I refuse to live my life as if these things aren't important to me. I refuse to average my entire life style down to my median day. My median day is boring.

That's what renting is for. You can rent a better party room than your dining room for very little.

> My parents staying here with me is important to me, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Fine, but I don't think it's this important to most people who have a spare bedroom, they just don't think about it.

> that landscaping work I do in my weekend is one of my favourite hobbies.

Mine too, doesn't mean I need a pickup. But anyways if it's one of your favorite hobbies and you do it every weekend, that's not what I was talking about.

And don't get hung up on this example. There are endless examples of the same sort and that pose the exact same conundrum.

Yes, there are countless cases of it actually making sense to have a spare bedroom. But that's beside the point. My point was that for a lot of people it is a decision that they take instinctually, but does not really make sense.

For example: my parents have a truck, a van, and an SUV. Do they need all of those vehicles? No. Do they get used all the time? Yes: my parents are both avid gardeners, they generously lend their vehicles to those who happen to need a truck or a van for the day, and I have several younger siblings who occupy them the rest of the time.

And even if they didn't, I could well see my dad still owning a truck purely for the convenience of being able to drive to the local garden center and pick up a load of mulch on a whim - even if in practice that happened twice a year.

Emotions are strange things.

And for a lot of people it does. so what's your point. People will figure out what makes them feel good. They do not need help in this department

Perhaps you really do make use of a guest bedroom often enough it’s worth spending 10’s of thousands on. But isn’t the case everywhere. Perhaps you’re wasting money on excessive car insurance etc across a lifetime of choice it adds up to a massive drag.

In terms of EV’s people are spending more time driving to stations because they picture the once a year vacation driving taking 1 hour longer rather than the wasted 5 minutes 48 weeks a year which costs them 4.

In the end I’m just describing a common mistake, not suggesting you specifically should buy an EV or whatever.

Nope. I prefer to do what I want. And want is the criteria and hence optimal by definition. What others might think about it does not matter at all.

If you could accurately predict what would make you happy, and decide based on that, it would be optimal.

You don't.

My point is that there is a cognitive bias towards overweighting the allocation of resources toward low-frequency events.

As I pointed out upthread, low frequency is not the same as low probability.

It might not make sense to upfront allocate resources for a low probability event, but it certainly could make sense for a high probability event even if it was low frequency ... like a spare bedroom, or a dining room, or a car with good range.

The probability of using those things are 1 i.e. guaranteed.

My spare bedroom has a futon couch but I actually use the space for various other things most of the time. Most people may have space that’s underutilized much of the time but that doesn’t mean it’s sealed off until they have an overnight guest or a large dinner part. Things aren’t that binary.

When provisioning servers, do you average your throughput and get enough capacity for that average?

Of course not, that would be assinine. You need to be able to serve 24 hours a day, even - especially - during your edge cases. Follow your advice and explain to the CEO that since Black Friday is a "low frequency event," it's fine that your site was down during that one day.

A better argument is that you should choose things, including houses and cars, based on edge cases since that is where meaningful differentiation occurs. If I take one road trip each quarter and my car is unable to handle it, then I bought the wrong car.

- Up front planning

- A pub to exist nearby. While I as a presumably fellow Brit would not buy a house without being able to walk to multiple pubs, that is not the common case in the US where I actually live.

- The pub to have a room that it rents out. Again, not the common case even in London, let alone in the US.

- Your potential guests to be OK with being at a pub.

- Potentially childcare. If you have to have your party away from your house, you can't put your kids to bed and return to your guests, you have to go home. That part, if you will pardon my French, really fucking sucks.

Hosting your own party has a lot more planning. And don't discount the planning that went into obtaining your own party room in the first place.

> A pub to exist nearby. While I as a presumably fellow Brit would not buy a house without being able to walk to multiple pubs, that is not the common case in the US where I actually live.

Don't get hung up on the 'pub' part. It can be a restaurant, public park, street (block party), arcade, bowling alley, or whatever is fun and convenient for you.

It can even be another room in your house. Move some furniture around, put in some speakers, BAM, party room.

It really doesn't. I have a backstock of beer and wine and cheese and a subscription to Apple Music, I can literally do it with 15 minutes notice, and have had plenty of practice at doing so. Most of my neighbours are the same.

> a restaurant, public park, street (block party), arcade, bowling alley, or whatever is fun and convenient for you.

- Restaurants do not like large groups showing up without reservations, and the cost is wildly different.

- Drinking in public parks is not typically permitted, nor is street drinking.

- Arcades and bowling alleys are out in the burbs and require driving to.

What is fun and convenient for me is to have parties at my house, in the entertaining space space that does not require manual labour to reconfigure.

I don't care whether you like that or not - I'm not the one who was getting "kind of annoyed" by the preferences of others.

We’re all well aware now that you don’t give a shit about anyone but yourself and your fancy desires.

I bet you’re real fun at your awful house parties.

Twat.

Keep in mind this cost is compared to an extra or bigger room in your house. You can throw many restaurant parties for the money you'd spend on a larger house. (Invest the difference and the restaurant parties are effectively free)

I don't really understand what people are imagining here though - it's not like "entertaining space" is some gilded-age ballroom for most people making this choice, and the price difference matters if and only if there is an otherwise comparable house you can buy that meets your other constraints.

Also I don't think it always makes sense to get a smaller house. We got a smaller house and I kind of regret it now, since housing prices and mortgage rates have shot up so much it's now so much harder to upgrade (and the house we got was intended to be a starter home), and also we'd get so much more if we sold a larger house today than our house now.

For example, let's assume prices went up about 50% on average in the past five years for the sake of easy math (not too far from how much my home actually did go up after a reappraisal last year). Buy a house at $300k and it goes up 50% means you can sell it for $450k and make $150k out of it. But buy a $500k home and it goes up 50%, means you can sell it at $750k and made $250k out of it. Granted you're making higher payments that whole time as well but not as much as it went up.

That math doesn't make as much sense now, with prices starting to dip a bit and high mortgage rates muting demand somewhat, however.

You are also discounting the costs you have already sunk into throwing your own parties ("I have a backstock of beer and wine and cheese and a subscription to Apple Music, I can literally do it with 15 minutes notice, and have had plenty of practice at doing so.")

> What is fun and convenient for me is to have parties at my house, in the entertaining space space that does not require manual labour to reconfigure.

Good, I'm happy that you know what you want and are pleased. But I didn't say it was impossible to derive value from that.

> "kind of annoyed" by the preferences of others.

More frustrated with the way some people try to fulfill those preferences, and that every time I bring it up people get so defensive.

I also think you underestimate how often many people (especially in more social cultures) socialise. It could be literally 100's of times per year.

I'm not going to go to the room you rented at a local business, bring a six pack of interesting beers to try together, bring my baby that my friends have been so excited to meet and play with, etc. My friends who like weed aren't going to show up. Not to mention holidays, the hardest time to rent public spaces and the most likely time for friends to gather...

Sure. “Hi, I know it’s closing time, but can I rent your party space for my friends and I to drink our own alcohol in starting in 15 minutes time” is not exactly the kind of call a landlord would be particularly receptive to.

I think we’re done here.

The party you're describing doesn't sound like it needs a dining room.

My point is, climate change is an extremely big threat that we simply don't have much room for these affordances. 2024 is the year to make personal sacrifices to switch to EVs because that's how urgent the situation is.

There are far better targets to reducing the amount of oil and gas burned, ones that are more uniform and less varied them peoples lives not to mention moving people to transit and commuter rail is better then evs anyways

¹ https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

Do you really need an oven? Most techies don't cook all that often, and it can be cheaper to order take out. More efficient due to the economies of scale, too! Do you really need a smart phone? Do you really need a gaming PC? There's always some other, more barebones way of achieving the same result.

We tend to have a lot of tolerance for what we think enriches or streamlines our lives, but little patience for the same in others. It's also true for politics, where we're always eager to regulate other professions or lifestyles, but not our own.

Trust me; I spent $2,000 on a bicycle recently. Not a sports bike or mountain bike or anything. Just a bike for getting around town. Am I under some illusion that I needed to spend 2k on a transportation bike? Of course not. But it's something that I use every single day and derive great joy from using, so I prioritize having a nice one. So I am no stranger to spending money on optional things.

I also enjoy mountain biking, but I only really do it when I'm with my dad which is like 2 times a year. So instead of buying a mountain bike, I rent them. And I rent nice ones (nicer than I would buy, man those things get expensive).

My point is that there is a bias toward ownership of certain conventional things that don't get used very often, and are easy to obtain temporarily. (And of course every example I used had people responding, "I have that and use it all the time!", which is also missing the point.)

I don't see a complete argument where doing so is strictly more rational than doing the polar opposite, i.e. hypothetically, renting the frequent item and vice versa.

I also think the frequent vs infrequent products are not equivalent in the first place. A dining room is just not the same as a restaurant setting, so a rational trade-off must account for that inequivalence. So far, you have assumed that a home dining room party and a restaurant room party are equivalent social experiences. They probably aren't.

Owning something means taking on the liabilities of storage, maintenance, and depreciation. Renting allows you to only pay for the parts of those liabilities commensurate with your time of usage. Therefore if your time of usage of something is small, there are relatively more gains in reducing your share of these liabilities in this way.

Conversely, owning confers the benefit of reducing the friction involved in each individual use of something. So it stands to reason that the more useages, the more benefits owning confers.

> I also think the frequent vs infrequent products are not equivalent in the first place. A dining room is just not the same as a restaurant setting, so a rational trade-off must account for that inequivalence. So far, you have assumed that a home dining room party and a restaurant room party are equivalent social experiences. They probably aren't.

I agree that they are different. But the attitude I am arguing against is that of 'if I don't own this thing, these experiences will never happen'. In other words, people seem to be completely discounting the substitute experiences. In reality, there are other places to go besides one's house, and even at one's house there are other things to do besides eating dinner, and even if one wants to eat dinner at one's house, it is not that different whether you eat it at the kitchen table, on a fold-out table in a game room, or in a bona fide dining room.

To the second point, what a dining room offers is social intimacy and formality at once. This is something a kitchen table does not do (formality, think a White House dinner), and a restaurant cannot do either (intimacy, think traditional cultural celebrations at home such as Chinese New Year entailing many social rituals and practices). A dining room has the fundamentally distinct property of being a setting for both. That's the actual source of disagreement which is why there were so many objections by other commenters given your continued insistence that "it's not that different".

I think this depends on what you value. I've never seen a party room available for rent that was better than a home, personally. The fanciest party room you can rent may look fancier, and if that's the important thing to you, then that's a great solution. Others, however, may place greater value on what you give up when you rent: convenience, intimacy, fewer restrictions on what you can do, etc.

That’s a fantastic drive by the way. Pack a camera!

They recharged out of their accomodation while they weren't out driving. We don't even have electricity 24 hours/day here due to our ongoing generation crisis, so I'm surprised you wouldn't be able to do something similar in the USA or are those two parks just really that remote? Or is it the 120V AC that's the issue?

[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/motoring/504858-i-drove-an-el...

This is not as impressive as you might think, to be honest. What they did is the ideal situation for using EVs: drive short distances and charge overnight.

>> over the course of our 4-night stay, despite driving over 100km per day in the park.

Their needed range was 100km/day, over four days, with overnight charging for each 100km drive.

To get there, they drove for 3 hours, then stopped for 1.5 hours to charge.

Honestly, the story makes it clear that range is an issue, not that range is doable in an EV.

It's not really an issue they were just extremely cautious, something you'd expect in South Africa if you know anything about their power grid. I believe the author was actually trying to show it is actually feasible and range is not a concern.

I'd also like to know how fast charging a lot but only from 20% to 80% works out cost wise over time. i.e. more stops to fast charge on a long journey but spending less time at each stop.

I have a feeling that if the car companies could get battery leasing and fast charging costs under control then a good charging network would cure a lot of range anxiety.

I've done long journeys in someone else's EV in the UK. Fast charging at motorway stops we'd make anyway really wasn't a problem but I don't know how that affects the cost depreciation.

(I still have the same old diesel car I've had from new for the last 10 years. I'd buy an electric car but I don't really drive much and I don't really like the current offerings).

I don't think that even the most anti-EV person is going to think that range is a concern for doing 100km off a full charge.

In a discussion where almost all of us are open to being convinced, it's even more pointless to link to a practical range of 100km/day.

(Also South African, so ... Hi? :-))

I am fascinated by this comment, because I don't consider a 3 hour trip to be particularly long. Certainly not long enough to require a half hour break in the middle of it.

That said, "range anxiety" isn't the reason that I won't buy an EV at all. Most of my driving would be well covered by EV ranges, and I'd be fine renting a car or using other transportation methods for the occasional long trip.

Not sure what argument you think I'm making, but OP already owns the car, I'm not making a claim about anything being impressive or trying to convince anybody to buy one.

I shared somebody's detailed log book for a potentially similar kind of trip in a similar vehicle in a more challenging charging environment. I've never been to the US parks in question, and I don't know how much driving one does on those trips, so I made some caveats.

> Honestly, the story makes it clear that range is an issue, not that range is doable in an EV.

How is it an issue? They had a great trip and found that the animal viewing was especially enjoyable in an EV, and the experience was significantly different from driving an ICE. If it doesn't work in OPs particular scenario, that's fine, but I don't know why you're making generalised statements about a specific trip.

And road trip? Between 500-1000 a day on travel days.

North America is big.

The world is big no matter where you are, but that just sounds like bragging how wasteful you can be.

Is that really relevant? If someone is prepared to drive 600+km one-way, it sounds like they are going whether or not anyone wants to go with them.

> The world is big no matter where you are, but that just sounds like bragging how wasteful you can be.

Someone prepared to drive long distances for a specific $SOMETHING isn't bragging.

You might argue that they must modify their entertainment preferences to suit your morals, but your morals are irrelevant.

> How is it an issue? They had a great trip and found that the animal viewing was especially enjoyable in an EV, and the experience was significantly different from driving an ICE.

That's not relevant to "range is an issue".

> If it doesn't work in OPs particular scenario, that's fine, but I don't know why you're making generalised statements about a specific trip.

Because it is being presented as newsworthy when it really isn't - 100km/day is not what people refer to when they say "range anxiety". A long trip in which 50% of the trip duration is spent waiting for charge is also not newsworthy.

Can you clarify what the point of your comment was? I'm just a little bit confused about the point of responding to a range-anxiety post with a link to a news article that demonstrates 100km/day range.

It's my understanding that no one is discussing and/or concerned about a range of 100km off a full charge, so my interpretation of your initial post was that it was an attempt to alleviate fears about range, so ... I (naturally) thought that you were presenting the 100km/day range as something new that I (and others) might not have know about.

[PS. Hi from another South African :-)]

Three phase 16-25A outlets are available (common in buildings/houses) in Europe (230V each phase to neutral, 400V phase to phase). Charging Li-Ion is not a linear process at all, but at so low power (0.02C, compared to the target's battery one) it'd be, as it'd be limited by the source instead.

Whole my kids were growing up we had a big people-mover vehicle. They grew up, we stopped using it, send I sold it. Recently I had a group visit and we wanted to see the sights. I simply rented (a much more modern and nicer) people mover for a week. Renting local, away from the airport, was really cheap.

My daily drive is negligible. For road trips I'll just rent a car. I can also rent a truck if I need to carry stuff, or something with a towbar to drag stuff.

Being "cheap " 350 days a year leaves a big budget for renting the edge case.

I don't pay fuel. I don't pay insurance. I don't have to finance a car.

