This is irrelevant, though, since the size of the country isn’t what determines where people go. It’s not like trains got less practical when Alaska got admitted to the union.
Sprawling, low density, single use zoning, combined with parking minimums, have much more to do with it.
The question was what the train network is like outside the cities. And the answer is we don’t use trains because it is not efficient for the scale of the country. This is correct.
Most people ARE interested in coast to coast travel. It is called flyover country for a reason.
There are a few exceptions like the Baltimore corridor, or the San Francisco peninsula, and these are in fact serviced by good trains.
For all the naysaying I wanted something that was “like languagereactor and anki put together” a few days ago and had it done in about two hours. And it runs on-device, because much of the time the whole reason for a cloud is to justify the subscription. And I can just install an apk (for now, I guess Google wants to steal that from us).
I'm building a house currently and I really wish there were more options to have the things I want without needing all the extra space in places I don't care about. The problem is, even if I was able to build such a house (I'm using a large builder, this is not a fully custom house) the resale prospects would be poor.
Correct, this is meaningless. It's purely to provide a facade for companies and countries who are still fully in bed with US big tech, so they have something to point at and can delay the inevitable for longer.
Another goal with this is to muddy the waters on the word "sovereign" in relation to tech e.g. "cloud". This is a big reason why they've chosen this exact name. Now every discussion regarding it is more prone to devolve into "but what does it really mean!? Amazon has a 'sovereign cloud'!!". Taking time away from discussing the core and actual sovereign cloud.
It's the umpteenth despicable play by US big tech. It doesn't matter what guarantees they give, the US is in charge of anything remotely related to Amazon, even if they set up "independent subsidiaries", do everything through "local partners" and what not.
The point of setting it up as a German legal entity with US AWS having no special access is to avoid that.
All the relevant part of the CLOUD Act does is make it so when a US legal entity is asked to provide data that it controls it doesn't matter where it has stored that data. For example suppose I run an online forum. I decide to archive some records to cloud storage and remove my local copies.
I archive some of them to AWS in the US. I archive some more to a cloud provider that is in some other country and does not have any US data centers or offer services in the US (I'm going through a VPN with an endpoint in their country so they only see me using a local to them IP, and I pay via some method that doesn't tip them off that I'm American).
I get legally ordered to give copies of those archived records to law enforcement. Under the CLOUD Act I have to retrieve copies from both cloud providers and turn those over.
Note that from the foreign cloud provider's point of view nothing unusual is happening. All they see is a customer retrieving some data that that the customer previously put there, using the normal APIs that are provided for customers to do that with. They have no idea why the customer is retrieving the data.
From the way they are describing it in the article and in their FAQ at https://aws.eu/faq/ it sounds like they are setting up a German company and giving that company the rights to use a bunch of AWS technology which will be run on infrastructure owned and operated by the German company and with no operational access for US AWS. That would make it pretty much equivalent to the foreign cloud service in the example above.
The reason earlier I said "relevant part of the CLOUD Act" is that it actually did two things. One is what is described above, which for some reason is what most people focus on even though it wasn't very controversial.
The other part, which is what most opposition was over, concerned "mutual legal assistance treaties" (MLATs). These are agreements between countries to, as you might guess from the name, assist each other in law enforcement. The CLOUD Act made it so MLATs could be created through executive agreements, just requiring the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to agree that the other country had protections in place to protect US citizens.
Before the CLOUD Act MLATs were created by the executive branch negotiating the terms and then the agreement had to be ratified as a treaty by Congress, so this was a huge change.
Ofcourse the real issue that every American is a potential CIA spy. We know this from history.
Its really not that different from China. Every American will always cooperate like a good little patriot. I don't even blame them for it that is how they are brought up.
Humm no. OVH is French, OVH US is not, both are two different subsidiaries. In fact, you cannot order OVH US infrastructures with a European OVH account, you need to create a US account.
I strongly doubt any current car will stand longevity of those cars. The maintenance entry cost of anything with integrated electronic is just several order of magnitude in complexity.
Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars - primarily because of the integrated electronics. ECUs can detect when engines are running rich or lean, knocking or 100 other edge cases and adjust accordingly.
