where @sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip spent what was probably a lot of time crafting a thoughtful and intuitive explanation for all the actual, tangible reasons why in all their nuance

Only 5 minutes to write the comment, but 20 years obsessing over this shit so that it’s ready to go when people ask.

There are a few different reasons why.

• The US already built up its rail network around low speed trains. Those tracks aren’t suitable for high speed operations, and can’t be modified easily for high speed operations. It’s not just the tracks themselves, it’s the actual paths and bridges and road crossings. If a turn is too sharp, it can’t be taken at high speeds, and the actual curves in the path didn’t anticipate that one day trains would be fast enough to need more gradual turns. So any new rail would have to buy up the land rights with any new pathway, and that is going to be inherently expensive in the corridors dense enough to where there might be demand for passenger rail.
• Rail crossings have to be designed for high speed rail, as well. There are safety and congestion concerns, so many high speed rail projects are required to build more grade separated crossings (bridges and tunnels), which significantly increases construction costs.
• Rail has to compete with air travel and highway travel, in a country rich enough to have lots of people who can afford to fly, and where car-based highway systems are convenient and cheap. Basically, there’s a sweet spot of around 200-400 miles (300-600 km) between cities where it’s far enough that a car is inconvenient and close enough to where trains are competitive with buses or airplanes.
• Along those lines, the US actually has pretty cheap intercity buses that use the existing highways.
• Unfortunately, the city pairs that would have the highest intercity passenger demand also tend to pass through a lot of other cities. If you’re going from DC to New York, the most popular rail line in America, you’ll pass through Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Trenton, each with their own powerful politicians who would push to make sure the train actually stops for them. This is part of why the Acela, our fastest passenger train, takes 190 minutes to travel 226 miles between DC and New York, averaging only 70 mph (115 km/h) despite being capable of reaching top speeds of 160 mph (255 km/h).
• Most rail in the United States is owned by freight/cargo train lines. The passenger network has to lease spots and is lower priority than freight. This leads to scheduling issues, including unscheduled delays.
• Americans are just really bad at constructing big public works projects. Our dams, bridges, tall buildings, rail, highways, roads, power plants, and all sorts of other big projects are almost always behind schedule and over budget.
• The less populated areas where it’s cheaper to acquire land rights also tend to be more environmentally pristine, which means there are environmental concerns around projects like these. In our political system, Republicans are much more likely to ignore those environmental concerns, but they use that political clout to build highways and oil pipelines, not passenger rail. Advocates for passenger rail tend to also be more environmentally conscious, so the environmental concerns do tend to slow down any proposed rail project.

There is high speed rail called Brightline in Florida between Miami and Orlando, with the longest segment operating at 125 mph (200 km/h), and some of the more populous segments operating at 110 mph/180 km/h or 80 mph/130 km/h. It tries to manage those tradeoffs on all new track dedicated to it. But the company is struggling to make money.

There’s a whole saga in California in that the proposed high speed rail project is decades behind and still bogged down, and has examples of all of these problems. The route it takes to connect the two largest cities on the coast (Los Angeles and San Francisco) goes through the inland central valley, to service a bunch of other cities in between. Bizarrely, phase 1 of the project will only serve the relatively low density, low population cities in the Central Valley, without connecting either San Francisco or Los Angeles. Some segments are to share rail usage with lower speed trains, complicating scheduling and risking delays. The environmental debates have slowed things down, as well.

Watch what happens in Texas with its proposed high speed line (bogged down in political infighting), Florida (see above, already built and operational, but facing serious financial concerns about its ability to continue), and California (see above).

I think we’ll eventually see some projects push through, especially if jet fuel gets more expensive than electrical grid power. But for now, America is uniquely hostile to passenger rail, and increasing high speed offerings isn’t necessarily going to induce enough demand for these projects to become economically competitive with other forms of intercity transportation.

You donate blood to save lives. I donate blood so that the recipients can pee my piss out of their dicks. We are not the same.

That’s true of the metabolic pathways for fat, protein, and alcohol, too. Each oxygen molecule we breathe feeds into chemical reactions so that it picks up a carbon atom and becomes CO2 on the way out. The carbon comes from whatever food was metabolized, including anaerobic respiration where the lactic acid eventually gets cleared out.

The University of York compared panels capable of 1.5 kW and found that vertically mounted bifacial panels generally outperformed tilt mounted monofacial panels, by between 14-27% on a monthly basis, at least when surrounded by gravel, in the climate/altitude of that particular location.

The reason given is that vertically mounted systems capture a lot more indirect reflected sunlight from the surroundings, across a wider range of conditions.

The biggest US market SUVs are huge, yes, but the SUV market as a whole is skewed heavily towards small SUV “crossovers,” basically as a replacement for sedans that are disappearing (probably due to a complex set of fuel efficiency regulations that perversely incentivize making bigger vehicles to get away with less fuel efficiency).

