Re:Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
by mannykannot on Saturday December 31, 2016 @10:12AM
(#13291327)
It does not so much address the issues as it glosses over them. For example, it assumes that past battery performance trends can be extrapolated, but the battery-makers, -engineers and -chemists themselves do not expect this. Nor does the article attempt to address the noise problem.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
by refulgentis on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:13PM
(#13292269)
I walked away with the impression that trends couldn't be extrapolated, thanks to various snippets from the article, but there's no pull quote that clearly proves it, so, sure.
The noise problem you brought up apropos of nothing.
You're responding to a comment responding to a comment that had concerns that were already addressed by the article, to let me know your concerns weren't addressed by the article. Surely there's a better place in the comment hierarchy for this? You'll get ignored down here.
Re:Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars
by mannykannot on Sunday January 01, 2017 @07:50AM
(#13295585)
There are four consecutive paragraphs saying that battery technology is almost there and improving rapidly, and nothing more on the topic, so it is interesting that you got the impression that trends could not be extrapolated.