparing used cars to new ones? It has always been the case that you get more for your money with a used car than a new one, it’s nothing new.
In any case, these are all just niggly complaints if I’m being honest. It’s far nicer and more spacious than the average family would choose in most of the world outside America. It’s a perfectly adequate car for most families.
We often see this straw man argument that standardizing on electric cars in the future will make it impossible for people to afford to drive. The Bolt shows there is a future for the economy segment with EVs.
None of those issues have anything whatsoever to do with it being a EV. It’s a GM product deep into the economy price bracket, and you’re complaining about a lack of power seats or cheap sounding door closure? It’s a cheap car, it’s no surprise that cheap cars lack in luxuries.
Being a cheap car is kind of the point though. There are family friendly 4 door EVs in most new car buyers’ price brackets, from cheap hatchbacks to the fastest super cars and almost everything in between.
As a parent, I’d think you would be particularly concerned about the long term impact of carbon emissions. If food is expensive now, what is going to happen to your kids’ quality of life when changing weather makes it impossible to raise food in traditional farming areas? Pretty much every model shows rapidly increasing food prices at best, widespread starvation at worst.
I’m sorry you’re struggling to feed your kids and I’m kinda baffled why you are assuming I have no sympathy for those in a bad spot. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for better government assistance for those who can’t afford food. Loosening carbon regulations to reduce food prices is just kicking the can down the road so the issue will be far worse when your children are adults.
Blue Origin has been around longer than SpaceX and still has yet to get anything to orbit, while smaller companies than either have popped up and managed to in the meantime.
You hear this a lot and it’s pretty misleading. Blue didn’t begin working on an orbital rocket in earnest until ~2019 and in the 2015-2020 era the headcount was on the order of hundreds instead of thousands. That headcount was spread across multiple big ticket space infrastructure projects.
In addition, New Glenn has been held back by the unexpectedly difficult qualification process to deliver engines to ULA, who is contractually entitled to the first flight articles. I’m of the opinion that bidding to be the Vulcan engine provider was a mistake, but the point remains that it’s not at all a fair comparison between SpaceX, the various smallsat launch companies, and Blue. The landscape is very different.
I don't think I'd try to contract them for launching a satellite either if I had one, one would be stuck waiting for development on an unproven launcher when ones with a reliable track record are already available.
To be clear, something like half of the planned Kuiper launches are already contracted to go on New Glenn. The only real competitor on price/kg and turnaround time is SpaceX, whose products are a direct competitor to Kuiper. It’s not a mystery as to why they’d prefer alternate launch providers in that context.
Bezos owning both companies has little to no impact on where the contracts go due to shareholder obligations. The two companies are run as discrete entities. For example, Dave Limp, the new CEO replacing Bob Smith, comes from Amazon and is firewalled from any non-public information about Blue until he is fully transitioned to his new role.
The Chevy Bolt is big enough for the average family and starts at $27k before incentives.
Yes but climate change will have dramatically negative effects in agriculture in the long term. The cost of food can’t always be a silver bullet objection to climate regulation. We can undoubtedly find ways to grow food with less carbon cost if there is economic incentive for it, and long term impacts need to be considered even more than short term when we consider how bad the projections are.
The point I’m trying to make is that absolute risk numbers are far more useful than stating relative risk, especially once we get below the average person’s acceptable risk tolerance. Saying “this country is xx times safer than this country” can be misleading.
For example, if we consider a hypothetical country that has 1 traffic death per 100,000 vehicles you could make the statement that, “the Netherlands has 6x more traffic deaths than hypothetical country!” It would make the Netherlands seem like a dangerous place to live, but I’d wager that the vast majority of people would feel perfectly comfortable with the idea of being in traffic in the Netherlands.
So 0.6% chance of being a vehicle owner being involved in a fatal accident over a ten year timespan? 0.06% over a single year?
Sounds pretty safe to me.
@nBodyProblem
@lemmy.world