Switch to an EV and it's even simpler, you can get away with a motor, battery, BMS and inverter and you can get just about any soapbox to move.
Reliable is only slightly related to be maintenable.
ECU embedding makes the whole system more complexe. That is not necessary absolutely a bad thing, but the trade-off is different. And there is on top of that a different topic which is how electronics are used to enforce obsolescence and make harder to maintain the vehicle without special equipment of the specific firm. This can also be enforced with more analogical stuffs of course, but electronic devices are more likely to be used this way.
I am not so sure that modern cars are more reliable.
My father has used a traditional (European) car (which had no electronics except the rectifier diode bridge for the alternator) for 35 years (1973-2008), during which the car has been used every day for commuting to his job (an almost 2-hour round trip in a city with very crowded traffic) and during vacations it was used mainly on difficult mountain roads. He stopped using the car when he was too old, not because the car became unusable.
The car has been repaired from time to time, but almost all the repairs were done by my father himself, alone and in a short time (he had the service manuals for that car, but he was not any kind of mechanic by profession, he was a physicist). In the very few cases when the car was taken to a repair shop, that was for replacing some rusted parts of the car body, and once for machining the cylinder block, after several hundred thousand miles.
And this was not some unusually good car, many others were like this, if their owners took good care of them.
I doubt that a Tesla would live that long, in similar conditions, though it would have the advantage that the owner would not have to be skilled in using his hands in order to avoid to waste time and money for minor repairs, like with that "analog" car.
Cars have become terribly unreliable in the last 5 years. Electronics that are too tightly integrated, silly displacement on demand setups, quality issues from COVID times, unrelialble small engines with turbochargers, and even Toyota/GM are having massive engine failure issues. And some manufacturers have record amounts of recalls.
> Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars ...
Define "modern". My 1988 Porsche 911 Carrera is now 38 years old (and I own it since 1999, it used to be my daily back in the day). It's considered one of the most reliable car ever built. Mine is sure still running strong and, well, we have to wait until year 2064 (I'll be long gone I guess) to see if any modern car proves as reliable.
Also: there are still Porsche 356 from the 1950s on the road. They do rust a lot (body had no treatment against rust back then) but many are still in working condition. Mechanic and bodyshops know how to keep these on the road. If after 38 years my 911 Carrera is still on the road, I'm sure the knowledge is out there to keep it on the road for another 38 years.
Do we know if all these Chinese cars sold today, say in the EU, shall still be usable in 38 years? What about the batteries? Shall there be compatible ones? Batteries that fail every x years and needs replacement is already quite a stretch from a "reliability" point of view compared to a 38 years cars whose engine has never been opened.
Thing is: my 911 is mostly analog except for the electronic fuel injection. A good old Bosch part.
Funnily enough that part is a typical part that fails. That and all the little sensors (but thankfully there aren't too many). But they're easy fix.
I think there's that sweet spot where cars were still simple enough and yet had already electronic fuel injection: that made for some extremely reliable cars.
Note that I don't use it as a daily car anymore: I now drive maybe only about 1000 miles / 1500 km a year with my old Porsche. But I totally could use it everyday: the reason I don't is not reliability, it's that an old Porsche from the 80s is a real gas guzzler (not as much as an american V8 from the 80s but still a gas guzzler). One of my favorite thing is the relatively short drive to go pick my kid at school then go groceries shopping. Every time I use I'm thinking "it's crazy to think it could be my daily".
And when my regular car has to go to the garage/maintenance, the good old trusty 1988 Porsche 911 Carrera gets to be a daily for a while.
38 years old.
My modern car has sensors for everything. It's very convenient to know what is the problem, but there are still problems. In seven years it's been something like seven times to the garage (in addition to maintenance / tires) for a variety of problems. Under warranty but still.
Regardless of who's right, you are aware that this is anecdata and survival biais right? Your experience with 2 single cars is not representative of how many years cars survive in average.
