News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by wilg on Thursday February 15, 2024 @03:50PM (#39388608)
This is a terrible argument against cars. You could say the same for a train, let's waste energy carrying around 1,500,000 pounds of train to move around 120,000 pounds of passengers.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by esalman on Thursday February 15, 2024 @04:36PM (#39389297)
You need lot more lbs of cars to move 120k lbs of passengers, that's the argument in favor of trains.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by wilg on Thursday February 15, 2024 @04:37PM (#39389320)
Yeah about twice as much. But it's still a bad argument because pounds don't really matter.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by esalman on Thursday February 15, 2024 @04:41PM (#39389378)
Yes, infrastructure is more more important, and railway infrastructure is much more sustainable to maintain in long term.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by wilg on Thursday February 15, 2024 @05:00PM (#39389680)
Unrelated gibberish
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by esalman on Thursday February 15, 2024 @05:45PM (#39390315)
If you live at a place with decent public transport, you'll ditch cars first thing. That's the biggest argument against cars.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by wilg on Thursday February 15, 2024 @06:05PM (#39390517)
I agree there are better arguments. My point was that the specific argument I was replying to was bad.
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by burnished on Thursday February 15, 2024 @04:40PM (#39389350)
Except your example makes it clear that a train is a way better deal
Re:Safe and reliable production changes; and how Rivian rece... by wilg on Thursday February 15, 2024 @05:00PM (#39389674)
No because it's not a problem for things to be heavy.