Youtube comments of afcgeo (@afcgeo882).
-
1900
-
1500
-
In the USSR the “Loaf” was used in the military, as a rural ambulance, by utility companies, police and fire, and as rescue services. They were mostly used in rural areas, so in cities you didn’t see them as often, but they were generally very common and came in all kinds of body configurations, including stake bed truck, box truck, crew cab truck, cargo van, passenger van, ambulance, etc.
Not sure why he put a V8 into this… a modern I4 would have served it well I think. It can’t go fast either way.
768
-
399
-
343
-
333
-
326
-
Preston, I was born and grew up in Russia, but served in the US Air Force, including a deployment in AFG. It’s not really comparable, even to remote FOBs. Russian forward bases lack infrastructure (housing, food, clean water, showers, etc.) on permanent basis. Ours did not. If you were at a remote location, you were there for a week, two tops. Then you came back to a larger base for a while. Not the Russians. They don’t have the logistics for it. They get supply trains, but they’re not getting the big stuff or quantities. There are no C-17s, C-130s or even Chinooks full of stuff coming their way. All their stuff is brought by stake trucks or flatbeds. That’s why they went into towns for toilet paper, food, soda, booze, batteries. blankets, etc. They have no PXs. They don’t do MWR. There are no movies, no gyms… nothing.
Without the ability to go into a town they have nothing, which feels like a prison.
292
-
260
-
249
-
219
-
216
-
203
-
158
-
152
-
149
-
142
-
127
-
107
-
101
-
98
-
89
-
85
-
80
-
78
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
67
-
53
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
@Gorilla_Jones That’s false. ABSOLUTELY, OBJECTIVELY false. Cars have NEVER lasted as long as they do right now, EVER. The average car lasts about 20 years or 160k miles. That was absolutely unheard of in years past. Despite being more complex, more powerful, harder to DIY, they are also more reliable. The corrosion protection is far better, the transmissions are more lasting, the engines, suspension components, steering racks, everything… they all last longer nowadays. Sure, they’re more work for mechanics, but the failure rates are dramatically lower. Most nowadays only need oil changes and tire rotations in their first 5 years. In the 1980’s, cars had to have multiple repairs by 60k miles: struts/shocks, ball joints, brake lines/calipers, electricals, etc. were commonly replaced by that point. By the 100k mark, most transmissions slipped, most engines have had head gaskets done, pistons changed and needed full tune-ups twice. The exhaust systems from manifolds to mufflers had to be replaced and frames/bodies had serious corrosion. Back then a car with 100k on the odometer was at the end of its life: critical failure could occur at any time. Today? 100k means it’s about half-way.
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
@Scoots1994 Quite the opposite. Direct injection is very happy at high RPMs and can easily “keep up”. Valves also don’t need cooling.
“How It Works
According to Toyota, during low-to-medium engine loads, both direct-type and port-type fuel injection are used together, or one of them is used to create homogeneous mixed air and fuel, thus contributing to stable combustion processes.
During high engine load ranges, only the direct-type fuel injection is used to cool down the intake air with the chilling effect of vapors in the fuel, which is injected into the cylinder, improving charge efficiency and anti-knock properties. Under some conditions, the intake valves open to allow the homogeneous air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber, and fuel is injected during the first half of the intake stroke.
During a cold start, the system times the opening of the port and direct fuel injector to decrease emissions and achieve stratified combustion. Immediately after a cold engine start and during the exhaust stroke, fuel is injected into the intake port from the fuel injector assembly (for port injection). Fuel is also injected from the direct fuel injector near the end of the compression stroke. This results in an air-fuel mixture that is stratified, and the area near the spark plug is richer than the rest of the air/fuel mixture. This process allows a retarded ignition timing to be used, raising the exhaust gas temperature. The increased exhaust gas temperatures promote rapid warmup of the catalysts and improve exhaust emission performance.
It is impossible to detect where the changeover from port to direct injection occurs. The only way to see the different fuel injection operations is with a scan tool.”
“Tomorrow’s Tech” article from their website, March 21, 2019.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
The other aspect of this is that large, strong airlines like American, Lufthansa Group, Delta, etc. have voiced that they will use this as an opportunity to shrink back to more profitable, leaner organizations by speeding up retirements of older, less efficient aircraft, eliminating less profitable, non-essential routes and not re-hiring everyone who worked for them before, especially contractors. They are expecting that the industry won’t rebound for another 2-3 years, given the spread of the disease and the lack of vaccinations.
On the flip side, a shortage of pilots is no longer an issue.
19
-
19
-
19
-
I really like the exterior design of the Tucson. It is sporty without being awkward or looking like it's trying too hard to stand out. The suspension is great and so is the steering. The car drives nicely weighted for its size and weight. I'm okay with the interior, but only on the top trims. hard plastics are way too abundant. What's kept me away have been the two engine/transmission available (both horrible) and the small trunk space. It's an SUV, so it really should be larger back there. The 2.4L seems like the engine that should be the upgrade on most trims. It's actually smooth, sufficiently powerful, but unfortunately not at all efficient. What ultimately does Hyundai in is their illogical trim packaging with way too many confusing trims that dictate which options come packed instead of letting customers choose what they want. For example, the SEL Plus has all the trimmings on the inside, but no available sunroof AND only the base engine. Meanwhile, the Sport comes at a higher price tag and with the nicer engine, but no upgrades on the inside. You can choose the even pricier Value trim and get the turbo engine and a panoramic sunroof, but you get bumped down to lower interior specs from the SEL Plus that's displayed 2 levels lower, but actually costs $250 more. Just too confusing and impossible to get the features you want unless you get them all (including a bunch you don't want) and then you can't get the 2.4. Frustrating.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Okay, so I’m half Ukrainian, 1/4 Russian and 1/4 Belarussian, but born and raised in Russia (US citizen for over 30 years now and a US veteran).
Russia DOES have combat medics, but they are considerably fewer than in the West and generally aren’t found in combat units. They are mostly women and their job is to provide CASEVAC whenever possible. They have pretty rudimentary medical training, akin to Western EMTs. Their job is simply to evacuate to a rear field hospital.
As far as private hospitals… no. They first evacuate to field hospitals, which do exist. Then, once the patient is ambulatory, he may be moved to a rear hospital, usually a civilian (not private) facility, as military hospitals are only in Russia itself. This is kind of how the US military works too. The wounded are CASEVAC’d into a field hospital, where they are hopefully stabilized, and then flown out to a regional military hospital in Germany (Landstuhl) or Japan (Yokosuka, Okinawa) or Korea (Yongsan), and when well enough to make a long journey, flown back to a military or civilian hospital in the US.
The difference is that Russia has no aeromedical evacuation platforms. They can’t fly patients anywhere.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
I think it's because Doug doesn't know that this is a commercial van not meant for families and he's comparing it to family minivans, which are completely different vehicles. It's like comparing a truck to a bus. They're both big and they're both somewhat similar, but they have very different uses, so a truck makes a terrible bus and a bus makes a terrible truck. He thinks it's just another minivan, but done terribly, so he's comparing it to minivans. Also, there's no doubt that Doug thinks he knows more about cars than anyone else on the planet, including all the Daimler executives. That causes him to stick his foot in his mouth quite often. He's entertaining, but he makes A LOT of mistakes and assumptions, which is quite unprofessional. That's just my opinion though.
Notice that Doug didn't mention even once that this is a commercial application vehicle sold through a commercial dealer network. Not once did he mention that this van carries 8 people instead of 7, which is maximum in any regular minivan. He never mentioned that the load floor is low, making entering and exiting all rows of the vehicle super easy compared to minivans and making it super easy to load/unload the cargo in the back. He failed to mention that all the seats seat upright unlike the 3rd rows of minivans, which have an odd, upward-angled seat, that there is more legroom and much more head room for all passengers (partly due to that upright seating and a tall, box-like shape of the vehicle.) That since it's a commercial van, it wouldn't be driven by the owners, but by chauffeurs on their shift, which is why they're low in driver amenities and comfort. That the wheels are tiny because it works MUCH better for fleet applications and gets a better ride quality than large 17"/18" wheels (though it looks worse). That third row bench is meant to be either moved to points front/back to customize the interior or be completely removed to provide a flat, large cargo interior, which fits standard dry wall sheets btw. Him tilting it is idiotic because that lever is for disconnecting the bench and pulling it out. All the seats come out or can be re-arranged. This van is super popular as a cab in Europe and is picking up here in NYC as well. It's also easily customized as a wheelchair accessible van.
Then, in the comment below, he belittles his followers by calling them "sweetie" while talking complete nonsense, "Well, sweetie, it's nice that Mercedes-Benz marketing has convinced you of this -- but it's the same size as a Sienna/Odyssey, with the same price as a Sienna/Odyssey, and the same scope as a Sienna/Odyssey.
If I were buying a "commercial shuttle van," I'd literally fall over laughing at the Metris ... annnnnd then I'd buy a Sienna/Odyssey. Which is what everyone does anyway."
Yeah... NO ONE buys Sienna/Odyssey vans for commercial use. NOT ONE PERSON. People buy Ford Transit Connects, Ram PromasterCity, any full-size van or back in the day an Astro van, but no one buys soft, short and narrow Siennas or Odysseys for commercial use. The load floor is too small and too high for that. The only minivan that has been used for commercial use is the Dodge Grand Caravan and they actually made a W/T version of it. That's because its interior is boxy and low to the ground, giving people an easy loading hight and an interior that can actually fit large things.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Oddball_E8 You’re not arguing! You’re trolling! You haven’t presented ANY evidence for your claims at all! I’ve been in the US Air Force for 22 years now. Trained and fought all over the world, including in Svandinavia. Most countries operate from dedicated military facilities, but have back-up plans to operate their fighters from alternate air fields, including unimproved, and from highway stretches specifically designated for that purpose. Even the US has a few of these, although it has little to no need, due to incredible numbers of small, paved airports everywhere. In Europe, the Cold War doctrine created this use in every single country, in the West and in the Warsaw Pact as well. It’s LITERALLY normal, and if you bother to do some research, you’d find it to be true. Sorry that your ego bubble was burst by reality, but Swedes aren’t at all unique in this.
You were saying that Sweden uses highways as its regular operational sites fir its air force, which is 100% a lie. It doesn’t. It occasionally trains its air force on how to use highways as air fields, in a WAR EMERGENCY. This is because Sweden doesn’t have many developed airports throughout its country. Most of Sweden is sparsely populated and heavily forested. It has no major cities in its interior, so no airports either. Almost all of its airstrips are on the East Coast. Most are general aviation, about 400m - 2,000m long.
Sweden didn’t make its highways into runways. Quite the opposite. It designed small airbases called Flygbassystem 90 and then converted their runways into highways and roads, along with hard stands for heavy aircraft. That’s what’s unique about Sweden.
Any country can operate from highways, but only Sweden built these small bases and converted them to highways. By the way, most of the Bas90 system has been shut down and eliminated since the 1990s.
That brings the main point - Ukraine didn’t! They don’t have these layouts, hard stands or maintenance hangars on their roads. They don’t have the heavy forests to hide them. They don’t need STOL aircraft. They are a MUCH larger nation, with a lot of vast, open areas. They have lots of existing airfields and plenty of ways to operate the F-16, just as they operate the MiG-29 and SU-25.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@huntergatherer7796 It’s Slovenia, not Slovakia, and they supplied T-55S, modified by an Israeli company in the late 1990s. They have a 105mm British rifled, stabilized gun that can shoot modern sabot rounds, a fire control computer, so it can fire on the move, a laser warning and defense system for ATGMs, ERA, modern tracks, an upgraded suspension, and a new (at the time) 600hp engine.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@filipinorutherford7818 So in the US Army there are branches. Combat Arms branches are infantry, cavalry, field artillery, air defense artillery, armor, combat aviation, combat engineers, cyber and special operations. These are branches whose PRIMARY job is to seek out and engage the enemy. In other words, there are offensive troops. This DOES NOT mean that combat support branch troops do not see combat or do not get tasked in offensive operations. Quite to the contrary, the Army job that has seen the most combat in the last 50 years has been transportation specialists (truck/bus drivers). Please note that Cyber is now a combat arms branch despite the fact that they don’t physically engage seek out or engage the enemy. This is because it is the offensive use, not involvement in combat, that makes a branch “Combat Arms.”
In contrast, the US Marines designate only the infantry as combat arms. Artillery, armor, combat engineer, assault amphibian, etc. are all combat support to them.
I say this to distinguish that each organization assigns definitions to these things themselves and what the British, Aussies or anyone else do is not reflective on what the US Army does.
Non-combat engineers (US Army Engineer Corps), Intel and Signals Corps are not combined arms branches in the US Army. Along with the Chemical Corps they constitute Combat Support branches.
The US Army has a total of 16 branches.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
When it comes to fog lights, they’re not there to increase lighting. They’re there to cut through fog. For that, the yellower the light, the better, and the more diffused the light, the better, so LEDs are fine, but only if they’re yellow and diffused. Otherwise you’re better off with the incandescent bulbs.
Also, a correction on the engine: the 2.5 comes with direct and port injection. It’s an important caveat because this type of engine is rare and eliminates the carbon build-up issues that all direct injection engines have.
Finally, a correction on the transmission: It does not have a CVT transmission. It has what’s called an eCVT transmission. Those are entirely different than your regular CVTs. They don’t have comes and pulleys and belts/chains. They work with planetary gears. Very reliable.
Also, the CX5 Turbo has been clocked with a slightly (less than 1 second difference) slower 0-60mph than this Rav4 Hybrid.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The gulags for sure existed, but were not instruments of extermination, especially of any particular ethnic or religious group. They were harsh prisons almost exclusively for political prisoners (anti-Communists). They were almost entirely male populated and without any children. While Stalin was certainly anti-Jewish, he had made no attempt to exterminate them. Toward the 1930’s he actually made anti-semitism a major crime, punishable by the death penalty, technically. He even established Yiddish as an official language in the USSR, after creating a Jewish autonomous region in 1928. While many of the victims of the Great Purges were Jewish, Jews were not targeted specifically. This was purely coincidental. Stalin was bothered by the Jewish dominance in Leninism, which saw as a competing movement to his own and was rooted in Trotsky.
In fact, after WW2, Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist stance, believing that any Jewish stare would become Socialist. When the West started to support Israel, he changed his stance, being afraid of a Jewish subversion.
Also, your number is far off. The actual number of people that were killed under the Stalin rule is closer to 20 million. Still a lot, but it’s not the same as what was done by the Nazis because it was political fear, not ethnic cleansing.
I’m Russian-American and a Jew from the Soviet Union originally. I would love to agree with you, but it’s simply not true and overly simplified.
7
-
7
-
7
-
The issue isn't the CVT.
The issue is that Subaru has 4 DIFFERENT AWD systems it manufactures and the system that comes paired with the CVT is the most basic system. What makes it more confusing for people is that they call all of these "Symmetrical AWD".
1. The CVT system (Active Torque Split or ATS) splits the torque 60/40 (front/rear) in normal driving and when sensors sense slippage, they react by moving 10% of the torque toward the rear by locking the system into a 50/50 setting. The X-Mode automatically locks it into 50/50 mode as well. Both axles have open differentials. There is a torque vectoring system that uses brakes to slow down the inside wheels. Considering that most of the competition is easily able to provide more than 50% of torque to the rear and up to 100% to the front, this 10% torque move means that if you're stuck in its regular mode, you're most likely stuck in X-Mode or with the extra torque moved to the rear. It uses a multi-plate clutch system (electronically controlled).
2. The manual transmission viscous coupling AWD system (VCD) drives with a 50/50 torque split under normal conditions and then gradually moves up to 80% of torque to the axle with more grip, be it the front or rear. That system is fantastic, reliable and provides robust power, although not proactive. That's the system that made Subaru famous.
3. The older automatic transmission (geared, not CVT) used 45:55 torque split system called VTD (Variable Torque Distribution) under normal conditions that went to 50/50 in case of an actual or predicted slippage.
4. The WRX STi uses a DCCD system that has TWO center differentials, one mechanical and one viscous, giving the car the best of both worlds. That's normally set to 41/59, but can be customized.
The WRX and Legacy/Outback 3.6R have a rear axle limited slip differential. The WRX STi also has a limited slip front differential. Other models feature open differentials at both ends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBQlK89PyxQ
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@blacknester Okay, I think the issue here is the salary in Croatia. In the United States and most other Western nations, the salaries are MUCH higher than $700/month. Added to that, the Alex (the reviewer) and most commenters on here are from the United States, where fuel costs around $3 per gallon (not that fuel is a concern because you only drive one car at a time anyway), but earnings are closer to $2000/month on average after income taxes are taken out. The average car insurance in the U.S. is $942/year or $78/month in the U.S. as well. That means you don't actually have to be rich to own a couple of used cars. It's the same in many other countries. If the average Croatian was earning $2000/month, you would be able to afford it as well.
By the way, the average income (per capita) in Croatia is $4565 per year or $380 per month and you have to pay taxes out of that. That's gross average income, not net. The comparison is stark. Croatia is not a rich country and unfortunately, has had tougher and tougher times since 2010, with income falling over $1000 per year since then.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I don't know if you're reading your screen wrong or if your screen is wrong, but I'm right. I'm right because of how cars work, not because I want to be. The reason the AWD lock is disengaged at 26mph is because with that speed, the front axle and rear axle can no longer safely operate at the same rate on the same transmission because of different RPMs between the axles. It grinds down the driveshafts. At 26mph, the AWD system starts to gradually disengage because of its mechanical connections to the engine/transmission. It doesn't just shut off, but slowly reduces the torque to the rear until it disengages the rear completely at 40mph. Above that speed, the difference in the axle movement would be greater than is safe. This is due to the fact that drive shafts are of different lengths, but there is but a single transmission, which spins the shafts at the same speed. That means the rear axle would spin slower than what's needed at that speed. At even higher speeds, it's even worse. AWD systems are arguably of little use at such speeds anyway. A few manufacturers have found a way around that, such as Subaru, but they cannot disengage the rear completely because of that work-around. For example, Subaru's power transfer unit that distributes the torque is actually built into the transmission itself, so it provides different RPMs to the different drive shafts. It comes with pluses and minuses. A plus is that it can be driven at high speeds without disengaging one of the axles. A minus is that there's little in torque distribution that can be varied. Most Subarus with this system can only transfer up to 20% of torque between the front and the rear.
Toyota's hybrid system is similar to Volvo hybrid system where the rear axle is completely disconnected from the front... or the transmission. There is no drive shaft. It spins as the computer tells it to. That means it can do whatever revolutions it wants. In the hybrid, if you press the gas really hard at 50mph, you'll see the rear axle engage. It has to be hard as the computer is generally not wanting to engage the rear at highway speeds to conserve energy (and fuel).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ You “THINK”? Are you sure about that? It really reads as you ASSUME OUT IGNORANCE. “Our” cars ABSOLUTELY pass NCAP tests, even the worst of them, demonstrated by Jeep Wrangler sales in Europe. On the other hand, a Suzuki Jimny would get terrible scores in the US/Canada.
Ford builds Kugas/Escapes, Modeo/Fusion, Focus, Fiesta… all exactly the same as the US, except lighting, which is more restrictive in the US. And sadly no, they are not of better quality. European cars are NOTORIOUS for being very poor quality, although Audi and BMW are obviously known for performance. The Japanese brands are the quality cars (esp. Toyota, Honda and Subaru), and you know what… that’s the case on the rest of the planet too. Australians, Africans, Brazilians… everyone is in agreement on these things except Europeans and it’s purely out of European pride left over from colonialism, which is ironic since British brands are now owned by Indian and Chinese ones.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
When you talk about power, Doug,.. you must also talk about the weight that power is carrying, not the "size" of the car. Not a terribly difficult concept to think about. The 2018 AMG E63's curb weight is 4669lbs with 603hp or 7.4lbs/1hp. The Panamera Sport Tourismo weighs in at 4486lbs with 550hp or 8.16lb/1hp. That's the explanation for it being a bit slower. However, that's a tiny difference and can easily be negated by the transmission, engine tuning or even the exhaust setup. Had the Panamera been heavier than the Benz, it would be a significant number, but since it's actually lighter, it isn't.
Now... you have a 2012 AMG E63 and its curb weight is only 4282lbs, but it only makes 550hp giving you 7.78lbs/1hp, for an even smaller difference.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@shmoaeelshmoaeel8319 You'll need to decide that for yourself. Winter tires are made of a special rubber compound that excels at traction below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, or 4 degrees Celcius. Below that temperature, all-season compounds become too hard to get good traction. Winter tire treads are also generally made to perform better in icy conditions versus wet conditions. If you live in an area where there's lots of ice/sleet and lots of driving on slush/ice, then I would recommend winter tires. If you drive in mostly medium to deep snow and the temperatures don't really go anywhere near freezing except for a week in the spring and a week in the autumn, and you often go off-road, I would recommend buying all-terrain tires with M+S rating (mud and snow).