There is a point there: I can buy sheet metal and a welder at home depot and repair rust in a 1950s car (if I was really doing this I'd get better metals and a better welder, but the home depot stuff will work). If the CPU on my modern car breaks I can't fix it - worse, the computer industry has a long track record of stopping production on older chips and so there is a good chance the part I need won't be available at any price. (there are a few labs that can make a one-off chip - but they start at $60,000 each and that assumes you have all the designs ready)
Regardless of that, what most people are after is TCO.
Something tells me, and not only me, that longevity and ease of repair of these electrical gadgets are nowhere near old ICE car we all know very well. Is it direct experience with same type of cars across several decades? Nope, but experience with electronics in general, powered by similar batteries in general and its not looking good. More electronics = more failure surface.
Lots of cars in 1988 still had 5 digit odometers because most of them weren't expected to ever need a 6th. Nowadays with some companies you can get almost that far and still be under warranty.
> Modern cars are far more reliable than old 'analogue' cars
They're reliable, but when they have a problem, they're too hard to fix.
Last time I got my Toyota Hybrid fixed, the recommended first step for the fault code was to "replace the ECU". Expensive. Fault was elsewhere but I had to suck up that cost. I've just scrapped that car for a different fault, because although the new fault was easily fixable, the parts and labour were very expensive (and wouldn't make the car more reliable).
It's a pity that diesel-gate happened, and that they weren't able to solve the emissions problem.
I came across a post about a diesel tractor with no electrical parts and imagined the value of a post-apocalyptical car that could withstand EMPs and run on virtually any fuel type. Limited market obviously, make it configurable like a diesel Slate truck and baby you've got a stew going!
When your ICE vehicle breaks down on the highway, you can get it towed and repaired at any half-decent car mechanic. If you don't like his cost quote or his service/repairs, you can get your car taken elsewhere (usually the mechanic can get it running in a short while, unless it is a major breakage problem) for a second opinion or service/repairs.
When your EV breaks down, you won't even bother to get it towed, because the only ones who can repair it are the (very expensive) showroom of the car manufacturer you bought it from, or their authorized (and very expensive) service center (and those will be very few of them in a city, and forget about getting such EV Service centers in the suburbs or rural areas). And you have to accept whatever cost quote and dependencies (additional upgrades to "fix" the "issue") he specifies. Good luck trying to figure it out or getting a second opinion, unless you have an EV industry expert as a friend or family member.
The EVs are white elephants. They look good while they last. But once they start breaking down, you will be paying through your nose just to keep it ticking along.
Whereas that 30-years old ICE car of your grandpa? That rustbucket can be repaired (eventually to full functionality and best looks) in your home garage by you and family/friends if you have the knowhow (or want to learn it), and can afford the time and spare parts cost (which are affordable for middle class, except if it is a vintage car or sports/luxury car).
EVs will be the deathknell for the hobbyist market and small-scale auto shops.
And don't even get me started on how easily and dangerously EVs can be hacked/hijacked by hackers.
That has nothing to to with EVs per se, as many modern ICE cars are just as impossible to repair for non-affiliated repair shops. And some EVs, e.g. the Nissan Leaf, are quite easy to work on for independent shops.
Except for the electronic subsystem, almost everything else in an ICE car can be repaired by a competent non-dealer mechanic shop.
I do agree though that modern ICE vehicles are becoming more and more complex, with electronic subsystems replacing manual subsystems, so non-dealer mechanics may struggle with such complex work and may even reject the work saying it's out of their ambit. This situation is getting aggravated as car manufacturers are pushing for hybrids, which have the partial advantages & disadvantages of both ICE & EV worlds.
But for any EV (including the Nissan Leaf), repairs & advanced diagnostics on the electric-drive components
(which is basically the main component of the EV), health checks on the battery (other main component), or repairs involving high-voltage systems, are typically out of the competency and ambit of a non-dealer mechanic, unless the mechanic shop is a dealer-certified EV-trained service center.
However, the routine mechanical work — things like brakes, suspension (e.g., sway bar links, shocks), tires, wheel alignment, cabin filters, etc. — can generally be done safely and correctly by a good independent mechanic, whether it be for an ICE vehicle or an EV.
