jackthezipper

Exactly right, I would've cancelled my subscription after the last price hike if my family wasn't chipping in.

>I think it's very uncommon to have this memorized

I think this might be a cultural thing. A friend of mine from Taiwan was perplexed I didn't have this memorized, my reaction was the same as yours.

Such a terrible take. Wikileaks did leak Russian intelligence files. The argument that he hasn't leaked the same amount hinges on the assumption that he somehow has access to everything, which is of course nonsense.

Snowden, I think, somewhat blinded by the overwhelming US propaganda machine and the fact that he's stuck in Russia, made an honest mistake. He admitted as much on his Twitter. Nobody's perfect, that doesn't mean they're working for Putin.

It's not stealing it's sharing.

>Sorry, but you've got that the wrong way round. Assange was the one who wanted careful redaction and it was his media partners at the Guardian and Der Spiegel who were impatient and wanted to publish early. In the end, it was the recklessness (perhaps malice) of the Guardian journalists which resulted in the unredacted cables being released. They published the password to decrypt the unredacted archives in their book (unbelievable, but true).

Thanks for correcting this. It's frustrating how many people get this, and many other so called facts in his case, wrong.

>Most cars only very, very rarely do long travel at all. And when they do they don't do it very often.

I agree, and this is what I said in my first post. My entire point is that, for most people, a car needs to meet _all_ needs, not 99% of them. Don't get me wrong, EV's are a great step forward, but perhaps hydrogen can solve some problems EV's can not. They might very well introduce more problems than they solve, fair enough. But it seems silly to just brush off possible solutions in favour of an incomplete one. Yet this is what happens every time hydrogen gets mentioned.

>And when they do they stop reasonably often anyway.

You are ignoring the optional vs mandatory difference. Whether it's a problem for you or me personally is irrelevant, the fact is it limits your freedom considerably.

> I don't believe you can transport 3 or more people without needing to stop at least once every 3-4 hours.

Okay. I can, and do so a few times a year. Also, the 3/4 hours people keep referring to, is that in a fully loaded car pulling a caravan while occasionally driving through mountain ranges with an average speed of 100 km/h?

And for the last time, wanting to take a 20 minute break is different from having to. We often postpone/skip planned breaks in order to stay ahead of rush hour, or to reach the campsite before closing time, just to name two common reasons. Mandatory 20 minute breaks greatly reduce your freedom while traveling. No matter how little of a problem this is for you personally.

>You are the outlier of the outlier.

I don't think I am. Camping vacations in Europe are very common. 1500 km in two days really isn't as uncommon as you might think. For clarity, I'm not saying it can't be done with an EV, I'm just saying the relatively many, long, mandatory breaks aren't nearly as convenient as the relatively few short ones that regular cars, and perhaps in the future, hydrogen cars, offer.

And again, taking a quick break to stretch your legs a bit, is not the same as needing to take a 20 minute break in order to be able to continue your journey. This might seem like a small detail but I really don't think it is.

>that is only three 18-minute breaks

Those are three _mandatory_ breaks, that add up to almost an hour, in ideal circumstances. To answer your question, not a whole lot, but in that 1% 6 hour drives aren't uncommon at all.

>Extremely fast charging [...] can charge 10-80% in 18 minutes, which is enough to travel around 330 km. That's roughly 3 hours of driving in most counties.

This is not very impressive, and exactly where I see hydrogen have the upper hand. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but _having_ to stop for 20 minutes every 3 hours isn't ideal at all for me.

While inefficiency is indeed a problem, I feel like a lot of people overlook the one huge pro hydrogen has over batteries, namely charging time. Of course this might not be important for the daily commute, or 99% of the vehicles' use. But for that remaining 1% it _is_ a huge deal. And most people buy cars to fulfill a 100% of their needs, not 99%.

Now I should say, I know basically nothing about battery tech. But unless full charging time can be greatly reduced, by which I mean under 5 or at most 10 minutes, I still feel hydrogen could have the upper hand even if it is more expensive and less efficient.

>There seems to be a premise in the USA that if Russia has a hand in true information coming to light, the bigger story is about Russia's hand in it, and not the information itself.

You're absolutely right, and it is frustrating to no end.

IIRC the conflict with Domscheit-Berg was because Assange wanted to publish the war logs unredacted, no? It had nothing to do with Assange withholding leaks, quite the opposite. And wasn't it Domscheit-Berg who actually deleted unreleased documents from the Wikileaks servers?

Were they even in possession of the Surkov leaks? Seems like the hackers published it themselves, and never sent it to Wikileaks at all. It might be difficult for you to imagine they haven't received any 'serious' (I'm guessing you're not counting the Russian Spy Files or the Tibetan dissent videos as serious) leaks from Russia or China, but that doesn't prove much.

They just publish information they receive. They can't publish what they don't have. How are they biased?