When I need to move something big or heavy I rent a full size van or a box truck for about $100 for the day. Most people pay more than that just for car insurance in a month. And then I get a vehicle that is exactly what I need, including a lift gate when suitable. I rent a nice sedan when picking up my in-laws at the airport and a big station wagon when going on holidays with the family.

And I'm still ahead thousands of dollars every year compared to the average car payment which is more than $500 per month even for a used car.

Even when my son was swimming competitively and we had to Uber him around to 6 training sessions a week plus often competitions many miles away, I only briefly averaged 400GBP/month in total transport costs (though with the caveat that I work from home; had I commuted full time it'd have added ~200/month to get in to the centre of London, but then again I'd likely have spent that even if I had a car because commuting in to the centre with a car is a nightmare)

And I got to sit and relax and read or talk to my son or listen to music and not have to pay attention to the road.

I get that some enjoy the actual act of driving and/or driving a comfy, fancy car, but for many, it's a really expensive enjoyment and I suspect a lot of people have not considered just how much they could "paper over" edge cases and issues with public transport (yes, I know this is not a viable options for huge parts of the US) or choices like yours with Uber or rentals.

Uber in the UK must be awfully cheap?

Six trips a week (round trip makes 12) plus a few far-away competitions, so at least ~50 trips a month. For 400GBP?

I rarely use Lyft/Uber but even the shortest trips I've made (just a few miles) are at least $30.

Most of his trips would be to local leisure centres within about a two mile radius that would have been walkable in 20m-40m if not for the lack of time to finish up work, get him ready after school etc.. Normally I'd prefer to walk, and that's a large part of the reason my transport costs are very low.

EDIT: Just checked my most recent few trips, and I paid 16 pounds for a trip Google Maps tells me is 7.4 miles driving distance, and 20 pounds for the return the same distance. The last few trips to my local station have been between 6.50 and 8 pounds, so definitely gone up.

Chevy Blazer: $35,400. Chevy Blazer EV: $56,715. https://www.chevrolet.com/

Subaru Outback: $29K. Subaru Solterra: $45K.

No one makes a direct Sedan comparison that I am aware of, but:

Tesla Model 3: From $39K. Subaru Impreza $23K.

All the Subaru Solterras at the local Subaru dealer were going for north of $66,000.00 when I was down that way a few months ago.

Sincerely: Hell naw.

If you're going to spend $30k you can get an excellent ice or an entry level ev.

I do suspect we'll start to see lower priced EVs in the used market in coming years however.

Imho renting via a car share is great for the occasional city truck need but for recreation it’s much better to own.

There wouldn’t be much point to an Alaskan road trip with a rental. Again, just fly and rent a car I guess, but we could get up to Prince George maybe.

This is exactly how I feel

I got a compact crossover to carry my bike. It has the same size of an engine and emissions as my previous car (a sports mini), just the space inside is bigger, one can carry four people without getting crowded and it doesn't look funny with a tow hitch on. Most sensible people drive these kind of cars in the US as well, I saw a lot of Subaru crossovers.

Take the dining room example. A quick search says it costs ~$20,000 to build a dining room, so let's say a house with one costs $10,000 more than a house without. So by foregoing a dining room, one now has an extra 10k that they can spend however they want.

But that DOESN'T mean that they can't spend it on throwing parties! I'm pretty sure that even spread over many years, 10k dollars can produce a lot of fun times.

From this post, I'm not sure if you have underpriced dining rooms are exceedingly cheap, or if you are unaware how much a rental place actually costs. My parents have a rather nice dining room that they host every major holiday in and they still spent more than 10k in the last ~2 years alone for family gatherings they did away from home.

Edit: Reading through the thread I've come away with the feeling most people are just talking past each other with no frame of reference for how the other lives. There are people it seems coming from cultures centered on weekly/monthly gatherings that are bewildered that someone would consider a dining room superflous.

This is because people look at the utility of the room when it is used, but forget to multiply that by the frequency of its use.

And yes, sometimes a dining room can surprisingly come in handy for something that comes up. However, this is true of almost any use you can think of for the room. I would venture to say that most people who have dining rooms, who don't routinely host dinners, would be better served making it a video game room, or an aquarium, or a giant closet, or a room for whatever hobby they actually do. Yet across America, millions of dining rooms sit empty for months at a spread, screaming to be made into something that more accurately reflects the lifestyles of their owners.

Every day, my money sits in my bank account screaming to be spent on something intangible...

I know a group, where 8 people + a dungeon master meet weekly/bi-weekly to play DnD. It's a little on the larger side but this would be "dinner" party size. Of course they bring food and drinks as well. It would be a little ridiculous (and expensive) for them to rent a grand ballroom every weekend.

Similarly there are plenty of people I know who look forward to college football and hold similarly sized game days with themselves and significant others. Again nothing special, just 6-12 people ultimately watching tv. Food is brought, and drinks are had, but they aren't having a "rager". Renting a park every weekend to watch college football every weekend would be expensive.

The fact that you would think to rent a park for these kind of things just leads me to believe we are talking past each other. We are missing significant cultural context on the utilities of these rooms. If you don't watch sports or don't play DnD I can see how the idea of needing a dining room is superfluous.

And most people would't throw away their friend groups in order to invest $10k on the S&P. At that point, why even have the money?

I do have a couple rooms that can accommodate 8 or so people each and I use them when I have guests. Also outdoor space in the summer. But I use those spaces for other things as well.

I have s living room with kitchen which is 24 square meters, definitely not big, contains the kitchen, sofas, tables and I hosted 10 people in it.

The (bi)weekly social engagement that is an important part of their social life is not an edge case though.

Not really, because your principal loses value because of inflation.

If you buy that $10k CD, you get $500 out per year; you pay a couple hundred bucks of that in taxes, leaving $300. If inflation sticks around 3.2%, you'll be losing $20/year before you spend anything.

But it's beside the point. The point is that opportunity costs must be accounted for.

So yeah opportunity costs must be accounted for, but in your scenario the opportunity cost is negligible. We're talking 0.4% per year. Investing in a CD is like pissing in the ocean

You still generally owe taxes as the interest is accrued. So, the situation doesn't change-- that CD loses money unless your tax rate is low.

Even with compounded interest not subject to taxation until withdrawal, it's not much better. Even in a ridiculous case with 30 years, 10000 * (1.05^30) = $43220 ; minus .4 * 33220 = $29932; 29932 / (1.032^30) = $11401-- or about .4% real return per year.

Opportunity costs beyond inflation make the picture even more ridiculous.

Not surprising that a lower tax rate gets to the same number sooner through compounding.

BUt the bigger issue is that you have to pay tax on interest as it is accrued, not all at the end. So in your case there's a 3.35% return vs. 3.2% inflation or a .15% net return.

At least in areas where space matters...

Most people? I haven’t hosted any party in years.

Notably I am not imagining large parties (the 300 people you mention). I just haven't had more than 1 person over to my place at a time in over a year.

> Would you rent a space to host 8 people every week just to play DnD?

No but in such a situation only 1/8th of the people involved need to have a living room.

We host a few people, often using our dining room, at least once a week and often more. Sometimes two people sometimes twenty. Sometimes dinner, tea, craft night, board games, dungeons and dragons, birthday parties, whiskey tastings, family visits.

We aren't exceptional in this among our friend group - everyone shares the fun and stress of hosting.

I'm not in some exotic culture either, just a medium sized city in the southeast US.

You got me there, I'm not a sociologist and I can only draw from experience. I come from an immigrant family in New England and one my of my best friends is an immigrant from Europe which places high priority on the eating together thing. That said you could be right as more and more relationships move online.

>No but in such a situation only 1/8th of the people involved need to have a living room.

In a perfect economy with 100% efficient utilization there will never be any waste or duplication of resources. We don't have a perfect economy.

I guess I am just thinking about it from an urbanist point of view, and how our view of personal space and a relative lack of focus on publicly accessible community spaces affects our land use and exacerbates the housing crisis. I say this as someone in a family which has been in this country for generations, and probably focused too much on personal wealth and access to large homes. I am learning to appreciate the value of smaller private spaces and bigger public spaces as I have slowly moved from the country to a dense city throughout my life. I go to weekly gatherings with friends, but that's at the local hackerspace not at anyone's house.

I can see how from an immigrant background there is more focus on familial togetherness and I think that is a good cultural trait for us to encourage and support in city design. Though as a queer person my family is not who I want to spend time with on a weekly basis.

No offering your spare bedroom when someone drinks too much, no communal potlucks, no gatherings when businesses are closed...

Where you invest your resources speaks volumes about your priorities in life.

And I don’t have a spare bedroom. Also most of my friend group doesn’t drink.

Owning things means you get to be your own master. That is worth different things to different people.

I know couples without kids who only rent cars but that number goes way down for people who have kids.

Tell that to fixed income folks who are priced out of the houses they own due to property tax increases.

Can't really think of anything else I own that has anything equivalent to a property tax.

But anyways you're missing the point. For instance my house had a 'dining room' when I bought it, but I made it into something that I use every day (music studio/band practice room).

The conventional part of me would have just kept it a dining room, and used it maybe once or twice.

$10k would get you about $500 a year long term (5%).

$500 a year doesn't go far, and that assumes you don't use the dining room for any other purpose than a couple of parties a year.

Well said. And I think that you cut to the heart of what the electric vehicle advocates are doing wrong. They are telling us the only times we actually enjoy being in the car and travelling are the ones we should give up.

I don’t use a car in the city. An electric car can’t yet take me home in 2 days without perfect conditions and a tailored root.

With a rented car I need to take a full damage insurance just in case a tiny scratch is visible.

Would you pay an extra $500 a month to avoid having to spend $1000 renting a car twice a year? Probably not, so the question is how much more does it cost to not rent the long distance car.

And I've never rented a car where a 1mm scratch would require fixing, nor a 1cm scratch

    Bumper Damage IS: Dent/scratch larger than 6” (size of the damage evaluator), or hole/tear of any size

    Exterior Body Damage (Non-Bumper) IS: dent/scratch larger than 2” circle, or hole/tear of any size

    Glass Damage IS: Any ‘Star’/crack

Ever since Covid happened we rent one for 1 month a year in summer and drive to my in-laws, and further down in central Italy. Overall clocking ~3.5-4k km.

We rented all types, ICE, hybrid and BEV with no noticeable difference: while with the Model Y we had to stop N times to fast-charges and a snack, with the ICE we’d stop anyway to rest, drink or use the toilet even on a half-tank.

Range anxiety is a thing, but it’s over after a couple days.

It’s just FUD, BEVs are ready

Frankly the amount of Nirvana fallacies in this thread is indicative of the coping stress the petrol-heads are suffering.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gasoline_consumpti...

Have you tried going to the mountains in France? Or anywhere not on the main roads, even? I mean actually traveling around, not just taking the highway across.

My ICE motorbike has a range of around 300 km on the highway, around 200 in the mountains if I'm enjoying myself. I've had range anxiety with it to the point I now cart around extra gas. None of the gas stations I visited had any kind of charging available (outside your regular outlet, but it's unlikely the attendant will let you hook up your car to the outlet inside the office – if it's even open).

Not everybody has the same usage patterns as you do.

Sure, but keep in mind that bikers riding on the rolling hills of the French countryside are a significantly smaller demography than the millions driving across the highway infrastructure.

The feeling I get whenever these discussions come up is that there's a distinct lack of nuance, and a tendency to shove a one-size-fits-all solution down peoples' throats, even though the solution might only fit-most. I get that it's easier to reason with absolutes, and that sometimes some people may need a nudge to take the jump. But I also understand being pushed like this with no apparent concern for peoples' situations can make them close down to the argument, even if it could actually make sense for them in the end.

People complaining about range anxiety are usually told "nah man, it's just FUD!" Maybe it is just FUD even for a sizable portion of those complaining, but just dismissing their concerns out of hand doesn't seem like a good approach.

And this isn't just a bunch of people on a random discussion board. It's actual policies being enacted affecting peoples' actual lives.

Talking about France, in a few years' time my motorbike won't be allowed inside Paris (where I live). I rarely use it. I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. Especially given that the newer model which complies with the current pollution standards consumes the same amount of gas as mine (judging by the manufacturer's specs). Of course, this law is stupid because it only considers the year the vehicle was sold, but it's just one example of many why people may have a knee-jerk reaction to being forcibly pushed to adopt new things.

The situation you described is purely recreative. Others might argue that the climate is much more important than the personal hobby of a few motorcyclists and would warrant banning ICE vehicles altogether.

One can change recreational activities easily.

> I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment.

I am with you on that one and I believe that if all this wasn't an hypocritical way to save the automotive industry, the governments would push and force car brands to develop and sell homologated EV conversion kits for all cars builds in the last 30 years.

International shipping is single-handedly the greatest contributor by a small margin, tons of which just does not need to happen, full stop. We send products around the entire world because it costs pennies less to package pineapple in one country than another, and most of it goes in the fucking garbage anyway. And the products that do require shipping could be done in a much, much more efficient manner to save tons and tons of ship traffic per year. The other major contributor is industry, which could be trimmed significantly if we put serious work into ending the production of stupid, useless, shitty items that no one actually wants (knockoff electronics, basically anything drop-shipped, single use fucking lithium phone chargers).

And all that's not even going into shit like the FIELDS of e-bikes and e-scooters being stacked in China because there's just nowhere to go with that.

Military dick-wagging especially but not solely by the United States accounts for absolute shit-tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere, too, absolutely none of which needs to happen. Military vehicles, construction vehicles, LTL trucks, service vehicles like garbage trucks: this is where we can make big dents in climate change. Not by taking away Jerry's Corvette that does, at best, 10k miles if he has a good year where he gets in a lot of track time. As far as I'm concerned this is just the "check your carbon footprint" garbage with extra steps: blaming consumers for the state of the environment while completely letting off the dozens of multi-national corporations actually holding the power and making the decisions that are collapsing the biosphere.

If at some point in the far flung future, things like dirt bikes or even track monster race cars owned by folk turn out to be the biggest environmental problem, fine. Then we'll deal with it. But from my perspective we have an entire ocean of fish much bigger and far more worth frying first than them.

Now despite still enjoying riding a motorbike I am doing more recreationnal cycling and only transportation focused motorbike riding[1]. I just embraced moving a but slower. Turns out that with a simple bicycle you can get way enough thrill in the downhills, and with much less risks. As an ex elite road cycling racer, I am no stranger to catching and overtaking cars and motorbikes descending mountain passes.

[1] I basically only ride my motorbike if I have my partner with me and I am going to a specific place we wouldn't be able to make it and back home within a time constraint.

https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...

This year we visited the Dolomites and the weather was insane. The place was full of old photo's of meters high snowfalls but all they got this year was a couple centimeters in early December. We need to change our habits, this pace is unsustainable

https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...

This is exactly the issue I'm talking about.

I'm all for preserving the environment, I really am. And I think that moving the immense majority of (sub-)urban commuters from ICE to EV is great and will make a difference. Or, even better: stop commuting if possible!

Isn't the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle", "in that order"? How are we reducing or even reusing here?

But this whole "replace all ICE vehicles now" just screams of disguised "won't somebody think of the economy?"

Also you make a common mistake of motorcycle owners in equating the amount of gas consumed with the amount of pollution. Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones.

Which is saying something even worse than saying their per-litre pollution is bad since motorcycles get more kilometers per litre. In other words even with their better per-kilometer gas usage, they still pollute more per unit of distance travelled. That is truly bad, from a pollution perspective. It’s a mistake to think the small amount of gas used means there is less impact.

So your motorcycle should be trashed, yes.