I don't know anything about where you live, where you drive or how you drive, so I can't really tell you what you should buy. I know where I live, the best thing is winter tires because the temps here are near freezing all winter long and we get more ice than snow. You could drive on all-seasons well enough. Winter tires would be fantastic though. Go anywhere north of where I live (NY City) and you need winter tires. Go anywhere south, and you will do fine with all-season.
By the way, if you live in Quebec, you are required to have winter tires on from October to April.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Not safe? How is it not safe? The GC is perfectly safe. It may not be IIHS "Top Pick", but it's still very safe. The NHTSA rated it 5 stars. The don't even compare the two classes against each other and have odd tests that have always been called out by owners, manufacturers and the government. For example, to get the "IIHS Top Pick", a car must have automatic braking (front crash prevention). Your Compass trim may not even have that feature, so it wouldn't actually make "Top Pick" anyway. The GC is taller, so the center of gravity is higher, so you can't drive like a maniac or you'll flip over. That's the case with any tall vehicle. It has all the crumple zones and air bags a car can handle. The IIHS rated it "Marginal" and "Poor" on its controversial "Small Overlap Front" test, even though it then commented that the likelihood of serious injury of those passengers is low. The Small Overlap tests primarily the A pillar and the area below it, and is an unlikely type of a collision. Even the 2018 Toyota Rav-4 performed "Poor" on that test. The Grand Cherokee has the latest (for 2017) active safety gadgets. It also has a very reliable RWD system, a reliable engine and a resale value you'll NEVER get on a Compass. If you think you'll have a baby soon, you'll really appreciate the rear seat space for the rear-facing child seat. The Compass doesn't really have enough space back there for the front passenger to still sit comfortably. I would definitely go with the used GC.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Sylling Boy Back up a source for visibility? Get into the cockpit and judge for yourself! I’ve been in both! Without that, look at videos and notice the shape of the canopies and the relative sitting position of the pilot. It’s VERY easy to see that the sight lines out of a Hog are superior.
LIFT, not engine thrust is what adds to an aircraft’s maneuverability. Forward motion is NOT maneuverability. Lift can be had with wing and surface area rather than speed. The faster a plane has to fly, the less tight the turning radius is. Thus, a slow aircraft can always out turn a fast one. In fact, that’s why the A-10 performs its role (air to ground attack) so well. It can simply out maneuver anything on the ground and attack multiple targets faster, including purely visually. That’s why it has straight wings, turbofan engines and a less than aerodynamic shape. It was built to go in after air superiority has already been established and SAMs have been extinguished, to attack infantry, armor and logistical ground targets and provide CAS. It does not need to defend itself against enemy fighters, go fast or climb quickly. No reason to. It needs to turn on a dime, deliver massive firepower onto the ground, loiter a long time, and survive small caliber fire from the ground. That’s its role. The Sukhoi has the same role, but it simply wasn’t built to fulfill it as well. It was a compromise between a fighter and an attack aircraft.
USAF believes the A-10 is old (it is), requires a lot of maintenance (it does) and that its role can now be achieved by multi-role networks of F-22s and F-35s. To some degree, it can. The O/A-10’s observation role can be done with technology while its ground attack role can be partially achieved by fighter-bombers, the way the F-16 and F-18 have, but only partially. That’s why USAF hasn’t retired it. The actual combat studies show that it can do things no other aircraft can and that those things matter in actual combat.
STOP TROLLING!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
elusivellama The reputation may be well-earned, but keep in mind it kay not be representative of the vehicle. Are you buying a reputation or a car?
I own a 2005 Camry 2.4. The reputation - perfection. Resale value: as good as it gets.
Reality: Gone through 4 lower control arm replacements, all 4 struts, flex pipe (exhaust), loose head bolts (infamous) lead to an external coolant leak and head gasket change, transmission slips despite regular changes, sway bar links replaced, the remote locking/unlocking module is broken, the air vent mixing motor broken (a simple $600 fix)... and a slew of other small issues like weather stripping and pain peeling off years ago and the latest: headliner drooping. I only have 120k miles on it, though mostly city driving. I wax it, by hand, twice a year. I do Mobil 1 oil changes every 6,000 miles and transmission fluid from the dealer every 60k miles. All parts are OEM or better (German/Japanese.)
On the flip side, my wife’s 2006 LR Freelander has had ZERO issues. None. Not to say Land Rovers are reliable as a rule. It’s just that individual experiences vary, A LOT.
Reputations aren’t often reflective of real world experiences. In reliability studies of 3 year-old cars, it was found that the most reliable cars had a rate of failure (any failure) of 2%, while the least reliable were 8%. Even in the worst case, 92% of cars won’t have failures of any kind in the first 3 years. New cars aren’t casinos.
When it comes to transmissions, here’s a painful truth: most car owners don’t know that they require fluid/filter changes. As older cars used to have manual transmissions or simply a life expectancy of just 100k miles, transmission fluid changes weren’t a thing. However, with modern cars weighing more, having many more gears (leading to more gear changes) and lasting longer, transmissions now require more maintenance. Ask any dealer/mechanic service manager about how often they have to explain this to people. CVTs require changes at 30k intervals and modern transmissions at 60k. Otherwise they WILL fail. Who makes them doesn’t matter. They will fail. What makes things worse are manufacturers who make sealed transmissions or put stickers on that state the fluid is “lifetime” as a marketing gimmick. If to you, 100k is a lifetime, then yes, it’s “lifetime”. If it’s more, then you should have changed the fluid at 60k. Back in the early to mid-2000s when transmissions were only 5-6 speed, you could do it at 80k, but now, with 8+ gears... no.
5
-
This demonstrates clearly the duality of Eastern European countries. On the one hand, they want to be like Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. and on the other, they have cultures and a way of thinking that simply isn’t compatible with those values. They use the EU solely as a source of money and do not - cannot subscribe to the ethical values.
Ukraine, for decades, voted to stay out of the EU and NATO, choosing to be friends with their Russian brothers. They were warned, repeatedly, of what may, and will eventually come. They CHOSE not to accept themselves as a part of the Western family, even when other Eastern European nations did. Now when the predictions have arrived, they call the West… the only ones keeping them alive, “cowards”. Why? Ukraine did this to itself. Ukraine chose this for itself.
Ukraine isn’t alone though… the domestic policies of Poland, Hungary, Northern Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania are also at odds with the ethics valued by the EU. These countries are only in the union fir their own benefit, not the benefit of the whole. To be fair, they’re not at odds with just the EU, but Western Europe as a whole, as well as Canada, the United States and other progressive nations.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dancolt79 the global marketshare of iPhones is 13%. That said, it is the number one platform in the United States and Canada, which is the largest (by far) market for Toyota and the Rav4 specifically. In 2018, Toyota sold 427,168 Rav4s in the United States alone. In comparison, Toyota sold just 71,047 Rav4s in all of Europe the same year. They sold 128,545 of them in China, but while Apple accounts for just 13% of new phone sales in China, it accounts for over 25% of all smartphones in operation and among the middle and upper class, the iPhone marketshare skyrockets. These are the same people who can afford a Toyota.
Anyway, the issue with the Android system is that it shares data on the car and the driving pattern, not simply personal data. Toyota isn't the only manufacturer that has this issue with Android. BMW and Porsche do as well. In 2015, MotorTrend reported that Android reported statistics such as vehicle speed, throttle position, coolant and oil temperature, engine revs, etc off of the OBD system. In contrast, iOS only collected data on the movement of the vehicle. Some of this is to protect the consumer from issues like the police using that data to convict someone or as an excuse to enter someone's phone, a manufacturer using the info to deny warranty claims or a slew of other potential uses against the owner. Some of it was probably to protect themselves as a manufacturer as well. Either way, there is ZERO reason for Google to be collecting such data. It is no secret that Google sells data it collects for all types of use. It could potentially sell it to competitors of Toyota or anyone else as well. I respect Toyota's decision not to implement Android at this time. There have been reports that the two have reached an agreement, the latest being from Bloomberg in September of 2017, but I haven't seen anything official yet. When Google decides to stop collecting that data, I'm sure Toyota will be VERY happy to offer AndroidAuto in all its vehicles. After all, it would only help their sales to do so.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@FallenPhoenix86 I know my facts very well, with years in as an aircrew life equipment technician.
Yes, people are selected and trained to perform better at higher altitudes. Much of fighter, and then platform selection is medical exams and testing in reduced oxygen tanks. There is a testing center at Wright-Patt.
The U-2 and SR-71 aircrew suits are full pressure (direct compression). These pressure suits press on the body of the crew member, not sustain atmospheric pressure. There is no gas envelope around the body (inside the suit), unlike in a space suit, which uses indirect compression. This is done solely to maintain the body’s shape in lower atmospheric pressure. The suits provide thermal support as well. They’re basically the Spanx suits of aviation. Again, the suits are NOT pressurized. They PROVIDE pressure to the body. This is done because above FL40, the body cannot survive the internal pressure difference with the external pressure. The cockpit internal pressure is maintained at below FL30, thus not requiring the full protection of the suit, unless there is decompression. Yes, there are sadly many cases of that in history. The suit also assists in fighting off decompression sickness.
And yes, we worked with Clarke to implement modifications on pressure and g-suits. Oh and just so you know, your desperate attempts at straw man arguments won’t work here. My original comment was 100% factual. You just suffer from reading comprehension issues because you’re clearly inserting assumptions instead of actually reading what I wrote. Did I write that they had no pressure suits or oxygen supplementation? No. Can people survive at FL30 with low oxygen pressure flowing, absolutely. Every civilian airliner is equipped for just that. Those orange masks that drop down in times of sudden depressurization do just that - supply low pressure oxygen. The Dragon Lady system also supplies low level oxygen as the crew operating environment is kept at 29k feet, with 100% oxygen provided by pulling the “green apple” as referenced in the video, if needed.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yakinthebox You mean not Bosnia, Korea, Côte d’Ivoire, Chad, Burundi, Somalia, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Haiti, or Indonesia.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@billrobbins5874 That depends on the court and what you did. If you’re convicted of spreading “false information” you can receive up to 10 years in a penal colony, or up to 15 years if there are “grave consequences” to your actions. The financial penalties go up to 1.5 million rubles. Echo of Moscow, had to pay 150,000 rubles. Pskov Lenta Novostey had to pay 200,000. This is not the same law that restricts public protests/speech. That law requires that mass gatherings receive a permit first. Without that, you’re breaking the illegal assembly law and you can get 15 days in jail for that, similar to “disturbing the peace” in the US. If you break that law three times, you can then receive up to 5 years in prison. Minimum sentencing is rarely written into Russian law, which gives judges broad discretion on sentencing. Yes, that creates a lot of opportunity for bribery or coercion. That’s sort of the point.
The funny part is that these laws are in direct breach of the Russian Constitution, but there’s no redress process in place for citizens as the entire system is run autocratically, and both, the legislature and the courts technically are subject to the President.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@vbscript2 You don’t have to consider it. There are FAR more airlines that offer 30” than 31”, sadly, and the width of seats depends on the aircraft, not the airline, most times. Almost all 787s and 777 have 17” wide seats. 767s and 747s are 17.4”-17.6”. Most A330s, A340s, A350’s and A380s have 18” wide seats, but some airlines install narrower.
However… almost all A320 family aircraft have 18” seats.
The pitch has NOTHING to do with the hull of the aircraft. JetBlue had the highest pitch in economy (32”) in the entire industry and they have no wide-bodies.
Delta A350 main cabin: 17.4” width, 31-32” pitch. A330 18” width, 31-33” pitch. 764 17.9” width, 31-32” pitch.
Air France A350, A332 and 787 economy is 17” wide with a 31” pitch.
KLM A330, 772, 773 and 787 pitch is 31” with 17.5” wide seats.
Air New Zealand 787 and 777 economy seats have 31-33” pitch and 17.2” width.
Someone didn’t do their homework!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In the United States, Credit Card agreements require lending banks (credit card bank) to forgive fraudulent transactions and return the money to the customer when a legitimate complaint is filed and investigated. They purchase insurance for such things and consider it a simple cost of doing business. They also have much stronger anti-theft protocols than you think, including algorithms that look into your purchasing history, amounts and locations. When it comes to debit cards/checks, there are a lot fewer protections from fraud. If someone hacks your debit card and you don't report it within a few days, you may very well lose whatever amount you were taken for. They will shut down further debits and issue you a new card, but the money that's lost may be lost. The same with checks. Unless they track down the thief and find definitive evidence of fraud, you likely won't see that money back. That is why Americans are more prone to using credit cards than debit cards/checks. At the same time, technology implementation is much more difficult in the United States due to so many states having different laws for commerce, federal laws for interstate commerce, a HUGE amount of independent businesses and the overall attitude of the government not getting involved in business until it absolutely has to. Mandating a form of payment is not an option, like it may be in smaller countries. You cannot make a small business owner invest in particular technology. Checks didn't need any technology. They are paper. That said, businesses are moving to more technological systems on their own and you will RARELY see checks used in places like grocery stores anymore.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, but the prices have fallen because the demand for their oil plunged. In a sense, there are now two distinct grades of oil on the international market: Russian and non-Russian.
Because the West stopped buying Russian oil, its value fell. That caused many less developed nations to switch to buying Russian oil, but still at very low prices (they aren’t going to pay more). At the same time, Russia is increasing production to sell more of it, to get more revenue. That, in return, lowers oil prices too. That’s why long-term it’s a failing strategy.
Since those nations switched to Russian oil, the demand for all other oil didn’t go up, so the prices have stabilized.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Alex... two things:
1. Build QUALITY and reliability are actually one and the same. It is the manufacturers’ marketing departments who are trying to confuse you (and clearly succeeding). To be specific, reliability is a result of two things: quality of design and quality of manufacture (build.) Either one results in mechanical or body failure. That is things not working as they should. Interior panels squeaking, abnormal panel gaps, poor welding and bad upholstery seams... they all fall into that category: defects and imperfections.
What you mean by “build quality” is simply called quality of materials (plastics, leather, fabric, paint, etc.)
2. Audi only scores well in “predicted reliability” and “customer satisfaction” ratings.
Unfortunately, the former is utter bullshit, as many cars that score well in that end up on the poor reliability lists years later as the cars actually age. “Predicted reliability” is a blind guess. The latter is only a matter of product meeting expectations. If you don’t care that the car is reliable, but rather that it’s fast and luxurious, then the car will get high ratings. Subarus get high ratings because of their fandom, despite their factual durability issues. BMW has always enjoyed high owner satisfaction, despite their lack of reliability. Mitsubishi actually has high marks in it too... because despite their issues, they’re cheap, so a good value to many. You mentioned Ferraris. They and their Maserati cousins have horrific reliability, but fantastic customer satisfaction rates. Their owners are crazy loyal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@randyhyland847 I know what you mean, as I own a Rav4 hybrid which does the same (in NYC), but look at your actual fuel economy savings. My Rav4 averages 39.9mpg over 1 full year of driving. I drive about 60/40 highway/city and my cabin is always set at 69°F, so it runs heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. The Escape hybrid is rated 2mpg better than the Rav4, and the Escape PHEV only gives you 38mpg once the electric is gone, so… Given it’s just 39 miles of electric at the very best, but likely 30 in the winter, as Lithium batteries aren’t as efficient in the cold and heat pumps do still use energy (they’re not magic), more realistically 27-28… Given that, are you really winning that much? That’s a 7 gallon benefit, which is 266 miles. That’s 6.3 gallons for the Hybrid. Once you get past that 266 miles in your trip, you’re now losing fuel efficiency. So… unless you really only drive 30-100 miles, you get no benefit at all, but if you do… why aren’t you in an EV like a Mach-E or an I.D.4 or an Ioniq5?
What makes PHEVs not good is that as electrics, they’re hauling a really heavy engine, transmission, cooling system, and fuel “just in case”, wasting a ton of energy on that weight, and if you’re mostly driving with the gas engine, then you’re lugging a rather large, heavy battery around, “just in case”, again, making the car less fuel efficient.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jamesvelvet3612 Pre-orders are, in fact, contracts. At least that’s how the law sees them. They are a guarantee in return for consideration. If they were free, then no, they wouldn’t be, but that deposit changes things. I don’t know the exact details of Alex’s contract, but it seems that the selling price was expressed in it. It seems the contract also expressed the exact configuration of the vehicle, and likely even its VIN.
Despite not being the contract for the purchase itself, it stipulates a purchase price in that contract, and the quote you’ve provided doesn’t negate that. That places an obligation on the manufacturer and dealer.
Had Ford and the dealership failed to waive the additional fee they chose to add on, I believe Alex would have a decent case on his hands, for the courts, even if his actual damages are low (the deposit). The courts have the power to oblige Ford/dealership to proceed with the sale at the agreed price or award compensatory damages to Alex if he was forced to buy one elsewhere at a higher price.
It seems you need a semester or two of contract/business law before arguing about it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TruthHasSpoken Right... my issue is that no one should praise a car on its ability to satisfy the lowest common denominator and nothing more. The truth is, lots of people simply don't have empty highways with 1/4 mile on-ramps, perfect traction and empty roads to drive on. Subarus aren't made for that anyway. Most Subarus are sold in New England and Colorado where they drive at high altitudes (where naturally aspirated engines are even weaker), the roads are old, narrow, twisty and full of traffic moving at high rate of speed, even in poor traction conditions. This is what Subaru has always excelled at. These conditions. It isn't popular in Arizona or Florida or California. It's isn't made for those places. To be honest, there are far better cars for those areas. This car needs more power to successfully navigate the conditions I just mentioned. So far, according to your experience, it's fine for the lowest common denominator, but let's face it, so is everything else.
4
-
4
-
Who’s doing the editing lately? There have been many glitches. That ACC bit in the beginning is completely out of place. Also, you got the suspension set-up reversed towards the end. Torsen in FWD and independent in AWD.
Anyway… in a pick-up, I’d have to have AWD, especially with an empty bed in the winter (NYC), and I’d end up putting in an aftermarket cap on it, but without the hybrid drivetrain it just isn’t as attractive to me, as hybrid CUVs are, and out of those, the Ford is perhaps the last on my list right now. I don’t tow or haul large weights, so the practicality of it is what’s attractive, but I’m not willing to sacrifice the fuel economy or the AWD ability over a longer “trunk”.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Nick Moscho I can try.
First off, it didn’t stall in any accident. Hopefully you know what a stall is. MCAS was designed to trim the nose down if the plane was being accelerated. Planes with engines under wings pitch the nose up when throttle is added. It’s physics. On the MAX, because of the position of these new engines, it pitches the nose up more than on the previous 737, the NG. The same system would pitch the nose down automatically if it sensed a stall coming (the nose pitching up too high for the current speed). The pitch of the nose is called “Angle of Attack”.
So a choice had to be made: either teach pilots how to operate the plane differently or add a system that will make flying of it feel just like the NG. Boeing chose the second option.
The plane’s sensors are always looking at air speed and AoA to warn the pilot if a stall is coming, and that is through loud audio signals and blinking AoA indicator gauge and on HUD displays, but also eventually through the yoke (stick shaker). The MAX would also pitch down up to 20° to avoid a stall. That was based on what the AoA sensor was showing. There are two AoA sensors on the 737 (and most planes). Because of (what I think ) a stupid measuring of risk, the FAA required that the MCAS be connected to just one AoA sensor instead of both.
In the Lion Air crash, one sensor was malfunctioning for days, was eventually replaced with a bad one, and not checked. So during take-off, it showed an AoA higher than allowed for the still slow speed. The other AoA showed everything as normal. Pilots fought the plane back up, but it kept pitching back down, thinking a stall was happening. That went on until they hit the water. The pilots did not understand why the plane kept trimming the nose down and did not follow procedure to turn the automatic trim off.
The Ethiopian crash was also on take-off and again, one of the AoA sensors malfunctioned. The investigation has not finished, so we don’t yet know why for sure, but I heard that maybe a lightning strike. Not verified though. So again, by bad luck, it was the sensor that controls MCAS and again, it showed the nose was too high and tried to pitch down. In this case, they were a little higher and a little faster than Lion air was when it happened. The pilot fought it a bit (it inly turns on for up to 20 seconds at a time, but repeats) and eventually turned off the automatic trim. 737 pilots know that if automatic trim is not responding properly, it needs to be turned off, and worked by hand. That is called a runaway trim. The Ethiopian crew did that, but by then were pointed down and going very, very fast. Because they were going so fast, they could not pull up by yoke alone, but also could not spin the trim wheel by hand to adjust the trim. The forces on the elevator are too high at those speeds. There is a technique to use to do that where they need to reduce throttle to slow down and then pull the yoke up a little and trim a little, but then release the yoke to let off the tension, then repeat. The pilots didn’t do that. Perhaps they didn’t know it. Anyway, they could not do it by hand, so they panicked and turned the automatic trim back on, so the MCAS started to pitch it down again (still a bad AoA sensor). They went into the water.
