my subscriptions
POPULAR-ALL-RANDOM | LOADING...MORE »
raptorman556 commented on a post in r/electricvehicles
RedBeardBeer 1 point

I thought chademo had higher speeds available too. Why is the chademo only 50kw? Am I being too cynical to think it's because VW uses CCS? Or have faster chademo speeds not been launched yet?

E: The chademo association says it can currently go up to 200kw. https://www.chademo.com/technology/technology-overview/

raptorman556 3 points

I don't think any vehicles can accept more than 50 kW that use CHadeMO and I havent heard any places to make 350 kW chademo vehicles. So maybe they didnt want to spend the extra money if they werent sure it would get used?

edman007 4 points

they must have big plans for 350 kW vehicles soon

VW was court ordered to blow $2.7bn on chargers and related things. Electrify America is that program. I don't think it's so much as they have big plans, but rather they don't have any other choice, and the plans will hopefully follow. They probably had their engineers tell them 350kW chargers is what will actually allow for fast charging the way people want, so they are building them, and they plan on rolling the dice to see if they can build a car that uses them. Cost is a non issue, they already have a dollar figure and can't legally do anything to reduce what they spend on the charger network.

raptorman556 1 point

Well VW owns Porsche, so they do have plans of some kind. But its not just VW.

Ford, Renault, Daimler, and BMW are pouring money into 350 kW charging in Europe. Obviously they wouldn't be paying for that if they didn't have 350 kW vehicles in the works, or they would literally just be paying to give their customers an edge.

Load more comments
raptorman556 commented on a post in r/electricvehicles
kirbyderwood 12 points

I think it is wonderful for EVs. Sure, we can gripe that it isn't enough or that it it's taking too damn long or that VW was forced to by a court settlement, but whatever.

The end result is that, in a few years, we will FINALLY have a public fast charging network that doesn't require buying a Tesla. This will do a lot to overcome one of the main objections to EV ownership. I think it will be a very important milestone.

raptorman556 5 points

Agreed! Between this and Porsche's 500 stations, EV ownership is looking great

EvisGamer 0 points

Hydrogen fuel cell ranges aren't likely to increase much further, since the energy density of hydrogen is more or less fixed.

This is a pointless argument. Battery EVs gain range not by increasing density, but by increasing the battery pack. A lot. The Tesla Model 3 uses 21700 battery cells, and they are actually LESS energy dense than the 18650 cells used in the Model S. So to get more range, you pack in more cells. The EXACT same argument applies to a Fuel Cell EV... just build a larger tank. Improvements on Li-ion cell chemistries are exceptionally slow, and only tiny increases in energy density are expected, barring some major breakthrough.

I'm not sure why a group of Redditors think they know more about the automotive industry than actual automotive industry executives. Baffling.

raptorman556 3 points

Except as stated elsewhere, making the tanks larger is very difficult. They have struggled to make them as large as they are, making them larger will be challenging.

Saying "Just build a larger tank" is an entirely oblivious argument. For every increase in range, you are likely losing either storage space or passenger space.

Improvements on Li-ion cell chemistries are exceptionally slow, and only tiny increases in energy density are expected, barring some major breakthrough.

This is entirely false. Energy density has improved fairly steadily, and Panasonic says 30% increase in energy density from here. Tesla chose the 21700 cells because they're cheaper, and the energy density didn't make much of a difference for the range they wanted.

And most major automakers have solid state batteries in the works, which should provide 2-3 times higher energy density when they arrive in ~5 years or so (give or take).

EvisGamer 0 points

Why limit yourself to just one tank? Why not two? Or three? Do you expect the world to stop thinking about hydrogen storage tech?

That 30% is the maximum possible increase over what we have today. Meaning, that's as good as it can possibly ever get. That's a pretty weak increase if you ask me. Meanwhile, everything I said is true... year upon year energy density increases are less than 1 or 2%. Trivial.

Solid state batteries are 10 years away, at the earliest, if at all. You're dreaming if you think Fuel Cell tech is going to stay idle for the next 10 years. On top of that, it'll take another decade before they'll have enough testing done to make it into a commercial product of any kind.

raptorman556 2 points

Meanwhile, everything I said is true... year upon year energy density increases are less than 1 or 2%. Trivial.

Or 5-8% a year in reality.

Solid state batteries are 10 years away, at the earliest, if at all.