I'm all for your considering that I shouldn't get to enjoy the mountains, but please, come out and say that, instead of dancing around the subject and saying that a newer ICE bike would be just fine. The argument just loses credibilty.

> Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones.

How small are we talking, here? My motorbike's engine is bigger than many modern ICE cars' (I'm in Europe, so big-ass V8s aren't that common).

Be that as it may, you seem to ignore what I'd say is the most important part of my argument: I'm not complaining that I wouldn't be allowed to ride any bike. I'm complaining that the powers that be figured that a newer bike, with the same weight and similar sized engine (smaller, actually! – so more polluting?) and the same gas consumption is somehow better than my older model, and I should be allowed to ride that and not the one I already have.

Then one would hope we will have swappable battery pack options for motorcycles in the future as well, which could make refueling more widespread. Easier to do for motorcycles than cars. And with a smaller battery by necessity, swapping makes more sense. Anyway I'm just rambling on here, who knows what will happen.

As far as you getting to enjoy the mountains, I had (maybe mistakenly) been thinking you were talking about a dirt bike, versus a road bike. I don't think of the sound of road bikes as annoying to anyone, especially a quiet one. Not quite as Edward Abbey would say, "if there's a road there, the place is already ruined" but definitely you get more leeway to make noise on a road.

The much longer stops translate into needing to sleep at a hotel rather than being at your destination. You clearly haven't accounted for that either.

I’ve clearly accounted for everything dude, including my own endurance and that of my family: every couple hours we need to get out, stretch, have a coffee and use the toilet. Plugging a DC 150kW takes 2 minutes, and we were never stuck in a queue waiting for that.

In any case the worse time wasters are roadworks and traffic jams on the German highways and the abysmal wait at the Gotthard Tunnel. If not for them I could easily make it in one day with a Model Y

More like 2 seconds in a Model Y.

all other designs where you have to present a card are simply a failure

You realise that you weren't in a queue because there are very few EVs around I hope?

Most healthy people don't need toilet breaks every 2h, and you're not accounting for the line at charging spots. 10 minutes * 5 cars isn't a short stop really.

Please, enough goalpost pushing

Peace of mind.

When we're driving an ICE car, we simply don't care about the range. We don't think about it; it's not a concern. That peace of mind is fucking priceless, especially if one's life is already busy with far more pressing concerns.

In an EV we have to constantly keep an eye on that battery level, on that Miles Remaining counter. We have to micromanage the A/C and other things that consume power. That is mentally draining, and for what? It's something we don't have to care about in an ICE car.

I drove an EV, I constantly worried about the range. Range was constantly on my mind, even when I wasn't driving the fucking thing. It was mentally fucking exhausting. Sincerely: No thanks.

I'll happily pay the $50~70 bucks at the gas station to fill up my car in a few minutes and be at peace. It easily beats paying almost nothing charging overnight and then worrying if I can come back home when I start another day.

Personally I prefer paying almost nothing (in fuel) for a nicer drive with far less maintenance worries.

> I prefer paying almost nothing (in fuel)

Both of these look like very dependent on the personal situation. In my case I never really got over the winter induced anxiety (the range dropped severely for my expectations), combined with the lack of home charger, combined with high electricity costs, combined with the fact that I can walk, cycle, or take public transport for most of my needs. I eventually returned to a cheap, small, ICE car that I use occasionally but serves for peace of mind (it's there!) and makes me just as comfortable as an EV makes you. I wouldn't recommend to you a bicycle or even a small car because it's very important not to generalize to others based on my needs.

Of course all transport ownership is dependent on personal situation. That really goes without saying, just look out the window! I didn't recommend anything, to do so would be daft.

I simply do not believe range anxiety is still the problem it once was.

I gave it up and switched back in November 2022. While I always keep my options open and an eye out for what makes sense for me, I haven't seen any signs that the situation is radically different in general. It certainly hasn't changed for me personally.

> I simply do not believe range anxiety is still the problem it once was.

Maybe but that says very little. If your waiter told they don't believe the soup contains anywhere near the amount of spit it once did you wouldn't feel encouraged. I'm happy if the situation is improving and if I still care about owning a car in the future I'll surely reassess if that critical threshold was reached. Anything short of that will get a "very good, keep up the good work" but not my money.

My partner has had a series of EVs for 10 years now.

Just a few weeks ago dropped me off at the airport (~100 mile roundtrip) and started planning for it days it advance. How much needed to driver on day N-2, N-1, how much charge would be left. Then spent the morning of the trip sipping coffee at Whole Foods to bring the charge up to %100 (normally limited to %80). Then spent the whole trip hyperfocused on the mileage remaining, worried about getting home.

While the trip is quite a bit shorter than the advertised range, with hilly terrain it's always uncertain what the real world mileage ends up being.

It all seemed very exhausting. So I guess it takes more than a decade to get over range anxiety.

Which goes back to.. more range REALLY DOES help. 100 vs 200 miles range is game cahnging. 200 to 300 would be huge for road trips. 400, 500, starts to hit some diminishing but non-zero returns.

I pay about 15% of what I would have previously paid for diesel, and the only maintenance I've had to do was a new tyre after running over a nail.

Driving an EV in the SF Bay Area is super convenient -- I know all the chargers off the top of my head and maintaining enough range is second nature to me now. I regularly road trip my Model 3 as well without any issues. I don't even look at the miles, just battery %.

I recently got an ICE car for fun on the weekends and thinking about gas, oil changes, preventative maintenance, and repairs has been way more stressful than charging.

Give the infrastructure a few years to catch up. Now that NACS has taken over in the US, things will only get better.

Even our least populated states are littered with fast chargers alone highways and interstates.

When I bought my model 3 in 2018, infrastructure was good enough in Idaho the meet my needs, though there were a few tight gaps.

Now in 2024 the picture has dramatically changed with every route having excess charge capacity and options.

Those down on EVs are having to come up with ever more convoluted scenarios and routes to justify why they aren't feasible. I literally saw one where a person posited they needed to drive from Edmonton to Winnipeg Canada every day during the winter and because an EV is a bad fit for that situation it's a bad fit for everyone.

So what I want to say is, that poor people have better things to worry about than EVs and sustainability, like getting through the day with food on their plate and maybe a roof over their head. While they will be the most impacted, they can afford to care about it the least.

Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources, which is still some way off, especially in the poor places that will drive the least efficient ICEs while they last.

I don't think it's well thought through given how broken the rating of cars is, but that's a step in the right direction I guess.

> Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources

Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.

[1] https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/prime-conversion

>Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.

That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric. There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is too much money to be made from the problem.

Note that "the majority of people" don't have a car, they have 2-wheeled vehicle at best. [1] I'm not conflating "electric vehicles" with "electric cars".

> That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric.

No shit.

> There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is a too much money to be made from the problem.

Fully agree, even though the maximum amount of public transportation is in my opinion desirable in areas that permit it.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/16/car-bike-...

My mistake!

To add a bit more to the discussion. Larger adaption of motorcycles instead of cars in cities can also reduce the pollution from public transport. Nothing spews more exhaust than a bus stuck in traffic. Motorcycles are also a good complement to public transit, since you can get to a station or terminal that is far away on your motorcycle and easily park there. Car parking needs much more space. In many cases it is better to get to a terminal that has express public transport by your own means, so that you don't have to live by the local bus schedule and wait for the slow route to the terminal.

The main advantage I see to electric motorcycles is that you barely need to change anything in most car-dependant areas to start mass adoption. They are fast enough for you to not feel unsafe next to cars at a red light, and can go quite far on a single charge.

I've been raving about Taiwan's Gogoros for a while, but still, too many motorcycles is a big safety hazard. Electric bicycles are much better in that regard, muscle ones even more.

It would also save a lot of money on infrastructure, if traffic could be improved without having to build larger and larger highways.

As for electric and muscle bicycles, I think they have their time and place. There's nothing wrong with people combining all methods of transportation in their life, depending on circumstances and weather. Car + MC + Bicycle could be in everybody's garage.

I wouldn't consider many motorcycles a safety hazard. It's mostly people riding like lunatics. And safety gear has become better recently, with airbag clothes. At least bikers only hurt themselves in an accident. In my experience motorcycles are safer than electric bicycles, unless you're in a place with very good bicycle infrastructure. Motorcycles can accelerate out of dangerous situations and have better manoeuvrability than large-wheeled bicycles.

And I’m talking about gas cars.

And cars carry more people.

The fact that motorcycles use less gas has absolutely no connection to how much pollution they produce, which is a lot.

Cars carry more people, and more stuff. And it protects you from the weather. But if you're just transporting yourself or yourself and a passenger, the motorcycle can be a good option many times.

I don't know about that. It certainly affects mine. I may not be representative of the average person in my culture, but I was a product of my culture regardless.

All the while the same people drive ICE vehicles and contribute to the insane amount of environmental destruction caused by oil drilling and transportation. But they don't go commenting on every new ICE vehicle article saying "But what about the Exxon Valdez, what about the birds covered in oil?"

The really good ones can also check if there are free slots in the chargers and optimise accordingly.

Also, the fuel consumption of an ICE is going to be much more consistent and predictable especially later in it's service life.

*hyperbole

If planning a route using the built in satnav it will say "you won't make it, add a charging stop?"

But there's so many chargers I don't even bother planning.

This integration didn’t exist when the EV versions were just electrified versions of ICE cars.

This changed with the upcoming of car by traditional automakers that were designed to be an BEV first. I’ve used the route planning in a Kia EV as well as a VW EV without any issues. You can plan your route with charging points, select the desired remaining capacity, select the kind of charging you want, etc. AFAIK Porsche offers the same features too

Edit: Just looked up Porsche and they have it too. They call it "Intelligent range optimiser". Can't be asked to check more brands.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38864408

You are the exception. That's what all the replies are trying to tell you

And for hosting occasional guests an extra bedroom, plenty of solutions exist for creating temporary sleeping space in the living room, while leaving your own bedroom to the guests. A small inconvenience to pay to save out a whole bedroom to pay for and maintain. There’s also the option of going on vacation together, which can be a really fun way to spend the holidays.

Plenty of landscaping places will deliver to the home, much more convenient, and cheaper overall when you can downsize your vehicle of choice. I ended up making life choices that let me not have a car at all, and I spend that money on traveling instead.

My point is: I find life to be more comfortable when treating edge cases like edge cases, and finding an appropriate solution. I see so many people maxing out their house and car within their budget, and then talking about but never doing things they really want to, like that far away vacation, or that expensive hobby. I never quite understand why.

If you want a small house and flying around to vacations, you can do it without looking down on who decides for another trade-off.

If you:

1. Like cooking.

2. Are good at cooking.

Imagine lecturing people about saving the planet while defending going out to eat in restaurants or ordering all your meals.

There are many ways to life your life and thankfully in the modern day, you can live your entire life without cooking anything involved yet getting all the necessary nutrients plus enjoying delicious food.

It's just more expensive, so you need to afford it.

I'm intentionally skipping all the other soapboxing in the rest of the comment.

If we look at the full chains of:

- Equipment distribution (production and delivery of large domestic kitchen appliances)

- Energy distribution (residential delivery of electricity/gas needed to power kitchen appliances, and water)

- Space required in each home for a reasonably kitted out kitchen (more space to heat in winter, more materials used in building)

- Ingredients and materials distribution (including the production and packaging of intermediate food products made from raw products, since everyone's cooking with canned things, packaged things, cured meats, pastes, pasteurized things, grains, ...)

The restaurants, fast-food chains and ready-meal prep companies are able to operate on economies of scale that are vastly more efficient than the individualistic, nuclear-family domestic "you must cook home-made meals for your family, friends and guests" culture.

We've made eating out seem either:

- Decadent (cost)

- Unhealthy (take-out and fast-food)

But neither of those things need to be true.

The problem with scale is the storage aspect - preservatives we use to reduce spoilage etc., which arguably affect the healthiness of the food. "Just-in-time" distribution works well until it doesn't (see: COVID).

But I'd argue that the individual household probably spoils more ingredients than industrial production does - that just isn't evident; everyone has their little compost heaps or things go to landfill. Old ingredients go mouldy at the backs of cupboards, just as things run out their shelf life in supermarkets.

Maybe the raw-food vegans and paleo bros are on to something...

It has nothing to do with the food, nothing at all, it has to do with intimacy and care. THIS is where I live and I invite you here, I take care of you because I care about you, THIS is food that I made for YOU, I'm sharing a part of my life, this is how I cook because I like it or because that's what my family usually eats or because I tried something new.

Maybe it's because I'm. Mediterranean and it's part of the culture but the idea that you invite someone to eat and it being about the food is oh god so depressing to me. It's like gifting someone a poem and caring about how good the poem is.

Yes, I think it's cultural. In at least parts of the Mediterranean (Italy), people say "they live to eat".

If I'm having people over, it's about sharing stuff, not necessarily food. Discussions, jokes, games, activities, etc.

Food is... secondary, frankly.

Right. So the act of cooking actually doesn't have much to do with it! Arguably, you are tying the act of making food to "intimacy and care" in a way that makes it feel to me like there's this big social pressure to feed people! There are a myriad of other ways to look after your humans.

Order some food, it doesn't even need to be from fancy restaurants. Low-end to cheap catering and delivery services (so not Uber Eats or such). You can prepare some appetizers at home if you really want some home made food.

Depending on where you order the food... people might not even realize you didn't cook it.

Honestly one of the most saddening comments I've read.

You can feed your people because you enjoy it, me and my tribe of outliers can chill in other ways :)

FWIW: It's not like I'd ever let anyone go hungry!! Just that in my mind there's a big discrepancy between "fully preparing a home-cooked meal for several hours". If you're privileged to have the time, space, energy and knowledge to lovingly prepare big feasts for people, more power to you. Me and my cold-hearted mates will be content with, oftentimes, shoving some chips in the oven or frying a bag of frozen nasi goreng, or getting cheap takeaway to go with our beers ;)

That’s however a joke that home food is better. There are great home meals, and there are bad restaurants, sure. But the top is obviously restaurants. And not even just because they really know what they do, but it’s even way more difficult to get those kind of ingredients what they use. One time, one of my friends from one of the best restaurants from my home country (Hungary) left some beef loin from his restaurant in my fridge as gratitude. I made the best steak from it, that I’ve ever made. It didn’t matter how expensive meat I bought, or in which expensive meat shop. I tried different techniques, but no. I couldn’t reproduce it. Simply that kind of loin is not accessible for common people there.

I think this whole thread is depressing because it suggests you need a bunch of shit to be happy and have good relationships. But if you have good friends and relationships often you don't need all that shit. If you need a pickup once a year you probably have a friend you can borrow it from. Even better you can invite that friend to help you with the thing you need it for and help them with something else when they need it.

And for the "dining room just for parties" argument from above: it is actually possible to invite your neighbours, your friends, your colleagues, ... to dinner more than once a year. I almost never had people turn down such an invitation.

No single restaurant. But in a city like mine, there are countless restaurants that offer meals I have neither the knowledge nor equipment to prepare.

It may not be 100,000 ingredients… but neither are the shops I'd buy the ingredients from.

We also like to sit an eat together "just because", so like you point out, a dining room can be used day-to-day, not just for parties (though it's also great for those).

Of course it's possible.

But that kind of thinking is often the problem. Plan based on what you'll actually do.

But you should try to increase your accuracy about what you will want when making big decisions. We all should.

Many on Hacker News have some sort of ambition. To create a startup, a side business, an open source project or have a hobby, be more knowledgeable or become better programmer. In theory that can happen having a home office and extra space in the garage. In reality it often doesn't because making any greater strides often requires coming together with others forming connections, exchanging information and sharing resource.