The Lion air crash investigation by Indonesia determined that multiple factors played into the crash. Like the Europeans, but not Americans, they don’t assign levels of blame (what was most or least responsible). They just list them. They were: Poor maintenance, poor maintenance records, improper pilot procedures (no runaway trim procedures performed), the repairs made of the AoA sensor by a Florida company were improper, and MCAS.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JacobDlougach Did you actually read it? It doesn’t at all say what you think it says.
“3) On 28 February 2022 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/335 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP. That Decision imposed further restrictive measures prohibiting Russian air carriers, any Russian-registered aircraft, and any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body from landing in, taking off from, or overflying, the territory of the Union. It also prohibits any transactions with the Central Bank of Russia.”
“Regulation (EU) 833/2014 is amended as follows:
(1)
in Article 1, point (r) is added:
‘(r)
“Russian air carrier” means an air transport undertaking holding a valid operating licence or equivalent issued by the competent authorities of the Russian Federation.’;
(2)
the following Articles are added:
‘Article 3d
1. It shall be prohibited for any aircraft operated by Russian air carriers, including as a marketing carrier in code-sharing or blocked-space arrangements, or for any Russian registered aircraft, or for any non-Russian-registered aircraft which is owned or chartered, or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or legal person, entity or body, to land in, take off from or overfly the territory of the Union.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of an emergency landing or an emergency overflight.
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the competent authorities may authorise an aircraft to land in, take off from, or overfly, the territory of the Union if the competent authorities have determined that such landing, take-off or overflight is required for humanitarian purposes or for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this Regulation.
4. The Member State or Member States concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under paragraph 3 within two weeks of the authorisation.”
NOWHERE does this target individuals operating said aircraft. It targets Russian “air carriers” - airlines and Russian-registered aircraft. If the aircraft is owned, chartered or controlled (in the legal context) then it restricts that aircraft. Being a pilot is NONE of those things.
4
-
4
-
@FallenPhoenix86 The suits are NOT pressurized. That’s not a thing. They breathe oxygen sufficient for proper function, that’s all. The actual physical strains on bodies from high altitude flight on U-2s and R-71s are well-recorded. The pilots are trained to function with lower oxygen levels in cases of survival system failures, just as in this case, and yes, people can survive at FL30, if trained, and with low pressure oxygen flow, as long as the cockpit is heated, at least temporarily. Above FL50 a person cannot survive regardless the oxygen flow, which is why the U-2 cockpit is pressurized to 29,000 feet.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@YouWillNeverKnow That’s not the whole idea. “Net” also means “lifetime”. Your stupid argument has been debunked hundreds of times already. No matter how much you try to troll, the science is there. EVs are less polluting, NET, than ICE cars, considering a 10 year car lifespan (average). As the lifespan of EVs is actually longer, their output will be even lower in comparison. How is it net positive? Over 85% of the ICE car and an EV are the exact same. The difference is the production drawback of each PLUS the energy consumption of each (we won’t even count ICE maintenance). As a whole, EVs use so much less energy (their motors are FAR more energy efficient) that they overtake ICE vehicles at about year 8. That’s given current tech. In the next few years EVs will become far cheaper and more efficient, making them even more efficient. That’s how that works. You’re welcome to look it up online though, don’t just take my word for it.
Trolls like you use that stupid argument that only works when you compare the production of EVs vs. ICE ONLY, not including lifetime energy savings.
Oil production won’t disappear. How did I “act” like it would, troll?! It will be greatly reduced, but plastics are still petroleum-based.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Jamie Malawkin The same exact thing would have happened. Why? It's called business. You see, there's such a thing called a business contract which is enforceable by law. In the airline business, it is called the contract of carriage. Airlines are required to either perform the flight or cancel the flight. If they cancellation is due to their fault (not weather or airport or something out of their control) then they are required to compensate the ticket holder. If it isn't their fault, they are required to simply refund the ticket holder. There are DOT regulations in place to make sure this happens.
Managers are also employees. There are literally thousands of managers working at American Airlines. It is the world's largest airline. Customer service managers do not schedule aircraft. That's operations' job. The operations of an airline are mind-numbing. AA flies thousands of aircraft each day on thousands of routes. Airplanes don't just sit around because that's a loss to the company and they'd just go out of business if they did that. The only airplanes sitting around are those that can't be flown due to maintenance. Furthermore, airplanes come in many different sizes. Getting a Boeing 737 for 300 people is useless since they only fit a little over 200. Even if you manage to get a plane that isn't scheduled for another flight, you still need someone to operate it. If it's exactly the same as the original plane, you can use the same crew. If not, you have to find a new crew who is certified in that aircraft type. You have to call their homes and then wait for them to get to the airport. That all takes hours! While operations coordinates all that with crew management, they're also checking they aren't breaking any union contracts and making sure all the support functions for the aircraft are set. They have to coordinate things with the caterers to offload the original plane and move things into the new one. They're busy too. They have to re-fuel, get the flight re-programmed by the FAA and the control towers (multiple) and then program a new flight path into the incoming aircraft.
Meanwhile, the customer service staff have no idea of how long it'll take to get that done because everything depends on so many variables. There is no manager at the airport that can give you an accurate timeline since all this gets worked through the company's main Operations desks in Dallas and Chicago and then with LAX as well.
Please, don't comment when you clearly don't know.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
N C Engineering doesn’t work that way because physics don’t. A larger mass propelled at the same speed increases the severity of impact. Engineering actually tries to counteract this by spreading the impact absorption, but regardless of what happens to your vehicle, the mass of it doesn’t make it safer for you because of physics.
SIZE, not weight, helps with safety. Weight makes it worse. A strong, lightweight, large vehicle with good impact absorption is what you want and in the 21st century we have strong, light weight alloys and composites that fare MUCH better than old steel when it comes to occupant safety.
People (including you) confuse vehicle rigidity or amount of physical distortion in an impact with occupant safety, which is 100% incorrect. The safe vehicle is the one that disintegrates all around you, but leaves you unscathed, not the opposite.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rustleweighed-thrasher Here are some statistics for you to chew on…
According to the NIH, a firearm is stolen every 90 seconds, with around 380,000 stolen every year. Most are stolen out of cars.
Last year the TSA confiscated 5,972 guns at airport security. One gun for every 97,917 passengers. The highest number in history.
The Border Patrol confiscated 546 firearms in 2020.
The NYPD had recovered over 6,000 firearms in 2021.
Philadelphia recovered 5,920 guns that were suspected used to commit crimes in 2021.
San Diego seized 1,089 in 2021.
Baltimore and DC seized 752 “ghost” guns alone in 2021.
On average, around 9,000 guns are seized and destroyed by the federal government each year.
In 2021, a single 3 month operation (Pegasus) in Dallas (Pleasant Grove neighborhood) resulted in 47 arrests and over 100 firearms seized.
The ATF reported that in 2020, 87,000 time-to-crime (legal to crime under 1 year) were recovered. 68,000 of them were under 7 months time-to-crime.
Last year California seized 1,400 guns from people who were banned from ownership alone.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
bob m No. There is a time in each car’s “life” when it’s impossible or no longer worth putting in the money to save it. Basically, if you’re putting in more than it’s worth, you’re doing it wrong.
Could you buy a new engine for a car that has 150k on its odometer and the car is worth $3,000? Sure! It’s a free country! Is that a sane and prudent? No.
So to make sense of comments like that you have to revert to the concept of averages and not individual cases/stories. There are clearly no cars that need no maintenance/repairs done by the time they reach 200,000 miles. That just doesn’t exist. However, some cars, on average, can last that long without critical failures like major corrosion, powertrain or drivetrain failures, if properly maintained (I mean scheduled maintenance, not a methodical replacement of every part in the car.)
You need to look at the averages because some people put on 50k miles all flat highway driving in a dry, warm environment (very light use) and some people drive in Boston/New York City/Philadelphia, where salt, pot holes and constant short mileage drives destroy the car in half that mileage.
My 05 Camry with 120k miles looks like a 250k mile car, mechanically because I drive in NYC with wet, salty roads, bad pavement and constant stop/go traffic, which destroys engines, transmissions, tires, alignments, steering racks, struts, control arms even interiors and doors. They’re all used at a higher rate per mile than someone who commutes 40-50 miles to work each day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tamoroso Don’t be such a drama queen. European nations are CONSTANTLY in the same situations. There’s political polarization going on all around the world. And no, most Americans don’t have their heads in the sand. They’re just realistic about the world. Every world region, every nation… every person even, has their own agenda and what they want from the US and the thing is… they often clash with what others want. As they say, you can’t please everyone. Despite Trump’s obvious flaws, he also had a couple of good ideas, although he went about them the wrong way. One of those was to compel NATO nations to spend at least the minimum required by the treaty on defense. Do you know which countries spend way below the required 2% of the GDP? Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Spain, etc. Do you know who spends the most after the US? Greece. One of the poorest countries in Europe spends 3.82% of its GDP on defending Europe while the Netherlands spends just 1.45%. Does Europe care what anyone else thinks of them? Absolutely not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
PJs are FAR more than combat medics. On the medical side they’re licensed paramedics, with rotations on ambulances and in local hospitals in New Mexico, plus a combat rescue medicine course that takes them into advanced trauma and basic surgery. They’re combat diver, free-fall, mountain, desert and arctic rescue qualified. They’re water rescue swimmer qualified. They’re special tactics combat certified as well. PJs assigned to the 24th ST Squadron are Tier 1 operators attached to DEVGRU and CAG missions. They get farmed out to SF, Raider and SEAL teams all the time.
Other PJ units focus on CSAR, which is advanced CASEVAC. They have lighter equipment, smaller helos, larger teams. They will respond to emergencies in CONUS, whether it’s a hiker hurt on a mountain, a sinking boat in the ocean or a lost person in the woods. These teams are known as Guardian Angel squadrons and operate HH-60G Pave Hawks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You’re incorrect on point 3. From the US Dept of State on the US Security Cooperation with Poland, “Together, the United States and Poland maintain a forward posture to defend the Alliance and counter Russia, which continues to undermine the rules-based international order. The United States leads the enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) Battle Group in Poland and deploys a rotational Armored Brigade Combat Team under Operation Atlantic Resolve, funded through the European Deterrence Initiative. Currently, approximately 10,000 U.S. personnel are on rotation in Poland. Poland is a regular contributor to NATO missions, including the eFP in Latvia, the tailored Forward Presence (tFP) in Romania, and NATO air policing missions in the Baltic, Iceland, and most recently, Slovakia. In 2019, the United States and Poland signed two joint declarations that listed planned locations for enhanced U.S. military presence in Poland and in 2020 our two countries concluded an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). The EDCA supplements the NATO Status of Force Agreement, further streamlines the functioning of U.S. forces in Poland, and establishes a mechanism for cooperation on infrastructure and logistical support for enhanced rotational presence. Additionally, the United States is building an Aegis Ashore facility in Poland as a contribution to NATO Ballistic Missile Defense.
President Biden made a historic announcement at the June NATO Summit in Madrid that the U.S. Army V Corps Headquarters Forward Command Post, an Army garrison headquarters, and a field support battalion will be permanently stationed in Poland. These forces represent the first permanently stationed U.S. forces on NATO’s eastern flank and will improve our command-and-control capabilities, interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces, and management of prepositioned equipment.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Steve Thea No, definitely smaller. Quite a bit smaller, actually. The Eclipse Cross is a sub-compact CUV. Its competition is the Toyota CH-R, Subaru Crosstrek, Jeep Compass, Nissan Rogue Sport, Honda HR-V, Mazda CX3, Ford EcoSport, Chevy Trax, VW Tiguan Limited, Fiat 500x, Hyundai Kona.
The direct competitor to the Rav4 and CX5 is the Outlander. Even though it has a tiny 3rd row (like the Nissan Rogue and VW Tiguan), it is still the same size inside and out and has comparable engine sizes/performance. Others in that class are: Subaru Forester, Jeep Cherokee, Honda CR-V, Ford Escape, Chevy Equinox, GMC Terrain, Hyundai Tucson, Kia Sportage, etc.
While people do cross-shop those two classes, it is usually because they simply don't need a compact and the sub-compacts are cheaper. It's like going to see the Grand Cherokee or a Ford Edge, but settling on a Forester. It may be just fine for you, but that doesn't mean the cars are of equal size.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
webcomment Now you’re putting words into my mouth. I never said that Nissan is wildly more reliable, did I? What did I actually say?
I said, “Not that Toyota’s CVT has been reliable.” It factually hasn’t been. Will it be considered reliable in 5-10 years if it serves without regular failures? Sure. However, at this point, its record isn’t very good. Call it “teething problems”, call it a “fluke”, call it whatever, but right now, the Aisin CVT isn’t reliable, statistically speaking.
It’s the same with the Jeep ZF-9 unit in 2015-2017. It wasn’t reliable. They made a ton of re-programs until it became reliable on 2018+ models, but for 15-17 models it wasn’t. Did Jeep know? Yes. Did they make recalls? Yes. So? They still broke for 3 years until they finally got it right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
While Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and Singapore are indeed allies of the US, they are in no way “Western Nations.” Don’t confuse the two.
Also, leadership in the White House is and can be a lot of things, but stagnant it is not. Elections are held every 4 years and a President can only serve 2 consecutive terms.
You’re welcome to “cut the cord”, whoever you are, just as long you understand the downsides of it (which you clearly do not.) Thankfully, YT fonts like you aren’t actual policy makers anywhere.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pwnsolo443 To be fair, our allies in AFG were Georgians, Australians, Japanese, New Zealanders, Jordanians, Armenians, Azeris, Finns, Mongols, Croatians, Montenegrans, Arab Emiratis, Albanians, Bosnians, Icelanders, Swiss, Bahranians, Salvadoreans, South Koreans, Tongans, Singaporeans, and NATO allies too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Aeromedical evacuation squadrons in the US Air Force are medical units. They do not have dedicated aircraft. They all utilize Air Mobility Command’s regular aircraft that are available at the moment, and so each unit is trained to utilize C-130s, C-17s, C-5s, KC-135s, KC-10s and now KC-46s. They used to have regional medical evacuation aircraft called the C-9A Nightingale and those were mostly devoted to AE, but they were retired in 2005. Each AE squadron is a part of an Air Mobility or Airlift wing which has its own set of aircraft, so the AE squadron mostly trains with them, but members of the AE squadron deploy independently of those aircraft and use whatever is assigned to them every mission in the theater.
For example, the 109th Airlift Wing of the New York Air National Guard flies C-130 Hercules. The 109th Airlift Squadron does the flying. The 139th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron is the AE unit. They mostly train together, on their C-130s (mostly LC-130H), but when needed, selected members of the 109th AES will deploy as a team on a mission, on whatever aircraft the Air Force assigns and brings them or deploy to meet other members from other AE squadrons to make up an expeditionary AE squadron overseas, or to backfill/supplement other AE squadrons.
A typical assignment could be to the 10th Expeditionary Aeromedical Evacuation Flight at Ramstein, AB, Germany, the 18th AES at Kadena AB, Japan, 379th Expeditionary Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron at Al Udeid AB or any other expeditionary or overseas unit. As such, the members need to be trained on using not just their typical C-130 aircraft, but any available aircraft that is designed for aeromedical evacuation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jesse James They (belt and chain) both actually do stretch. They need to to move between the cones. They don’t droop, like a bicycle chain. However, they don’t stretch like clothes do. They’re made of compound fibers.
The weakness of CVTs is their tendency to overheat due to increased friction. For that reason, they need better lubricants, regular oil transmission oil changes and relatively light applications. A chain is a bit more robust, generally, than a belt, but there are varied sizes of both, and size is what matters in CVTs. For example, Subaru’s CVTs are chain-driven, but their regular models have a fairly light duty CVTs, while their turbo models have a heavier chain CVT that can handle higher torque without slippage.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Chairman_Wang As a former Avis/Budget ops manager, everything breaks. Our cars are mostly new, with up to 30k miles on it. Rarely do mechanics break on them. However, what we see a lot of is abused interiors breaking, trims falling off, infotainment issues, etc.
The worst culprits are by far GM cars and Hyundai/Kia. Then Dodge/Jeep. Then VW. Ford is perhaps the best of the worst. Nissan and Mazda are average, just above Ford. Toyota, Subaru and Honda are the most reliable. Again, these aren’t engine, transmission, suspension or steering issues. These are trim, interior, electronics and infotainment issues mostly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well… you didn’t account for anything else that’s likely to break on a high mileage car, including engine, cooling, exhaust, suspension, steering and HVAC components. A new car would have none of those costs. A head gasket repair alone will set you back another $2k easily.
130k miles doesn’t sound like much to most Toyota owners, but this is a big city car. It’s a Chicago car. That means many times more wear and tear, per mile, than the average. This car is over 15 years old, so major corrosion issues. Things like engine mounts, steering rack, door mounts, seat mounts, interior panels, gear shifter, switches, etc will all have much more wear because this car makes a lot more trips to get to its 130k mileage. An average trip for this car is likely around 10 miles. So those components see a lot more use. An average big city car starts seeing lots of problems around 100-125k miles, even a Toyota.
That means the ACTUAL cost per mile on that Camry is likely to be 4-5 times higher than 5.8 cents/mile.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Флаф Блаф The Russian people are no more Nazis than the Ukrainians, that is to say both countries have significant Nationalist movements, with extremist views, but in general, no one is saying all Russians are Nazis. No. Putin is a fascist. The leadership of Russia are fascist. The people aren’t. To be fair, most Germans weren’t Nazis either. Much like the Third Reich, the Russian Federation also attacks gays, Jews, Muslims, and other groups in Russia. Russia is intent on re-unifying Slavic/Russo countries of Belarus and Ukraine and keeping Serbia close. Those are all actions exactly in line with the fascist Germany, Italy and Spain of the late 1930’s, if you know history.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Jonathan-cz4ky The discussion is of the military invasion, not your view of morality! Get with the program! Despite the nation being closer, there are major considerations to consider, like the fact that Ukraine has been building up a solid military for over a decade, one that has been fighting in Donbass for years (experienced). You have to consider that Russia isn’t willing to carpet bomb and that unlike in the Middle East, it’s literally impossible to tell Ukrainians from Russians by sight alone. You can’t even distinguish them by language because most Ukrainians speak fluent Russian. They also have the same weapons systems, mostly, the same vehicles, rifles, etc. Finally, you’re so far inly witnessing the softening of Ukrainian defenses, not really an invasion. You must not know ANY history or how long military conflicts actually last. A week is NOTHING!
Also, you don’t even know the difference between an invasion and an occupation (very different things). Talk about someone who doesn’t know anything and lacks intelligence!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joskjj3625 First off, new vehicles see high sakes numbers, not low. Novelty, exclusivity and modern features all contribute to the high sales. As models get long in the tooth, sales dwindle.
Second, the Ridgeline never intended to sell nearly as many. They don’t even produce that many. Honda doesn’t discount the Ridgeline, while Ford discounts the Ranger typically around 20%, but sometimes even higher, depending on the trim. Finally, people who buy midsize pickups are mostly buying the off-roaders to compensate for their lack of manhood, not for business, ranch or farm use. There is inly a single industry in the US that I know of that requires a mid-size pickup: exterminators. That’s because the chemicals they carry cannot be in the same space as them and pickup beds are separated. The rest are all on-road tiny penis drivers, who won’t see the Ridgeline as “masculine” enough because it’s a unibody AWD truck and their buddies will judge them.
Despite all that, my point was that people who actually use trucks for towing and work buy full-size, not mid-size trucks. Do you have something to counter that point or will you just troll?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So the first thing that comes to mind is that they need to package the battery a little bit better. It's not horrible, but... if they design the battery into a lower position in future models, it will provide a trunk space that's the same as the non-hybrid model (some cars have done that) and it will aid in the car's handling. Let's face it, the Rav4 isn't the best handling CUV on the road. It likes to lean into corners like a Wrangler. The hybrid's extra 400lbs/180kg sitting up high only makes that lean worse. The other thing Toyota needs to do is switch to a Lithium-Ion battery, which will make it smaller and more powerful, giving more power to the rear wheels (which is what's affecting the AWD system's abilities) and it needs to add a plug-in system for it. Even with 30mi/50km of pure electric power, it will serve well for most buyers and increase the total fuel efficiency. Otherwise, this system set-up just needs a little software tuning to make it faster in reaction and it'll work well. It works great in Volvos too. That's a very similar system, but its power output is much higher.
The last thing that the RAV4 needs is slightly more ground clearance. About 1" or 2.5cm more would do. It really lags behind the competition in that regard. That little extra gets you over those snow banks that plows leave in cities. Lastly, the 2019 Subaru Forester has an optional aluminum or steel engine bottom cover that gets bolted on instead of the plastic one. That's actually a VERY welcomed item considering those plastic covers end up braking on most cars after not too long. It also covers the exhaust and engine bottom from all that salt on the roads and ice chunks. Make it optional, but make it. Otherwise, the car is fine, especially with the 2019 updates to the interior materials quality and the addition of Apple CarPlay. I sure am glad they're staying away from small displacement turbos for the time being, especially given the Honda's issues of their engine being "too efficient" to not break.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ItsAlive111 WhatCar? Magazine ranks it fifth of 32 brands in their survey. JD Power ranked it at 4.7 stars out if 5.