Minimum 20 years to production according to you. Toyota says 4. BMW is a little more pessimistic, they say 8. No idea who still thinks its 20+

Load more comments
raptorman556 commented on a post in r/startups
poppahorse 13 points

Check out https://logrocket.com/, it basically screen records the session which lets you seen how people are navigating, if they are clicking stuff that shouldn't be clicked, exactly where they get to before dropping off etc.

Highly recommend it, we've improved our UX and onboarding massively with it.

raptorman556 1 point

Oh wow I might have to use this myself! Ive been having trouble getting feedback from users. This could be a huge help to see what theyre thinking

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/electricvehicles
AhoyPalloi 5 points

I learned a few things by reading this.

1) Buick is popular in China. That's what's motivating an electric concept.

2) Buick makes concept cars. I just assumed they had been making the same 2 cars since 1978 with minor updates.

raptorman556 1 point

2) Buick makes concept cars. I just assumed they had been making the same 2 cars since 1978 with minor updates.

😂😂😂😂😂

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/AskEconomics
raptorman556 9 points

Disclaimer: Not an actual economist. Just have an interest in this field.

So let's define some metrics for this first.

"inequality" could be measured a lot of different ways. The Gini coefficient is the most common. The lower the number, the more equal a society is (with 0 being a society where everyone is exactly equal). You can view Gini index by country here for the OECD. You will see Mexico has the highest income inequality, and Iceland has the lowest. (Please note this is net, or after-tax Gini, so it takes into account government taxes and transfers)

The second metric we need to determine represents social mobility. This OECD paper measures inter-generational income earning elasticity. Basically, this measures how likely someone from a poor background is to also become a low income earner (and vice versa with high income earners). You can see that among measured countries, Denmark has the highest social mobility while the Great Britain has the lowest social mobility.

Now here is where things can get dicey; what is "extreme" inequality? What does move across social classes "all the time" mean?

As to when income inequality is "extreme", I will not try to define that term. I will instead agree with /u/zzzzz94 and say it is the point at which income inequality represents a negative influence on growth. The folks down at the IMF have released some research on this matter. The results were that a net Gini of higher than 0.27 would place a negative influence on the growth of that country. I'm sure you can find another study that disagrees with this, but let's work with this for now.

The average Gini in the OECD is 0.318, meaning that most countries have income inequality at a level that is negatively impacting growth. I don't know what country you're from, but you can refer back to the original document to see where your home country stands (if you live in an OECD country). I hope this gives you some answers to this question.

Now, is there "true equality of opportunity"? Evidence conflicts here. This literature review addressed the topic. Intelligence is a strong predictor of future income, but it noted that socioeconomic status is a very strong indicator as well. I would say that no, true equality of opportunity (where all socioeconomic classes have an exactly equal opportunity) does not exist, since your socioeconomic status does have a significant impact on future earnings.

I hope this answers your questions, feel free to ask anything and I'll do my best to help.

insomniac2go 2 points

This is great! Thank you for spending the time to reply and for providing a number of really helpful links. Gives me a lot of food for thought!

raptorman556 2 points

No worries, any questions feel free to ask.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/canada
venuswasaflytrap 9 points

If someone walked in front of you tripped down the stairs, went to the hospital and then wrote an opinion piece about how you pushed them down the stairs because they are a minority, you wouldn't feel great either.

That doesn't mean minorities don't have rights. That doesn't mean it should be legal to push people down stairs.

For whatever reason the crown chose not to prosecute. It's possible it's a gross miscarriage of justice. Or it's possible that the truck didn't do anything, or enough wrong to warrant a charge.

We. Don't. Know.

raptorman556 2 points

We. Don't. Know.

People having trouble getting this. They just can't stand not having enough information to draw a firm conclusion

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/canada
OrzBlueFog 6 points

The only ones who focus on Debt:GDP are

Any people remotely literate in economics.

Liberal partisans who don't want to face the reality of the absolute debt and size of the deficit.

Ford will almost certainly run massively larger deficits than Wynne.

Revenue will drop like a stone as corporate taxes and income taxes fall and the carbon tax that was supposed to pay for all of that was canceled. There aren't enough vaguely-termed 'efficiency' cuts in the whole country to bail out the massive revenue hole he's blowing in the budget, and making wider with every campaign stop.