Our most popular models are the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Chevy Equinox, Tesla Model Y, and Chevy Trax. 4 out of the 5 are smaller and lighter than, say, a BMW X3, and the Model Y (which is also a somewhat popular model in Europe) is about the same size as the BMW. So if X3s and Model Ys are representative of the typical SUV in Europe, then the most popular American SUVs are smaller.

Even driving up next to our most popular sedan, the Toyota Camry, shows that these crossover SUVs aren’t actually longer or even taller at the highest point, just tend to be taller in the back to have a rear tailgate instead of a separate trunk compartment.

I’ve read about people in the South Pole station in Antarctica who experience 300°F temperature swings by setting their saunas heated to 200°F (93°C), sitting in there for 10 minutes, then walking naked (except boots) outside around the ceremonial South Pole marker, on days where it’s below -100°F (-73°C).

It sounds crazy, especially in that the people who talk about it explain that they do get minor frostbite and lung damage from the experience.

Yes. But as that gets rolled out and implemented, assume that the richer organizations would be able to get those ACs installed faster and earlier.

Just tell us the model of the TV and the devices that work, and the devices that don’t.

If you want an answer to your question of whether this happens to old devices, yes, it does. And the way that it usually happens is that the old device doesn’t understand newer signal protocol versions.

That would explain why some devices work perfectly and some devices don’t work at all, because an all or nothing situation suggests something going wrong with a handshake or other signal negotiation protocol.

Some devices fall back to earlier versions, and some don’t. Some only fall back if instructed to, so even if it does support an old version it expects to be told.

Another point of failure could be the cable itself, where it won’t pass certain types of signals correctly and might screw up the handshake. Have you tried other cables?

Isn’t that also true of the word “mathematics” as well?

I wonder if there’s an easy way to test them, other than actually driving out and trying it somewhere.

that 20000-30000 premium over ICEs

What currency are you using for this comparison? Definitely not USD.

A Tesla Model 3 runs for about $40k. A Camry runs for about $35k. Or if we want to go down market a Nissan Leaf is about $30k and probably comparable to a $25k Sentra.

Similar trim levels of vehicles offered as both EV and gasoline powered show minimal difference. Compare the Ford F-150 Lariat in both the gasoline ($75k) and the EV versions ($79k). Or the new Lexus ES, where the EV ($49k) is actually cheaper than the hybrid ($51k).

And if you go into the used market, EVs are starting to hit that market in real numbers, too. Plenty of options for under $20,000, and a handful of options for under $10,000.

Cars are expensive. EVs generally are close to that already expensive price.

A lot of the grid power still based on fossil fuels or coal

Even if you of a long tailpipe emissions analysis of pure coal power, the total emissions are still lower than a comparable gasoline powered engine.

Coal emits about 2.31 lbs (1.05 kg) of carbon dioxide per kwh.

Gasoline emits about 20 lbs (8.9 kg) of carbon dioxide per gallon burned.

So a car that gets 3.5 miles per kWh and is purely charged on coal emits about 0.3 kg of carbon per mile. A car that runs on gasoline and gets 30 miles per gallon is about the same.

In comparison, natural gas is about 0.96lbs of CO2 per kWh, so that EV charged on natural gas would emit roughly the same as a 74 mile per gallon vehicle.

Note that currently, in the US, coal is about 16% of electricity production, and natural gas is 41%. If you compare the emissions to the overall mix, you’ll get even lower numbers for the EV emissions.

Which adapter do you have?

Exactly. Engine displacement is just one number, and there have been major paradigm shifts in designs to squeeze way better performance and efficiency out of those engines across a wide range of RPMs: switching from carburetors to fuel injection, developing variable valve timing, better transmissions/traction control systems for actually get that torque and power on the ground.

Plus, like, the rise of EVs, or even performance hybrids, has shown that you can have ultra high performance without any displacement at all.

Looking back at the muscle cars of the 1970’s, where the idea came from, it’s crazy how huge those engines were, compared to 0-60 and quarter mile times that just weren’t that impressive by the 90’s, much less today. The 1970 Chevelle SS 454 had a 7.4L engine at 450 hp, but only got a 5.4s 0-62 and a 13.8s quarter mile. In 1995, the Toyota Supra put up similar performance with a 3.0L, 280 HP engine (although back then the Japanese manufacturers had some kind of gentleman’s agreement not to exceed 280hp in a way that tended to understate their overall performance). Today, Tesla literally manufactures a family friendly 3-row SUV that blows those numbers away. Scrolling through a list of cars that have sub-10 second quarter mile times off the factory floor, most of them have at least hybrid drivetrains where electric motors boost the overall torque and power.

Relying on displacement these days is just giving up.