Look, the reality is that Alfas have a HISTORY (a past) of being unreliable, but things change. The current two models Giulia and Stelvio mostly sell in their QF trim and driven really hard. Their reliability is perfectly good compared to AMG, M and other high performance cars in their class. With base models, their reliability is on par with regular luxury cars. Most of the BS about cars’ reliability comes from idiotic car review articles, like the long-term test by Car & Driver, which had a Stelvio QF for 40k miles, drove the hell out of it like a rental car, including on track, and only had to have a water pump replaced, a sensor software update and a coolant hose clamp tightened. Their hate for it had to do simply with there only being one Alfa technician at their local dealer. Then there are predicted reliability ratings, which are pure guesses to sell subscriptions and are based on absolutely nothing actual, sort of like predicting if a human will commit murder while he’s just 3 months old.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hybrids, by their technological nature, improve city driving above all else. If most of your driving is in the city, a hybrid is going to translate into lots of fuel economy. Right now, this is just one of two (the other is the Toyota Rav4) compact CUV hybrids on the market, even though it's the biggest selling passenger vehicle class in North America. The Rav4 is, arguably, a much better hybrid because it provides better driving characteristics and better fuel economy than the Nissan, but... the Nissan feels more refined, is probably more comfortable for most people and larger than the Rav4. If your driving isn't mostly city, don't bother with this one. The CR-V would serve you much better in most circumstances, offers better performance, better handling, better fuel economy and more utility than the Rogue or Rav4. If your driving is mostly highway, the GMC Terrain Diesel should also be a consideration, but the $3,000 premium over the gas engines means that if you're leasing, you won't earn the money back in fuel economy (Diesel is also almost 30% more expensive than 87 octane gasoline). The 2019 Rav4 is something to consider and the CRV (if you live in warmer climates due to the 1.5 engine issue). If you're performance-minded, you should look at the Escape 2.0 EcoBoost (Titanium only now) and the Mazda CX-5. The Hyundai Tucson Sport seems to be a very acceptable compact CUV for budget-minded people and the Cherokee Trailhawk is for those looking for off-road capability. However, the ultimate compromise (a car that's good at all, but not great at any) is probably the 2019 Subaru Forester, which does above average in all categories, despite not being the champion in any one category.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I’m sorry… why are we listening to an Australian general? Australians are good guys and I worked with them in Afghanistan. As individuals, they are capable warriors. However, as a military force, Australia is woefully undertrained, underfunded, inexperienced in any type of combat, and incapable. At best, they can defend their shores (which no one seems to care to invade). They simply lack the power to project, militarily, outside of the Oceania region and play small support roles for NATO operations. The general clearly lacks an understanding of how NATO and specifically the US militaries plan strategically and what their actual capabilities are. Lets just say this, if Russia had invaded Australia instead of Ukraine, there would already be a Russian flag over Canberra.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@janoycresnova9156 But that makes no sense because… there ARE bigger cars. By your logic, Americans would buy Avalons, not Camrys and Highlanders, not Rav4s, but they aren’t, are they? The Avalons, Tauruses, Impalas, etc didn’t sell enough to exist. Their smaller cousins do. The Rav4 is the top-selling passenger vehicle in America, in the top-selling car class, even though it’s a compact CUV. So Americans don’t want bigger, necessarily. They just want more value for the dollar. Given that luxuries are reserved for luxury brands (Lexus, Audi, Acura, Infinity, Lincoln, Cadillac, etc.), manufacturers are forced to provide a value proposition through size instead.
In Europe, Asia and Latin America, where infrastructure was built for much smaller cars and fuel is more expensive, size is restricted, so they (the manufacturers) are differentiating by performance or providing rougher cars that can handle developing nations’ infrastructure. Doing it on size is cheaper though. Much cheaper.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So judging by the comments, there are some misconceptions out there.
First off, this is a very abnormally large and well-stocked supermarket, for Russia. Most are MUCH smaller, older, worse stocked and darker. Second, this is likely in Moscow, where the average income is over twice of the rest of the country. Third, the actual regulations of food aren’t that great and are often not followed. There are entire TV shows devoted to catching this. Finally, the average monthly salary in Russia in 2018 was 38,333 rubles ($676USD). The average salary of a skilled worker in Moscow was around $1,000. Management: over $1,500. With that consideration, this store/food is out of the price range for an average Russian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BobK-NH the great thing is that you never really need that type of trim change and that even a small trim change affects the aircraft to a large degree. Remember, once the power to the trim is off, you still use the yoke to pull up. The trim assists, but the main change will come from the yoke, so as the aircraft pitch changes slowly, the trim wheel will keep up. Is it was said, it's a HEAVY wheel and it's not that easy to do, but you can go from full down to neutral in seconds. That said, no, if there are heavy forces being applied to the stabilizer (such as speed), then it will not be anywhere as fast as the electric motor, but it will be enough not to crash, unless you're right off the surface.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anatoliherman7134 Tolya, don't talk about the automotive industry because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. First off, Toyota is just as technologically advanced as any other automaker. Their TRD division is the leader in auto racing of all classes, from Rally cars to F1 to off-road racing and NASCAR, Toyota is at the forefront. Toyota developed the most advanced engines right now - D4S, which use port and direct injection. Toyota was the first company to bring LED headlamps standard on a non-luxury car (Corolla). Toyota is the largest automotive company in the world and it is VERY innovative. Don't forget that Toyota practically created the whole Hybrid and Plug-In Hybrid technology and continues to lead in that role.
DCTs are only used in high performance automobiles and very few of them at that. Hyundai is already getting rid of its DCT in its CUVs. It simply doesn't work in those applications. What works on a Porsche 911, doesn't work on a Hyundai Tucson (something I doubt you comprehend).
The ONLY convertible that any Japanese manufacturer still makes is the Mazda MX-5. There are no others. Volkswagen no longer makes convertibles either. None of the French manufacturers make a convertible. Fiat doesn't make one either. The only convertibles made by European companies are Opel, Porsche/Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Alfa-Romeo used to make one, but they ended it too.
Toyota changes its vehicle generations every 5 years, like most manufacturers. They have some exceptions to that in the heavy truck category because those are old platforms that can't be changed easily. Every company that makes heavy trucks is the same that way. When it comes to regular maintenance, Toyota's recommended maintenance is 5,000 miles here in the United States, just like most other manufacturers. The only manufacturers that recommend a longer interval right now are suffering from major reliability issues.
In fact, if you had done ANY AT ALL research on vehicle reliability across the world, you'd see that BMW, Audi and Mercedes are always at the top of the most unreliable cars because of their abundantly unworked technology, which is cool to look at on paper, but performs very poorly on actual roads. Do some research instead of running your mouth.
By the way, the rich Japanese buy German luxury cars for the same reason the rich Russians buy them... not for reliability, but for status. These people don't care if the cars break. They only own them for 1-2 years anyway. They can afford any repair. They want status and in Japan, large cars with large, fast engines are a status symbol because of their fuel costs and taxation on larger cars. If you had known anything about the industry, you'd have known that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1991 was a long time ago, and people didn’t really know what will happen next. I think establishing a single national language was a big mistake for Ukraine. Had they gone to a bilingual system and embraced their Russian-speaking brethren, they would still have a peaceful and prospering society. Sadly, Western Ukraine is too nationalistic for this and a split nation was almost inevitable. I’m not supporting Russia in this at all, but I understand where some of the separatists in the East are coming from.
Ukraine was artificially created out of very different people after centuries of divisions, fighting and occupation. Its modern borders don’t really reflect a single people. Creating a single nation out of two people is a real challenge, but it has been done, successfully (Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, etc.)
Russia saw an opportunity in this national division and seized on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nothere572 Prove it! Owners are complaining about it, constantly! It has been an absolute disaster in the Atlas and Tiguan!
Its known issues are intake valve carbon deposits (because the NA version never got dual injection), water pump failures, PCV valves, rear main seals, cylinders misfiring, overboost on the turbocharger, EVAP faults, fuel trim, O2 sensors, and many, many others.
The 1.8T EA888 were the reliable ones, not the 2.0T.
2
-
@godblesshamas Here is a bit on why rockets are long and slim:
“Multiple factors come into play here:
Aerodynamics. As it has been already mentioned, drag is a function of cross section, so you want to stack the rocket as you do with a train: each part on top of the other.
Staging. When you have to jettison a stage, it is more practical to leave it behind than to push it to the sides. The same goes for the option to use a launch abort system.
Optimising the weight of the fuel and oxidizer tanks. Generally a sphere is the most efficient design, if the weight of the protective fairings that cover stacked hemispherical segments is not taken into account. Still, there have been designs where many spherical tanks have been stacked on top of each other, the Soviet N1 moon rocket being the most extreme example.
Cost and ease of manufacture of parts. The tanks are the most essential part to optimise, especially nowadays that composites have started being used and cylindrical sections are the easiest to do. So it costs less to build longer tanks - solid booster sections too.
Ease of transportation. Rocket sections wider than 3.8m cannot be transported by rail in most railroad systems and this has been a limiting factor for many medium rockets, especially Russian and Chinese ones. The US has used barges to transport segments to Cape Canaveral and has been less restricted. China, with its new spaceport on Hainan island, is orienting itself to wider rockets now.
Cost of launch pad installations. On the contrary side, integrating a tall rocket on its side and then erecting it on the launch pad is extremely difficult and quite often a vertical hangar is required to integrate and service the payload anyway, so you will not see any future rocket higher than 100m or so, the height of Saturn V and of the SLS.
Accounting for the space required by the engines and their nozzles at the base, especially given that you have to control the rocket by thrust vectoring, which involves gimballing the entire engine or engine block. The reason 'heavy" configurations of rockets exist (Delta IV Heavy, Falcon 9 Heavy), where you have essentially three identical first stages strapped side by side, is that it is more practical to increase the number of engines with a proven configuration, rather than by designing a new cluster, which might give you a thinner rocket overall, by packing the engines more densely.
Distribution of load. It is more straightforward to design a stage to withstand the compressive load from the stages above it and the engines beneath it, than to design one that gets pulled by its sides by boosters. The configuration of the Space Shuttle, for instance, was notoriously inefficient in that respect, as the fuel tank had no engines and the Shuttle itself provided a very small part of total thrust at launch and both were placed off-centre.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The US Marines are, in essence, Naval Infantry, though they have more than just infantry as far as capability. Their primary job is amphibious warfare - invasion via beaches. They are supposed to invade, destroy:overcome the enemy and hold for up to 1 month. For that, they deploy aboard specialized Navy ships, have amphibious armored vehicles, use Navy air cushioned transports (LCAC), various helicopters (transport and attack) and landing craft. The Marines can also fight in any environment, not just beaches. They have a training center in the California desert, one in the mountains of Vermont and they train in tropics as well. The Marines also have their own M1A1 main battle tanks, Howitzer cannons, C-130 transport planes, F-35 and F-18 fighter jets and their own special operations force for reconnaissance. They are purposefully self-sustained. The Marines are their own branch, but report to the Department of the Navy. Their officer training is with the Navy.
The Army is bigger, more general, and is designed to hold objectives far longer. They do not have their own transport aside from a few specialized ferries and trucks, of course. They also have no combat airplanes or large combat drones. The Air Force does air transport/fighting for the Army. The Army is under its own department and has its own academy (West Point). The Army is the branch with paratroopers in it, though others have some select people trained in parachutes.
The two services are designed for different use and so not comparable. One is better at some things, while the other is better at others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So a few corrections. First off, check your facts on the CVT-based system’s default torque split. It is 60% front, 40% rear. ONLY the AWD system on automatic (not CVT) transmissions had a default 80/20 split. That system is no longer sold as Subaru no longer offers automatic gearboxes, but it was called Variable Torque Distribution or VTD. You’re missing the fact that those two systems are similar, but not the same.
Also, the AWD on auto transmission systems with VDC was REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE. It ONLY engaged the coupling once slip was detected, to lock the torque at 50/50 distribution. The CVT-based system became actually proactive by sensing steering and throttle input, as well as engaging the multi-plate clutch from a stop, BEFORE slip occurs. It does continue to be reactive, engaging it if slip is occurring as well.
It would behoove you to list your sources for your information as well. Regurgitating wrong info isn’t good journalism. Let us check it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EricFortuneJr. really??? Nissan sold just 67,000 cars in the U.S. in 2017.
They've sold 34,207 cars through end of October 2018. Averaging 2,850 cars per month. Last YTD the numbers were 56,418. Averaging 4,701 cars per month. That's a GIANT drop. Their sales from July to November have been horrific. The worst in 4 years. http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/nissan/nissan-maxima/
Let's compare that to other Japanese manufacturers though, shall we? Toyota Avalon is in the same class.
2018 Jan-Nov 28,817 cars, averaging 2,401 cars per month.
2017 Jan-Nov 27,703 cars, averaging 2,308 cars per month.
Would you look at that! Same old model, in the last year of its run, and the sales are increasing slightly! Also, Toyota sells ZERO Avalons to rental fleets and they are chock full of Maximas.
You wanna compare it to the Chevy Impala? Lets!
2018 had just three months of sales (the Impala is discontinued already). Jan-Apr 14,067 (averaging 4,689 cars per month).
2017 Jan-Nov 58,306 cars, averaging 4,858 cars per month.
Yes, the Impala is also sold heavily into rental fleets.
The Taurus sales are even higher, but Ford sells a TON of those to all types of fleets, including government, as police cars and I wouldn't want to be unfair and include them in.
To put these sales into some perspective, Honda sold 239,077 Accords from January to November 2018 versus Nissan's 34,207 Maximas. Honda isn't even the top seller in the car class. Toyota is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The manual Forester and Impreza normally drive at a 50:50 distribution, but then shift up to 80% to the front or back using a viscous coupling, which has no computer involved (it's all mechanical.) The drawback of that system is that it cannot sense slippage as quickly and it is only reactive, not proactive, so there must first be slippage for it to engage. The pluses are the fact that it's fairly basic and robust.
The old automatic (5-speed, not CVT) 3.6R models of Legacy, Outback and TriBeCa use a whole other system, which has a 45:55 split default (rear-biased) and then can go to 50:50 when there's slippage. This system is more proactive and react more quickly, but it's clearly more limited. However, it can be paired with the Variable Torque Distribution system (VTD), which prevents accidents, and so is actually a safety system.
The CVT equipped Subaru cars (except WRX) are equipped with a more modern of the one I just listed above, but they have a default 60:40 (front-biased) split and will go to 50:50 when slippage is detected. This system can also be paired with the VTD system.
The WRX has a system that blends the system of the manual and of the CVT setup, thus giving it a locking center differential, but also a VTD system and a sensor-based proactive feature and the WRX STi adds to that locking differentials to both axles (3 locking diffs total), making it the ultimate performance machine. It uses TWO center differentials, one electronic and one manual and both can be adjusted by the driver, having 3 automatic and 6 manual settings. That system is called VCCD. The default torque split on the VCCD is rear-biased at 41:59.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alansach8437 While I would agree that if given the choice, most Americans would rather have 33mpg than a faster 0-60, it simply isn't an "A or B" scenario. Symmetrical or not, 99% of AWD systems are perfectly fine for 99% of situations and you can have a better fuel economy AND a better 0-60 time in many cars. Look at the 2019 CR-V and Rav4 Hybrid, for examples of just that. If the Forester gave us 40mpg highway, I'd say there's something to be said for a sacrifice in speed, but as is, there isn't. Plus, it comes with a Stop/Start system, which is not fun AND direct fuel injection, which we know isn't very reliable compared to port injection.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelcharnley-heaton4063 Oh wow... the Compass is MUCH cheaper in the States and the Stelvio is a bit more expensive. The Compass, with the manual transmission, FWD starts at $21,845 and the very top trim (High Altitude) AWD, 2.4 petrol, with every imaginable option, including panoramic sunroof, sat nav and all safety gadgets and an electric boot door tops out at $34,860, but you can likely get up to $5,000 off at the dealer. The Alfa starts at $42,590 for a RWD with only a choice of white or red colours and that's it. So for similarly equipped cars, I could pay $30k for the Jeep or about $48k for the Alfa. As such, they're not actually comparable here, at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kurtratzlaff8732 neither has a 4x4 system, actually. They are all All Wheel Drive. The Train Rated Compass has more ground clearance, underside body protection, heavier shocks that allow for more articulation, Active Drive Low system that includes a 20:1 crawl ratio, Hill Descent Control, high air intakes and extra water sealing for water fording, and better approach, departure and breakover angles. Yes, Jeep is actually fooling people into thinking that all of their systems are 4x4 because legally there is no distinction, but mechanically there is and uninformed buyers can fall victim to assumptions. Yes, in my mind that's false advertisement, but you won't be able to sue them for it because again, there is no distinction, legally, between AWD, 4WD or 4x4. If all 4 wheels receive torque at some point, any of the monikers are legal to be used. Meanwhile, the only Jeep vehicle that comes with an actual 4x4 system is the Wrangler. The rest get different kinds of AWD systems. https://www.autoevolution.com/news/jeep-s-awd-and-4wd-systems-explained-106633.html
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a24663372/all-wheel-drive-four-wheel-drive-differences-explained/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Norm T none of the models sold as many as Honda sold CR-Vs, that’s considering that GM sold most of them to rental car fleets. They sold so many Equinoxes to fleets that for 2019 the offered a fleet-only package. https://www.automotive-fleet.com/313773/2019-chevrolet-equinox-offers-fleet-only-options
You’re trying to say that together, the Equinox, Terrain and Envision outsell the CR-V, but separately, none of them have, EVER. They’ve never outsold the RAV4 either. While the three have common underpinnings, they are sold separately, styled differently, packaged differently, priced and marketed differently as well. For all intents and purposes, they are different cars from different brands and must be compared separately.
Meanwhile, Honda only sells to ZipCar, which amounts to just a few hundred CR-Vs a year. They sell to no other corporate or municipal fleets. It’s their corporate strategic view and well publicized.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
PP I’m a major rental company fleet manager. We don’t prefer any brand over another at all. We don’t care about brands. We buy whatever we can get a good price on. Honda doesn’t sell to major rental companies in North America. We’d love to have them, but they don’t like to do fleet business. The major exception being Zipcar. Also, we hold on to cars for about 6-9 months and it has nothing to do with warranties as our cars aren’t warrantied (part of fleet sales). We have every brand on our lots. What we tend to get more of are discounted models, so Kias/Hyundais, Nissans, Camrys, Legacies, Golfs, Jettas, Passats, Ford, GM, Jeep/Dodge, Toyota Sequoia, and whatever is at the end of the current model run. We also do special lease type deals with some companies and return the cars based on mileage instead of age, but that’s more rare than purchases. We have a budget rental brand in our company, so some cars end up being turned over to them instead of being sold and that often does depend on resale values. Most of those are domestic brands.
2
-
Waldemar Ishibashi Then they should buy a used car. Generally, buying a modern new car is an expensive proposition. The major benefit of it is the warranty. Without it, it’s a waste of money. Also, you may not understand this because you live in the UK, but most new cars in the US are owned for less than five years. New car prices and lease rates here are FAR lower than what you’d find in the UK or the rest of Europe. In the UK, the entry level X-Trail MSRP is £26,590 and the top trim starts at £31,190.
In the US, it starts at £19,357 and the top trim starts at £25,285. With ALL options and accessories, it comes out to $40k or £30,600, but with all the discounts available, you can take one of those for £27,500, including delivery fees and plates. A 5 year old Rogue SL still sells for around £15k quid, so if you don’t have the ability to finance £12,500 over 5 years then you really need to stay away from new cars or buy a basic i30 or something, don’t you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here’s my take, as a Russian immigrant: Biden and his team have NO clue of they’re doing on the international front. They clearly don’t understand Putin or what motivates him, and they clearly don’t understand Middle Eastern affairs, making Qatar strategic military ally, when the entire Arab peninsula hates Qatar and Qatar supports the Taliban. As far as Putin is concerned, he is a man with a very big, but fragile ego, much like Trump. He’s doing this SOLELY because he has an innate desire to be counted, to be important. The fact that he’s been removed from the G8 and all important world devisions and that all wyes are on China drives him up the wall. He’s bluffing with this move, only to get the West not to be dismissive of him. He wants to remind everyone that Russia, but more importantly he himself, are not to be taken for granted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
myslecinaczej No, I do not. Go look up the interior dimensions instead!
While the Volvo is wider in total, its design language creates a small cabin with a wide stance and a very long hood. Despite that, the Subaru is 7cm longer overall. If you were to measure from the A-pillar back, you’d be astonished at the difference.