Yes, I can learn to cook for example Chinese food. But that isn't the same as having a good food industry with restaurants, entertainment, staff, importers and whatever else that actually enable a numbers of different experiences for many people.

Eventually many tend to realize that it isn't that great. But then they often end up blaming the government, the taxes, major cities, lack of investment or support, or anything other than the reality that they didn't invest in their local community neither through taxes for services or with their own income. But instead there are millions of dollars standing around in things like more expensive cars.

It isn't like I don't understand why someone would want those thing. I just don't think many who do want those things understand that to have a decent career many of their kids are going to have move somewhere where there are good education, successful companies, major airports or other resources. And then, while they get some use of their guest room, won't see them much overall.

I would like to have a personal garage workshop space. I can think about all the things I would build. I would like to be a person that builds things. But in reality, if I had it, I'd probably still be just sitting browsing Hacker News. It's just way easier than to actually get up and start doing something.

I've realized something similar with sports. I could go running any time, but I don't. I could buy some equipment that I rarely use. But if I sign up for some scheduled weekly team sport, and some friends are also going, it's much easier to keep the routine happening. Or if I do some sport together with my spouse.

The same happens with music. I could play and train on my own, and I do some. But it's really with a band and a commitment to an upcoming performance or upcoming recording session that I start more purposefully doing stuff, both on my own and in the rehearsals.

Computers, content and social networks and the pandemic have provided us opportunities to do cool stuff online and share with and learn from others, but I think we have atrophied some physical social aspects there. We need more electronics clubs or garage meetups or whatever method to do something as a group and share the motivation burden or get a bit of help etc.

It is when we do something with others that it gets better than average and the result in the form of being enjoyable or interesting is more than the effort of doing it. If we already don't have a lot of time, energy and motivation running isn't giving us enough to make it worth it. And often we don't because of other things or boredom.

I personally hate to see the millions of dollars wasted on restaurant-cooked food, most of which is not good for you and a lot of it not even good. We would all be better off environmentally, socially, and financially if we returned to the earlier status quo of people cooking most of their own food. "Local communities" still thrived when there were 10% the restaurants there are today. In fact, they were much stronger. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the rare night out as a luxury. But the idea that not eating at restaurants enough is the source of some kind of decline is exactly backwards. Your insight that about the criticality of local connections is critical is true, but it has nothing to do with the number of local restaurants, and they have if anything hindered it rather than helped it. Inviting people over for dinner is an activity that has declined precipitously and forms much deeper connections than going out to eat and patronizing someone's (often vanity) business.

You haven't eaten at a 2 or 3 star restaurant then. They use ingredients you don't have access too, using techniques you can't use at home and pair them with wines or juices you haven't heard about.

However good you think your home cooking is (I think I'm a fairly good cook), you don't come to the knees of a chef with such a restaurant.

Yes, they are not cheap. But neither is buying a bigger house.

And if it's about getting together, who cooked the food doesn't matter. Or even get together without food, that works too.

... and I still want to host people at my house and cook for them?

Fine dining for you may be a strictly superior replacement to home cooking (or alternatively: home cooking is what you do when you cannot have fine dining instead) - but many of us don't see it that way. They are complementary.

Yeah, my cooking isn't Thomas Keller... but that's not actually what it's about? In the same way I'm not Chris Nolan but yet I want to take video at family events?

And if I can say so: seeing fine dining as a strictly superior replacement of home cooking is a regretful way to view the world.

What these “unnecessary extras” or in the contrary “smaller footprint” give is the increased freedom of choice for that particular individual’s situation.

There is no free lunch - every benefit comes with its set of drawbacks. Extra rooms need furnishing and taking care of, cars need maintenance and parking etc.

Different people put different multipliers for each of them.

And this is fine, by the standards of a modern western society.

If I invite people, I do it for the people, if I go out to eat I do it for the food. I don't see why this regrettable just because you think it is.

The 3 star restaurants get old very fast. too expensive, way too long to eat. Very pretentious. As I got older I came to value home cooking many times higher than any restaurant that NYC can offer.

I highly suggest people try these places to understand what is possible with food, but don't value them any higher.

And that's fair enough, but I find the tyranny of "it works for me so you're doing it wrong" very real. In many areas, but in particular with electric car range discussions.

One could also talk about the tyranny of people living their freedom of personal choice to the maximum.

"My solution works for me but will never scale to work for the entire humanity as we're simply too many on this planet for that and also totally screws the environment for future generations, but hey, it works for me!"

Right now people have an issue with the edge cases of EV range. That doesn't mean they wouldn't ever replace their ICE car with an EV if the range story were better (meaning the range of the vehicle itself as well as the charging story).

I'm in a similar situation. My motorbike does, most of the year, ~50 km trips to go see my parents for the weekend (I take the metro or a bicycle for my commute needs). It could be electric, no problem.

But several weeks a year, sometimes on end, I'll go ride in the mountains where current electrical motorbikes would be useless. It's way cheaper for me to own my current motorbike (which I own outright) than to sell it and rent for my trips in addition to buying an electric one. If an electric motorbike could have the same range as mine and the charging infrastructure in the back roads were useful, I could see myself riding around on an electric bike.

It would be debatable whether buying a new motorbike when mine is still in perfect working condition would actually be better for the environment, but I'd say that's another question.

EV range concerns have an obvious solution: build more EV fast charging stations and guarantee cross-compatibility. Standardize the billing system (the EU strategy of "figure it out or we'll do it for you" would be a good one to pull on the automakers here).

The solution is not ever going to be another round of people posting caustic hot takes on social media trying to shame people.

As an aside, range is not a problem with new EV's with 500-600 km range as long as the charging network is good. There was a lot of talk about range anxiety in the early days when cars had 150-300 km range and charging stations were rare. These days with charging stations on every gas station, mall, ferry port, grocery store, random parking lots and what not long drives are no longer a problem as long as you plan a little bit and don't drive through hundreds of kilometers of no mans land without charging up first.

Then there is all the routes that just don't have chargers, so you are limited to only the common roads.

Until EV gets way better range, I think plug in hybrids make way more sense.

And only two of them are close enough I'd consider it a day trip.

That said:

> Until EV gets way better range, I think plug in hybrids make way more sense.

I absolutely agree. 90% of the environmental benefit with much faster roll-out.

500km is a short drive for some, when you can only fast charge to 80% and cars get far less range in the cold. 500km becomes 400km at 80%, you have to start hunting at 70km range, and at 140km/hr that's just over 2 hours of driving.

(Speed reduces range too)

But as I said in another comment, this will self fix. Charging time will come down, range will extend.

When you can fast charge a car to true 600km range, even at 140km/hr at -20C, with the heater running, and in under 10 minutes, I'd say we're there.

Maybe by 2028? I think?

But yes, this will solve itself. Each year charging becomes faster, each year travel distance longer, it will auto solve.

One thing people overlook, is many places have blackouts! If tomorrow, every person switched to electric cars, it would be disaster.

So as people switch, we'll have to build more capacity into the grid. Not just production, but substations, and transfer lines too.

And this will happen.

The reality of grid upgrades is unless we make the problem worse, it won't get better.

TBH, that is mostly a communication problem. Tesla already does much better than most non-EV types realize. A shocking number of people think road trips require literal multi-hour charging stops. "I heard from this Tesla owner that he only charges overnight... I'd have to stop at a hotel every 200 miles!" sigh

Consumer education is still important.

Outside of a Tesla... road tripping EVs in the US is often not fun.

They don't say it's superior. Multiple things can be true at once. People often like to cook at home. It's all cozy. It also is a way to save money. People with smaller house have more disposable income, to splurge more liberally on luxuries, feel less constrained in their choice to go out. All those things are true. I think the main message is that people needlessly make conventional choices (e.g. big house, big car), and these choices then drive their decision making after the fact. They're reminding us that stuff (the actual tangible inanimate things) have a tendency to start to own you, rather than the other way around.

I suspect most of the people replying to these EV threads are Americans living in extremely car-centric suburbia, where the nearest shop is 15km away. In this situation the only convenient way is to host dinner parties, have a small gym, have a guest room, and be able to do your hobbies in the garden.

Still, these replies show how spoiled, individualistic and entitled people are.

Are you living in a cave? Do you have children? Do you own a car? Do you fly anywhere? Are you sure your house has no glass walls before you throw rocks?

I didn't throw a rock, I pointed out a flaw. And it is safe for my wellbeing to do so without being perfect, because I'm aware of my own.

There is no flaw or entitlement doing whatever makes you happy. And there's nothing individualistic about not liking public transport (if you have access to it).

People living in rural America have to drive a lot farther than suburbanites.

Also, note that people who prefer to not own a car can choose to live in places with good public transit (mostly big cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Boston, Philidelphia, etc.).

Fair enough, but that list doesn't include the third places the parent commenter was referring to: a choice of restaurants, bars, cafés, hotels, etc.

All of that is included in the "etc." part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

A 15 minute city is therefore somewhere all of these facilities are a bit under a mile away.

Most places in the US are probably two- or three-hour-cities — which is still nothing to the average EV’s range.

> The 15-minute city (FMC or 15mC[2][3][4][5][6][7]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city.

Roughly 20mph on an electric bike, in 15mn I believe you do roughly 5 miles?

But yes, for all the suburbs I've lived in I've had the choice of dozens+ of restaurants, a few grocers, various stores, office parks, and more within 5mi. There's definitely places where this isn't true but it's not like all suburbs take two miles to leave the pure houses neighborhood.

No one claimed that the average suburban "Main St" is going to compare to high-density urban planning, but that suburban shopping options generally offer choices for most daily shopping needs within a reasonable (1-8km) distance independent from the city hub they're next to.

You did. Dense cities are struggling to implement the 15mn trip to any amenities. Yet you are claiming that everything is in a range of 8km from the average house in an American suburb, that roughly 15mn on an e-bike.

>> a choice of restaurants, bars, cafés, hotels, etc.

> All of that is included in the "etc." part.

Now who's moving the goal post?

> Yet you are claiming that everything is in a range of 8km

No one said "everything", but "most shopping options". You don't seem actually interested on having an honest conversation rather than pushing a distorted view of American suburbs of which you don't seem to have any 1st hand experience.

Just because you don’t like how they do it doesn’t mean that they don’t do it.

Then why are people using cars so much if everything is at a walking distance?

I would love to be able to bike there safely. Wouldn't even take much longer than driving.

For example, one time I stayed at the The Cupertino Hotel in CA and tried walking to One Infinite Loop, a junction which every sufficiently old iOS user will be familiar with because it's what Apple used to use as the icon for their Maps app before they relocated their HQ to the flying saucer campus. The junction looks like this, and was an awful experience as a pedestrian:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3350322,-122.0325183,3a,75y,...

This is of course highly situational and varies by location. NYC, despite its reputation, was a lot less scary to walk around.

And once all (or let's say most) vehicles are self driving and powered by sustainable energy, things will be overwhelmingly better on all those dimensions.

Meantime, you could adopt some driving-analog version of the following approach, but don't expect most of us to do so:

"The only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards - and even then I have my doubts." --Spaf

This is only true for one of them and self-driving is still a long ways off. A self-driving EV still produces a lot of pollution (more than half of the CO2 is during manufacturing, and tire dust isn’t improved), costs a lot, and requires significant amounts of space to store and operate.

Nobody is saying there aren’t utility benefits but we shouldn’t continue massively subsidizing something while ignoring all of the problems. That’s why your analogy is nonsensical: spaf and the rest of the community didn’t say “perfect security is impossible, guess we shouldn’t do anything until AGI solves it for us!” and go to the bar.

Nope.

In term of general health, on average people will still lower their life expectancy every time they use a self driving vehicle instead of riding your bicycle or walking for the same short trip.

Plus the horror in term of land management and the general effect it has on psych.

And that car can haul groceries, etc. much better than a bike or hands can. I have a grocery store well within walking distance of me (on safe-ish sidewalks even), but I only walk when I only have a few things to pick up because otherwise I'm trying to haul 50lb of fragile and bulky stuff back half a mile to my house by hand (I also tend to go there mostly while I'm already out doing other things, so the marginal additional mileage is nearly zero). Yes, I could take the approach of going to the grocery store every day, but I flat out don't have the time for that (or the weather for that!). Or I could take the approach of buying a much nicer bike with more hauling capacity, but I already have a car (and do enough with it that there's no reasonable way to go without one) so I'm not going to spend $2k on a bike that would only reduce my mileage by 100 miles a year. Heck...just the savings from fixing things DIY covers the cost of my car in a typical year (I have an old house!), not to mention the car rental fees I'd incur for trips pretty much anywhere outside of a 5-10 mile radius.

But to your point, this is also highly situational. If I were in an apartment in NYC, that's a completely different situation than being in a house in a small-size city (honestly, my city in the US even has public transport that nearly rivals comparable cities in Europe...but they key there is comparing to comparable cities in Europe...where everyone still has cars because to go anywhere outside of a small radius, they need a car).

I just wanted to point out that this is missed on a lot of people. City planners in suburbs have come a long way, at least in DFW they have. I live in Oak Cliff which is about 3 miles S/SW of downtown Dallas. The northern suburbs of DFW such as Frisco are not the traditional boring/bland bedroom communities that get associated with suburbs. Well, there is that element but there are many good jobs, good restaurants/entertainment, and other amenities traditionally associated with city centers in the suburbs these days.

I suggest spending some times in a growing a suburb with an open mind. If you're a city person it's not likely to amaze you but it's not that bad either.

Trying to have a decent life, to live how you like is being spoiled, individualistic and entitled? Who are you to say such things to people?

If you're actively arguing against better alternatives for the collectivity, yes, it is.

You're also missing the point about how much it pollutes to make one car battery. There was a YT video a while back and you break even pollution wise at about 60-70k miles - basically your fancy electric car is pre-polluted. The only advantage over a gas car is the feel good sentiment.

The main point about climate change and everything is that you can't play ostrich and if you don't see happening it means you're gonna be ok. If the US pollutes too much (for example's sake) and the ice shelf at the North pole melts, you're gonna feel it all over the world because the water will rise equally.

"If the US pollutes too much", droughts and other rare-ish weather events in South America, Africa and South Asia will displace more people and lead to more instability. That's a much more tangible threat in our lifetimes...

The other advantage is environmental responsibility.

The pre-pollution you speak of is a myth, because after one year of use the total pollution crosses over in favor of the electric car. Even if the electricity is sourced from the worst source, coal burning, the net result is still a win for electric because electric drive trains use energy so much more efficiently than gas.

Though am not familiar with how much less pollution is generated by creating an ICE vehicle.

Democracy doesn’t come from surveys.

I agree with you on the supply chain of EVs... in particular if we're talking about electric cars which are extremely wasteful compared to smaller vehicles and public transit.

Housing might be a long term ponzi but we'll see I guess :-). As long as they keep devaluing currency it is not a bad bet. Especially in a metro area.

Property taxes are worse than capital gains in that the whole value of the property is taxed each year, compounding, rather than the increase in value when sold.

Not everyone has a five star restaurant down the street.

And I am a good cook, when the example above was given I was thinking it would have to be dinner somewhere like Chez Panisse for a party of 10. And even then it wouldn't be the same as a party at home--maybe SV tech people don't value this, but most cultures still value the social connection of cooking for ourselves.

ROFL no fancy restaurant will let me suspend a friend off the ceiling. Honestly most won’t be happy with board games.

Also, a home cooked meal is better - not because of the quality, but _because it’s home cooked_. And fyi cooking is a communal activity. The friends are in the kitchen then move with me to dining.