Ford, in not having a detailed platform, currently deserves the support of absolutely nobody. This isn't to say you have to like the Liberal or NDP options either but if you're a deficit hawk Ford is not your man, at least not until he provides a costed platform like Brown's People's Guarantee.

raptorman556 1 point

Any people remotely literate in economics.

Please listen to this everyone. Debt should never be measured in dollars, always in debt to GDP.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/canada
0
raptorman556 5 points

This isnt funny. Wikipedia is one of the best and most useful things to happen to the internet. I have learned so much from it personally and I'm willing to bet we have all benefitted from it. Its driven by donations and volunteers.

Some asshole vandalizing it and creating extra work for the fucking volunteers in charge of moderating it just to make a stupid Justin Trudeau joke isn't clever, and it isn't funny. Its just wreckless.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/canada
JoeyJoJoSenior 978 points

A lot of you guys think about UBI incorrectly.

First misconception is that Basic Income is meant to replace all income. Some forms of it do, some don't. Most are designed to compliment work income.

One of the major advocates of UBI was Milton Friedman who is a very famous libertarian economist and one of the most influential of the second half of the 20th century. Friedman was an intellectual libertarian - a lot of the modern ones on places like Reddit are ideologues who argue for it based on axiomatic thinking rather than arguing for it based on a logical underpinning of policies. Friedman was more concerned with the actual size of government than its fiscal policies; the fiscal policies are related to the size of the bureaucracy itself.

So the logical underpinning Friedman's UBI was that BUREAUCRACY, not merely spending policies was the reason for the bloated size of government. Fiscal policies are the result of large inefficient bureaucracies. One very basic, basic example that's brought up in a lot of undergraduate Econ 101 courses is the issue of Food Stamps in America. There needs to be a bureaucracy set aside to administer them properly. You need employees, record keeping, management etc. That bureaucracy combined with the cost of the Food Stamp Program itself is probably much more expensive than simply giving people money and letting them spend it on whatever they wanted. It's a PR disaster however because giving poor people money is usually framed as "They giving these poor people money to buy drugs and have babies!" which probably is true to an small extent. Some people will buy drugs and have babies. But the Food Stamp program is already abused because those people simply can sell others their Food Stamps at below market value and buy drugs and have babies anyways. Friedman would argue that buy giving people money directly, you empower them to make their own choices and be responsible for themselves, you eliminate the Food Stamp program and the bureaucracy associated with running it and you mitigate hunger for people who actually use it to buy food.

So expanding this to UBI, Friedman advocated that instead of social programs like welfare, government housing, minimum wage, pension plans and other forms of social assistance - everyone gets a certain amount of money per year. The size of government is now drastically reduced since those social assistance programs are replaced with people just sending out cheques.

The major challenges of UBI is

1) Reworking the tax code to take it into account. You could set a threshold whereby every dollar over a threshold you make, the UBI portion of your income is taxed at 50% for every dollar over. So say we have two people, one makes $49,999/per year with Income + UBI the other makes $51,000/year with Income+UBI. The threshold is set at $50,000. Person A would continue to make $49,999. Person B however would have their UBI reduced by $500 since 50%. Person B still makes more money than Person A so there is incentive for them to work harder, go to school, upgrade their degree, seek out certifications etc.

2) Actually reducing the size of bureaucracies. The biggest losers in this sort of environment would be government workers since they are no longer required to administer bureaucracies. However, it is extremely difficult to eliminate a government department once it's been established. The Department of Homeland Security is a prime example of a government department that was set up in the wake of a panic and now serves absolutely no purpose. This was the ultimate goal behind UBI for Friedman, he believed that the actual size of government was harmful to a society and minimizing it should be the goal. Modern conservative thought has sort of misinterpreted this to mean the size of government spending is harmful to society. Friedman believed that spending was a secondary consequence of the size of government itself. If you reduce the actual size of government, spending will naturally reduce.

3) Probably the most controversial one will be the immigration factor. Canada takes in several hundred thousand immigrants per year, their gradual integration into this system would be challenging. I imagine that anti-immigration sentiment increases drastically in such a system because the narrative that immigrants take, take, take and don't add anything into the system is a very popular and easy narrative to set up despite how lazy it is.