Behind the front row, the Outback has 73.3 cubic feet of volume (2.07m3) , with 35.5 cubic feet (1.00m3) behind the second row. In contrast, the V-60 has just 50.9 cubic feet (1.44m3) behind the front row and just 23.2 cubic feet (0.66m3) behind the second row.
That means the Subaru is about 30% larger on the interior than the Volvo, which may not count much in sedans, but in wagons... it’s EVERYTHING. In fact, the Outback’s interior volume beats out the V-90s!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
VolvoMetal WHY are you bringing pick-up trucks and cars into a conversation about CUVs? There are few cars in North America even available with AWD. In fact, only Subaru sells a compact car with AWD and until 2 years ago, only two full-size sedans had AWD available: Subaru Legacy and Ford Fusion. AWD had been reserved almost exclusively for luxury brands like Lexus, Infinity, Mercedes, Audi, BMW and Volvo or premium classes: Taurus, Charger, 300, etc.
Two years ago Nissan made an AWD Altima and this year Toyota released an AWD Camry, but Ford discontinued theirs.
People are, without argument, switching to CUVs out of sedans and the number one reason has been availability of AWD, followed by a more vertical seating position and then the utility of the interior/hatch.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15366192/differential-distribution-where-rwd-awd-and-fwd-vehicles-are-sold-in-the-u-s-infographic/
By the way, once fleet sales are removed, over 80% of CUVs sold in North America have AWD.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
100% incorrect and an old myth. Octane in fuel changes the timing pressure for the ignition of the fuel. Each engine ignites fuel at a precise moment, according to its calibration. Some engines have a higher compression ratio and some have a lower one, so the fuel needs to be ignited at different points. That is ALL that octane does for the engine. There are ZERO advantages of running a higher octane number fuel in your car than it is designed for. In fact, you are doing harm to your engine because higher octane fuel is designed to ignite at higher pressures than your cylinder ever achieves, so you're burning the fuel incompletely and you're burning out the cylinder components. Running a lower octane rating than required will create a knocking in your engine.
Most European cars are NOT designed to require premium fuel. The issue is that in Europe, octane is measured differently than in North America, so the rating you see on the pump will not coincide. Premium, high performance engines require a higher octane rating because they want a higher compression for their fuel and are thus timed to ignite at a higher compression.
Many modern cars have variable timing ignition systems, which means the vehicle will detect the type of fuel you have off the first few cylinder firings and the computer will adjust the ignition point to match. However, when you run on lower octane, you will have lower compression and thus, lower performance number.
All current Volvos run high performance engines with turbo and often superchargers as well. They require high octane fuel because they are calibrated for high output performance.
2
-
I don’t know how such seemingly intelligent men are having such a stupid conversation, honestly. Truly small minds from very closed off countries.
Russia is a HUGE country with a HUGE population. I know it must he difficult to grasp for people living in such tiny, monoethnic countries, but Russians aren’t all the same. They’re all different. They all have different opinions, backgrounds, stories and experiences. Many are smart, many are not, just like everywhere.
When it comes to their military… their professional combat arms personnel are mostly well-equipped and trained, but that’s honestly a fairly small portion of the soldiers. Most are not combat arms, as the support tail ratio is at least 3:1 and growing. Russia also sent in a large quantity of poorly trained and equipped reservists. The facf is that any European nation would be in the same situation if they had to send in reservists. The professionals would be clearly better armed, equipped and trained.
As per waves of cannon fodder… it exists, but it is not all that common. Remember, you only see what they want to show you (on both sides).
The Russians are resilient and numerous. This war will continue for as long as Putin is in power. That is to say that we all need to focus on removing him, not just pushing back the Russian army, because they won’t just stop fighting even if you push them back to the border.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Andy's Shop Why am I a troll? Because logic offends you? Despite you driving a 99 Tahoe and loving it, it doesn’t make this car better than today’s version. The thing was a death trap, offered little rear room for passengers, had almost all the electronic complexities of today’s cars, including all modern emissions, OBD and fuel management software, power everything and even automatic climate control. It got 15mpg, which is horrific. The current, bigger 4-door Yukon averages 19mpg.
And no, not everyone wants the greatest and latest. Some people want classics that offer value. Some want something that offers a specific utility that other vehicles no longer provide. That’s understandable. You just want an old, raggedy SUV that was below average even back when it was made. It’s your right. Want what you want. I used to want a 98 Jimmy and drove one back in the mid-2000s. I drove it because I couldn’t afford a new one. It was no better than a 2003 Jimmy. It was just cheaper. I certainly wouldn’t want to drive one today though. No way.
Want what you want. Just don’t get defensive when people shine a light on your decisions after you post them in a public forum. And don’t call them “trolls” because they disagree with you for legitimate reasons. That’s not the definition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joshua.harazin Hyundai has no differential lock. It has an electronic PTU that manages the power transfer and when you press the “lock” button it simply engages both axles from the start, until its disconnect speed.
https://m.awdwiki.com/en/hyundai/
ALL If your information is 100% wrong, bud, and if you can’t find info it means you didn’t bother typing it into Google. It’s all over the internet.
The Hyundai/Kia system is simple: “The tucson has a prop shaft coming out of the transmission/transfer case. The prop shaft runs to the rear differential and is always spinning no matter what.
In the rear differential, there is a multi-plate wet clutch. The computer of the car will sense how much traction is needed, and engage the multi-plate wet clutch accordingly, and transfer varying amounts of torque to the rear wheels.
When you press the "lock" button, it just sets the multi-plate clutch to full 100% clamping, which essentially acts as a "lock", however the term "lock" is a bit of a misnomer. The clutch can not fully lock and in certain extreme circumstances, like rock crawling, it will slip and start to heat up. The car's computer monitors the temperature of the clutch and will disengage when it overheats. This is only in extreme situations, if you just drive around in snow, this should never happen. As said before, lock will disengage the clutch pack and switch back to normal computer control above 30kmh. “
This system is common. The regular Rav4 (non-hybrid and not Adventure/Limited system) has this too. So do most AWD vehicles. This is because of the system’s simplicity, cost and practicality. It has no center differential. That means that in theory, 50% of the engine’s power output gets channeled toward the rear, but in practice, a portion of that is lost in the mechanical systems, so nominal power at the rear is less than that. If there was a differential, you would be able to send up to about 95% of power to the rear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's a great question. The Outback is technically not an SUV or a CUV at all. It's a Legacy mid-size wagon on a raised suspension. Technically, it has no direct competition in its type/size/price. However, there are other cars like that. The Volkswagen Golf Alltrak is in the compact wagon category, so it's smaller. The Audi A4 allroad is the same size as the Alltrak, so it's also smaller, but it's in the compact luxury wagon category. Then, in the mid-size luxury wagon category we have the Volvo V70 CrossCountry and the Buick (North America) Regal TourX/Opel (Rest of the world) Insignia CountryTourer. There have also been rumors of the European Ford Mondeo touring being resurrected as a lifted AWD tourer after the Mondeo/Fusion disappear.
In reality, the Outback usually competes against the compact CUV market and often has the same buyer. However, it has more leg room and more cargo room than the Forester and when equipped with the V6 engine, can tow significantly more as well. Remember, the Forester is a compact CUV, but the Outback is a midsize wagon. So, slight size differences apply. That Outback V6 version also puts it against the Ford Edge and Jeep Grand Cherokee somewhat, but since the car is long, has the styling of a wagon and has low seating positions, it usually takes a very unique type of person to consider it against an SUV/CUV... or at least seriously. You'd really have to care about the utility more than anything else to look at it, especially in the 4 cylinder version, because it's so darn slow. The reason for many people to buy one of these raised wagons is so that they'd preform better than an SUV. Wagons should drive and feel more like sedans. Unfortunately, the Outback just doesn't. It's very lofty , leans in corners more than the Forester and it's slow. I've heard the same exact complaints about the Volvo Cross Country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agent. K. The Tacoma comes with a 3.5 V6 petrol producing 278hp (207 kw) and 256lb/ft of torque (348 N-m) which costs $44,000 USD in the very top TRD Pro trim. The top Amarok (TDI580 Ultimate 4Motion) in Australia costs $53,142 USD which comes with the 3.0 V6 TDI.
For $53k you can get a fantastic full-size pick-up in the U.S., which isn’t a thing outside North America. What’s worse is that the 3.0 Amarok doesn’t even come with low gearing. Yes, Amarok is far worse off-road, and yes, its reliability is horrific. It’s also ridiculously more expensive. Even against the 2.0 TDI, the Tacoma wins on power, price and reliability, especially when you consider similarly-equipped trims.
What’s worse is that the starting prices of the Amarok are ridiculous. £35,408 in the UK gets you the base model, with the top model coming in at £42,890. In Australia, the base TDI550 Amarok starts at $52,590 AUS, which is $33,639.
The Tacoma starts at $26,050 and is available with a standard two-door cab and RWD as a plain work truck. Even with a V6 and 4WD I can get a Tacoma for $31,775 in the U.S. (list price).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deadboy3646 The Hiawatha crater’s age is still completely unknown. It’s thought that it possibly could have happened within the last 100,000 years, possibly as recently as 12,500 years ago, but also possibly much, much earlier.
There is an issue of faulty scientific thinking at play the team of geologists that found it were looking to find why there was a sudden climatic change about 13,000 years ago (Younger Dryas), so there’s a bit of a confirmation bias involved. The evidence collected was inconclusive and it’s a difficult place to do research as the area is cold, extremely remote, and the crater is below a moving glacier. Jay Melosh, an impact crater expert from Purdue Univ. believes the crater dates back much further.
The LC-130 ANG unit in Scotia, NY has been flying over it with various ice-penetrating radars, trying to map it at least, but what they need to date it is soil core samples, which are just too deep under the ice for us to obtain right now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Prigozhin is many things. He’s a thief, a pimp, even a restauranteur, but what he is not is a military strategist. What Wagner is doing is following direct orders from the Russian MOD. They fight limited battles on behalf of the Russian Army, nothing more. That’s why no one on either side will be paying any attention to his “predictions”.
That said, you can throw out prediction number one and number two. No one in Ukraine wants anything to do with Belgorod. It has no use other than to motivate Russian citizens to support the war. Prediction number two was said by Prigozhin in order fir Wagner to get more funding, ammo, etc. Ukraine will not try to encircle Wagner. It will keep Wagner preoccupied in Bakhmut until mid-Summer, when it will run out of all supples. Why?
Because Ukraine will start with prediction number 4, which will draw major shifts of personnel, vehicles, supplies and attention from Bakhmut, South, leaving Wagner to fend for itself. That’s when Ukraine will start to push East, just South of Bakhmut, toward Donetsk. Wagner will withdraw from Bakhmut to reinforce Donetsk. The Ukrainians will split DPR and LPR and take Melitopol, cutting off Crimea from Donbas. Will Ukraine hold on all those fronts? That’s to be seen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
GT500 You do need a frame of some type, whether it’s a traditional frame chassis or a unibody. Unibody constructions are prone to more twisting and bending. The more reinforced the construction, the more it will tow. That’s the case for body on frame vehicles too.
And yes, they are extreme examples. They’re extreme to clearly demonstrate my point. While they are extreme, they are still accurate. Land Rover Defenders have almost no power... never did. Whether it’s torque or horsepower, outside the North American models in the 1990s, they never even broke the 200 number on either. Yet they towed like monsters. Slowly, but they towed.
When it comes to “off-roading” as you call it, is actually what’s known as farm use. It was the original purpose of the Land Rover, and what pick-up trucks were designed for.
What the Defender, Wrangler, and all other modern off-roaders were designed for are heavy forest, mud, desert, snow, mud and rock crawling use. They were not designed to be towing kings or to be used as tractors. This is why heavy duty pick-up and tractors are the main tools on ranches.
I live in New York where we have tons of forest, woods and mud/snow trails that are used for fun and hunting. That’s “off-roading” to me and for most people who talk about off-roading.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@swagedelic There is still little to no barrier on trade for Russia, with the West or otherwise. Russia continues to import technology from where it’s primarily made: Israel, China, India, and South Korea. You’re very mislead if you think tech in Russia comes primarily from Europe or North America. It simply doesn’t. Russia also has a ton if domestic developments.
Look, I’m no proponent of Russia, having fled from it in 1989, but I’m much more aware (quite apparently) of its realities than you are. There’s a reason the Ruble bounced back despite sanctions, and why Russians aren’t feeling their pinch. Russia is much more independent, financially, than the Western propaganda claims it to be. Yes, there’s active propaganda on both sides. Shocking, I know.
Also, I never defended the invasion. All of my ancestors on my maternal side are Ukrainian and I used to go there in my childhood quite a lot. You’re clearly unhinged and ignorant. You’re also now muted and reported.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sly9263 They are facts as to current inventory levels being sold on that website. They have NO relevance to new vehicle sales. You failed statistics, didn’t you? Oh wait, you never took it.
Confidence intervals can only be applied when you’re analyzing the subject itself, with a known upper and lower interval. You’re making inferences based on unrelated data.
In fact, knowing what’s offered for sale can’t even be used to infer how many cars are actually sold! Real estate professionals (and other sales professionals) use the “sold” or “comps” data to show what was actually sold, when, and for how much. What is offered for sale is not necessarily what actually sells well.
In fact, more Platinums may still be on the site simply because they actually don’t sell as well as Limiteds. It’s logical that if something sells quickly it will not be on the site in large quantities because of its rarity of availability.
Without accessing the data behind the sales (how many of each have been sold vs offered, how long the average posting is on the site, etc.) you have no legitimate points of inference to begin with!
That’s like saying, “since apples sell well, elephants eat grass”. What you’re doing has a name: ASSumption.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justsomestreamer8315 False. You are referring to the NATO summit in Brussels where in talking to the heads of NATO, Trump said it was, “sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where you’re supposed to be guarding against Russia.” This was said by Trump to criticize Germany for spending so little on NATO and its defense. In that speech Trump lied in saying that 50-70% of Germany’s energy will be reliant on Russia. First off, the pipeline that was being discussed only bring in natural gas, and not crude oil. I know in Trump’s head it’s all the same, but in reality it isn’t. Even though half of German natural gas came from Russia, that accounts to just 10% of German energy supplies and consumption. The pipeline in question was NordStream.
Furthermore, Trump was being naturally disingenuous because he knew very well that Germany had no other possible source of natural gas. The US was (and is) unable to export any sizable LNG quantities to Europe.
Meanwhile, the US imported 672,000 barrels of crude oil from Russia EACH DAY. On top of that, Russia was one of the largest suppliers of unfinished oil and fuel oil to the US, peaking at about 370,000 barrels per day for unfinished oil in 2019.
Furthermore, no one laughed at those comments. You’re just a pathetic little troll. Sad.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sacapuntas69 first off, my friend is a Senior Assistant District Attorney for Brooklyn, NY. That's what kind he is. Second, and bare with me here as I clearly need to educate you a little bit in legal definitions, a search warrant is NOT the same as a subpoena. Now I don't know if you're from the United States or not, but in the United States, the 4th Amendment of our Constitution prevents the government from issuing warrants (which are court orders) to search property unless there is a specific piece of evidence that they're looking for and that evidence must be in a case against a defendant, whose property they will search. They cannot search a third party's property under such a warrant unless it is where the defendant has hidden his/her property.
In contrast, a subpoena is a request to appear/present property. It does not have to be issued by a judge. It can be issued by a prosecutor or even a lawyer who is litigating the case and it is NOT legally binding. That is, one does not have to appear just because there is a subpoena issued. It is not a court order. It is merely a request. Subpoenas are routinely issued to third parties to present documentation to support a legal case and it is up to the third party, whether they want to provide such evidence or not. For example, banks routinely and almost without any argument, provide their records for any account. Those records are the banks' property, not the account holder's and banks like to play nice with the government. As another example, foreign institutions almost never provide the subpoenaed evidence. They usually have nothing to gain from doing so.
When my friend, the said ADA, was recently prosecuting a vehicular homicide/DUI, he requested the records of braking and speed of the BMW vehicle involved. The request had to be made to BMW, AG in Germany because the BMW USA only handles distribution, sales and financing (through a separate branch.) The coded records of the info requested were confirmed by the head office of BMW, but the subpoena was not honored. BMW openly rejected the request for the information, citing that they do not provide such information unless compelled by a court order from an EU court. There is absolutely nothing a prosecutor in the US can do to change that. U.S. Courts have no jurisdiction overseas and as such, cannot issue court orders to foreign institutions (they would be unenforceable, even if they could).
Your example of the Toyota case is not applicable to our conversation because: Toyota Motors had voluntarily provided the information requested in the subpoenas. Toyota Motors was the defendant in the case, not the third party, which is crucially important. While a defendant doesn't have to provide evidence against them voluntarily, he/she/it cannot hide it, if ordered by the court to provide. Which brings us to the final point, some of the records from Toyota was turned over because of a Court Order issued by a United States court. That order was issued against Toyota USA, which is a U.S. corporation and it was for sales data and owner contact information. That information was to notify and protect the owners. All of the technical data came from Japan without any court order and it was because Toyota decided to comply. They knew that since they were the target of the lawsuit and a federal investigation, had they not turned over the information, they would be banned from selling their cars in the U.S., their biggest market. That type of action is inapplicable when the manufacturer is an innocent third party, like in the example I gave of my friend's recent case.
I know this was long, but you asked for it. I hope you now understand how the law works when it comes to subpoenas and court orders or if you still don't, I hope this at least causes you to look it up online or in a library.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wesleykim1758 Leadership does not mean running into a burning house first. Leadership is listening to those with more experience and using their successes and mistakes to formulate your decisions.
As such, as a junior officer, you are to solicit input from ALL NCOs in your command and decide which of them just gave you the best advice. It is NOT to come up with your own ideas when you clearly lack tactical experience and knowledge.
This is why the modern military, at least in the US, requires junior commissioned officers to have senior NCO mentors. ROTC doesn’t teach you real world tactics, and it sure as hell doesn’t teach you how to get a bunch of “old” grunts to follow your 22 year-old ROTC ass. In fact, they won’t. But if you listen to your NCO and respect their experience, he/she will respect you, and will listen to you. They will all follow the NCO, and then hence, you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Don't listen to these turkeys. They clearly don't know cars.
The Tucson slots squarely in the compact SUV (CUV) category. The 2018 Santa Fe Sport is a 5 person, slightly bigger SUV that is in the mid-size SUV category and more closely competes with the Ford Edge and Jeep Grand Cherokee, but unfortunately, it doesn't compete well since it's on the smaller end and has no available V6 power, unlike the competition. A bit longer and more squared off is the 2018 Santa Fe, which adds more cargo room and a small third row. That competes better with the likes of Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot. Unfortunately, both Santa Fes are very overdue for a refresh.
Enter the 2019 Santa Fe. It replaces the Santa Fe Sport, being slightly larger than the Tucson, but still only for 5 passengers. The Santa Fe XL will replace the current Santa Fe, being even larger and with 7 seats.
So you see, both Santa Fe models stay in the mid-size SUV category and are both larger than the Tucson.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aspecreviews Just so we're being technical about it, it's actually the power the engine generates that gets you moving. Torque vs Horsepower are actually just two different measurements of the engine's power output. Torque is pure power output in newton-meters or pounds of force per foot and horsepower is how much force is needed to move a 3300lb weight 1 foot in 1 minute. Thus, horsepower is a measurement of power in time.
Specficially, Horsepower = Torque X RPM / 5252. That formula is: H=TxRPM/5252. To make more power, the engine must either generate more torque or work at higher RPMs (or both). That means that indeed, it is the horsepower, not the torque that gets your vehicle moving. You can have either a VERY torquey engine and rev it low, or you can rev up your lower torque engine very high and still get to the same power. It is ultimately, reaching the needed horsepower, that allows your vehicle to move.
When it comes to electric motors, their power isn't measured in horsepower because they don't have RPMs. Their torque is 100% from the start, but their power is a steady line and increases from 0 to 100% as the speed of the motor increases from 0 to 100%.