The difficulty of working on the electric-drive components are massively exaggerated. Independent shops routinely swap worn-out Nissan Leaf batteries with salvaged or rebuilt battery packs nowadays. You can even get a 3rd party replacement pack with a different battery chemistry: https://evsenhanced.com/aftermarket-battery/
And then there's all the people putting Tesla drive-trains in classic cars. They couldn't do that if they weren't able to work on the electric drive.
> When your EV breaks down, you won't even bother to get it towed, because the only ones who can repair are the (very expensive) showroom of the car manufacturer you bought it from, or their authorized (and very expensive) service center
That's true, but it is has more to do with parasitic capitalism than EV technology, and could (and hopefully will）be solved with regulation. My understanding is that there is already significant regulation around ICE car parts which is the main reason why the situation there is better.
Regulation will do nothing because it is not meant to tackle such problems.
EV is basically a battery-powered motor on wheels.
The smartphone in your hands is a battery-powered communication device with a touchscreen.
If your smartphone doesn't work, can you take it to any phone repair shop and get it repaired for anything other than a battery replacement or screen replacement (or if the service center guy is technically competent, then maybe replacing the charging port if it is busted).
EU, India and few countries have enacted the Right to Repair law.
But if your smartphone is broken, your options to get it repaired are minimal, because its manufacturers have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that such devices are not easy to open (let alone repair).
Now extrapolate that Smartphone Repair problem 10x-100x, and you have the EV Repair problem.
EVs are DESIGNED and MANUFACTURED to be extremely difficult to repair even by excellent technicians and software experts.
EVs are the Razor Blade Theory in moving attractive action.
(Razor Blade Theory is basically a selling cheat but perfectly legal one; they sell you a razor blade with special handle/holder cheaply, but you have to keep buying razor blades from same brand (e.g., Gilette) & model that only work with that specific type of handle/holder. Over a period of time, the manufacturer will keep increasing the cost of the razor blades, because they know they have locked in the customers who have become accustomed to that type of handle/holder, blade quality & comfort, design, etc.)
You can buy an EV for an expensive upfront cost (it is sold as a premium (> ICE car) segment; just like smartphone brands have a premium price-tier segment), but running and repair costs is where the customers will be fleeced.. hard.
And please note that running cost (wear & tear) of an EV will not be covered by car insurance, so if your EV breaks down on the road, and you get it towed for repair, then the showroom/service-center (who usually have a tie-up and nexus with car insurance vendors) and insurance vendor will simply say the repairs won't be covered under extended warranty or insurance as it is normal "wear and tear".
And you'll have to swallow all those lies at face value, because you cannot even go elsewhere for a second opinion (because an EV of one brand, cannot be repaired at service center or showroom of another; if you go to another service center of same brand, they will cite you the same lies because that's their revenue model (Razor Blade Theory)).
EVs are a losing proposition for humanity, because unfortunately, even the supposedly green (not affecting climate change) EVs have toxic waste (typically the chemical batteries and plastics) that are never safely disposed off in climate-friendly ways.
ICE vehicles have some of these same problems, but their biggest advantages are their long mileage (per full tank of fuel), easier operation (not driving, I mean it is easy to top/fill up the fuel), easy maintenance (affordable repair options), and all-round viability that can even last a century with the right care.
However, you can bet that EVs are being designed for planned obsolescence, and that's a shame since humanity indeed needs some viable alternative to fossil-fuel-guzzling climate-polluting ICE vehicles.
> EVs are DESIGNED and MANUFACTURED to be extremely difficult to repair even by excellent technicians and software experts.
Correct. So we should pass regulation that makes this illegal (or otherwise prohibitively expensive for manufacturers due to legal responsilities which would be difficult to fulfil with such a design). We know that repairable EVs are entirely possible.
The same applies to smartphones and whole bunch of other hardware from washing machine to tractors, and is the basis of the "right to repair" movement.
If 40+ years of mobile phones have not solved such problems through regulations, I am afraid they won't be solved for EVs either.
Furthermore, once EVs become mainstream across the world, it will be China controlling the world [since batteries and chips & ICs (integrated circuits) need Lithium, Rare Earth Metals, etc., but China has the monopoly on them (especially on Rare Earths processing)].