Not to mention I’m a solitary weirdo and I host people at least twice a month. Same with the last two generations of my family. The only time it was as bad as you describe (and “once per two years” is really bad) was when I was cripplingly depressed.

Edit: also, having a spare bedroom and a living room big enough to host even a dozen is hardly maxing out anything.

And you’re exaggerating the cost too. Two ovens? Seriously have you seen a Polish Christmas dinner? Dozen people, dozen meals, one stove/oven combo. It’s normal stuff done by normal people with small flats.

I like your idea of parties :3 Shibari?

Funnily enough I have had parties outside with such aspects, there are actually venues that specialise in such things. Friends regular rent them out. Usually combined with finger food only though.

That may be plausible for uncorrelated birthday events, but what about stuff like Thanksgiving?

Suddenly the usual third-party hosting capacity just isn't available anymore, and you can't simply merge the houses of all participants.

No thanks rent seeker.

I feel bad for you

That’s great until it’s like, Christmas or Thanksgiving or New Years, and everyone else in town also wants to host a party.

Ultimately people do things they enjoy. People enjoy different things.

I love hosting groups of people at home. Yes, it's hard work, but it's satisfying. The meal planning, excitement of preparing the house, cooking, having a big party at home - I enjoy almost all of it.

Having a party at a restaurant is a totally different set of activities - it needs longer term organisation to book a date, work out exact numbers, maybe pay a deposit. When the meal's over, everyone goes home. Doing it with kids is much harder. There's a different set of societal expectations over payment (people are much less comfortable being paid for in a restaurant than eating food you've provided).

These are different sets of activities. Some people enjoy doing one set more. That's OK. From my point of view - I'm finally in the position in the last few years where I can host large parties at home, and I'm really happy about it. To me it's worth the cost.

The same problem happens with car sharing: If you have the car in your driveway, using it is trivial. If you add booking a rental/shared car, going to the station, checking it for damage, ... a quick trip turns into a major chore.

And even if it may be overall cheaper to rent as needed than owning the "overkill" solution the whole time, it won't be much cheaper, because renting is ridiculously expensive. Short time rentals and car sharing around here are typically $50-100 per day and/or not that expensive per time but $0.50 per km which makes it prohibitive for longer trips. You can get an OK used car for a couple thousand and it will cost you way less than that in maintenance.

Self-delivering self-driving cars could alleviate at least the hassle (since you'd be able to reserve a fungible car from a citywide pool, for pickup and return at your door), although the cost aspect will likely remain.

Everyone who's ever worked on a website knows the value of being above the fold, the value of reducing a single click in a checkout, etc.

I lived car-free for many years, and while I had carshares easily available to me and went through the high-friction bits already (had the apps downloaded, accounts signed up, license verified, everything ready to actually rent) - I rarely did it (in fact I did it exactly twice in about 10 years!)

I sympathize with the argument here - having 4,000 lb steel boxes rolling around with a single person in them and no cargo is terribly wasteful, but a lot of the alternatives suggested assume a physics-experiment-like smooth frictionless surface that doesn't actually exist IRL.

Second, I think you're framing it as {truck + self pickup} vs {no vehicle + delivered}, but I think the more likely comparison is {truck + self pickup} vs {sedan + delivered}. Nobody's going to get a truck as their only vehicle that they'll literally only use a few times a year. They'll be choosing between truck and sedan as their daily driver (or truck as second vehicle). In the replacement case in particular (truck vs sedan) the friction delta is very small.

If you own the vehicle and it breaks you have to fix it - but most of the time it isn't broken. You need to pay insurance, but that comes in a regular bill, and so is easy to budget. In return for this you get a vehicle ready to use when you want to.

If you don't own the vehicle and need one there is a lot more friction: you need to figure out where to get a vehicle. More than once I've gone to get one and found they were sold out and so I couldn't rent when I needed one. More than once I've gone to get one and discovered the fine print didn't let me use it for what I wanted.

Open the app. Oh no, the car that's near my apartment isn't available when I need it. Ok what else is around? Ehhh the BMW is pretty expensive and unnecessary. Ah here's a Honda... but it's a 25 minute walk away.

Ok so I have to walk 25 minutes just to start the car. Then I can go where I want to - but if I bring anything back I'll have to find street parking in front of my apartment building to unload. Then I have to bring the car back to its spot, and then walk another 25 minutes back home.

Oh and don't forget to gas it up, because unlike owning a car, with a carshare more often than not you have to gas it up on the way back to avoid a penalty. You roll your eyes slightly at not just having to drop by the gas station but literally paying for the rental time to do it. But it's fine, whatever.

Like, I get that lots of people find this to be fine (I did, for over a decade!) - but it's anything but low-friction.

Traditional rentals are even worse - unlike carshares their pickup/dropoff locations are nowhere near you, so now you have to think about an Uber!

(US-centric view.)

If you live in a major urban center, sure. Paying hundreds of dollars a month for a parking spot would quickly convince me that car ownership was a bad idea. Otherwise, at least in the US, cities spread out to make room for the habits of their inhabitants. There's going to be easy parking where you live because that's what all of your neighbors want.

Of course, I agree that you should just have the deliveries... but I'm not seeing this as an argument why. The costs are not great enough.

Parking is similar. I can fit a small 2-door car into x% more parking spots in a city than a larger truck. So you can spend x% more of your time looking for parking spots. Maybe you're still looking for a spot when the car owner has already completed the errand.

As someone else mentioned, this friction is amortized over time so for some the psychological cost is lower, but for those who understand the principle of opportunity cost, it is a very real and tangible cost of ownership.

Now, if you’re in the 20% of truck buyers who really need them those are necessary costs but most people are buying them as a lifestyle accessory.

There’s also a fairly large group of people who live in urban settings who think they need all of that but are paying more than the cost of renting on the few times they actually do. Those people have been very good to the manufacturers’ profit margins but unfortunately all of the extra pollution and lowered safety affects their neighbors as well.

This is the real reason the SUV has eaten everything, because the so-called "crossover SUVs" and other small ones are just fancy hatchbacks, and a car with a square butt will always be more useful than a similar sized car with a trunk.

Physics, to a first order approx, doesn't care about the car mass, btw. It does care about A*Cd*v^3 though. Especially the v. A lot of problems depends on that v.

While I agree with the rest of your comment, this sounds several years out of date.

[1] https://boston.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=2014%20prius

[2] https://boston.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=2010%20prius

Did you buy your Prius at the beginning of the pandemic? There was a brief period when cars got super cheap (no one was buying anything, sellers were desperate) followed by one where they got very expensive (manufacturing was blocked on missing parts, more people were trying to buy used since they couldn't buy new).

I used to drive so rarely car sharing would have saved me several thousand per year and been less of a hassle because I could skip annual inspections, gas stabilization, etc. Driving weekly and owning a car is probably worth it but drive quarterly and it’s a hassle.

Also, in restaurants there is usually less to do - you either sit and eat/drink, or stand. Home parties have more activities - people can cook their own food, browse books, play with other things. They also last longer, and in the end it can be just a few last people chilling on a couch discussing life and stuff in general - can't have that in a restaurant.

(also, nice to find another party organiser!)

In the case of many of these things there's an early outlay of a lot of money to then pretend the incremental costs is negligible where something with less actual costs might be a lot more enjoyable but is harder to disguise.

It’s also cozier and you don’t feel pressure of having to get going after a couple of hours —any kids can find things to do around the house, be it gaming, TV, running, going off to a corner, whatever. Adults can group into convos of interest, etc.

If people are worried about food quality (rarely is food the focus, but if it were that can be catered).

When you buy a house there is an implied level of investment/saving as a by product of the fact that bricks and mortar in many countries are seen as a good store of value.

When you spend money in a restaurant it’s just gone, there is no chance of your annual meal/get together being counted towards your savings if/when you need to rustle up some extra cash.

There’s also the fact that it is almost always cheaper to host a meal at home opposed to paying for an entire group of friends/family to dine out.

it means that all old people end up living with too much space, and young families with too little space.

Looking back, it seems like a lot of places looked a lot like this for a long time. It is fairly recent that we see people swapping every 4-7 years, at surprisingly high cost.

This effect was so substantial that from 1950 to 1960 the population of most major cities actually declined [1], in spite of a rapidly booming population!

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_i...

Today, the sprawl has reached a point where commuting into the city is no longer an option.

That's why the old method no longer works.

We need to add density in the population centres where there are opportunities and jobs.

Not force young families to choose between a good job and a house.

And IMO this is all a much more reasonable thing to aim for. Density can only take you so far. There are hard limitations and it comes with lots of nasty stuff. I think the only reason things are taking as long as they are to naturally go this direction is because of the hyper-centralization of businesses and seemingly endless low interest rates, making companies with billion dollar valuations quite trite. And at that scale, the long-term cost impact of real estate in an ultra-premium location versus in the middle of nowhere is a rounding error. But monopoly money economics will end, probably sooner rather than later - and it may well end up solving this problem, alongside a slew of others.

[1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23113/reno/population

(It's actually still happening, but people dismiss where it is happening as "suburbs" but if you live in a "suburb" that is 60 miles from "the city" and basically never go to the city, it's really it's own thing.)

The earlier comment isn't a critique on what people enjoy. It's a critique on people's inability to estimate how changes affect their enjoyment, instead making things into an inflexible checklist.

People keep taking everything personally when it comes to personal anecdotes when this is about mere majorities. Gatekeeping is not the intent. It's to speak of a broader group that has an impulse to want a thing, but many in that group will be served fine with alternatives. And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through.

Especially for gardening supplies, delivery has no real downsides, it's a straight money calculation.

No, no. They are simply saying 'cater for the edge cases'. No more, no less. We know what you are saying.

They're just saying that you're ignoring nuance to their detriment (true), and therefore you are not trustworthy in decision making (true).

No, we are not prepared to let you make decisions for us ("But many in that group will be served fine with alternatives"). No, that's precisely the problem - Centralised planning thinks that the alternatives are fine, and they are often not. Similar to Google not having a phone number to unblock locked accounts.

>And wanting something doesn't mean you thought it through.

Sure. We will assume that this is charitable / general statement (if it weren't: It is this attitude that makes one unqualified to make decisions. They think they know better, and assume that the other person does not.)

Besides for all the decisions society foists upon you, of course, including what kind of cars are legal to purchase.

I'm not an absolutist anarchist, and I don't think that undermines my points (given an adult conversation where nuance and context is discussed).

We don't need absolutism across the board here (the "if you legislate against personal atomic bombs, you must be in favour of legislating against people having a 2mm knife blade!" whataboutism fallacy)

You're making a jump here that is not at all warranted.

Many literally means many.

Not in the sense that they will get lucky, but in the sense that different people have different edge cases.

They're not trying to tell people what their needs are, it's that different people truly do have different needs.

A bunch of people are arguing that their purchases have to cater for needs that they don't actually have. Trying to argue them down is not trying to say nobody has those needs, it's that too many people are thinking about a problem for 5 seconds, not considering alternatives, and claiming to have needs, when the actual number is a lot smaller.

It's not about specific people being told they're wrong. It's statistical. We can count how many people are doing X or Y and it's not most people. People get aspirational about the future and make claims that are wrong. Or they consider a lack of an "expected" feature to be far more impactful than it actually is. It's not uncharitable to say this about statistical aggregates, it's a fact.

If I am a guest, I would rather use the guest room than a hotel room paid for by my host. The latter feels like I am free-riding, the first doesn't - even though the cost for a guest room is much bigger, it's already committed to.

Also, staying at somebody's place is a very different experience than staying in the hotel down the road.

With the hotel, you will leave at a reasonable time in the evening. With the guest room, you may end up staying up all night.

If I buy a trailer I never needed, it does increase the chances of me using a trailer on a given occasion.

It does not, however, mean that I used a trailer any less than I wanted to before, and if I hadn't sunk that cost I'd have more money for more useful things. In your case, inviting for parties or going to restaurants more often and having more luxurious ones.

If you want to see your friends, don't buy stuff and hope they'll come use it. Invite them.

> If I am a guest, I would rather use the guest room than a hotel room paid for by my host.

If it's just one guest, they can sleep on the couch. Don't need spare bedrooms for that.

> With the hotel, you will leave at a reasonable time in the evening. With the guest room, you may end up staying up all night.

Not really. Leave late, stay up all night, whatever. The only thing they might care for is the checkout time if the hotel is expensive.

This works until your friends start getting married, start having back problems, or just want a little privacy while they sleep.

And if they have back pain they can't sleep on just any mattress either, as it might be the wrong hardness for them. And you might have another friend staying over so now you need two guest bedrooms for them both to have privacy, and both of which need fancy specific mattresses, ah and what if it's one of those couples that don't sleep in the same bed so...

Having an entirely unused room to cater to a very specific situation in which someone has to sleep in your house but also wants a hotel experience with a particular choice of mattress is a waste of effort. Guest bedroom by themselves is quite an American luxury thing. They're not at all a thing in Scandinavia unless you live in a mansion, and even then it would be weird waste of rooms to make spare bedrooms. Friends sleep on couches or fold-out beds if they need to sleep over.

Then you should not have a guest room. or a good excuse!

I have the former, but the person clearly indicated that a couch would be insufficient to address back pains, in which case it sounds like they expect a copy of the master bedroom.

Yes, this is extremely common. All of my in-laws would go in this category, more or less. I might spend the night at their house, but it would be awkward to wake up with them in the room. Many friends who have moved far away and I don't see them regularly any more would also qualify.

> And if they have back pain they can't sleep on just any mattress either

There is an enormous population that exists between "can't sleep comfortably on a couch" and "needs some specific kind of mattress."

> an entirely unused room

Space isn't at a premium where I live, a whole unused room is no big deal. Plus if I have a another child there is a room ready for them.

That's the source of a lot of guest rooms, they are rooms for future/past children. My own guest room is also an office when there aren't guests.

But then we've also deviated from the discussion of acquiring things with the intend to perfectly cover an edge-cases. On-topic, that would be like getting a long-range car because you drive the 1000 km constantly rather than for trips, and later lose the need and only use the extra range for leisure.

> There is an enormous population that exists between "can't sleep comfortably on a couch" and "needs some specific kind of mattress."

I'm actually not sure there are many people in that group. I don't think there's far between a decent couch and an "eh" mattress, closing the gap of people that cannot sleep on one but can sleep on the other. A decent futon or fold-out bed also goes a long way, and to theorize a bit I expect those that would not be able to have acceptable sleep on such would not sleep well outside their own home and bed regardless.

Either way, futons or fold-out beds are quite reasonable propositions comfort-wise and I sure wouldn't consider providing more for friends and family that needs to sporadically stay over at my home.

I'm sure this is a cultural thing but I and seemingly everyone around me finds guest bedrooms to be an insanely wasteful concept.

But in specific, goddamn there's so many differences between hosting a dinner party at home vs at a restaurant, or getting someone to visit and putting them up in a room vs a hotel.

Totes agree about trucks tho.

Same with landscaping and other hobbies. The joy they bring you cannot be replaced by getting it done by someone else.

And I think the cost of having a truck versus a sedan is marginal, especially in the US where the roads are wider and parking spaces can accommodate trucks without any issues.

Just because an alternative exists now, does not mean it will in the future and also does not mean it is equivalent.

>Plenty of landscaping places will deliver to the home, much more convenient, and cheaper overall when you can downsize your vehicle of choice. I ended up making life choices that let me not have a car at all, and I spend that money on traveling instead.

Congrats on choices that make you happy. Other people do have cars though, which enable your lifestyle and your landscapers probably do not have an electric or a car manufactured in the last 15years.

