goodSteveramos

For context on cost, SpaceX only charged NASA $3.1 billion for developing the Dragon 2 manned capsule. Boeing charged NASA $6.7 billion for Starliner and has spend at least 1.6 billion more than that so far.

Ive seen plenty of unpopular and corrupt oligarchs that were targeted by Putin but are there any well-known names of some ordinary people imprisoned for political speech in Russia?

Because the cost is probably closer to $10,000/kWh. Makes sense for a $1,000,000 supercar. Fundamentally all the new battery chemistries have serious underreported problems that make them dead-on-arrival. Either short cycle life (nanowire) or impractical manufacturing (solid state) or middling performance versus LiPo (sodium). Hopefully some of these may find niche applications where their advantages outweigh their problems but don’t expect more than a 50% improvement in density over the next 20 years.

I guess people care more about government abuse in their own countries. Also, do you know what kinds of things people get in trouble for in Russia? I suspect most social media arrests in Russia are related to Isis.

The UK laws mix language which bans calls to violence with bans on “offensive” speech. So its not about where to draw the line, its about banning criticism of immigration, which you basically cant do without offending immigrants.

Liberals correctly understand that the uk government is putting conservatives in jail whereas putin’s law will be used to put liberals in jail.

Im curious to know what those 400 people said. Do you know?

The Russian law was also passed democratically, but liberals dont like it because its going to be used against liberals whereas the “hate speech” laws are being used against conservatives. And yes the conservative party in the uk is anything but.

Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?

>different trade offs

Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?

Right, but like diet and exercise, we protect the environment for our own benefit, including our ability to visit untouched ecosystems. We dont protect nature because it is more important than humanity.

> The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot.

Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.

> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing

Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.

The optimal balance between natural preservation and human expansion is the one that maximizes the sum of human economic benefit from the expansion and the human phycological benefit from natural preservation.

The irony of misanthropic environmentalism is that the psychological desire to preserve nature is our most unnatural and uniquely human instinct.

Cheaper small-battery EVs aren’t exactly replacing petrol cars either. The real future is plug-in hybrids. All the fuel savings of a short range EV and none of the range anxiety or slow mid-day refueling.