Omitting facts that are utterly irrelevant is not lying by omission. The media doesn't report what he ate for breakfast or which brand of clothing he buys either.
People's religion and political views aren't generally considered relevant to a homicide unless there's an indication they had something to do with the motive, at which point they get reported. Otherwise, the media sticks to basic biographical details like occupation and family status.
Otherwise, the media gets accused of sensationalizing things, implying someone's religion is relevant to stir up controversy, etc.
If it turns out this was either a hate crime or a politically-motivated crime, do you really think the media will suppress that? Spoiler: they don't.
Lying by omission has a specific requirement that the liar knows something relevant and chooses not to disclose it. That’s quite different than refraining from speculation about the killer’s motive.
Additionally, all ICE cars can charge from 0-100% in under 5 minutes. Even if their towing range was somehow less than an EV, it would matter less because you don't have to spend an hour at a charging station.
With the difference that with an EV you always leave home with a full battery and you never have to step into a gas station unless you have a long trip ahead.
But even when you, the amount of time is not 60minutes. If you have kids, the time to go to the restroom, grab a coffee and come back is usually already around 20min, which tends to be enough to charge from 20-60% or even to 80% in newer vehicles. If you have a meal and take around 40minutes, you are probably already hitting 90% or higher.
This is exaggeration. A half hour for a well-loaded truck, sure, but an hour is generally exaggeration.
And as for five minutes for a fill up, it's usually more than five for a regular fill-up on a regular passenger car for me compared to just continuing on.
Yeah 5 mins is not true, its 1 minute actual 'charging' as in refill from empty to full.
I don't know what your family does on the gas station, but my wife and 2 small kids can cover toilet visit (as long as there was no accident) for all 3 combined under 5 mins. So can I with paying, so at the end its 5 mins stop total all counted in. Eating as in lunch is once a day, and when we travel we certainly don't need restaurant experience of sitting around, quick sandwich is more than enough, driving on full stomach sucks anyway.
Never understood people loitering around gas stations for long time, but then again when we travel its often 500km or more, the typical trip cca 2x a year back home is 1500km.
EVs are not for us for quite some time, US EVs seemingly never.
I've timed a number of the pumps around my home filling ~20gal. None of them have come close to filling in a minute. They're often 3-4 minutes of pumping, after spending a few minutes negotiating payment. I don't think I've ever spent less than 8 minutes between pulling off the road, pulling up to the pump, getting out of my car, negotiating payment, pumping, finishing up, getting in my car, and returning to the road.
It takes a few minutes just getting the kids in and out of their car seats. No way everyone is getting out of the car, through the bathroom, and then back in the car ready to go in 5 minutes.
Seriously, time yourself sometime. You're way underestimating the actual time you spend at a stop.
Right? These people are apparently taking off their seatbelts while rolling to the stop, sprinting to the bathroom, emptying their bowels in a few seconds, not thoroughly washing their hands, and sprinting back to the car as fast as they can to shave a few minutes off their several hour trip. God help them if there's only one toilet, I guess the family is going to share today.
Forget that. Take your time. Be comfortable. You've got a few more hours to go, enjoy yourself. Stretch, have your snack outside of the car so it doesn't get as messy and you're not hungry in a little bit (and as the driver, so you're not distracted trying to eat while driving). Don't get me wrong, don't just be idle at the stop, do what you need to do and get moving again. But you don't need to rush. Its not going to make that big of a difference in the end.
That is still significnatly less time than an EV charge time. (new EVs are starting to come that can do really fast charges, time will tell how this changes)
I do agree, from the perspective of the total time to get the energy into the vehicle it is significantly more time, easily a bit over 2x as long for a "quick" road trip stop.
But take a look at it from another perspective. Its another 10-15min on a several hour road trip. On a 5hr road trip that's like 3-4% more time for the total time of the road trip, assuming you're definitely doing a fast stop on that 5 hour trip and not sending the kids through the bathroom and you're not stopping for a quick meal. Is adding 3% to your travel time really that significant?
And as pointed out, if you're having to get the family through the bathroom or stop for a quick bite (even just sandwiches in the parking lot, although I usually pull off to a rest stop when traveling in an ICE car when having a quick bite) its not even more time, its the same total time.
On the route I often drive for a road trip (between DFW and Houston), I'm normally going to stop for lunch or dinner anyways somewhere on the route. I just stop where there's a charger (a few good options), have a quick bite, and hit the road. I'd usually do that even with my gas cars even if I didn't need gas, normally stopping at one of the rest stops on the way to stretch my legs, have a quick snack, use the restroom, and continue on my way. On paper taking the EV adds something like 15 minutes or so to the trip (which my EV isn't really great for road trips compared to others: smaller battery AWD Mach-E) but in practice for how I road trip its practically the same.
If you live in the US you likely are a two or more car family. You can argue the need for an ICE for one of those cars, but for most it wouldn't be hard to plan "honey I need your car tomorrow for my long trip so remember to take my car".
yeah for sure...in this shithole country thats true, China has 1,000-volt chargers which are basically as fast as filling a tank. Maybe the US will get something comparable by 2050, after Miami is 6ft under water
The regulatory environment in Alberta is such that it permits housing to be built, and it does.