Yes, if each wheel had its own independent electric motor, you'd have a lot more capability, but it costs A LOT. The issue isn't of recapturing energy though. It has to do with the fact that the inner wheel should spin less in turns than the outer wheel. That's what gives you enhanced handling. This is achieved well enough (for most uses) by simply braking the inside wheel. The only time when you'd need an added source of power for that handling is during high power acceleration in a corner, which Acura, marketing itself as a performance company... Regular CUVs don't really need that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think a lot of people confuse the winter of ‘41 with the winter of ‘43. The former was a typical European winter, something most Germans could handle. 1943 was uniquely cold. By 1943, a large percentage of Soviet forces had been from the central and Eastern parts of the country that are used to extreme temperatures, were outfitted with cold gear and knew how to navigate the snow/ice. The other issue with the Russian winters was that the Soviet railroads were mostly intact and could operate from the East to the front lines, but the Germans had no railroads to help them East of the original soviet border. The train tracks used a different gauge, the partisans kept blowing up rails, switches and depots and during Barbarossa, Germans destroyed much of the network themselves. During the entire war, the USSR was fed, fueled and supplied from its central, Caucuses and Eastern regions. Germany just didn’t have those resources.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juliek5094 No one except Putin knows for sure what makes him tick. He’s known to have a troubled youth, often getting into fights in school. He was a bully. His time in the KGB is, of course, still classified. Some say he was just a paper-pusher. Others say he kept an eye on Stasi agents. Both are probably true. One can keep an eye on agents through administrative means. Since then he’s been an opportunist, a staunch believer in suppressing dissent and generally being extremely conservative. His experience through the 90s in St Petersburg, as the deputy mayor shaped him a lot, gave him contacts with the forming oligarchs/organized crime, whom he used to make his way to the top. He is a staunch nationalist and he does believe that Belorussians and Ukrainians belong under the Moscow umbrella, though not exactly in their equality. His main objective, like of others in his position, is to increase his personal power. He truly believes he’s a genius.
Am I angry at him to what he’s done to Russia? I don’t consider Russia to be my country anymore and I don’t hold a Russian citizenship anymore either. No, I’m not mad at him. To be honest, Russians knew what was going on, know what’s going on, and mostly support him. They, like many others in the world, love a dominating figure in charge, and as long as it benefits them, it’s fine. That’s his job as the President - to strengthen Russia and the lives of Russians.
My father moved back to Russia many years ago, even though he’s a US citizen. He knew it was coming, and he knows what’s going on, but to be honest, he doesn’t really care as it doesn’t impact him… until it does. He’s mad about the sanctions creating financial woes. Ukraine is inconsequential to him. My mother, on the other hand (they’ve been divorced for 30 years) is Ukrainian by both of her parents, and has relatives (or had now) there. Thankfully, they all live in the West now, the last smartly leaving everything they own in Odessa and escaping the first day of the attack.
To Russians, Ukrainians, all those following Russia’s and Putin’s affairs, none of this is a surprise, really. Not after the attacks on Crimea and Georgia. Anything short of a coup d’état won’t change a thing, but here is something no one in the West knows or considers: The alternatives. The top five parties in Russia are nationalistic, with Putin’s party at the top, Communist in the second place, and numbers 3 and 4 are nationalist radicals. Who will take his place might be radically worse. Putin has been ensuring no reasonable candidate existed over the last two decades.
One of the biggest flaws of democracy is the chance that people might willingly elect a monarch/dictator and prefer that type of ruling. It’s something even the US founding fathers worried about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That’s correct. In the 1980’s this car had two basic roles in the USSR: taxi fleet and government fleet (first responders, KGB, military (non-combat, obviously) factory executives, and other chauffeured roles.) Ordinary Russians had no access to this, could not afford it, and even if they could, the order wait times were around a decade. Compared to the Ladas, Moskvich, and Zapotozhets of the time, the Volga was a large and comfortable sedan. This specific car seems to be the uprated 100hp version which required 92 octane. The 90hp version ran on a more common 76 octane fuel. The top speed on this version was 91mph or 147km/h.
The taxis were technically 24-11s and 24-14s as they ran on 80 oct gasoline.There were also natural gas (24-17) and a station wagon (24-12).
The best part is that V8 powered Volgas were also produced as special pursuit vehicles for federal security in two versions: 195 and 220hp.
The Gaz 3102 Volga was a government service (politicians) vehicle derived from this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, that may be your take on it, but in reality, it's on the right side that a monitor is most needed. That's why the mirror on the right side is amplified. When a car passes you on the left, it's much easier to see your entire side of the car because of the sharp angle of your seating position to your mirror. The angle on the right is much wider and the blind spot is actually larger because of it. Statistically, most side to side impacts happen when a car moves to the lane on the right, not the left. Also, it's not "half a blindspot monitor" it is a full video view of your car's blind spot. FULL. Would it be better if it showed both sides? I think so, but then you would need to look to your right (the center stack screen) to merge left, which would be dangerous because hands tend to steer in the direction your head is turned. Just one of those odd biological things. That's why they didn't add it to the left side. The ideal system would display a wide camera angle shot of the left in your left mirror, but that would be extremely complex and expensive. Just adjust your mirror properly and you'll be fine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adangamez3608 You’re not very bright… are you a child? Also, the war in Ukraine is a civil war, not a war for independence. Oh and it’s still going on.
By the way, the US Air Force Air War College is a post-graduate level (master’s degree) senior professional military education institution. There are numerous areas of study, but all of them focus on joint force operations and strategic planning. What you think you know about war is like kindergarten to AWC graduates.
Having been born in Russia, with my mother’s parents from Ukraine, I chose to become an expert on Eastern European military and political affairs. It’s literally my field. You won’t win an argument with me, not on this topic.
I agree with most of what you originally said, except that military exercises of over 150 thousand troops near a border can be random. It takes a ton of planning, consideration and strategic thinking to execute a maneuver of that size, especially since it involves all of Russia’s branches of the military and some of its partners (Belarus).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Alaska produces just 4% of domestic oil and much of that stays in Alaska. The rest gets shipped around the world and to two US refineries, one in Washington and the other in California.
Alaska’s in-state refineries make jet fuel, heating oil, gasoline, kerosene, asphalt base, marine Diesel, ULS Diesel, and military fuel (JP-5 and JP-8). A giant system of pipes brings it all to Valdez.
As per Albany, the oil and fuels get brought up the Hudson by barges from NJ, not from all over the country. The Colonial Pipeline brings it to Linden, NJ from Houston, TX and points between. However, there are no refineries in Albany, NY. Albany has an oil terminal, which simply receives fuels (already refined) and then that fuel is put on trucks for deliveries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@_zigger_ It’s not their master’s measurement, it’s history. By the time the metric system was invented, all manufacturing and trade measurements in the US were standardized in the Imperial form. Everywhere else, however, all kinds of measurements were used and nothing was standardized. That’s why the metric system took off there, quickly. However, there was no need, but a giant expense, to change over an entire booming economy in manufacturing standards as by the time the metric system was standardized, the US was already the world leader in those sectors. In fact, there are many things that are still standardized in inches and pounds and then just converted into random metric measurements.
#history #factsmatter
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Be low Below Not only does your English suck, but you also have no idea of what you’re talking about. Both of your paragraphs are rubbish!
The firsts starts out trying to say something about electric cars, but never finishes it, them somehow changes to talking about approximated MPGe energy values of different fuels (that’s not how any science works.)
Then you start talking about Diesel fuel holding more energy than petrol because it contains more carbon. I don’t even know where to start with that one... First off, what creates energy in fossil fuels is the breaking of hydrocarbon (C4H6) chains, not carbon (C) itself. The longer the chains in the product, the more you can break them, creating more energy. Diesel contains longer hydrocarbon chains and per volume, so each power stroke produces more torque. However, that also makes Diesel fuel much more dense and heavy, so per kg of weight, Petrol is more caloric than Diesel, being more refined. Those are the actual facts.
Facts aside, none of this information is relevant to the video or accounts for inefficiency of certain engines, weight of vehicles or power production figures.
You’re “Rain Man” singing gibberish.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
daniel m The FAA don’t have the strictest testing conditions. They all have the SAME testing conditions and almost identical certification regulations, barring Russia and China. That’s important to understand. The system that Boeing created passed all the legal standards not just for the FAA, but also all others. That’s a fact. Only a single AoA sensor was required for MCAS by FAA standards (which are the same for CAA and EASA). Just one. Boeing did that.
In the future, that may be changed, or may not be (I can’t predict the future), but right now, only a single sensor is required for a system like that.
As far as passengers are concerned, 99% can’t tell an MD-80 from
an A380. If the authorities clear the plane, people will fly. Heck, 90% of the yappers on this comment thread will too. They will. And nothing will happen to them, so they will again and again.
People that come to watch these videos are mostly trolls who spend their days looking for things to hark on. Nothing new there. Many are just anti-American. Nothing new there either. These few dozen idiots don’t represent the public at large. The public at large trusts the FAA and others and will in the future. They have no choice. If you mistrust one, you have to mistrust them all. Then you won’t fly at all.
So here’s my advice to you: remove the sensationalism and insert some sensibility into your comments. Recognize your own lack of expertise on the subject. Do more reading of first-hand factual data, like the preliminary crash report from Indonesia. You’ll be far wiser for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wrong.
The issue is that sales numbers are based on deliveries, not sales. With normal companies, deliveries are usually made at time of sale, or soon after, and are an accurate way of measuring demand.
With Tesla it was (and still is) not so. They took thousands of orders over 2 years ago. I don’t mean the $1000 deposits, which weren’t orders at all, but actual orders with actual deposits. However, they didn’t deliver most of those cars until late 2018 in North America and early 2019 in Europe. They ramped up production to deliver thousands if backorders within a few months, then reported those deliveries as monthly sales. False statistics.
Now that the backorders have been filled, the actual current rate of sales is evident, and is MUCH lower than their rate of backorder deliveries (duh!).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
VDT has a center differential with a clutch pack and can thus send up to close to 100% of torque to either axle, but the ATS system only has a clutch pack, without a center differential. When it is unlocked, it splits the torque 60/40, but when locked, it becomes a locked center drive axle, sending the power to the front and rear axles practically evenly (50/50), but has no way of transferring more than that to either axle and will bind as soon as both axles spin at even rates. That is why the system disengages the clutch pack the moment the two axles rotate at the same speed and it goes back to its 60/40 split. Two VERY different systems. VTD is extremely capable, especially with VDC, but ATS is basic, cheap, and was created to save money. That’s why it’s paired with CVTs. Low torque transfer deltas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
These guys don’t understand much about physics, which makes their tests ridiculous, albeit entertaining. If you watch carefully, you will see that the wheels on both axles are spinning, which means the power is being supplied to that axle. The loose wheels spinning keans absolutely nothing in an open differential. Let them spin. The issue is that with a heavy car with a weak wngine, given just two points of traction, you will need to give lots of torque to generate the kinetic forces needed to overcome a steep angle. Either give it gas or get some momentum. If you watch carefully, this car, the CRV, and the 2.5 Forester all have the same problem at low RPMs and once they give gas, they all just go over. Meanwhile, the 2.0 Escape, the V6 Cherokee and the Forester XT will go smoothly over with low revs because they generate enough torque to get these cars going. Tiis is an engine test. not an AWD test and if you undersyood physics, you’d see that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why have theories when the truth is well-publicized and known by people who care to know? Oh... it's for those people who prefer to stay ignorant.
The Metris (or the V Class as it's known in Europe) is a rear or all wheel drive work van that's sold in 3 different lengths and with 4 different available engines in Europe. In the past, the commercial and passenger versions were separated by different names (Vito and Viano, respectively) with the latter being completely differently equipped on the inside and slightly differently styled on the outside than the former. About a decade ago Mercedes considered whether they should bring the Viano to North America, but after lots of researched decided that the luxury minivan segment would compete against Escalades, Navigators and the like and that there wouldn't be much profit in it. They dropped it. However, the Mercedes Commercial Division saw the success of Ford Transit Connect and the Dodge Ram PromasterCity with fleets and decided to do the same with the Vito, which by then was renamed into simply the V Class, alongside the Viano. Thus, the cargo V vans are shipped to the US and then some are converted (to avoid the chicken tax) into passenger vans by addition of windows and seats. These vans are NOT sold through the regular M-B channels and you won't find them on their regular website. They are sold through the M-B Commercial Division and a website set up for them and Sprinter vans. They are meant for shuttle duties. They are durable, economical, spacious and easy to maintain, unlike the M-B passenger cars. They are sold and serviced at M-B commercial dealerships. These are FLEET vehicles sold as corporate vans, Uber cars, taxis, airport shuttles and light cargo trucks. They are NOT family haulers. What makes them popular with those crowds are a box shape that fits cargo and people well (8 grown adults fit easily), low floor, high torque with low horsepower (economical), able to tow heavy trailers and easy to maintain. They are not meant to be stylish or comfortable for long trips or luxurious. They're tiny buses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
bren rob yeah... NO.
Watch the two videos again and notice that Alex is simply lying to himself and is with his bag test.
1. The bags he claims will fit upright into the Kia trunk, clearly don’t. The will need to be placed on their thinner side to fit. I see just 4 bays fitting in there. After all, he didn’t actually fit ANY bags into it in the video.
2. If you try fitting larger bags, like the checked bag size rollers, the difference will become stark, quickly, which is why other reviewers fill trunks with the larger bags, and then use smaller ones to fill holes. The Kia will take no more than 2 large bags, at best, while the acRV will likely easily take 4. In fact, I know for a fact it will since I’ve fit 4 and 2 carry-ons into an Uber CRV.
3. In the CRV test he placed the bags wheels-down, taking up all the vertical space for nothing. If you place the bags on their sides and stack them I suspect you could fit 7-8 bags in there, PLUS still have vertical space left.
His test is pure bullshit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joskjj3625 Simple: Because they’re not mid-size trucks for Australia, they’re full-size. The North American full-size truck market is unique in the world. What we have for 1/4-1ton size pick-ups (size-wise) are classified as commercial in the rest of the world and were developed as true, Diesel commercial trucks. Australian cars were mostly Asian-derived as well, which meant they went by their standards, not American ones. To this day, the F-150 thru F-550, RAM full-size, Toyota Tundra, Nissan Titan and GM Sierra/Silverado aren’t sold, officially, outside of North America and the Middle East.
Again, READ the comments in the threads and STOP TROLLING!!! Literally READ the OP’s comment!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mimisor66 They ABSOLUTELY moved of their own free will. My grandmother and grandfather, for example. They were both from Ukraine. Grandfather from Mariupol (then Zhdanov). My grandmother from Nizhyn. They met in Stalingrad after the war and decided to stay there. There was lots of jobs there, rebuilding the city. Opportunities. My grandfather ended up remaining in the army as an officer. My grandmother worked for the local candy/chocolates factory as a manicurist. There were no opportunities in Ukraine aside from farming at the time. I know people of all ethnicities who moved to Leningrad, Moscow, Tallinn, Gorky, Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk, Volgograd, etc., all because of education or work or meeting someone. It wasn’t as wild and weird of a society as most people think. In fact, most people went to university outside of their home region. A lot of them then moved wherever they wanted for work, climate or just because they had relatives or friends there. Only Moscow was really off limits to move to (and a few closed cities). Even Leningrad was game, albeit difficult to find an apartment in.
I know the history FAR better than you do. What you’re talking about is just stuff you heard on TV. The reality was far more nuanced. Also, you’re mixing up your eras. “Kulaks” were in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Communism fought a long war to get rid of them (and did) by 1925.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lukewind30 What other way? Their safety suites (Toyota and Honda) are as good as anyone’s and standard on just about every model at every price point, their AWD systems on some models have actual torque vectoring. They have actually fun cars to drive like the Corolla hatch, the 86 and Supra for Toyota and the Civic Si, Civic R, Accord 2.0t manual... Toyota has legitimately amazing off-roaders in the Tacoma, Land Cruiser, 4Runner and FJ Cruiser, solid pick-ups too. You make it seem like all they make is Camys and Insights. Aside from the fact that they make fantastic drivetrains, incredible hybrids, that Honda has objectively the best CVT in the industry, that Toyota has had dual injection before anyone else, that every component on Toyotas is objectively reliable… your argument against all that is that the infotainment screen isn’t that great?
Stop trolling!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“Base pay for a sailor is about $22,000 a year.”
While a fact, it’s misunderstood by most. First off, ALL military branches in the US are paid the same, according to federal law. There are pay grades. For most (not all) recruits, the base pay is E (stands for enlisted) - 1. E-1 base pay in 2022 is $1833.30 per month. It is taxed, federally. However, service members get allowances in top of base pay. There are allowances for food, housing and special duties.
Currently the BAS (food) is $406.98 (not taxed.) During initial training you get all meals free, so no BAS. After that you pay for them out of that allowance.
Housing is usually free for junior members who are not married (aboard a ship or in barracks), but if they didn’t receive free housing, an E-1 sailor without a dependent (spouse or child) would additionally receive $1,350 if they were stationed in North Chicago. The rate depends on where you are stationed. This amount is also tax-free.
You get free uniform issue occasionally and get an allowance for additional items and upkeep.
As mentioned in the video, submarine service gets extra duty pay, just as flight duty, hazardous duty and many others.
You also don’t stay E-1 for long. You are automatically promoted to E-2 at the completion of boot camp (in the Navy, other services are slightly different), and then to E-3 after nine as E-2 and passing exams. So your base and housing allowances progress pretty quickly. E-3 base pay is $2,160.60 per month.
The longer you serve and the higher your rank/pay grade, the more you earn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wingracer1614 Again, you DO NOT need to show motive or opportunity. There are NO legal standards that need to be shown. In FACT, many murder cases are tried without evidence of motive or opportunity because many murders aren’t premeditated. Lots of photo and video evidence nowadays plainly shows who killed someone and if there’s no evidence of self-defense then that’s that. You’re confusing specific charges needing to meet specific legal standards with juries needing them to convict. For example, murder in the 1st degree usually needs an element of premeditation shown.
In my friend’s case, there was no motivation. It was a street shooting by a couple of thugs. They shot a bystander by accident instead of their target. A woman saw it and gave incredibly detailed descriptions of their fairly unique clothing. The cops got them 2 or 3 blocks away, matching the description put out on the radio/computer EXACTLY. It was at night on a pretty empty street. No gun was recovered. The shooter was found guilty of assault 1 (NYS) on the woman’t testimony of having seen them chase and shoot at people and calling 911 with a very exact description of their appearance and the clothing of the shooter having a very rare design logo.
No ballistics, no DNA, no fingerprints, no video, not even GSR on the shooter. No victim testimony was used, although PD and EMS records were included to show the crime took place and where. There was also “gun spotter” system data admitted to show that gun shots were fired in the vicinity at that time. That’s pretty much it. If the victim had died, the plan was to upgrade charges to manslaughter. He survived, thankfully.
You’re trying to quantify the evidence that’s needed to convict. Don’t. A jury simply needs to hear enough evidence to satisfy the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” a prosecutor that will connect/explain that evidence, and a defense attorney that doesn’t refute it. Whether it’s a quantity of weak evidence or a little but of very strong evidence is irrelevant. It just needs to convince the jury that the accused committed what they are charged with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ideal serving temperature depends on the specific beer type and method of preparation. Thus, Ales are traditionally consumed at room temperature (they are brewed hot). Lagers are traditionally served just above freezing temperatures and are brewed cold. Other types of beers fall somewhere in the middle. Some of the issue is flavor and alcohol content, but much of it has to do with effervescence as well. As your beer gets warmer, it loses its natural gasses and that makes some beers less enjoyable. Ales are generally flat compared to lagers and Pilsners, Helles, Kolschs and wheat beers.
Here are some examples of ideal storage/serving temperatures:
35–40°F (2–4°C): Mass market light lagers.
40–45°F (4–7°C): Czech and German Pilsners, Munich Helles, wheat beers, and Kölsch.
45–50°F (7–10°C): IPAs, American pale ales, porters, and most stouts.
50–55°F (10–13°C): Belgian ales, sour ales, Bocks, English bitters and milds, Scottish ales
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The engine has more to do with this test than anything else, actually. The primary things you need to go over a hill are power and/or momentum. Since they test without momentum, and at low rpm’s the power is what will drag the heavy cars up and over the hump. Regardless of traction, if you have no power, you go nowhere. You can clearly see that if you watch any of their videos: they give slight gas until they stop, then they give more, just enough to het up and over. If they were to have more powerful cars, like let’s say the Forester Turbo or the Ford Escaoe 2.0, or the V6 Cherokee, those cars would perform the best, while underpowered cars like the Crosstrek, CX-5 and base engine Cherokees and Escapes will perform poorly. It’s just simple physics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mark C That has nothing to do with law school. It has to do with our history.
North America was (and still is) a vast frontier land that was mostly uninhabited when Europeans came here. Guns were necessary for them to survive: to hunt and defend against native tribes that attacked them. I won’t get into the ethics of colonization here. Suffice to say that the average resident European needed a gun to protect himself and hunt. When America rebelled against England, King George decided to use regiments of the regular British Army to quell the rebellion, so the residents took their muskets and rifles and formed groups of militia. When our Constitution was first written, we were in the middle of that war. It was seen as a Brit against Brit by both sides, as a civil war. The reason why the Colonists fought was for freedom from the King and his abusive laws and rule. So the fear was of a totalitarian, abusive ruler. It was recognized that democracy was not that likely to succeed, as there were a lot of competing interests among the Colonists, they had no money, no power and no trade partners. An amendment to the Constitution (one of many) was passed to make sure the new government doesn’t take away guns from citizens, so they can have another revolution, if that one doesn’t work out. They were afraid that the new government would be as oppressive as the king, and wanted to preserve the ability to fight for themselves. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your beliefs), the amendment was seen as a justification of gun ownership in general, with no limitations, as it was vague. Because the United States had continued to be very rural, owning a gun was seen as normal, historically, at least for people in the rural areas. They had little police protection, lived on giant properties often miles from the closest neighbor and needed to hunt and protect themselves. Slowly, through urbanization, that is changing, but culture is slow to change and the Constitution is rather difficult to change.