That's why China is doing its best to dominate EV market (as hinted in the above linked article), because it knows no nation can dethrone it for the basic essentials of any EV.
It would be a bad idea for the world to be beholden to a single country for anything. Oh wait, the world is already beholden to China for most of the manufacturing. LOL.
> If 40+ years of mobile phones have not solved such problems through regulations, I am afraid they won't be solved for EVs either.
I don't think that follows. Nobody has even attempted to solve these problems for mobile phones. And the main reason for that is that it's a pretty new problem. Appliances 40 or 50 years ago were much simpler and typically quite repairable. It's only the recently that a focus on manufacturing efficiency and profitability have led to these kind of problems.
Not really. I’d agree 10 years ago, but post-COVID ICE r&d budgets have been slashed and we’re now in the enshittification phase. My brother in law is a mechanic. He’s doing like 5x more engine a transmission replacements than he did 10 years ago.
What? How so? Isn't it just a bunch of PCBs and sensors whereas gas powered cars are a bunch of awesome nonesense you can gently whack against each other to create different notes and tones?
The former requires a special printer while the latter requires tons of machines for precision engineering and the industrial equivalent of smitheries and blacksmiths!
If you have the right tools then it's easier than ever.
To put a different spin, a friend's father was a very successful auto mechanic. What he loved about it was the mental challenge of diagnostics. The stranger the problem, the better for him.
A few years back he sold his shop. There were two reasons:
1) He made f** you money, and retired decades earlier than he'd expected.
2) For many years he'd felt like the daily intellectual challenge was gone.
His repeated refrain was that modern self-diagnostic systems were good
enough that it took away most of the day-to-day intellectual challenge.
Identifying which assemblies to replace is easier than ever.
But there are an ever increasing number of assemblies with a "non starter to anyone other than the OEM" up front manufacturing set up cost. And when the OEM drops support......
Feels bad faith to shit on people from your ivory tower, just because they can't afford to ditch their reliable beaters and buy a new car. Have you seen wage growth vs car price increases lately? Not everyone is on a remote six figure US tech job. Try to view and judge things from outside your bubble as well.
I'd also dump my ol reliable ICE car that's now probably worth less than a fancy electric bicycle, if someone just gave me an EV for free ;)
But since I'm poor and can't afford EV prices with decent range, nor can I afford a home with a parking place with charger, then ICE it is. European here btw, not american.
Look at the average car payment in the US, and the average car sale price
The ”americans can’t afford EVs” argument falls totally apart when the average(!) sale price is over $50k and you can get a perfectly good Leaf for $25k
Good point but that can be explained by familiarity inertia. People who have 50k to blow on a new car are anything but young buyers, with the average age of a new car buyer in the US is around 53 years old.
And boomers and gen-X are used to owning ICEs, so there you go.
Millennials and Zoomers would be more open to EV adoption but they have a lot less disposable income to buy new cars.
Not sure if you are familiar with the built-environment in America, but there’s effectively no biking infrastructure and people are openly hostile towards cyclists who try.
Depends on where you live. There are a lot of cities in North America that have biking infrastructure. As a general rule, the worse the winters the better the biking infrastructure. (you need to get to Minneapolis or Canada to see it)
There's a lot of bike accidents in my city in Europe too. Yearly deaths too. Still only commute by bike if the trip is through the city center since it's the only way to bypass city traffic and without dying of old age from waiting on public transport.
Life is short enough, I don’t need to waste it providing power to travel to work and back when I can save 1.5 hours per work day driving. (And more if I go to lunch.)
Yes, plenty of people choose active transportation. Once they give it a try they see that not only it is about as fast as driving, but it feels great, too.
I don't know your particular circumstances, but unless you have tried riding a bike to work you probably don't have a good sense of how long it would take you.
Many people realize that they'd rather spend an hour biking every day instead of half an hour driving each day, because they enjoy riding a bike. "Providing power to travel" is such a weird way to describe using your own body and enjoying the outdoors
> I can save 1.5 hours per work day driving. (And more if I go to lunch.)