Edit Since this got gilded and likely a lot of readers, I'd like to say that my shitty username is the result of Reddit having a character limit. It was meant to be a Simpsons reference.

raptorman556 1 point

Important point - Friedman never once advocated for a UBI. He advocated for a Negative Income Tax, which is somewhat similar but very different.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/IAmA
floridadadada 2 points

So government set pricing for everything lol?

raptorman556 2 points

Ah...yes? I am absolutely bewildered by that comment. Rent is set by supply and demand. How the hell would you make it illegal to "factor in UBI"?

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/RenewableEnergy
raptorman556 1 point

However, the technology’s costs have not come down quick enough and central government support has disappeared in recent years.

:( not a good sign. Not all hope is lost, but we have to see major cost improvements for this to ever be feasible

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/electricvehicles
RedBeardBeer 3 points

20min refueling time seems like it might as well be a BEV!

raptorman556 1 point

Thats ridiculous. The newest EV buses can do it in 5.

The BYD bus has a range of 250+ km. And the highest range Proterra bus has over 400 km range.

What exactly is fuell cell buses advantage again?

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/electricvehicles
58
Oglark 8 points

While it sounds hypocritical, I am struggling to identify a BEV that he could use that is German. Unless you expect him to be driven in a Model S, which would be political suicide.

raptorman556 5 points

Mercedes S550e or perhaps 740e? PHEV but it would work.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/canada
kiduncool 155 points

I have a question: wouldnt dicriminalization of drugs encourage drug use? And would that put a strain on their already strained public health care system?

Edit: For clarification, I'm asking about the strain this puts on Canada's health Care system. I get less people are dying in porutgal by drug overdose because of medical benefits, and they get clean needles, provided through the healthcare system, which to me suggests a higher cost.

Edit 2: Also Portugal's drug use is still much higher than Canada's.

Edit 3: Portugal: Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Final edit: well as with most political issues, there seems to be some degree of ambiguity of the outcome, misinformation, speculation, and what is the more "moral" choice, on both sides. I remain undecided on the issue, but I thank you all. And remember, keep an open mind.

raptorman556 1 point

Edit 3: Portugal: Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%

You're using a highly flawed metric. Lifetime use isn't indicative of how common drug usage actually is, it's a general reflection of how common it has been over the past 50+ years. You tried coke once 13 years ago? Congrats, you're now a lifetime user of cocaine. It's not useful in the context you're using it in.

Portugal experienced a spike of usage right after decriminalization (which is to be expected, the benefits take time to implement), which is the reason for the increase in lifetime usage. However, past-year and past-month usage are both significantly down now. Rates of continued drug usage have halved. Drug-induced deaths, most importantly, have fallen off a cliff. Same with HIV infection rates.

raptorman556 commented on a post in r/teslamotors
345
thebruns -6 points

A lot of people here speculating, but very few have ever been and know what they're talking about.

No, the issue is that exactly what you said should have been there reply. "We use dark grey walkways separated with bright white lines and marked with pedestrian stencils, as allowed by OSHA." Not, "heres a yellow pole!"

Their PR response only made things worse.

raptorman556 31 points

The article specifically claimed Musk didn't use yellow because he hated that color and thought it was unattractive. Their response was pointing out that thats absurd, since they have it all over the place.

They made it seem like Musk compromised safety for some odd hatred of yellow, when that clearly a flawed statement from the get-go.

thebruns 4 points

And providing 6 examples doesn't disprove the point either. The factory tour videos make it clear that theres very little yellow.

And that's fine. It's a stupid point, and impossible to prove or disprove.

What matters is safety. If red does the same job as yellow, then highlight that fact.

raptorman556 9 points

I don't know, I just watched this video and there is definitely some yellow, including many yellow/black safety lines through-out the factory. It's not like yellow is everywhere, but yellow's not really that common of a color.

I guess I disagree. I think they made a claim on an absurd premise (that Musk hates yellow so much he is openly compromising safety) and I don't think Tesla was wrong to attack the ridiculous premise of the claim. If safety was what mattered to the people making these allegations, then they would have focused on that when they made the allegation. But they didn't focus on poor markings, they focused on Musk and the color yellow in specific.

I think if we want to point fingers here, maybe we should do so at the people making stupid allegations in the first place? Stupid questions get stupid answers.

view more:
next ›
134,953 Karma
57,840 Post Karma
77,113 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About raptorman556

  • Reddit Birthday

    August 29, 2015

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up