> At a societal level, EVs are generally better than ICE cars.

Cite your sources, please

> cars that can automatically fix a "recall" with an over-the-air update are generally better than recalls that will wait to get fixed until an owner schedules an appointment to have the car serviced.

If a "recall" can be fixed via software, doesn't that mean just shitty software to begin with? And that usually happens only when a car is infested with tons of software - proving the exact opposite of why we need less software inside cars?

▲ cl0ckt0wer 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The dev that has never shipped a bug must file the first cve

▲ Barrin92 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Cite your sources, please

we need sources for the fact an electric motor, all other things being equal, is better than a combustion engine? If you agree that people in general value the health of their lungs that alone is sufficient reason.

It's also becoming quickly a question of geopolitical resilience, running your transport system on dinosaur juice coming from regions where people blow each other up is bad in particular if you happen to be Japanese automaker Honda

▲ neya 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> an electric motor, all other things being equal, is better than a combustion engine?

This is not the core argument. Motors maybe superior - we can agree on that. The power source (batteries) and the environmental impact they have - that has always been the core argument. [1]

Again, without sources, these are just opinions.

Sources:

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30046087/

	▲	ChadNauseam 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Does the article you cited cost money to read? I found a description on google scholar: > Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries > Reserves of cobalt and nickel used in electric-vehicle cells will not meet future demand. Refocus research to find new electrodes based on common elements such as iron and silicon, urge Kostiantyn Turcheniuk and colleagues. I notice that the article was published in 2018. So I guess we only have to wait two more years to decide if it's right or not. Will we be out of cobalt and nickel by then? I'd be happy to take a bet with you, assuming you stand by the article you cited.
	▲	defrost 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's an atrociously written opinion piece presumeably written to cast shade on the EV industry. Full article, for others: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/d41586-018-05752-3 My background is global geophysical exploration, primarily for mineral resources with some dabbling in the energy domain. For a single example, this passage: `High demand and prices are already encouraging some producers to cut corners and violate environmental and safety regulations. For example, in China, dust released from graphite mines has damaged crops and polluted villages and drinking water. In Africa, some mine owners exploit child workers and skimp on protective equipment such as respirators. Small artisanal mines, where ores are extracted by hand, often flout laws.` is entirely emotive, intended to tug on feelings (which it does) but otherwise it has no bearing on the bulk of major mining that contributes to bulk of mineral processing. The tonnes of nickel and cobalt we see largely comes from big mines, big trucks, formal Occ Health and Safety regulations, etc. It also commits the usual mistake of confusing "just in time" exploration results that firm up suspected deposits with sizes and density estimates for the commodities of interest with absolute limits on what is available over the cycle of time. As demand increases further areas that are "known" (but not measured) get further technical inspection (magnetics, drill sampling, etc) and become new fresh reserves.

▲ chii 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomhow 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This is why the left/progressive crowd is so disliked by the conservatives - they phrase any argument from an inherent view point that they assume is self-evident.

Please don't engage in political battle or post flamebait on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

Barrin92 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tomhow 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Conservatives, I assumes this means American modern conservatives, dislike this because they make French postmodernists from the 70s look like evidence based scientists Please don't engage in political battle or post flamebait on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲ rossjudson 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cite your own sources that they're not. And maybe try to avoid the ten year old nonsense that's frequently floated as "evidence".

On recalls -- like the one that said that individual icons have to be slightly bigger? Yeah, shitty software.

Or the one that made Tesla annoy drivers with a smaller timeout? That was actually a safety issue --- people would turn off FSD to adjust something and then turn it back on again. Much, much less safe.

	▲	neya 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Cite your own sources that they're not. Cite my sources for what exactly? > that they're not. You made an assumption about something I never said and used that as the base of your argument to make a point. I didn't say anything, I simply asked them to cite a source for that kind of a grandiose claim. If you make a claim like that without citation(s), the onus to prove it lies on the person making the said claim, not on me to disprove it.