That’s going to depend where you live. Commuting by bike is half to one third the time it takes to drive for my commute.
One work location is 8km away, the other is 15km.
Yes, it's disingenuous to insinuate through that comparison as if bicycles are replacements for cars, or that all car trips can be replaced by bike trips. Both are good for different kinds of trips. Hence why cars still have a place, even in bike dominated Netherlands, and why your comment was in bad faith and why Ic alled you out for it.
>Plenty of people live without a car.
Plenty of people also live without a home, that doesn't mean it's a good situation to be in.
Same here. Living in the Netherlands, I drive a 2008 Daihatsu Cuore, bought for 850E over a year ago, I pay 17E /month in mrb (road tax) and 38E/month insurance. It's basically close to the costs of a scooter. And I average under 4L/100km fuel usage, for my 200km/week commute. I did some calculation and no car comes close to these running costs. Definitely no electric cars, even if I were to get them for free, because road tax here is mainly a factor of weight.
Even a Dacia Spring with its 900kg is slightly more expensive overall to run (in my circumstances. I could charge at home, but don't have solar panels atm), and a lot more expensive up front to buy (used).
It has over 304k km already, and it runs perfectly well with some occasional maintenance and some mechanical sympathy, but I was considering alternatives in case something were to happen. Conclusion? Just buy another one. Suzuki Celerio is the only one in the same ballpark, but it's about 2k EUR more expensive. And I love my Daihatsu.
It wouldn’t change your equation much, but you don’t need a car charger as such, just connect to a normal power socket (which may not be available within reach).
We ran a Leaf for years like that, and it would charge overnight just fine.
We do have a charger now and it’s quicker, but it’s a luxury we didn’t need.
>. Living in the Netherlands, I drive a 2008 Daihatsu Cuore, bought for 850E over a year ago, I pay 17E /month in mrb (road tax) and 38E/month insurance.
Imagine how many people are reading this and thinking to themselves "government has to do something to drive up those numbers so it's no longer financially sensible for you to drive that car"
Well, fuel here is close to if not the most expensive in EU. That also contains a lot of tax. But I just don't drive that much.
And the insurance is cheap because of years of no incidents, and the fact that I'm over 30. But indeed, I wouldn't disagree if the government made electric cars cheaper from a tax perspective. They just reduced the tax discount to 25%, and it will be gone completely in a few years.
If they raise taxes significantly for me, I'll just sell the car and find a closer job. 20km one way to Amsterdam with an ebike, that's 2 hours per day. I don't have that much time to give away at this point in life.
Like me, you're not buying new cars on that budget anyway.
6 years ago when my ICE car became unreliable I bought a used Chevy Bolt for less than $20k. They're closer to $10k now. Plenty of range.
People aren't being asked to dump their current reliable vehicles.
What we want is for people to think about EVs when it's time to replace them.
> People aren't being asked to dump their current reliable vehicles
Depends on where the people live. In France, that's just about what they're asked. If their car is "too old" (reliability doesn't matter, only age), they may no longer drive in Paris and some other major cities on weekdays from 6 AM to 8 PM or something like that.
I have an ICE car and I agree with restrictions like that. You don't need to be Jeff Bezos to own a car that's at least Euro 5 and doesn't heavily pollute the air. If you own some 20+ year old beater that smokes like a chimney, get fined, we don't have to tolerate your health hazard mobile.
Sure, I also don't care for smelling cars' exhausts, and am delighted with the move away from diesels to electrics.
But the point I was responding to was "people aren't being forced to dump their old, reliable cars". Which they absolutely are. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is a different matter. I think it's good for health, but I also understand it can be difficult for people who struggle to make ends meet.
I don't know what you mean by reliable beaters. By the time EVs are mandatory, my ICE car will have turned into dust and I'd have to buy a new car anyway. It would be pretty foolish to stall EVs only to then be forced to buy another ICE car.
Sprawling, low density, single use zoning, combined with parking minimums, have much more to do with it.
Here’s a video that explores the topic if you’re curious https://youtu.be/REni8Oi1QJQ
reply