Sorry for the long paragraph. It’s a long and complex historical topic. I’m a European immigrant myself and until college history and law classes, could not understand it either. Most governments on Earth are more authoritative. The US government is based on the power being built from the ground, up. It has many positives and negatives. Both systems do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
future62 No one asked anyone to redevelop land, but 99% of American towns do have the layout to support basic public transport. Most actually do have it, for legal reasons, but because people prefer to drive, there is no usage to justify more than one bus an hour or service at nights and on weekends. There are plenty of rural towns in Europe that have fewer that 20k residents and they all have regular bus routes. It’s not an economic thing. It’s a cultural thing. We pay for our own cars so we don’t pay more taxes. That mentality was born right after WW2. We like our own property. We don’t like to share. We like the comfort of our own cars. That’s just a fact. I’m not advocating for public transport. I’m just explaining what we have and why we have it.
The US has been urbanizing for decades. Today, more Americans live in urban areas than rural ones. Countless secondary and tertiary cities have exploded in the last two decades. Look at places like San Jose, Austin, Columbus or Las Vegas for example. America may have a low average population density, but that’s because most of it is just plain empty. Real residential areas are dense. However, if you look at public transit ridership figures even in the largest cities, it corresponds with our overall economy. When people are feeling poor, they take the bus/subway, but during times of prosperity, the ridership drops as people buy cars and use taxi services. That’s even true in NYC and Chicago.
2
-
Preston, I think you are giving WAY too much credit to Rusi here. This is a British think tank that’s using the British current military system and the British current way of thinking. The UK military is absolutely unprepared to fight almost anything other than an invasion of the UK at this point in time. They’ve been suffering decades of attrition, underfunding and misappropriation.
This model doesn’t understand the force that NATO is able to field rapidly, using solely its active duty personnel. It doesn’t comprehend the strength that the reserve systems of its members bring to the fight, and it doesn’t comprehend that all of its member states do have systems of call-ups/drafts in place, if needed. It doesn’t understand that NATO fights on land, in the air, at sea, in space and in cyberspace, ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It doesn’t comprehend how nuclear weapons play into a war.
In very short, it simply doesn’t comprehend.
The US alone has over two million military service members. This doesn’t even include the US Coast Guard (but should) or inactive reserve.
So this isn’t just about the high technologies. It’s also simply a large number of personnel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
With this, I’m almost convinced of two things: Mazda will discontinue the CX3, which is selling very poorly all over the world, and Mazda will switch their naming to tens of digits, instead of single digits, at least for the CUVs, so CX30, CX40, CX50, CX-80 and CX90. They’ve had a bit of naming confusion among customers, especially between the cars and crossovers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Preston, I can see why it would be difficult for a US Army officer to understand what constitutes success in an existential war, a war where you are invaded. The US has never been invaded and doesn’t consider an invasion as a real threat.
In an invasion like Ukraine there is only one strategic goal: recapture (liberation) of ALL occupied territories. Period.
As such, objectives for offensive operations all rest on one goal: taking territory back and giving up none.
Any day when you are capturing back any land at all, even an inch, is a success, as long as you’re doing it in a sustainable way. Slow and steady wins the race.
I also see that you’re not understanding why the US is vague about its plans. Its plans depend on Ukraine’s needs and our partners abilities to deliver. We don’t just give what we want, when we want it. NATO has to do its joint assessments, intelligence agencies have to assess the political and military ramifications and logistics have to be worked out. It’s a dynamic war and with 50 partners, we are constantly hoping someone else will volunteer to take up a task to save us money (so is everyone else.) We have no strategic goal. We are flying by the seat of our pants, as is everyone else in war. The goal is to end the war with Ukraine being satisfied.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great work, Ryan! All of this is VERY similar to the Coast Guard, although you should try and get underway with them at some point too. They even have the hamsters.
Officers are traditionally separated from the enlisted by a long-standing tradition. Naval officers were educated, upper class men, employed full-time by a royal commission (at least in Europe), and often held royal titles. Enlisted were usually very poor and often simply contracted for the voyage. By “contracted” I mean they were often grabbed on the docks, tricked into enlisting or even plucked from prisons. Only long-term enlisted sailors (Chiefs) were actual career men. Back in those days the enlisted got the scraps while the officers ate luxurious meals.
Today, despite eating in separate rooms, allowing for each group to discuss the other, they actually eat the same exact meals prepared in the same galley. The wardroom does, however, get proper cutlery and china, sometimes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lebron3505 Tanks like the M1 aren’t a “reactionary force” because they have massive logistical requirements to be sent in. They are not maneuverable enough to tackle unimproved beach heads, need a secure landing site with engineers already having shored it up, and massive use of landing craft just to get a few over to land. The alternative is needing a runway to accept C-17s or C-5s, and each aircraft can take just one M1 Abrams at a time.
Considering the amount of people, support (fuel, maintenance, parts, and wreckers) you will need to battle with them, they are simply too large for any quick operation. The Marines have been using them only in long-term, large scale deployments, which they have now walked away from in favor of operating solely as MEUs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think 99.9% of people here don't actually know how to drive in the snow. That's probably because they mostly deal with paved and salted/sanded roads.
When you're in deep, soft snow, you need to gain some traction as the powder is like mud, so it gives you none (just moves out of the way). You also need lots of power to constantly keep you pushing forward as there's little grip even when you get some. In that rare situation, you need to put the car into a low gear and keep it there, providing lots of torque and shut off any traction control system you may have. ANY car sold in the United States has more than enough power to get itself out of deep snow provided the steps above were taken and the driver is skilled (and patient.) People in Russia drive cars with 40 horsepower out of deep snow and they don't even have dedicated snow tires often.
When you're in shallow snow or when the snow has frozen a bit and isn't a light powder, you need to do the complete opposite as spinning tires will simply turn all the snow into flat ice under your tires. You need to turn on the traction control system, apply even, light accelerator and your best bet is to drive in 2nd/3rd gears. Avoid stopping or accelerating hard if you can. If your car can, try to get it going in 2nd gear instead of 1st. If it won't get going, try to rock the car back and forth, gently, until it can get going and then keep the momentum going by providing gentle acceleration. Powering through sand or icy snow will only get you stuck more. It's also a good idea to take out some air out of your tires in these conditions because that increases the traction area.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
James Mastroianni It was designed IN Asia, but not necessarily FOR Asia. It was designed for world-round sales in developed nations (Europe, US, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc.) The Chevy Tracker was designed for the developing nations like India, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheMattd546
Merriam-Webster defines it as, "a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education; the state of being ignorant."
The Oxford Dictionary defines it as, "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated"
As you can see, you got the definition of "ignorance" wrong. There's no "willfully stupid" in it. It just means you don't know.
When it comes to the litigation issues, you didn't know that it was the case. You could have spent 10 minutes Googling it and you would have known. However, you decided out of ignorance to still provide advice on things you clearly don't know. That's the problem. If you don't know, don't chime in. No one asked you for legal advice.
Furthermore, "usually every business model" is very wrong. It is a saying. It's not a business model. In fact, it's primarily just a saying in the retail sales industry. As a manager, you're always responsible for doing the right thing for the customer. It is what you think is right, not what the customer is right. That's why you were hired as a manager. You are trusted and hopefully trained to make that decision to do the right thing for the customer, given the situation. It's a very subjective concept, I know. However, the customer isn't paying your salary, so the right thing must also be right for the company as well. As a manager, you balance those two all day long because they usually aren't the same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem is that both, Diesel and electric motors have the same pluses and the same minuses. They both create LOTS of torque, which helps heavy vehicles to get going, but both produce very little horsepower, which help vehicles go faster. Both are great on fuel, but both are expensive to make. So, what happens with a Diesel/Electric hybrid engine is that you end up making crazy torque at low RPMs (probably more than you'd ever need), but very little power on the highway, once you get going (which is great for fuel economy, but terrible for passing, merging, etc.). Volkswagen made a TDI Hybrid Golf as a prototype. It had 1.2 engine Diesel engine and it generated a respectable 132lb/ft of torque, but only 74 hp. It mostly drove on electric, kicking in the Diesel only when extra power was needed at higher speeds, but it wasn't much. It was extremely fuel efficient and clean, but also extremely slow. Too slow for most countries to sell it. That said, it's perfect for city buses and you will see Diesel Hybrid buses all over the world. They never need to go at highway speeds anyway. When they do, they don't pass anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ProfsrXav8r My background is driving C-17s for 16 years (15,000 hours+) and driving A320’s for 8. I started flying Cessnas when I was 16 (thanks Civil Air Patrol!).
There are delays on the ground for all types of reasons. We’re not discussing them. We’re discussing delays that occur on the runway, after you have clearance and a slot to depart, after you’ve already been directed to “line up an hold/wait.” People are asking why, after all that, an aircraft still can’t depart for minutes.
When you call to file an IFR plan, you need to stay parked until you are released and given a departure plan, which has NOTHING to do with your actual departure. You can still depart VFR, if you want, and many do, choosing to file later, in-flight, as you’ve done.
That said, the delay we’re all discussing, has NOTHING to do with IFR plans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DARisse-ji1yw That’s true, but hybrids don’t use starters, which pull only a fraction of the amperage needed to fully crank an engine, from the 12v battery. They draw the power from one of the electric motor/generators, which makes enough power to do a smooth full crank of the engine. That in turn reduces a large quantity of wear and tear of the starting process. Hybrids also don’t have alternators, charging the 12v from the generator as well. They do have functioning oil pumps to create the necessary pressure as well.
My Rav4 hybrid starts the engine at startup, after a full boot-up, and runs the engine until it is warmed up. As the primary drive comes from the electric motor, no additional burden is placed on the engine as it continues until its optimal temperatures and shuts off, unless needed. Once it is needed or it starts to cool off, it restarts again. Keep in mind that it uses 0W-16 fully synthetic oil. On the one hand, it often cycles between hot and “hot enough” temperatures, which isn’t ideal, but on the other hand, they still stay within proper operating temps and high temperatures is what destroys the oil to begin with.
Please keep in mind that car manufacturers employ actually experienced mechanical engineers and not Youtube commenters and might have an idea if what they’re doing, considering that cars are more reliable than they’ve ever been in history, despite (or due to) their complexities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D.A. Risse Last stage critical patients? WTF is that?
They were brought in to handle primary triage, emergent care, acute trauma, stroke/cardiac emergencies, natal deliveries and emergency surgeries. They were brought in to alleviate some of NYC hospitals from doing those things, so that those hospitals would take in Covid patients ONLY.
However, the logistics of that don’t work in NYC. I would have placed it in the Red Hook Cruise terminal. The facility has the needed depth and perimeter security in place, electrical, fresh water and sanitation connections, proximity to the Gowanus/BQE to serve everything from Elmhurst to Coney Island hospitals and be in an area where many hospitals had closed in the last decade, leaving residents under-served. It would be within a few minutes’ drive from about 13 major hospitals that are currently overrun.
As for one hour trips... you clearly have ZERO medical knowledge. Look up what the “golden hour” rule is.
Stop spreading ignorance and false information!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Observer 33210 You ARE making stuff up and it’s because:
1. You don’t have the understanding of the subject matter and
2. Get all your information from general media and not from first sources or experts. The general media understand as much about 737s as they do about particle acceleration.
This misinformation regurgitation leads to a hell of a lot of ignorance.
On your point of the EASA checklist, for example... EASA wants to see data and how easy or hard it actually is to turn the trim wheel at various flight conditions. They don’t know because it’s so conditional. They’re not saying it has to be changed. They’re saying they want the data to decide.
Also, I didn’t, and others didm’t say the crashes were solely a result of bad flying. READ! I specifically detailed it. Modern commercial aircraft are so hard to crash that it takes a series of mishaps and mistakes or an intentional act to do it.
Again, the initial incident was caused by malfunctions of the AoA indicator that controls the MCAS. In one instance due to maintenance negligence. In the other, a lightning strike.
That malfunction created an emergency, but a recoverable one. The pilots, in both cases, failed to properly fly the aircraft. In Indonesia, failed to follow the memory checklist for a runaway trim. In Ethiopia, failed to turn off auto-throttle and failed to use the rollercoaster maneuver to lighten the loads on the manual trim wheel. Instead they turned the electric trim that malfunctioned, back on.
In both incidents, the pilots panicked and failed to recover. That caused the crashes to become fatal, not the MCAS. In fact, there is zero evidence or engineering logic to show that if pilots knew about the MCAS they would have done anything differently as they demonstrated that they didn’t know how to recover the aircraft either with or without it.
Why is the aircraft grounded? Simple: because it was grounded out of fear/caution, and not out of fact. Authorities cannot do a thing about it until the investigations are complete and the facts are released. Imagine the MCAS gets fixed and certified, but then investigations determine it was something completely different that went wrong??? Which politician wants to be responsible for releasing a plane that wasn’t fixed? People would fry that PM/President! No. As the authorities said when they grounded the MAX, it was done out of “an abundance of caution”’and not known facts. It was out of a lack of facts and fear. And that’s fine... that’s what governments are for. Protection from the unknown.
This whole design of engines and MCAS fear stems purely from the ignorance of people and the media. “What makes the MAX different? Engines and MCAS. Well, that mist be it then!” Umm no. That’s not how it works in real life. In fact, that trim wheel condition you used as an example... it’s common to ALL 737s ever made. Care to look up how many accidents were caused by it in all of the flight hours around the globe?
Go ahead, educate yourself for once... look it up!
1
-
Observer 33210 I would say Sully is correct. However, that’s why you have to pilot and go through memory checklists, not rummage around for a paper flight manual the way that the Lion Air did. Also, while the two indicators showed opposite readouts, one of them was correct. More importantly, while that would be confusing, it is not fatal. It does not fly you into the ground. Furthermore, Sully’s conclusion is very important, but also also not. Important because they had nothing to do specifically with the MAX. The AoA sensors are the same as on the NG or even the classic 737s, and actually the same as on an Airbus or any other modern plane. Not important because Sully is a career Airbus pilot. Airbus pilots aren’t trained on manual trim procedures which added complexity to the scenario. To a pilot not used to these procedures, it would add much more complexity.
However, what is most important is not excuses or feelings, but facts. How did the simulations Sully attended end? Did the pilots crash or did they recover? Did they know what to do? Did they know how to recover? What’s also important to note is that Sully didn’t blame MCAS for anything, not did he blame it on the lack of Boeing’s notification of MCAS to operators. He blamed it on the AoA sensors and he mentioned that it was difficult for the crews to manage. Exactly what I’ve been saying from the start.
1
-
1
-
Observer 33210 Again, knowing that MCAS is there or not would have made ZERO difference! None! At all! They knew they had a runaway trim. Why it was runaway is for maintainers to figure out after the landing. The pilot’s job is to switch off the power to the jackscrew and fly!
You are so hing up on your faulty knowledge that it’s getting pathetic... and frankly annoying.
Sully isn’t an avionics specialist and is clearly applying Airbus automated logic to this. No, that’s not how that works. The pilot cannot control and not control something at the same time. Sorry. Not how that works. He was using a hypothetical situation where the AoA was the only system at play, where pilots can then trim using the yoke button and simply fly. However, that waan’t the case. We had an AoA failure AND a trim failure. Trim failure is an emergency. AoA failure (1 of 2) is not. As a pilot, you fix the emergency, then work on whatever else. Sully knows this. He was being political, which he’s known for. Either way, the pilots knowing about MCAS would not have changed the fix. for the situation, which they did not apply. There was no “trap.”
Also, Sully conveniently said NOTHING about the pilot faults or maintainers, because he is still tight with the pilots’ union and gets compensated. He’s a smart man who knows what hand feeds him, but that doesn’t make him impartial.
Now go read the Indonesian authority preliminary findings. Get some facts for your toolbox instead of random opinions!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sabinereynaudsf No. This is because Ukraine can use its entire male (and female) population to defend itself, versus Russia, which can only use its actual military and will never, can never, would never conscript all males to invade. Ukraine’s population is over 40 million. About half of that are male - 20 mil. About 60% are able to fight/military age and condition. That’s about 12 million. Right now, Ukraine has about 1.5 million soldiers between active, reserve and police, who are all doing military work. Russia’s 300,000 won’t change a thing. Even a million won’t.
Russia has to continue to protect its own territory while attacking Ukraine. Otherwise it will be invaded and defeated by someone else.
This is why any invasion is doomed. Look at the French and Americans in Vietnam as a great example. WW2 as well. Unless you can extremely quickly overrun the nation, before it is able to mobilize its reserves and civilians, you will fail at an invasion. The Germans understood this in Blitzkrieg, but underestimated their ability to navigate the Russian steppe environment, causing them to slow down. That gave Russia a chance to mobilize and rout.
The US/UK quickly invaded both, Afghanistan and Iraq, successfully because they knew this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianworley8169 There are specific reasons why those countries get the participle, and use of participles differs by language, so since we’re talking about English, it’s France, not La France.
The Netherlands adopted its name after the medieval description of it as being the region of Europe because it was literally low. The word “netherlands” means low country. The Netherlands are at or below sea level and very flat. They were also considered “down stream” by the Romans. In most Romance languages, the name for the Netherlands still translates to “low countries”.
Prior to its independence it was called the Spanish Netherlands.
The use of the particle is required to denote a specific netherlands versus all others in Europe, making country “THE Netherlands” instead of just random netherlands.
When it comes to the Democratic Republic of Congo, much like in the United States of America, the participle refers to the subject. The subject noun in the former is “Republic”, with Democratic being the adjective. There are many republics in the world, and even in Africa. We use “the” to denote a specific one, just as the United States (of America), not some other united states of say… Mexico, which is officially the United Mexican States (many people don’t know this).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I appreciate your opinion, but it’s absolute, mindless horse shit, sorry. Whether you want to call it in Japanese (kaizen) or English (evolution), continuous improvement isn’t a uniquely Toyota concept. In fact, ALL vehicle manufacturers, and all manufacturers in general, use it. Every engineer and developer bases designs on past lessons. Kaizen is a term for “lean manufacturing.”
When someone says “I’ve been working exclusively for one employer”, please understand that that person has only one single perspective and may be exhibiting what’s known as the Stockholm Syndrome.
Look, I drive a Toyota. In fact, both my new cars have been Toyotas. I believe Toyotas are a good value and fit my driving style well. That said, their FACTUAL (statistical) reliability is just above average and they have been getting worse with complexity and cost cutting over the years (as have most other manufacturers).
There are things they do very well and always have (electricals, hybrid drivetrain, metallurgy). There are things they’ve really improved on in the last decade (engines, suspensions and AWD) and there are things they’ve really crapped out on lately (steering, technology, infotainment, paint and transmissions).
Despite all that, having an employee tell us corporate tales of culture is honestly gross. It feels like listening to a cult member. Believe me, Toyota isn’t that special. They make good cars, overall, but they are not industry leaders in anything at all and they’re not incredibly concerned about their customers.
Case in point: although I own a 2021 Rav4 Hybrid and live in NYC where I do frequent short trips (mostly) and have cold winters (relatively), and Toyota’s own recommendation to change the oil every 5,000 miles, Toyota has REFUSED to pay for it via Toyota Care. They simply said they would, if the technician would determine an oil change is needed. 😂 Which is of course impossible without a chemical test or absolute self-destruction of the engine. I had two very long conversations with supervisors on the phone and caught BOTH flat out lying and back pedaling. When I had the service manager listen on the speaker, he just shook his head and gave me a free oil change because Toyota basically said, “Yes, the contract says you’re entitled. No, we won’t pay.” That is today’s Toyota. Three people at Customer Care said this, including two supervisors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@st-ex8506 The Crimean canal supplied 85% of Crimea’s water prior to the war. Of that, 72% went to agriculture, 10% to industry and 18% for drinking, bathing, etc. So yes, that would be considered a war crime.
The peace time system of ferries is only a tiny percentage of all the vessels being used to ferry during war. You’re basing everything on pure assumptions instead of facts. For example, you say, “The Russian could not satisfactorily supply their 20-30’000 on the right bank of Dnieoro”, but that’s not the case. What they could not do was supply them successfully, across the entire Kherson Oblast, so far from their supply centres and on a front line of a river. What you’re doing is called a “straw man argument”. It has NOTHING to do with their logistics in Crimea. You just lack basic info on Crimea and have no other basis to form an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reasonable suspicion is not explained to the viewers because it goes against the channel’s interests.
Reasonable suspicion is a standard that a police officer must meet by explaining it to a judge. The judge rules if it is reasonable according to law, not a random person’s “common sense” or “feels”.
