Very roughly, UK prices are ~£0.2/kwh electrity and ~£2/litre of petrol. Per mile I make that £0.2 for petrol vs £0.045 for electric. Although you could probably get to the 1/10th figure if you always charged on the super-off-peak EV tarrifs.
Where are these places that give you massively discounted electricity at night?! Done away with around here many years ago… I wouldn’t rely on them always being there - obviously especially if everyone starts charging cars at night as it will cease being off peak and the reason for the lower price will be eroded.
There are multiple electricity providers in the UK currently that have "EV tariffs" where they give you substantially discounted overnight/off-peak rates in exchange for a slightly higher daytime rate in order to encourage overnight charging. Often up to a maximum specified number of KWh per cycle.
In previous times they used to offer a tariff called economy 7 which worked in conjunction with so-called storage heaters. They would charge during off-peak times and provide heat during more active hours. (disclaimer, I've never lived in a property on such a scheme but definitely saw a few in my student days)
They are becoming more common here in the US. Although the one that I see most is more like a 3-4 hour peak period with very high rates and lower rates the rest of the day.
Assuming 7 pounds / gallon and 30mpg, a gas car would cost 23p per mile. Assuming 28.2p/kwh and 300wh/mi that comes out to about 8.5p/mi (figures pulled from Google for London, no idea if they're accurate, I'm in the US). In my experience that 300wh/mi is generous (my 2022 model y is usually closer to 350wh/mi in the summer driving downhill with the wind at my back and up to 450wh/mi in the winter). In any case, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near 1:10.
No, and I'm actually worried that I got a shit battery. It also charges at max 60kw. I just drove from Illinois to Denver and we got an average of ~350wh/mi (we had the A/C on but we tried to moderate it to save battery).
Energy pricing doesn't have to be constant - there's tariffs available which have cheap overnight electricity (eg Octopus Energy) - if you sign up now it's something like 7.5p/kWh, but some older contracts have it at 5p/kWh. You pay more during the day, but if you're charging a car a lot then it works out cheaper overall.
Cost per mile driven. 1/10th cost is on the more favorable end of the spectrum, but it's achievable if you can charge at home using an off-peak tariff. The ratio depends very much on what petrol MPG you compare it to.
If ‘safety’ is your only criteria, then sure I guess. Personally it’s not too important to me - the chances of being in an RTA are negligible.
I’d hardly call cars from the 80s ‘deathtraps’ either.
I think we should get out of the habit of buying new stuff every few years. There’s something pretty amazing about driving a car that is decades old.
I just looked it up, and transport accidents are the 3rd most common cause of death for my age bracket in the UK, and the first I can do anything to prevent (behind suicide and accidental poisoning).
Once the risks of dementia get close, I'll join you in the world of thin A-pillars, but I wouldn't call that good general advice!
Cars from the 80s barely have any airbags. Crumple zones are worse, etc. Anything before 2000 or even 2010 or so is bad, really bad. Except for luxury cars, which are generally ahead of the curve.
A few years ago I changed the domain of a customers website from .eu to .nl because it refused to show up in Google. Anecdotal evidence suggests .eu is not a good domain name for your business.
Some of these are fairly small/obscure; some are fairly significant: europe.eu is the site for a lot of what the EU does; politico.eu is a well known media organisation; coolblue.eu is major Dutch retail business, etc.
Start your own company if you think you can do better / be fairer / be a better employer etc etc
workers fighting their employers never ends how you think it will. They won’t raise conditions, they’ll just get rid of the jobs, outsource, use AI, etc etc etc
Has it ever occurred to you that improving working conditions doesn’t necessarily always result in “making the world better”? And that measurement is completely arbitrary. eg The west has very little manufacturing left because we chose to raise working conditions instead of remaining competitive - thus all the manufacturing jobs disappeared anyways. Is that “making the world better”?
It’s simple supply and demand - a large number of programmers want to work on games. Therefore the pay and conditions aren’t great compared to other less ‘cool+trendy’ options.
hehe I have. You should try it.
I suggest watching something like ‘Newsies’. It’s a great musical, and all the kids selling newspapers today have fantastic working conditions /s
At the Labour conference a week or so ago, an MP referred to Tories as “scum”. Yup, that’s the majority of the voting population, and the ones they are trying to win over, are ‘scum’.
I agree twitter is a hateful place, but so is the political left. But the vast majority of twitter are also very left wing.
1. "Tories" refers to the party members not the people who voted for them.
2. Only 44% voted for the Tories so not a majority.
I can't disagree that twitter is full of hate but I can laugh at your stated impression about the political left and the political leanings of twitter. It's like complaining that environmental scientists are biased in their belief in climate change.
Oh. Well I don't have to look it up to guess who that would be, but I think my point stands - it's not 'people are talking about that she said that', but a 'hashtag' used presumably to echo the sentiment. I wish it were confined to its chamber.
(And fwiw I don't want to see '#LabourScum' either.)
Everyone in the industry is telling anyone who will listen that there is no shortage of petrol (gas), and there is no shortage of drivers. Yet the media are still whipping the story because it’s selling papers/views/clicks etc for them.
This is yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire.
There should be prosecutions for this sort of behaviour. Lives will be put at risk or lost because of this.
And seriously, the public need to stop listening and believing the media. They have no morals, and they certainly do not care about truth.
To those downvoting: If there is still a “crisis” next week, I will eat my hat. There is no crisis. You know this. The media will have moved onto the next “crisis” they can manufacture.