You just can't. You can deceive yourself all you want and skip all life events this way, but ultimately spending money cannot be substituted by not spending money and if attempted will cast long shadows onto your life if it going to exist at all. It's an ultimate bean counting, going over a same bag that never grows.

> A small inconvenience to pay to save

This thinking is literally penny wise and pound foolish. Taken me way too long to realize.

Maybe we can skip it all and send them a gift card from Uber Eats?

If you think eating at a fancy restaurant is a substitute for being surround by family while you cook a huge dinner in a large, cozy home then I feel bad for you.

>I find life to be more comfortable when treating edge cases like edge cases, and finding an appropriate solution.

I bet if we looked at your life, "car" and "house" are compromises you are willing to make, "edge cases", but there are other things in there that you are not.

Can I ask why you are so concerned about policing how other people want to spend their time and money?

I have a huge house but live in a low CoL area where it costs the same as a condo in a high CoL place.

I drive a big passenger van but live in a small town where I can walk to the grocery store, gym, and library.

So you can mitigate in more ways than your suggesting.

I find it staggering that you would feel those are the same experiences. I feel there's a difference in what you consider to be a party and what people consider to be a party.

Its spontaneity and freedom to do what you want when you want. Same goes for the OP story about EV's. The mental freedom of being able to drive across the country any time someone chooses is liberating vs. only being able to go 200 miles and having to plan out charging stations and wattages/volts/whatever.

Perpetual home price increases leads buyers into an "investing mindset". I don't particularly like it, but it is an easy one to fall into. This is doubly true since realtors make their money by encouraging it.

You obviously shouldn’t pay to cover every edge case, but if you can it’s worth paying for the ones you value.

I know there are significant cultural differences at stake here but if your party with family/friends at a restaurant only takes two hours, you're doing it wrong.

That just not true. Restaurant quality has plummeted and it's easy to out cook them. Go to your average fancy wedding and the food is mediocre (this summer I went to a wedding in Canada's fanciest hotel. Same "fancy" fare you get anywhere else).

By the time your guests arrive, if you're spending your time in the kitchen instead of entertaining, you've messed up.

Also, you're telling OP how to live his life. You'd hate it if someone told you how to live yours.

"And for hosting occasional guests an extra bedroom, plenty of solutions exist for creating temporary sleeping space in the living room, while leaving your own bedroom to the guests. A small inconvenience to pay to save out a whole bedroom to pay for and maintain. There’s also the option of going on vacation together, which can be a really fun way to spend the holidays."

The carbon cost of vacations is not zero. Close the ducts to the extra room and maintaining it is essentially free.

But again, you're telling OP how to live. You do your vacations with friends, I'll invite my in-laws to stay with me for a year.

"Plenty of landscaping places will deliver to the home, much more convenient, and cheaper overall when you can downsize your vehicle of choice. I ended up making life choices that let me not have a car at all, and I spend that money on traveling instead."

And the detritus afterwards? Since I don't have a truck Ive been slowly cleaning my yard one green bin a week at a time since moving in two years ago. With a pickup I could have finished in two weekends.

Your travel is not environmentally sound at all. Sure, a plane gets 100 mpgp, if its full, but the distances are massive and its way worse overall.

But that's your life, you can choose to do that if you want. I care too much for the environment to air travel much (and, as a "third culture kid" -yuck- I actually do have friends and family scattered through out the world).

"My point is: I find life to be more comfortable when treating edge cases like edge cases, and finding an appropriate solution. I see so many people maxing out their house and car within their budget, and then talking about but never doing things they really want to, like that far away vacation, or that expensive hobby. I never quite understand why."

You don't have to understand. Ppl like to bitch. They would have even if their choices were different. That is a message of basically all religions throughout time - be content with your now.

E.g. maybe your parents staying specifically in your house is too important for you to give up, but for those whose actual need might well be to want to spent holiday time or the occasional long weekend etc. with family or friends, many places you can finance a lot of trips and big fancy AirBnbs for all of you together for the savings from a smaller mortgage.

For some it might similarly be even more of a highlight to throw the parties in a lavish rented location or fancy restaurant (but again: it might not be; if part of your enjoyment is to host at your home, that's your choice).

Depending on how frequently you need that truck, you might be better of renting/signing up to a car-sharing service.

Sometimes people genuinely want to be able to handle the very specific edge case and that's fine. But often people also just haven't considered the cost of buying for the edge cases vs. the cost of renting on occasion and what it might allow.

I wouldn't want to suggest you shouldn't make decisions that takes your edge cases into account, but I find to me at least that there are often alternative ways of addressing edge cases than people's "defaults".

It only makes sense to rent something if you don’t have any of your own options.

Getting bigger mortgage and having your family once a year instead of paying for a hotel gets you ahead really quick.

TCO of a bigger car is not that much bigger to match having a smaller car and then renting out a bigger once in a while. Unless it is like once in 10 years.

Similarly, with respect to a car, if the only alternative was a smaller car maybe I'd have chosen that, but my average total transport costs over the last 10 years is about 1/10th of the average UK car costs when factoring in occasional months with hundreds spent on Uber. That works for me, because I live somewhere with excellent public transport and don't need to use even that much. It won't work for someone who don't have my life or my transport options. That's fine.

That was my entire point: Do the numbers. And that also includes for people who think they're saving by holding back.

At least, as a rule of thumb, property value gains tend to exceed mortgage interest paid. It's not universally true, but generally you'll at least recoup a significant proportion of what you paid.

> Across the country's 35 largest metro areas, homes that boast of a formal dining room ask a median of $325 500, 23% more than the national median home price[0]

I didn't find specifically the median house price, but reversing the 23% increase puts the median at $265 000.

This suggests a median 'dollar value difference' from adding a dining room of around $60 000.

With a median down payment of 13%[1], and an average interest rate of around 7%[2], you'll pay back around $550 000 over a thirty year mortgage[3].

In order to pay back less than $610 000 (i.e. the $60 000 value difference), the mortgage shouldn't exceed $293 000, leaving you with only $28 000 to build your dining room and come off better off at the end of the mortgage term.

Obviously if you can do better than the median rates, down payments, and values, then the maths changes, but on average, it looks like I might be wrong about you recouping the full amount you spend on adding a dining room.

[0]: https://money.com/dining-area-home-sales/#:~:text=Across%20t.... [1]: https://time.com/personal-finance/article/average-down-payme... [2]: https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/mortgage-rates/#mortgage-... [3]: https://www.calculator.net/mortgage-calculator.html?chousepr...

You can't compare that to an AirBib bill dollar for dollar. The money you give to AirBnb is gone forever. The money you pay in mortgage partially goes to your equity and may partially be a tax deduction.

However there are other issues to take into account: 1) it's not a given the added value of a room will be as high as the cost of adding it, and it can severely prolong the time before you're in the black. E.g. my house is one of the largest on my street already, and that typically results in a lower return for adding additional space, 2) you need to also consider whether the cost to cover the needs you otherwise would meet by adding a room is met by more, the same or less than the amount adding the room adds to your mortgage payments. If it is less, then it takes fairly little less before you're able to increase your capital faster by putting the difference in an index fund at the point in time when most of your mortgage payments still go towards interest.

By all means, it can pay off to build, and odds are I in fact will add a room to my house over the coming year whether or not it will be profitable. I'm not saying you shouldn't. Just that it's worth doing the numbers and figuring out what actually works best for you (and, yes, that does include factoring in equity) and sometimes the right choice for you might not be what is financially most prudent anyway. But it's worth going into it having run the numbers.

And the authority for the people to decide their “actual” needs should be who exactly?

Surprised nobody mentioned externalities yet. Carbon tax, and then you can take a more wholistic view when planning your life.

By the way, landscaping as a hobby does not automatically imply trucks, not outside US at least. Unless you actually do it often and need to transport large loads—then yeah, go for it. You’re part of a small minority that might actually need a truck.

How about living it as if those things are more important to you that the way they are achieved?

You can see your friends and throw parties without a dining room - set a table in the living room or set up a meeting in some place. Or go see your parents more often at their place, and when they come, spend more time with them and do stuff wherever they stay at. Or do the landscaping work without a pickup truck, like millions of people managed.

An insistance on the rare edge cases is not about "refusing to average an entire life style down to the median day". It's acquiscing to the median day, and then using the edge cases as if they mean you haven't.

Thank you for this, this seems like the most rational take.

I went through the more extreme version of this debate myself, I don’t own a car anymore and despite what everybody told me, I haven’t lost any flexibility at all. Between financing the vehicle, gasoline, insurance, vehicle tax and maintenance I save about 4800€/yr. I can do about 360 days of the year without a car. I can rent a car best fitted for the occasion and still save tons of money. I used a van for when I got stuff from ikea, I had a sedan for a road trip and a compact EV for when we had a city trip. With this being a no brainer I’d argue I gained flexibility and improved my not so median days.

The same thing can be said about just switching to a BEV. The BEV will, for the vast majority of people, be an improvement for their median day. You can charge at home, you have less maintenance hassle and the range will be perfectly fine for your median day. At the same time it won’t hinder your above median days not significantly. You can plan out your trips with a little more breaks and you’ll be fine, at the same time, with the money you saved on ToC you can also just rent out a nice ICE for the extra ordinary occasions.

It's just that when you buy a car, you don't see the price tag on each trip.

Right now my car has broken down. I don't actually use it that much since I commute to work on my bicycle. But as it is broken down I realize that those "corner cases" actually occur much more frequently that I had thought. For instance, this week I've needed it twice. Next week I need to take a trip where I could either drive myself to the airport, allowing me to sleep in for another hour or so, or I can use public transport. If I use public transport I will be home much later so a social engagement I was planning to take part in has to go.

Sure, I don't use my car that often anymore since I try to ride my bike when possible. Even in winter. But that's not really how I use my car these days.

As for houses: they're a lot more complicated than I thought. You don't actually know how you are going to use a house and whether it will "work" before you move in. It took us years to figure out what a couple of the rooms would be used for. During covid the room at the top of the house, which was kind of a second living room up until then, became my wife's office. And it works great for that.

Instead of having a giant living room with chairs and table space for 30-50 people, you can temporarily set up something on a lawn, in a park, or rent a dedicated space.

Instead of having a pickup truck to carry a heavy thing once, rent a van that one time or have a trailer hitch on a smaller car (for the confused Americans, in EU even the smallest cars have or can be had with trailer hitches for small utility trailers from 750 to 3500kg).

Instead of having a car with a 1000 km range and 10 minute refuel when you only drive 30km a day, rent a nicer car for those trips or take a train/airplane.

Don't optimize for edge-cases - you get better and cheaper results by optimizing for the median and doing something else for edge-cases. Think of it like trying to do everything with a swiss knife vs. using a few good dedicated tools, renting those you rarely use.

There is a silver lining in smaller houses. They tend to be in denser neighborhoods and hence has some benefits in raising kids. There is no need to setup play dates, they can literally hear each other screaming and come out to play.

In my bigger house neighborhood, I see very few kids just playing casually outside and hence we have to setup play dates. Yes now I have place for table tennis table that I always wanted but I have to call my friends over because bigger house in my case also is bit more further in suburbs.

So big house might be great for parties and hosting guests but i probably traded away closeness to my existing friends for myself and kids both. I just made my median day more boring than before.

I like how you summarize it with this line, I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Sure, we could only own that which we need daily to get to work and be a good worker bee, but that's depressing.

Maybe that's the biggest problem and your current solutions are inadequate?

My edge cases come up fairly frequently and I don't really have a good fall back for them i could spend a huge amount of money or time to do the 50 mile trips via uber or transit. Or, I could own a hybrid. I could do something similar with less reliability for the 300 mile trip. Or I could own a hybrid. In both cases, i could keep an app that tells me where the charge stations are and account for any possible needed charging... or I could just own a hybrid and gas up at any random station I pass in 5 mins.

This is the problem of EVs. Yeah edge cases, but a lot of people can have their edge cases come up fairly frequently. And worse this changes over time. People like to plan for probably outcomes over the life of the vehicle. It's not strange to think you might a few hours a handful of times a year. The more people you need to transport with you the more alternative travel methods and the uncertainty of the charge network starts to matter.

For new cars, especially with the tax credit (which most americans qualify for), EVs are cheaper. That's not even factoring in maintenance costs over 5 years nor savings from charging at home (of course not everyone can charge at home).

I'd consider an EV for my daily commute if I could buy a new one for $10K. I think that's a reasonable price for a small car that has maybe a 100 mile range.

But automakers are offering $50K cars and above that don't fully replace gas cars. No thanks.

The sticker price is just the "obvious" price you see when it comes to owning a vehicle. But everything else still matters, routine maintenance and gas alike. Ignoring it only sets yourself up for being surprised when those bills come due.

> I'd consider an EV for my daily commute if I could buy a new one for $10K.

I'd consider an ICE vehicle if I could buy a new one for $10K. Have a suggestion?

People who like to stand out buy big cars. Big cars make people in small cars feel unsafe. So people replace their small cars with big cars. So, people in big cars buy bigger cars.....and so on.

So now every car has to have more 'safety'. Maybe if the car hitting me wasn't 5000lbs, at chest level and didn't accelerate like a bullet..... I wouldn't need more 'safety'. So now every one has bigger, "safer" and more expensive cars....... all while American road deaths keep growing with no limits in sight.

One day I will see a Ford-150 bed used for pickup truck tasks. Today is not that day.

I looked at EVERY used car in a 100 mile radius on every platform you can think of and the 2013 RAV4 with 105,000 miles at 15k hit the dealer lot the night before I purchased (they had multiple calls for that vehicle while I was filling out paperwork). Its because all the old people sold off there late 90's and 2000's cars that there STILL are no used cars anymore that aren't absolute junk (155k mileage plus junk selling for 15k - 20k). This lets dealerships sell new cars & trucks for way, way too much. If Cash for Clunkers never happened, used cars would be the competition for new cars like the Toyota Camry which are uncomfortable, basic vehicles but which set the pricing floor for the other manufacturers vehicle lines. No competition so set it at a high price point marketing it as new even though the rest of it is junk and then you can charge a premium on oyher vehicle options. (Hate the Canry but I love Toyota vehicles don't get me wrong).

All us poor people who just want a to work and back vehicle & who would buy off craigslist from private sellers don't have a market anymore and have to go dealerships. Pickups are overpriced I'll agree, and are faux status symbols, but the used market itself reaked havoc on trucks too.

Iirc the cheapest new car in the US market then was the Versa. And it was not $5k.

Maybe it was closer to 2010? Wouldn’t have been earlier.

Dealerships do sell under sticker with some regularity. Or they used to, LOL.

[edit] after some googling, I think they were two-door base-model (very base) Chevy Aveos. But I could have that wrong.

Even with this, a new Aveo for $12k in 2010 would now be ~$17k with inflation. New cars today seem to be around $17k and that includes the Versa and the Mirage. Of course wages haven't risen with inflation but that's another can of worms.

No, but any ICE vehicle will not have the limitations of an EV. I was saying I might accept those if it were cheap enough.

12,000 miles / 25mpg * $5/gallon = $2400

Maintenance is, at a very high estimate, $1000 per year, and that's paying a shop for everything - far less if I did it myself

Payments on a 5 year loan at 6% for a $40K EV (such as the Tesla 3) is $773/month or 9276/yr

On my local Craigslist I can find my vehicle, one year older but significantly lower mileage (85K) for $18000. I can find my vehicle but with more miles (222K) for $4000 (admittedly that sounds low and I have suspicions) or my vehicle with slightly higher mileage (115K) but in a higher trim for $11K.

You'll forgive me for continuing to drive my car or for buying an exact replacement rather than rushing to buy an EV.

