As a non-Tesla EV owner, I would happily pay surcharges for charging on Tesla's network if it meant I could reliably use my vehicle on extended trips out of town. Tesla charging network has a very good reputation for reliability, which is a primary concern if I'm traveling on the highway. It's not something I do often, so paying a premium once in a while to use my EV instead of my ICE vehicle seems like a decent tradeoff.
There was someone on a EV Road Tripping group on Facebook mentioning how they took an EV from Florida to New Jersey and talked about how awful it was.
The top comment said something that every EV enthusiast knows. There are two wildly different charging experiences: Tesla, and everyone else.
Can you have a good experience with a non-Tesla? Sure! But with a Tesla, having a good experience is nearly guaranteed. With anyone else, it's a gamble.
You go to a Electrify America or some other charging network location, and you'll likely find only 2-4 stalls, and likely 1 or more of them are broken. Go to a Tesla Supercharger, and there's usually 8-16 chargers, all working. Even with a broken stall (It happens), you've got more available. And with so many stalls, and so many locations, it's exceptionally rare to get to a charging location and finding all of them in use.
This last week I took a road trip in my Model 3 from Portland to San Diego. 2,400 miles round trip. Never ran into a charging issue. I did see that a couple locations had a stall that was out of order, but with so many stalls, it wasn't an issue at all.
Gas stations don't charge different amounts for gas depending on the type of car, and EV charging stations shouldn't be permitted to do so either.
I don't have an EV, but I agree that Tesla has a much much better reputation for reliable, working charging stations in the US. If people will actually pay more for that experience, then sure, Tesla can charge more than a competing charging company. But they should be required to charge the same amount regardless of vehicle.
The only exception to that, I think, is that they should be able to charge differently based on charging speed, which is related to the type of vehicl. All gas cars will fill up at more or less the same rate, but with EVs it depends on the battery technology and the car's electrical system. Taking up space at a charging station for a longer amount of time to consume the same amount of energy is a cost to the operator (and an annoyance for anyone waiting in line), and it seems reasonable to charge for that. So I think it would be fair to charge $X/kWh + $Y/min.
The difference with gas stations, and it can't be underestimated, is that I can typically stop at a minimum every 30 miles and refuel at a gas pump. It's almost guaranteed. Sure, driving through sparsely populated areas on a remote highway might be different, but every interstate highway is going to have reliable fueling infrastructure for ICE's. I don't have to worry if the pump is broken, I don't have to worry about waiting 45 minutes for a pump, and I certainly don't have to worry about if there will be a pump at all.
I’m not so sure. One of Tesla’s big selling points is access to its charging network, which is a night-and-day difference from others. If Tesla is subsidizing that network but not raising prices for its own vehicles, it makes sense to charge non-Tesla vehicles a higher rate. It’s similar to how I get a significant discount on gas at Costco because I’m a member, while non-members pay more at the station across the street.
How can you have such a strong opinion when you don’t even own an EV?
> To avoid that you'll need to reset and configure its state for every single invocation.
Good testing frameworks just do this for you.
I generally prefer focusing testing efforts around what you describe - spinning up the entire system under test - because that's how the system is used in real life. There's definitely times you want to test code in isolation statelessly, but I find that engineers often err on the side of that too much, and end up writing a bunch of isolated tests that can't actually tell you if an http call to their API endpoint performs the correct behavior, which is really what we want to know.
The problem is that the "competition" aspect assumes low barriers to entry. We're not talking about the corner diner or a bank or even a large insurance company. There's very little substitute for what Boeing does, and the barriers to entry for new competition are (quite literally?) astronomical. Boeing can't just be replaced; even to allow it to fail would be a major problem for the western economy.
I have mild tinnitus in one ear, and also mild/moderate hearing loss in the same ear. The way my ENT explained it, it's like the nervous system trying to compensate for lack of stiumlation. I've noticed when I wear my hearing aid, I do not notice the ringing very much. I would encourage anybody with tinnitus to get their hearing checked because you might benefit from a hearing aid.
The difference between PUT and PATCH, at least in convention, is that PUT tends to assume you are providing the entire object of whatever it is you're updating, and PATCH will accept a partial object and combine it with whatever's already there.
A common difference between POST and PUT is that POST is often used for non-idempotent actions (creating a resource), and PUT for idempotent actions (updating or upserting a resource). Of course this is also purely convention; nothing in the implementation of either enforces that usage
A lot of people buy products because of the branding. How many people would buy a YETI cooler if or a Coach bag if it didn't have the branding to show off that they have a YETI cooler or a Coach bag? It's conspicuous consumption.
I think those two in particular might be poor examples, since they generally do quite a bit of de-branding on their products. I know what you mean however. Supreme is a prime brand for this. Nobody is buying a Supreme t-shirt for any other reason than the logo. Whatever thoughts on people who buy things to impress others may be, those kind of people exist and to each thier own. They at least made the choice to let everyone else know what they value.
No. Moderation is about allowing objectionable content at all (or at the very least putting up roadblocks to passive consumption). It's different from allowing objectionable content, letting users seek it out but not promoting it. And it's yet another thing than not only allowing it, but also proactively putting it in front of somebody's eyeballs.
Seems like semantic quibbles to me, but then we're talking about law and computers...
The distinction between "conduit" and "publisher" seems compelling to me. Once a company has pierced the veil and looked at the content of the messages they transmit to me it doesn't really matter how they are modifying the stream they still should be liable for what they transmit.
E.g. if someone uses Twitter to send 12-year actress Jenna Ortega a photograph of a penis then Twitter should be liable for aiding and abetting child abuse. (In my opinion.)
I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police. If anything, they lately seem to be inclined to rein in what they view as government overreach. I would not be surprised at all to see them uphold this decision.
> I don't know that they're specifically friendly to police.
Throughout the last 5 decades: The SC have increased deference to LEO and established sweeping precedent that grants increasingly wider leeway by default. exs:Good Faith Exception, Qualified Immunity and Third Party Doctrine.
This is the SC before the recent conservatizing. The flags flying indicate this won't be rolled back an inch.
Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity. I think if the right case came before them we might see those protections narrowed.
> Sotomayor and Thomas have both expressed disdain for qualified immunity.
Thomas spends an inordinate amount of time signaling that; but then signaling is his thing. Is there a chart of his prize-winning showdog ideologies? Perhaps there's one that could conflict - that he might inject into a case because he does that.
Sotomayor's previous day-job was to safeguard Gov abilities to abuse civil rights, to support and defend the desires of US LEO and IC agencies. While her SC decisions can run counter to that, I'm believe it's influence can be glimpsed.
In a sort of backhanded way of affirming you, there are absolutely times that a justice can go against expectation. Sometimes a justice will put the actual welfare of individuals over whatever other factors drive them. I think it's too weak a peg to hang hopes of a QI overturn, however.
They rein in the government calling it “overreach“ when it involves federal oversight. When it comes to LEO issues, however, they tend to side with LEO’s.
The real test will be when they inevitably hear the Louisiana case about people filming police officers.
The thing about standards is they are able to be re-evaluated from time to time. I think it's worth examining what legitimate purpose spreading health misinformation serves, and how that is beneficial to society.
I don't think it's feasible to address individual users.
I think a good place to start is treating the falsification of data in research studies like fraud, potentially with criminal penalties.
Another avenue is requiring social media businesses to make reasonable efforts to flag health misinformation. If Facebook et al are making billions in revenue off false information, they should have a responsibility to combat it, at the risk of penalties.
reply