From the article:
> Drivers queued for hours to fill their cars at petrol stations that were still selling fuel, albeit often rationed. There were also calls for National Health Service (NHS) workers to be given priority to keep hospitals open
That is just ridiculous. It’s so far removed from reality. Who queued for hours? Who in their right mind is suggesting hospitals might close? It’s just reckless reporting designed to make panic buying worse. And trying to link it to our decision to leave the EU years ago, is just utter desperation.
You all know this is BS, and that in a couple of days, once the story has peaked, and the media has moved onto something else, the “crisis” will be over.
Your claim that "there is no shortage of drivers" according to "everyone in the industry" is incorrect. From [0]:
BP blamed the restrictions on “delays in the supply change which has been impact by the industry-wide driver shortages across the UK”.
Tesco said it had “experienced temporary supply issues caused by driver absences in recent days”, adding: “We expect the situation to improve in the next week and apologise to our customers for any inconvenience caused.”
I’d suggest you should listen to what the drivers, refinery, and actual garage staff say. I think you’ll get much closer to the truth.
Tesco aren’t rationing petrol due to the “driver crisis”. They are rationing it due to the media telling people to go and panic buy petrol.
As you can see in the article, the only one with driver issues is BP. Other petrol stations have plenty. Yet they are all affected because of the media whipping consumers into panic.
And as you can see in the article, BP reports that “between 50 and 100 stations affected”. Out of 1200!!! That’s not even newsworthy, yet the media are whipping and whipping.
Can you see the issue with the following…
> Petrol stations operated by Morrisons, The Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Asda also said they had no current issues with their fuel supplies, the BBC reported.
> LARGE FONT ALL BOLD! ‘Rapidly worsening crisis’
> Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary, described the lorry driver shortage as a “rapidly worsening crisis” that required urgent Government attention.
So the petrol stations say it’s all fine, and the article shouts “RAPIDLY WORSENING CRISIS”. This, as I say, is disgraceful reporting, and is shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre where there is no fire.
No they weren’t. Certainly around here, the order of events was exactly this:
* Petrol stations all chugging along normally
* Media start scaring people into panic buying
* Petrol stations overwhelmed by idiotic buying
In a few days, it will all go away. The sky is not falling.
The idea that men and women are the same, is one not borne out by facts and evidence, yet it’s still being pushed by extremists who ignore the science.
The suggestion that differences in men and women are a result of sexism is not borne out by facts and evidence either.
Rather than trying to force google translate to lie (Suggest that men and women are the same), perhaps we should just accept the truth - eg that most Plumbers are men.
We could very well have accepted that some people are slaves. But we, as a society, decided that this is a bad idea. Why can't we do the same with gender roles?
Your suggestion that gender roles are entirely arbitrarily fabricated by society, is demonstrably false. There is an absolute ton of peer reviewed study and literature on it going back decades. People do what they want to do, and men and women have extremely different interests and motivations in life.
Why do you think women don’t want to be plumbers? Do you think it’s because society decided plumbers are men, lack of female plumbing role models, because plumbing customers are all sexist and only employ men, OR because women aren’t generally that interested in plumbing...
Why do you think in countries where they have tried the most to get them to be plumbers, women have rejected it even more?
Why do you think women should want to be plumbers?
Men and women are extremely different in so many different ways, which should be celebrated, not denied.
Obviously anyone male or female who wants to be a plumber should be encouraged. But we should also freely acknowledge that 95%+ of plumbers are men, and that isn’t a ‘problem’ to be fixed.
Some basic research on "hormones and personality" or "empathising–systemising" will lead you to relevant works, such as:
"Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People." - Gendered Occupational Interests: Prenatal Androgen Effects on Psychological Orientation to Things Versus People (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/)
"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender‐egalitarian societies than in gender‐inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences." - Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004....)
It would be ignorant to assume that biology has zero impact on occupational interest.
Are you seriously suggesting this is down to ‘society’ telling boys they’re allowed to be plumbers and girls that they’re not allowed to be?
As I said, in countries where they have gone the furthest to try to eradicate ‘gender roles etc’, they saw the % of women plumbers GO DOWN. not up. Which would strongly suggest that it’s got nothing to do with ‘gender roles’
If you’re interested in looking at the research, go for it. There’s absolutely tons of extremely established studies into the differences between men and women, their different strengths and weaknesses, and why they decide to do different things in life, go into different careers etc (Unless it’s been cancelled or burnt, which is entirely possible)
I think you're leaving out cultural inertia as a contributing factor to this. If you want training data that's purely descriptive of the current state of the world then fine, but such data will naturally encode our own biases into it. Reality unfortunately carries a lot of bias. There's nothing that says that plumbers have to be a male, that playing house is a game for girls, or online video games is dominated by boys. But huge amounts of social pressure, environments that aren't inclusive, and monkey-see-monkey-do keep the cycle going. I find it funny that you're making this argument on a board for programmers which is basically the canonical example of a profession that underwent a gender flip.
Talking about gender roles on HN is odd because programmers tend to think so binary. Gender roles in modern society are informed by biology inasmuch as La Croix's flavor is informed by fruit but all you get in the discussion is "see gender roles aren't entirely arbitrary so everything about the status quo must be justified."
A non men/women example is neighborhood crime rates. A totally "unbiased" record of crime rates will show that black neighborhoods have on-average crime rates. But that ignores the fact that less policing is done in areas with lower crime rates and if you don't look you won't find it.
Can you provide some data for that claim. Are we talking cost per mile travelled eg like for like?