• 1 Post
  • 1.08K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • There are reasonable limits. Let’s say his car takes 30 minutes. Is 31 minutes total connection time acceptable? I think everyone would say yes. How about 35 minutes? 45? An hour?

    Where people draw the line is going to vary. I agree with the premise that you shouldn’t have to wait by your car to charge, whether it’s 30 minutes or 2 hours. That is wasted time, and drastically reduces the attraction of having an EV. For myself, having to wait an extra 15 minutes isn’t too bad, and extra half hour or more is probably too much. I think context also really matters. If I’m parking at a station in a garage where most of the users are there for work, I expect to be there for at least 2 hours, possibly 4 (and would pick a charger I could use most of the time). At a mall, where people are in and out, if I was going to be there much more than 30 minutes I would probably plan to be back at my car to move it when it was charged. Especially since most of the chargers I’ve seen bill based on connection time and not electricity used.


  • Time for a joke.

    And economist and an accountant were taking a walk when they noticed a frog. The accountant says to the economist, “I’ll give you $100 if you eat that frog.” The economist thinks for a moment, then agrees. A little later they come across another frog, and the economist says, “I’ll give you $100 to eat that frog.” The accountant thinks about it for a second and also agrees. As they continue walking, the accountant says, “So I got to see you eat a frog for $100, and by eating a frog myself, I got my money back, so I understand why I did it. But you had already eaten a frog and had $100, so why did you do it?” The economist replies, “Ah, but this way it’s twice as good for the economy!”





  • I honestly agree, and said as much shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Based on the world’s assessment, they should have just steamrolled them, and didn’t. I also said it would behoove the world powers to reassess their nuclear capability and got a lot of downvotes. The facts as they stand now, though, is the NK can’t get a nuke to American territory, not even Alaska (let’s not talk about Guam and Samoa, even America barely acknowledges they’re part of America). Russia, on the other hand, might be able to, and we don’t know for sure they can’t. All they need is one good sub with working missiles. None of this really matters for Europe, and even 10% of their stockpile working would be devastating for the world, or at least the people living on it. I’d like to think that Putin put more effort into maintaining their status as a nuclear world power, but I would have thought the same of being a military world power, too.