It seems like it's you who's ignoring upcoming bills, by ignoring data:

https://repairpal.com/tesla

https://repairpal.com/honda

My SO managed to run out of gas twice since she hated filling up on the way home, and forgot to check on the way out.

To her, the utility of being able to charge our BEV at home is immense.

I'm willing to bet she isn't that dumb.

I will admit that I ran a car out of gas once in the last 40 years: driving to Flagstaff AZ in a Prius there aren't many gas stations and I ignored the reserve light and the beep because I thought I could make it. Nope! 5 miles short. Maybe the 3000' grade I had to climb just before had some influence. However... never again. OTOH, that Prius that ran out of gas traveled several thousand miles over the years at over 90mph across the West, getting ~40mpg which works out to ~400 mile range. That right there is the entire argument, done.

That said, most of the utility comes from not having to spend time stopping by a gas station to fill up. Just park in the garage and spend about 10 seconds plugging in the car, and it's filled up in the morning ready to go.

Do people who think the only use of a vehicle is the home-work-supplies circuit? Don't you ever take a weekend off and go out of town? You really want to deal with the whole rental car scenario when you're supposed to be off? Or, oh well, I'm just gonna commit to spending a good chunk of my time on this vacation sitting around twiddling my thumbs at a charging station. I got an acquaintance who drove a decaying Tesla with <200 mile range from Atlanta to NYC and back and then bragged to me "it wasn't that bad". Yeah, I was polite.

Lotsa magical thinking going on here. And I haven't even pointed out that in vast swathes of the country the rental car option isn't even remotely convenient.

In an EV, that's ~11 hours on day 1, charge up at the hotel, and do one 15 minute stop on day 2. Before I had an EV, I'd do the same thing, just with ~10 hours on day 1 and my stop on day 2 might be at a different place.

But this is traveling for leisure with family. It might be different if I were really desperate to get there fast. I'd never rent a gas car to save the couple of hours, but also arrive much more tired.

I do agree, though, that there’s some novelty risk but (a) my numbers only include gas (and I’m not factoring my solar savings in at all because I ran the numbers before I installed solar) and (b) I’m spending quite a bit every year to maintain my Odyssey and basically $0 to maintain my Model 3 (only exception is I’ve changed the tires once, but I’ve gone through a couple sets of van tires in the same time period for a similar total expenditure). I think that I’d come out ahead even if I had to replace the battery (or sold the car when this is needed). Also, the depreciation on my Tesla over the last four years is much more in my favor than the van’s depreciation in the same time.

The 3 and Y seem to be doing better, as well as S/X after 2016, but those are still fairly new.

RepairPal says the average annual cost to maintain a Model 3 is twice that of a Honda Civic.

The only maintenance my Camry will need for the next decade or so that does not exist in Tesla is regular fluid changes which amortize to about $200 per year

Ps in SF Bay Area and don’t qualify for tax incentives

The math is skewed even further once you add the extra $500 you pay for CA annual registration for an EV vs. Hybrid (personal experience, Mach-E vs. Accord Hybrid).

Definitely it's massively less compelling in areas with extremely high electricity costs. That's pretty much as expensive as electricity gets in North America, isn't it? I think it's significantly more compelling basically anywhere else. E.g. in Ontario where I live, if you're set up appropriately and charge between 11pm and 7am it's $0.028/kWh (CAD), i.e. less than 3 cents per kWh, or roughly 1/35th the price you're paying.

If I've done my math right, that's works out to be less than 2$ USD per 1000km? A difference of 108$/1000km is 1728$/year for the statistically average-driving Ontarian. Adds up pretty fast!

I live in Ventura County and the cheapest my electricity gets is around 33 cents per kwh. During peak it's a whopping 60 cents per kwh.

I also assume that chart includes baseline credits and averages out the tiers - your first kwh is cheaper than your 600th kwh. Any brand new EV charging will be charged at your top rates and be more expensive than what those averages represents pretty much everywhere in the US.

If you have an EV (or some other devices), you can qualify for the TOU-D-PRIME plan which gets you $0.23/kWh[1]; at this rate, for my car usage patterns, the Tesla Model 3 is a clear win over any car more than $25k or so. If you have solar, you can drive the prices even further down (I offset basically all of my 2022 bill, but 2023 was cloudier and rainier than typical and so I'm doing worse this year).

[1]: https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/Time-Of-Use-Residentia...

Here the EV time of use rate is 50-60 cents per kWh between 3pm and midnight and 34 cents the rest of the day.

Without spending another 10-20k on Solar, EV is a losing proposition at these rates.

In California of all places

I stop work at 5pm so I can power down my computer before electricity gets expensive.

And 8pm works great for us because in summer it can be 70 degrees overnight, and the kids start going to bed at 8pm so I can cool down the house a bit without paying crazy prices for that.

I do a lot of thermostat trickery in the summer. During the day we set it to 76, from 4-5pm set it down to 72 (to avoid running in the expensive hours), then we raise it to 78 from 5-8pm, then we set it down to 74 at 8pm.

Even though I can afford it I've never bought new car. Call me lucky but I did not feel like I was paying for somebody else's problems either. All my cars worked fine for me. Some maintenance and repairs but nothing major / expensive. For example used Grand Caravan I paid $5K for on the auction cost me another $1K to put in proper order and then served me faithfully 10 years. Only got rid of it because the rust had taken the best of it.

Yes, if other people have to contribute their money to the purchase of your new car, it's cheaper for you.

>That's not even factoring in maintenance costs over 5 years

Well, the data says that Teslas have some of the highest costs of ownership in the first five years.

Links please? I know a lot of Tesla owners and they have all said differently.

I think the issue is largely around having to adjust the mindset to plan in advance.

For the roadtrip scenario, it might be better to just rent a vehicle for a week. For transporting large or heavy items, renting a truck beats owning one.

I’d love a cheap EV as a second/commuter car but nobody will give me one, and my crappy old Passat still works.

There are services like Turo, where you know the exact car you're getting, but, sadly, they're far from universally available. And it's pricier, of course.

All rental agencies surely know what fleet they have - typically it's as uniform as possible, to make the maintenance easier. Yet, it's not exactly unusual to see that a particular location has a fleet of entirely different make than they had listed on the website. Or, e.g. I know a place that doesn't have "compact" cars (or have so few of them I've never seen one on the lot), and just automatically "upgrades" everyone to "mid-size" - no clue why, they're a good (aka not scammy or too blatantly overpriced) company otherwise.

My only guess is that no one complains or cares about it.

Obviously, if all you care about is getting from point A to point B somehow then you're probably don't care much.

However, different cars have different characteristics, such as safety ratings (how likely you're to stay alive if you crash is important factor for some people), instrument clusters (my personal pet peeve - most cars have very poor UI/UX), rear window and mirror usefulness (in some you can get a clear view, in some you can barely see if someone's directly behind you or not), and all sorts of "luxuries" such as additional convex mirrors, backup camera or smartphone integration (CarPlay/Android Auto).

All those things - save for safety ratings - are quite subjective, so while some folks may just shrug and wonder how those matter, they make a lot of difference for others. The difference between a car that can drive and a car than you can drive pleasantly (or confidently) is probably significant.

But maybe I've also been spoiled by German car rental places — literally every single car I got here in the past ~5 years has had CarPlay, backup cameras, etc.

And I'd care about all of the above if I were to _buy_ a car, but for a week (or two) long trip, I genuinely can't imagine caring.

(Though, I guess, I am quite opinionated when it comes to picking my computers and phones, etc; and if I had to use a loaner Windows PC for a week I'd probably be mad too. I guess people can have that kind of preferences in cars?)j

I charged the company back via my credit card provider, and have never even considered doing business with that company again.

If gas were much more expensive, it'd be much easier to sell people on EV's, but since there's not a huge difference in operating expenses between an EV and ICE car, why wouldn't people stick with the ICE car to meet 100% of their needs instead of an EV that meets 90% of their needs?

If the USA had a robust charging network for all cars (not just Teslas), then it'd be a different matter but I've regularly encountered broken chargers (shown as operational in the app) as well as long lines for chargers (at 20-30 minutes per car, even a few cars waiting in front of you makes for a long wait).

I thought I'd have traded in our second car (a Hybrid, not a plug-in) for a BEV by now, but have run into enough charging difficulties on long trips to make me hold on to it. Renting an ICE car for long trips isn't really a good option since it's 30 minutes to the nearest car rental place and they have no parking, so it means my wife and I have to drive an hour to pick up the car and bring it back home and may the same trip after we get back from our trip.

I walk the dog through a strip mall parking lot every day. There are some U-Haul rental vans that are always there. So pretty clearly, someone is doing daily rentals on a permanent basis. The prices are painted right on the vans: $19.95 / day plus mileage.

  (Or maybe they just bought the vans from U-Haul and never repainted them? Interesting question. But U-Haul has a box in the strip mall for dropping off your keys, so I suspect they *are* rentals.)

- rentals for the roadtrips cost a lot (about 1.5-2k p/w for a SUV like an X5), and those cars are still poorly equipped. It ruins the fun of a roadtrip if the car audio sucks or the windshield is made of cheapest, thinnest glass. I never knew car companies sell premium vehicles with such low trims. Its a hassle too as the rental companies around where I live examine the car like they were buying it from me. One has to interact with various people and spend the time, and its not always an enjoyable experience, - rentals for hauling stuff are perfectly ok even for weekly use. I'd still love the luxury of owning a toyota proace full time, but there is less of a reason to own sth like this for me.

It would be some effort to figure out why they're doing it, so I haven't done so.

Wait! I've got it: U-Haul is just parking their rental vans there instead of their own lot. So the vans are actually NOT rented at the moment?

Stay tuned.

Today I saw a sign above the dropbox: "please park your returned trucks <in the lot>"

So I think what's happening is: U-Haul keeps the vans in the strip mall parking lot. (Do they have to pay the mall for that? Who knows?)

Possibly some of the mall tenants rent it occasionally, and this lets them get the van right at their place of business, instead of having to go somewhere and pick it up.

Maybe the keys are always left in the van! I could test that, but I don't want to get in trouble for car theft. Maybe U-Haul doesn't have to worry about someone stealing it, since they could have a locator device in it.

It's never going to be cheaper to rent daily than to buy. Renting daily has you paying the amortised purchase cost and a little extra for the costs of the rental provider (real-estate, offices, employees), and then a little more for the profit of the rental provider.

If the rental provider charges only what the amortised purchase cost is, they'll be out of business in a few days, if not hours.

The fact is, they are doing it. You're right, there might be some good explanation, but just dismissing the fact is never a good look.

I didn't make any statement about whether or not they are doing it, I pointed out that it costs more to do so. That's the fact in this case: the selling price of a non-loss-leader item can't be lower than the cost of providing it!

That there are people doing it is no indication that it is at all cost-effective to do. They may have some good reason for paying more (poor credit so cannot buy a vehicle, need the "daily" for only 3 months, it's a temporary solution while their own vehicle is being repaired, etc).

The fact is, it costs more to rent daily than to simply buy. The theory you have is that it must be more cost-effective to rent daily than to buy.

Are you seriously claiming that "U-Haul is running a profit" is just a theory?

> I'm the one with an unexplained fact.

The explanation is not going to be "It's cheaper to rent than to buy", if you're looking at periods that ownership generally runs for.

"It's unexplained" does not mean "It's cheaper".

I believe that when U-Haul (and other rental companies) sell their old vehicles, they remove or paint over the business-related markings first.

Sure it works if you're doing those trip once ever year or two. But if you do 1 or 2 road trips per year? Or more?

It's much more convenient just to have the vehicle in the first place. Plus you get the benfits of having it all the time.

It's a more difficult issue for very long range drives where an ICEs full range is required to get to the next gas station.

Why? Do the life choices of other individuals really cause you that much harm? I could see being annoyed that they're _marketed_ into over sized solutions that aren't actually correct for their use case, but to just be annoyed that other people appear to enjoy prosperity as an edge case is unusual to my way of thinking.

> People focus too much on edge cases when making life decisions, imo.

Similarly, and sorry to do this in reverse, but why do you think that is? Marketing, experience, habitual, unfairly priced?

> need

Anyways, personally, I'm more annoyed that corporations get to do this kind of edge case thinking. Shifting the growing of food, the use of labor, and the capital markets they sell to around in pernicious ways simply to add a few points to a publicly traded stock. Then using these profit streams to purchase selfish legislation and reduced taxes all to grease the wheels of this odd machine. Then we're all expected to accept a reduced quality experience just to paper over their decades of environmental abuse? That is madness.

I meant more emphasis on the 'kind of' in 'kind of annoying'.

Maybe 'frustrating' would have been a better word. It is frustrating when seemingly everyone around you is on a different page than you are.

And yet its their priorities that are wrong?

Honestly, some self-reflection may be in order here.

No I'm not, I'm using health as an example of a general principle.

Anyways, as I've said up-thread, the 'kind of annoying' thing is referring to the feeling of having any unconventional opinion that is better to keep to yourself (except on HN where such things are slightly more tolerated).

It's not that other people are annoying because they like other things than I do, or whatever the current straw man is.

Yes. Larger SUVs and trucks are making roads less safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and even other cars.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Yeah, it's really not the thing itself that's annoying. It's just knowing that it's an unconventional opinion and I'm not going to change anyone's minds on it and I better just keep it to myself to be polite. Not the end of the world of course, but slightly frustrating.

If I were writing the post again, I'd definitely take the 'annoying' sentence out of it.

I think it's right to be annoyed. It's an important issue, but I'm a fan of regular people, in general, and I always try to offer a defense of them at the expense of corporation whenever possible.

> It's just knowing that it's an unconventional opinion and I'm not going to change anyone's minds

You're a bit of a hipster. No shame in that. My argument comes from the same place, and wasn't phrased to target you, but to withstand HN.

If I have the right space, I'll become the kind of person who has parties.

If I buy a truck, I'll want to do big projects.

not consumerism, but advertising. Specifically, brand advertising (rather than informational advertising like walmart putting low prices in ads)

It's far far easier to throw a party when it just means inviting people over and making or ordering food than renting an entertaining space. It's easier to work on a project when you have the tools in your garage than if you had to go to the hardware store or go rent a u haul.

For all the talk of rampant consumerism the stuff on the bottom of my list of things to complain about are purchases intended to reduce your reliance on buying things. Owning nothing, making nothing, and renting other people's stuff and labor for every task is peak consumerist behavior disguised as "efficient" "minimal" living.

a LOT of people do not have the rosiest finances. Maybe it is student loans or credit card debt or whatever. But sure, maybe it makes sense for people with more wealth than they will ever spend to have extras around 'just in case'. But if you're not in that situation, I think it's something a lot of people should look at a lot harder than they do.

The fact that I have a (mostly unused) guestroom absolutely does increase the number of guests I get.

The fact that I have a mountain bike (mostly used for commuting) absolutely does increase the amount of mountain biking I do.

I want it on the comfort of my own home with my own amenities on all my own terms.

I know my friends would much prefer that as well.

I was more talking people like my family members who insisted that the must have a dining room in their next house, even though they don't use the one they have now.

Just the fact that you acknowledged that other options exist puts you ahead of many.

Yes, but in life, many of the most meaningful things are the edge cases. That's what makes them special. If people don't statistically have many dinner parties, then the dinner parties they do have might be even more special. This is life, not a statistical model.

In fact, I would argue that the edge cases feel even more special when you rent. For instance, my family rented a large passenger van for a road trip. The van itself became a sort of icon of that trip, and the source of distinct memories.