The same cannot be said of Toronto (or everywhere else in the nation that isn't the Prairies for similar reasons), for landed interests and the bureaucracy and corruption that comes with them are a lot more entrenched in that area.
No, you just happened to build appropriately because a certain subfaction of the population weren't able to pass the typical laws that would stop building.
The housing shortage was created by regulation and it's foolish or selfish to pretend otherwise.
Austin is unique in that most of the harmful self-serving conservatism-as-in-block-and-deny-all-development that city people usually to do is constrained by the rest of the state, and as an obvious result arguably has the highest standard of living in the entire world.
regulation /tends/ to be introduced because builders are misbehaving (bad materials, bad workmanship, building in flood zones, etc), but the bigger problem is NIMBY who then use those laws to prevent other people building in "their" neighbourhood
it's the market dynamics that create under building, not regulations. if regulations are the problem, then how were builders able to build record number housing starts leading up the GFC? and after the crash, housing starts dramatically lowered. were there new regulations introduced during that time period?
highest standard of living unless you're a woman or a trans person, or a person of color, you mean. I'm sure living in a repressive dictatorship is awesome if you're a rich member of the in-group.
Of course I do? Across all my utilitarian devices, e.g. phone, desktop, laptop, I already find updates to be a large net negative except for the vague and nebulus 'security'. If a car 'needs' updates then it isn't doing its job.
I can't imagine the expletives that'll come out of my mouth the day I'm running late for a meeting and my car won't start because its in the middle of an update.
I consider OTA updates to be of negative value, actually. If my car needs fixing, I'll bring it in for servicing. If it's not broken, I don't want my car tampered with.
Come back to me when there's a punitive liability model for OTA updates. If the garage manages to break something during, that's on the garage, not me. It should be the same for OTA updates: the company pushing the update should be liable for any failure and for providing replacement transportation if they manage to break my car with an update.
Hence why folks should be pushing right to repair and similar legislation through to prevent this before it happens. Technical hacks are tactical solutions, good policy implementation is the strategic, long term solution.
100% manuals are the way to go if you want to feel like a driver, not a passenger. I love my manual Jetta
Thing is, people are lazy. US market is automatics only. Can't make people understand what the clutch is or why slushbox is bad for fuel efficiency. No one cares. Gas guzzlers are the national idea
My kid learned to drive a manual in 15 minutes. Too much effort for US drivers!
Automatics have been more efficient than manuals for decades. And the computer can shift a DCT faster than you can. These days a manual tranny is right up there with hand-crank starting your car: if you enjoy it, great, but don’t get smug because people don’t want to manually adjust the spark advance.
>Automatics have been more efficient than manuals for decades.
No, they haven't. At least, not ones the average consumer could actually buy.
While it's true that modern 8 or 10 speed automatic transmissions do now compete favorably with 6 speed manuals, the former didn't meaningfully exist in passenger cars or trucks until around 2017. Neither did DCTs outside of high-end brands- sure, they're starting to do that now that "torque converter loss" means they don't pass emissions, but that was an option that commanded a premium back in the mid-00s when they were introduced (and still not actually more efficient than a manual outside of shift speed).
An automatic with 4 gears is less efficient than a manual with 5, much less 6 (this was the standard until about 2010 or so); one with 6 gears is likely on par with the 5-speed manual (and loses to a 6-speed, obviously).
So no, "decades" is bullshit. It's a very recent advancement.
Only because they cheap out and don't put in manual with optimal gear ratios. Otherwise the manual is better because you can use high throttle with low rpms - try that in an auto and you get high rpms which is bad for efficiency - but great for acceleration.
When you have a small fuel efficient engine, you can tell and feel the difference. With a V6 under your hood, you probably don't care. US is mostly big engines
You will still care that you're wasting a bunch of your engine's potential, even with a V8.
Autos (not DCTs) don't generally let you rev the engine as high as manuals do, they don't really let you take advantage of engine braking, and they may ignore your command to manually shift them into a lower gear at will (DCTs can do that too).
> You will still care that you're wasting a bunch of your engine's potential, even with a V8.
You're not really, especially on a long run. If you're doing motorway speeds there is no difference in economy and performance. An auto will be a bit worse in slow driving, when it's using the torque converter which is quite lossy.
> Autos (not DCTs) don't generally let you rev the engine as high as manuals do, they don't really let you take advantage of engine braking, and they may ignore your command to manually shift them into a lower gear at will (DCTs can do that too).
They will let you rev the engine as high as you like and will engine-brake just fine if you select a lower gear. They might not shift into a lower gear if you've got a gearbox that's smart enough to stop you money-shifting the engine.
Not really, although I guess the least powerful automatic I've ever driven was a 1.7 litre naturally-aspirated diesel Citroën Xantia. It was very economical on long runs but acceleration was really something for very patient people.
Most Xantias had a 1.9 petrol making roughly 50% more power, although with appreciably less torque.