"Hey, you have a car, let's go do XYZ" doesn't happen to people who don't have a car. Replace 'car' with whatever else as appropriate. These social factors drive human decision making to a large degree. People might care about what others think, they might care about spontaneity, they might be influenced by their own desires and the desires of people around them.

Or consider the dinner party example. Sure, I've had dinner parties in rented spaces. It can be done, but they're not the same as being in someone's private space.

Yeah. Let's put the kids to bed while we continue our meal. Oops, forgot to rent a crèche. Want to stay over and continue chatting? Oops, forgot to rent a hotel and the space closes at 11:00.

I do believe it's over-weighted for a lot of people though.

those edge cases may be some of the most memorable and impactful days of the year

being able to have those times is always going to outweigh canceling them out. even if it makes more sense day to day

But I certainly wouldn’t pay a $10k premium over a similar vehicle with a 300 mile range and easy recharging (read: hybrid gas).

I'm not sure I can think of a strong argument for consciously living your life in a way which ignores potential failure modes, unless you're pretty sure you've projected the hidden costs and are prepared at any moment to pay them.

The cost of finding and paying someone else twice a year to haul wood or supplies can easily justify the extra cost of a larger vehicle, for example.

There are an infinite number of edge cases that can lead to total failure, so it is not rational to try to account for something solely on that basis.

> The cost of finding and paying someone else twice a year to haul wood or supplies can easily justify the extra cost of a larger vehicle, for example.

Wait, what? It costs like $50 to rent a pickup truck from Lowes. You don't have to hire somebody just because you're renting the truck. Driving a larger vehicle probably costs most people that much in gas costs alone in one month.

>> There are an infinite number of edge cases that can lead to total failure, so it is not rational to try to account for something solely on that basis.

I disagree here, because again you need to divide the probability by the severity of the consequences and only then rank the priorities. A $500k house on the side of a volcano that only erupts every thousand years is substantially different from the same house on a prairie, because the chance of total annihilation measurably increases the volatility of your bet. In gambling parlance, "risk of ruin". Once you see a possible risk of ruin you need to avoid it. I'll tell you why. Imagine that you had thought of it and discarded it as wildly unlikely. You did nothing to mitigate or plan for it. And a year later, it happened. You'd feel pretty stupid. You'd wish you had never even imagined it.

I didn't initially want to bring this up as an example, but it was actually the first on my mind: I live in a dangerous neighborhood. Some nights I fall halfway asleep without remembering to take my gun out of the safe and put it next to my bed. I look at the clock; it's 5am; it's probably fine; I don't want to get up. Then I think, imagine if ten minutes after I make this decision some guy breaks in and points a gun at me, how stupid I'd feel.

0.1 per cent vs. 2 per cent both look like a banal edge, but it is a 20:1 difference. If you do something 0.1 per cent of the time, you spend 1 day in 3 years doing so. If you do something 2 per cent of the time, you spend 1 week every year doing so.

Also, it matters what the consequences are. I spent nontrivial money securing my home from potential burglary, because I just don't want to experience it, ever. I don't have a guest bedroom, but your example with the hotel down the street actually assumes that there is a hotel down the street; what if the closest hotel is five miles away and taxi services are unreliable?

Etc.

I get that some people overspend, but the original topic was range, and in a country like the US, with its vast rural regions, a lack of chargers on some trips may be a serious concern.

Not in this situation. If you take a family trip[1] once or twice a year, that's not an edge case, that's an annual case.

The other thing you are missing is that those routes that are longer than the EV range are busy every day!

If you go out, today (non-peak season), and see 2000 cars drive that long route today, that's 2000 car owners today that need that range, or 2000 car owners who would tell you "range anxiety" if you asked them to move to EV.

On peak times, popular long routes get over 2000 cars per hour. We're talking 100s of thousands, if not millions, of this need coming up per year, so its hardly an edge case.

Obviously there’s people where this doesn’t apply, but there’s outliers everywhere and they’re free to continue buying gas cars today.

I humbly beg to disagree; it's most definitely not an edge-case as the phrase is defined.

You're using "edge-case" to mean low-frequency event. How I see the phrase used everywhere I've ever seen it, is "edge case" referring to a low-probability event, i.e. an event that is predicted to so rarely occur that it can be dismissed from consideration.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/edge-cas... says:

>> an extreme or not typical example of something, that should not be considered when forming an opinion about it:

An annual trip is an almost guaranteed event, so it's a very high probability event. I get that it is a low-frequency event, but "edge-case" is the incorrect term used to describe the event. Use "rarely" or similar instead.

System A delivering its event after system B may be an edge case.

Daylight saving time computations are not handling an edge case but a normal case that happens twice a year.

1. Is available.

2. If the car rental company doesn't pull shenanigans such as cancelling your rental at the last moment due to <reasons>.

3. Is the kind of model you want or need.

4. Has the extras you like/need (adaptive cruise control, etc).

Etc.

In my experience car rentals suck, I wouldn't want to use them except for when I'm flying somewhere.

A hotel is not a replacement for people staying with you. You do not get the same intimacy.

Put another way, if a service can only respond to 93% if requests, I wouldn't call it a very well architected service. EVs have a long way to go for many people.

That accountant driving to Lowes twice a year to pick up mulch, finds out he's missing a shovel or a reticulation fitting or something unexpected. The pickup truck is a solid work horse in new edge cases.

There's nothing worse than finding out that your hatchback can't fit a ladder you needed to buy because you broke off a section of the gutter when you tried to pull a broken branch off your roof.

A guest bedroom is often extra storage, kids sleep-over room and a communal signal that there's a spare bed for friends and family if they ever need it. The social signalling is worth the price of admission for the home owner.

Just saying the edge cases cover more outcomes than direct use.

I've had family over and ended up turning rooms into temporary bedrooms.

Basically, these things happen rarely enough that it is not such a crisis to put a little effort and adapt to them.

Whereas the drag of being prepared for every situation all the time is constant.

> a communal signal that there's a spare bed for friends and family if they ever need it.

This is true.

> The social signalling is worth the price of admission for the home owner.

I don't think you can just flat-out say this. The opportunity cost of an unused room is pretty terrific.

It might be bearable if you're wealthy, but most people are not. It also might be bearable if you LOVE hosting, can't get enough of it, it's what gets you up in the morning, but for most people it's not.

So you just stating that it's worth it without any further justification is actually an example of my point which is how the opportunity costs of these things are routinely ignored.

How is that annoying?

If we reason like that capitalism will push us further into buying and buying because what if.

Car rentals and Airbnbs literally are the answers for both.

Toxic how?

> If we reason like that capitalism will push us further into buying and buying because what if.

Capitalism pushes me to live comfortable life?

> Car rentals and Airbnbs literally are the answers for both.

“You will own nothing and be happy”?

Literally. Pollution.

> Capitalism pushes me to live comfortable life?

Capitalism pushes you to buy things that won't actually make you more comfortable. Or that are very ineffective.

> “You will own nothing and be happy”?

Yes, definitely. Suggesting you rent for rare occasions is the same as owning nothing.

Most of those far-fetched edge cases have simple solutions (such as renting).

I can't count the massive amount of stuff we have at home and don't use at all despite my active pushing against those, literally everybody I know is in the same situation.

Edge cases can mean life and death sometimes. Is my vehicle going to get stuck in an emergency if no one plows snow on a 1 mile stretch of unpaved road between my home and the major road?

If unrest/war/natural disaster happens and major infrastructure is non functional can I pack my family in to my car and just go 3k miles without worrying about charging infrastructure? You can just siphon fuel from other vehicles. Good luck doing that with an electric car (especially with some random half destroyed car dumped on the side of the road).

Edge cases may not matter much for daily life, but when they become important, they are really important.

Also, there is one thing regulators (and car makers) could do to make EVs a lot more interesting for everyone. A compatible modular batteries. Why were standardised batteries invented (AAA etc?)? So you can swap them yourself even if rechargeable. Imagine your Tesla, a Mercedes eqe or VW ev had their battery as a number of 10/5kWh user replaceable units? Perhaps you can't afford, or you don't need a 120kWh battery pack, so you buy a new car with 20kWh only. You could benefit from a car lighter by few hundred kg and you could buy the rest later (assuming total capacity was 100kWh let's say).

Then, on an old car, you could put new battery modules, or you could keep them when selling your car to stick in a new one.

It is an obvious thing to do, why are regulators not even talking about it? Would you rather have a single, horribly expensive part in which tiny element fails and the whole vehicle is essentially scrap value, or am ability to swap it part by part? If we're in any way serious about EVs being a true replacement for Ice cars, and not just a toy for wealthy people to feel better they need user replaceable batteries.

And the fact that you feel those edge cases life threatening tells a lot about the capitalist propaganda.

And somewhat the people that do these kind of reasoning yet don't even have seriously life threatening savers like idk a carbon monoxide sensor.

To take your examples, I want a large dining room and guest bed because they signal popularity and I can imagine all those people coming over. I also want a pickup because I can tell myself that I'll weather the next zombie apocalypse, or I'll imagine transporting building materials back home and build that outside sauna my now divorced wife always wanted. That will show her. Or something.

The 3rd one might be more silly :-)

I agree people should consider how much of an edge case it is though, and make a good decision. Even if "well it is an edge case but what the hell". Owning a Christmas tree ain't so bad.

> I agree people should consider how much of an edge case it is though, and make a good decision. Even if "well it is an edge case but what the hell".

Well put; wish I had said it so succinctly :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#:~:text=Ple....

:-)

For all the money spent on that pickup truck, just rent one from Lowe's when you need it.

Instead of buying a boat, save the money and rent an amazing one for those three times a year you have time to use it.

Renting a car is really easy these days, especially with Turo.

And with Turo, you can get the car dropped off at your house.

And splurge on the rental instead of driving a gas guzzling car all year for those road trips you take a few times a year.

Also, by renting you save wear and tear on your personal car.

It doesn't hurt anyone, and they do pay premium for that. It's just that they have different value system than you do.

If you're middle age and only see your family once or twice year when you visit them on holidays, it's sobering to make a guess as to how many more times you'll see them in your life.

I'm guessing my empty guest bedroom that might as well be replaced by a hotel visit has doubled the number of high quality visits I'll have with some family members.

Etc.

> But I like living in this kind of excess!

Sure, and I'm sure you deserve it. As do we all. But guess what? In the hard cold reality that we live in, it's not sustainable or feasible for everyone to own a huge hulking gas guzzling vehicle just to enable your yearly road trip. Wish it was, but it isn't. Not even close.

> How preposterous, I certainly don't live in excess!

Oh yes you do. On a global and historical scale, if you can afford a car, then you live in excess. I'd bet that all of us that read this website do. You need some perspective.

> But I pay for myself!

No you don't. If the planet is failing to even sustain civilization from this lifestyle, clearly somewhere there are costs that aren't covered. The market has no solution for the external costs that most things in our lifestyle incur.

> But the alternatives would mean a slight inconvenience to me! I would have to adjust and re-evaluate things I've grown used to. They're not the 100% optimal solution for me personally!

Well, I'm sorry that the freaking possible end of future civilization causes an inconvenience in your modern life of abundance. Actually no, I'm not. If stopping and waiting at a charging station those three times a year you make an 8 hour trip is what it takes to ensure a healthy life for future (and even current) generations, then I'm saving my concern for more pressing matters. Heck, I'd even argue that renting an ICE car on those occasions might be a reasonable price to pay, no matter the (in the grander scheme of things) slight inconvenience this means.

Grow up, people.

It actually is. The only impediment is neurotic busybodies who are obsessed with making everyone poor because they've fallen for the current strain of doomsday millenarianism.

"everyone" doesn't own a car in the first place, and owning one to go on family trips is not contingent on "everyone" owning a car.

Sustainability is a moot point. We're undergoing an aggressive shift to renewables in the West, including with vehicles, as a matter of policy. Issues pertaining to climate cannot be abated solely with a reduction in emissions.

Notwithstanding, "degrowth" is just demanding that people in developing countries not be permitted to improve their quality of life, that Westerners race to an arbitrary bottom to worsen theirs, and put lives at risk. The rise in emissions year over year stem from demand in East Asia.

I did not know that "degrowth" people are for banning quality of life improvements for all economic strata. Do you have any sources because this just sounds like a giant strawman.

Now you know.

> Do you have any sources because this just sounds like a giant strawman.

https://brankomilanovic.substack.com/p/degrowth-solving-the-...

"If one wants to keep world GDP more or less as now one must (A) “freeze” today’s global income distributions so that some 10-15% of the world population continue to live below the absolute poverty line, and one-half of the world population below $PPP 7 dollars per day (which is, by the way, significantly below Western poverty lines). This is however unacceptable to the poor people, to the poor countries, and even to degrowers themselves.

Thus they must try something else: introduce a different distribution (B) where everybody who is above the current mean world income ($PPP 16 per day) is driven down to this mean, and the poor countries and people are, at least for a while, allowed to continue growing until they too achieve the level of $PPP 16 per day. But the problem with that approach is that one would have to engage in a massive reduction of incomes for all those who make more than $PPP 16 which is practically all of the Western population. Only 14% of the population in Western countries live at the level of income less than the global mean. This is probably the most important statistic that one should keep in mind. Degrowers thus need to convince 86% of the population living in rich countries that their incomes are too high and need to be reduced."

Noah Smith also wrote about this several times.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen...

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degr...

If you familiarize yourself with the degrowth perspective as is most popularly employed, you can't in good faith contrive that this is a strawman.

Also, you're equating "quality of life improvements" with economic income. Which is troublesome in many ways, especially if the economic income incurs major (huge) environmental problems that even jeopordizes the future of civilization as we know it. Or at the very least leads to _massive_ health and quality of life issues on a global scale. Then "income" is a worthless "quality of life" metric.

Anyway, your original reply comes off as very arrogant and/or hypocritical. You express concern for the developing countries, and at the same time acknowledge rich countries' rights to a lifestyle that you yourself acknowledge isn't sustainable if adopted by everyone. So as long as only the rich (us) have cars, it's ok?

Also, your claim that westeners are not the biggest emitters is factually incorrect. Check this out as a starting point: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...

My claim is that either it does, or B is the alternative. Neither is realistic.

> Also, you're equating "quality of life improvements" with economic income. Which is troublesome in many ways, especially if the economic income incurs major (huge) environmental problems that even jeopordizes the future of civilization as we know it. Or at the very least leads to _massive_ health and quality of life issues on a global scale. Then "income" is a worthless "quality of life" metric.

In the first place, growth need not lead to such catastrophic problems (see the Noah Smith links), in the second, that has no bearing on whether lifting a country out of poverty improves their quality of life; it clearly does.

When immigrants move to the West for a better life, what makes it better is easily be qualified: houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, consumption in general, and better jobs. It's not for the healthcare. Those things are made possible, or imply, higher income.

> Anyway, your original reply comes off as very arrogant and/or hypocritical.

Stop projecting. That is arrogant.

> at the same time acknowledge rich countries' rights to a lifestyle that you yourself acknowledge isn't sustainable if adopted by everyone

I did no such thing. It isn't unsustainable. Unsustainability would have to imply global population growing in perpetuity. Not only are we nowhere near lacking resources, global population growth is projected to stagnate.

What's more, between innovation and aggressive transition to renewables, we more efficiently use resources and can expect diminishing global carbon emissions in the near future.

Western fertility is already stagnant. The only reason we grow is a matter of federal policy: the immigration rate. And immigrants come because of quality of life.

> your claim that westeners are not the biggest emitters is factually incorrect

Again, I made no such claim. I claimed that the *growth* in global emissions is primarily driven from East Asia.