As such, you need to comply with the officers when they are detaining you, and then fight that detainment’s legality in court, preferably with a lawyer.
If you walk away and resist that detainment, you may lawfully be charged with resisting arrest or impeding an investigation/obstruction of justice. Don’t get yourself in more trouble.
For every case where the defendant was unlawfully detained, there is a million where the judge decides it was lawful. They just don’t tell you about them on YT.
In this case, the officer was under the belief that he was asked to leave, so his actions are actually valid. Walmart only explained they never actually asked him to leave after this situation. That’s what the courts look at, the whole story in detail.
Sometimes this channel gets it right, sometimes they don’t, but they always need that content to roll out to make money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The issue is that there's no real advantage for an AWD system to be engaged at high speeds. The CVT-based AWD system is unfortunately LESS robust than the viscous coupling system that manual transmission Subarus have. That system is heavy duty, but dumbed down because it has no sensors. It is fully mechanical. However, you can't kill it. The multi-plate clutch packs are smart, very sensor driven and can be engaged before slippage occurs, but they are more prone to failure. The other issue is that while the Subarus are all full-time AWD (both axles always get torque), they unfortunately can't shift their torque between the axles too much. The multi-plate system is defaulted to a 60/40 split front/rear, but when the sensors sense slippage, all they do is bring it to a 50/50 split. The car can't provide more than that to the front or the rear. Other cars can provide up to 100% of torque to the front or the rear, taking away torque from the axle that slip and giving it to the axle that grips. Subarus can't do that. The best system that Subaru has is the one for the WRX STi, which includes dual driveaxles, electronic and mechanical, with customization that makes it rear-biased or front.
So while that AWD system that works at high speeds might be very beneficial for off-road rallies, where one drives fast, hard and off-road, during real world driving, you're either driving slowly through places that have little grip (and any AWD car will give you grip then) or you're driving fast on the highway (where the grip comes from your tires, rather than the AWD system). Of course if you want to drive snowy country roads at 100kph and avoid having understeer, then you may want to get a... Subaru. In all other situations, there's not much of an advantage to them.
Plus, the mechanical torque vectoring on the Mitsubishis, Acuras and now Toyotas is MUCH better off-road than anything a Subaru can provide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HAL-bo5lr No. Go look at a map and explain it. You can’t. The official reports are saying it will go to Hartford and then Providence, not Springfield. Springfield is in the opposite direction of Boston (Northwest instead of Northeast).
The fact that this train will miss the two most populated cities in Connecticut will be a non-starter alone. The project assumes this service will be created IN ADDITION to the current Acela service, which will NOT happen. They assume the federal government will end up paying for the entire cost, which will not happen. That also assumes that all of this track will be Amtrak-owned, but that’s not going to happen either because they want to run their trains on the Waterbury branch of the MetroNorth, which is owned by the CT DoT and isn’t at all capable of high speed travel, as it meanders with the Naugatuck River.
You can’t comprehend a basic thing about trains. They have to be filled and being in money. Without the additional cities along the way, no high-speed train can exist. They need the ridership. Are you a child that you can’t comprehend this?
First of all, I quoted you, you moron. Second, none of those “feats” have ANYTHING to do with this. The TGV? Those are train tracks, the same as we have already! I’m talking about a tunnel under an 18-mile inlet that’s 300 feet deep! For reference, the English channel is 23 miles wide at the Chunnel crossing. Even the Seikan tunnel’s underwater section is shorter at 14.5 miles! Like I said, this tunnel alone would be a project the size of the Chunnel construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alan Bowers The First Mk1 Focus RS WRC (by the way, do you know what “RS” stands for?) was finished in 1999 to replace the Escort RS. It had a permanent 4WD. It was not a street legal car. It was for rallies only. Since then, every generation of Focuses had an RS WRC until it was replaced by the Fiesta RS WRC in 2011, when that was replaced by the Fiesta WRC in 2017, Ford decided to relegate the RS marquee for street cars, not actual rally cars. As such, the Ford 2000 development project had the RS in mind the entire time, and developed the floor to accept a driveshaft to the rear. However, Ford never saw a market for such a car for the public until much later, with the Mk3 car, when it became a larger world platform again. That’s exactly when Ford switched over to the Fiesta for competitions and the road ST was developed on the Mk3. Have you watched “The rebirth of an icon” videos from Ford? Interesting stuff.
Hyundai never developed the Soul for any rally (or other) sport use and not for any AWD system. When it was developed, both Hyundai and Kia already sold compact CUVs. Hyundai’s rally car is the i20 WRC. It’s not sold in the US.
My sources are the internet. You have to look up the whole story if Ford’s RS cars. Then look up (or know) the story of the Focus and Fiesta.
PS: All versions and generations of the Focus have a fairly prominent floor hump along the interior. The Soul, through all generations, has had a tiny one. Its floor is almost flat in the rear seat area.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stephen Hendricks I know that conclusion is logical-sounding and applies for many products, but not cars. Sorry. The most unreliable brand’s reliability percentage and the most reliable brand’s reliability percentage are within 6% of each other, making those considerations pretty mute. It’s well-known in the industry that for the first three years, cars don’t really break. It’s also known that making a warranty long, but putting lots of conditions on it makes it difficult for a person to later collect on the warranty. After 3 years, almost everything that goes wrong can be blamed on misuse or wear + tear. That’s the strategy. Look up warranty complaints and you will see just that: warranty repairs being denied.
Also, while extended warranties may be a source of revenue for dealers, (they are not offered by the manufacturer), original warranties don’t bring any revenue in except the sale itself: this it being a marketing tool.
If manufacturers based their warranties on reliability instead of marketing, then Honda and Toyota would have had 10 year warranties, while Hyundai/Kia and Suzuki would have had 1-year warranties, but that’s not at all the case. When Hyundai started offering their limited 10 year warranty, their reliability was terrible. The same for VW. They offered it for goofs like you, to turn around the brand’s image and grow sales. And “presto!”, it works! You’re the proof of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ I don’t know it he knows it or not, but the reason that German manufacturers make so many cars all around the world and re-import many is money savings, primarily labor costs. What you think of as German products of Ford and GM were often actually American or joint in design. There were even American cars sold under European brands like Renault back in the 1980s. All through the 80s, 90s and 2000s, there were American small cars sold in Europe. The EU killed it with tariffs and since they’re small priced and have small margins, the exports to the EU stopped. You saw joint models like Ford’s Mondeo/Fusion, Kuga/Escape, Focus and Fiesta. Chrysler sold Neons, Voyagers, Jeeps, etc. GM sold a high of 500,000 cars in Europe in 2005. Since then, US automakers have stopped marketing and designing cars that could work in Europe, but ironically, European cars have grown in size to match much of the American market. The finances simply don’t work. If Americans only drive small cars then European cars wouldn’t sell in North America, would they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jon-d6h 1. They WERE occupying. They did not occupy them in the 70’s. In fact, their occupation started to be eased in the late 70’s.
2. Introspective in the USSR means people caring about the USSR and its dealings, not the West. Back then most Russians still couldn’t leave the country and the few that could, couldn’t leave the Communist areas (China, Vietnam, Warsaw Pact, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). You can disagree all you want. Out of the two of us, only one grew up in the USSR. Also, no, Russia didn’t fight in Africa first 70 years. Man you’re misinformed.
1
-
1
-
@Jon-d6h No, the language was NEVER Russian! Where are you getting that from??? The Warsaw Pact had no official language. It was a treaty, just like NATO. It had multiple languages in writing. As per the countries, the ONLY official languages were their own, so German in GDR, Polish in Poland, Bulgarian in Bulgaria, Hungarian in Hungary, Czech and Slovak in Czechoslovakia, Romanian in Romania, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because there's not demand to have all of those models. It's not that they can't, it's that they aren't making as much money in those in North America. You see, those sedans from Japanese companies are also sold around the rest of the world, while GM and Ford aren't selling much in Europe or Asia. That's because decades ago they had a bad strategy of making their cars under terribly managed foreign brands like Opel/Vauxhall/Saab/Holden. Ford did the same when they bought Volvo and Land Rover. Now they've all realized their failures and sold off those brands, but along with that, they lost all of their presence in those markets. People in Europe have no clue of what GM cars are. Ford does much better in Europe, but has no solid presence in Asia. The entire world has Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, etc. They will continue to sell Camrys, Civics, i30s and others there, so whatever they sell in the U.S. is just gravy to them.
To FCA, Ford and GM, their North American sales are the bulk of their sales and foreign sales are gravy to them. When the sales of sedans started dropping and sales of CUVs (which are more profitable anyway) started picking up, it was clear that people were switching from compact cars to sub-compact CUVs and from family sedans to compact CUVs and mid-size CUVs. GM, Ford and FCA could trudge along the current path, but the sales will continue to decline and there will be less and less sales for ALL manufacturers, thus less and less profits. This will impact the US-based companies more, as I've pointed out, so they are ending that segment first. If the sales continue to drop even more, you may see non-luxury foreign sedans leave the market as well. I suspect you'll see Volkswagen drop the Passat, then the Jetta. They've already dropped the VW New Beetle and 2-door Golf/GTIs. I predict that Honda will reduce their Civic line-up, perhaps eliminating the 2-door and 5-door Civics. I imagine Subaru will shut down their Impreza hatch production and possibly the Legacy sedan production as well. Toyota will likely pull the Yaris and Corolla sedan within the next few years, perhaps even pull the Avalon after this generation. Nissan will most likely drop the Versa and re-design the Sentra into a hatchback or drop it as well and the Maxima will likely be dropped after this generation. Nissan will, meanwhile, bring in a new 3-row Pathfinder and possibly re-design the Armada into a better large SUV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Video Pipeline Edmunds is not the determining entity on anything... at all. The reality is that there isn’t one. Ford and Jeep use “4WD” and “4x4” on the Escape, Explorer, Grand Cherokee and Cherokee. All those systems would be considered “AWD” according to your link. So are they lying? No. Why? Because there is no set differentiation. The same two companies had pioneered “Full-Time All Wheel Drive” on the Grand Cherokee, Expedition and Explorer back in the 1990’s when those systems would be called 4x4 or 4WD by the definition you go by. Were they wrong? No, they were not. To add to the confusion of many people, some manufacturers believe “AWD” only applies to vehicles who are always powered at all wheels, instead of part-time, so if a car has a rear or front axle that can be disengaged (as in most modern AWD cars) it wouldn’t even fall into that category. https://www.subaru.com.au/car-advice/awd-vs-4wd
AWD, 4x4, 4x6, 6x6 and 4WD are not legal terms and are not trademarked. They are simply marketing terms and have no specific meanings except to show how many wheels are powered. That’s the full extent of it. To better demonstrate, not one person here could clearly delineate where AWD stops and 4WD begins or vice-versa. Moreover, no one will be able to agree on any borderline between them because there are so many systems nowadays that have features that fall into both or neither category.
In basic terms, what we had in 1980s was simple to discern, but what we have today is not and the marketing monikers haven’t made it any easier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hitens4573 As well India SHOULD pay for its own infrastructure. Every nation should. The point was that the UK was the reason India ever got that infrastructure. When it was built, India had no means, resources, technology nor know-how to make these projects happen. You don’t get development out of a vacuum. Colonization has terrible repercussions, but ignoring the benefits is equally bad. Afghanistan was never colonized. India would have been equal to that today if it wasn’t for its history under Britain. Look at Macau/Hong Kong versus (real) China. Look at the Americas. They were all colonies.
Also, you have a very skewed perception of history. India DID NOT import much of anything it could make on its own from the UK. It only imported goods that wealthy Indians still wanted. India was also NOT a wealthy country right before colonization. That’s an absolute lie. India was a purely agrarian economy. Its exports were mostly via Europe, which is why the British colonized it so easily. Different factions within were constantly warring. In the early 1800s India was falling behind other nations because it was failing to industrialize. It had very vast natural resources, but failed to make use of them (a legacy it continues today).
You’re confusing the Indian wealth during the height of the Mughal Empire in the 16-17th centuries, which was vast, with its condition at the end of the Mughal empire in the early 19th century. By then, the Mughals lost control of most regions to the Sikhs, Marathas, Mysoreans, Nizams, Rajputs, Afghans, Jats, etc. and India lost most of its wealth through internal conflicts and a deterioration in trade. The Jats and Persians easily plundered all wealth from India. It was hundreds of years of foreign Islamic rule that actually destroyed India, not the British.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@automation7295 What exactly is your psychiatric diagnosis?
First off, ALL of North America is like that, from Mexico to Canada. Second, Europe isn’t superior. It’s just different, and if you knew the history of why, you wouldn’t talk at all. Europe is the way it is because it was developed under feudalism (compact, central towns where all live, and the fields they tended to outside of town). America was developed by Europeans wanting more space and freedom and built their homes on their fields, which was more convenient to farmers, with huge distances from house to house, and this no centralization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jackson Scott Your first claim is OBJECTIVELY false. There are lots of vehicles with lower emissions output than any Mazda. I am curious as to how you’re making comparisons on this though… average output of all models? Aggregate output of all models? Are you looking at the output of one specific model? Would also love to see any statistics you’re referencing. That said, there are tons of ICE hybrids, PHEVs, mild hybrids, but also non-electrified vehicles with lower emissions. Not a single Mazda vehicle qualified for the Consumer Reports “Green Choice” qualification for 2021. In fact, according to the EPA’s latest, 2020 report, Mazda showed the highest CO2 output increase in the industry at 13g/mi, with GM in second place, while Kia had the largest decrease at 31g/mi.
In fact, according to the EPA, Mazda was the leader in highest fuel economy from 2014 to 2016. Honda took that title in 2027 and Tesla has had it from then on. By model, no Mazda has ever held that title overall, and among ICE-only vehicles, the Mazda 2 held it 2016.
By CO2 emissions Honda is currently the second place manufacturer after Tesla, with 296g/mi. Mazda and Subaru both produce 310g/mi. That’s for 2019 models. 2020 preliminary data shows Honda with 299g/mi and Mazda with 323g/mi. Hyundai shows 306g/mi, and Subaru 313g/mi. If those numbers are confirmed (and they’re very likely to) then Mazda is the fourth manufacturer in ICE vehicles by CO2 emissions.
Why is this happening? Simple: just look at the years in question and their model range. Mazda gave up their economy/output leader, the 2. On the flip side, Mazda added CUVs and high performance (not high efficiency) turbos to a number of models.
1
-
@Jackson Scott In order to support my statement to you I’ve gone back and added actual statistics on fuel economy and CO2 emissions by brand. Mazda and GM are the the only brands that have increased their CO2 outputs over the last 5 years and are on trend to continue to do so. As of 2020 models, Mazda is in the 5th overall, 4th in non-electric-only brands. Mazda’s focus has been to make more CUV and increase performance, not decrease emissions. The gasoline compression engine was never introduced. The Diesel intro on the CX-5 was a major fail. The micro Mazda 2 model was sold off to Toyota and turbos were added across the range to add performance, not improve emissions. Their next move will be to add a 6-cylinder engine to the Mazda 6. This is not an environmentally-friendly trajectory at all.
Your claim that buying a new Tesla is “pretty terrible for the environment” has been debunked by hundreds of credible sources. Their initial impact is greater, which is what anti-climate trolls focus on. However, the lifetime aggregate impact is far lower than any ICE, and those same trolls conveniently ignore that because it obviously kills their excuses. The fact is, lithium-ion batteries are recyclable and engines aren’t. Electricity is much cleaner to produce and more efficient to consume than gasoline or Diesel oil. Mazda’s small battery isn’t due to its impact at all. It’s simply die to it being a compliance vehicle, which is why it’s sold in just 2 states and those states being CARB states.
Stop with the excuses. None of them are honest or factual. If you like Mazdas, go for it. Just don’t claim something that isn’t true, please.
1
-
@Jackson Scott What is wrong with you? Why do you lack basic reading comprehension? Why are you trolling? In my comments I never referenced the Skyactiv-g engines. NOT ONCE. I referenced Skyactiv-x and Skyactive-d engined models. You have NO idea what you’re talking about, at all, and you’re constantly lying because you’ve been caught.
You never said Mazda “was” number two behind Tesla. You said, “They are the cleanest burning ICE vehicles”.
Also, EVs net lifetime benefit doesn’t just barely edge out ICEs because the net effect includes the battery component recycling effect. Trolls like you like to purposefully leave out the facts to create their own truth.
IF you were comparing ONLY the manufacturing of a brand new EV, without factoring in its usage in fuel and maintenance or its recyclability then an ICE car would win out, by a little bit. However, that’s a bullshit use of data because vehicles aren’t just purchased and stacked in piles of garbage. They’re used. In the case of ICE cars, the use what pollutes the most, followed by the low percentage of recyclability or re-use of them once they’re out of service. EVs utilize a high percentage of recycled materials in their manufacturing and thus can be recycled at a higher rate, pound for pound. That especially goes for their batteries. All those precious metals are recycled and the more old batteries you have to use, the less is mined.
None of this conversation is about EVs though… you just brought them up to troll. Mazda sucks at EVs, hybrids or at being environmentally friendly. The only reason they used to be high on the list is because for the first few years after separating from ford, all their models were tiny in size and engine size. Even their first Skyactiv CX-5 and 6 models used tiny 2.0 NA engines. They have no large sedans, SUVs or pick-ups either. The CX-9 is their largest vehicle and even that runs the 2.5T. Since then, they have uprated their existing engines, added turbos to them, eliminated their smallest models (Mazda 2 and CX-3), added larger CUVs and failed to bring the more economic and cleaner Skyactiv-X compression engine as well as failing with the Skyactiv-d in North America due to poor fuel efficiency and high cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HingerlAlois Except Germany is nowhere near the limits of their allowed military strength, are they? Germany is also a heavily populated and wealthy nation, isn’t it? That’s why look at spending as a comparison to the GDP, don’t we? Germany’s defense spending by GDP is 1.3%.
The worldwide average spending is 2.2%. France, UK, Australia, Brazil, Canada (not to mention Saudi Arabia, USA, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and India) all spend more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It seems that Hyundai Motors subscribes to the general American motor sports ideology that makes American motor sports and American cars a laughing stock all around the world: that HP is all that counts.
The ideal driving machine is balanced. It has enough horsepower to be fun, but mostly the dynamics to be fun. This is why true hot hatches aren’t that powerful. Look at the Mini John Cooper Works, the Clios, Megane RS, Fiesta STs, GTIs… none of these are powerhouses. They’re just relatively inexpensive and fun to drive because they’re balanced. Hyundai, with the Veloster N, the Kona N and this clearly doesn’t get what’s fun to drive.
Hyundai… take the Kona N-Line AWD, lower it an inch, stiffen it up and lighten it 200lbs! That’s FUN, even with just 195hp!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aviation88 A KC-10 will routinely refuel other KC-10s, C-17s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, C-5s, VC-25/E-4s, etc. More importantly, a KC-135, which is significantly smaller than the KC-10 will does the same. Since the boom extends pretty far down, it’s usually not a big issue for most aircraft, except… the A-10. The Hogs always have issues refueling as they simply can’t fly fast enough and the vortices increase at lower speeds. As cool a weapon as they are, they’re always a PITA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robert65755 Yeah, all makes sense. Hyundai has NO idea of how to make something fully modern. They could have used a resistive heater, at least, but no. That means that in the winter, you can NEVER actually drive in EV mode. Also, since batteries are heavy, it’s slower than the hybrid, even with the extra horsepower. Since it gets up to just 30 miles electric, the federal tax rebate is just $5,600.
Yeah, that level charge rate of 3.3 kW isn’t inspiring on paper, but it’s a standard rate for PHEVs.
The Rav4 does exactly the same and takes 4.4 hours to charge. That’s on the 240v cable. It has, just like the Tucson will have, a 120v cable and that takes 12 hours to charge. The optional upgraded 6.6 kW level 2 charger on the XSE Premium gets it there in 2.5 hours. The Prime’s battery is 18.1 kWh. It runs on 335v.
The Tucson’s is just 13.8 kWh, so it should take less time to charge up. Its upgraded level 2 cable is capable of 7.2 kW according to Hyundai. Its system runs on 360v. So if you’re just doing a typical 3.3 kW charge with a 120v, 15 amp outlet, my guess for the Tucson is 10 hours and 4 hours on the 240v cable. If you go with the upgraded 7.7 kW charger and it maxes, then you’ll likely do a full charge in just over 2 hours.
The lesson there is… get the upgraded optional cable and don’t buy this car if you live anywhere with a real winter.
1
-
@robert65755 You can get the 6.6 kW with the “Premium” package on the XLE or standard with the XSE (top trim).
We don’t compare PHEVs with BEVs as they’re very different concepts for different people. If you want a BEV, no hybrid or PHEV will ever do, just as no purely ICE engine will ever satisfy a hybrid customer. While solid state may exist in 2025, don’t expect it to be common, cheap or even adapted to hybrids any time soon.
Curious… how much do you typically drive in a day? I drive about 35-40 miles on weekdays and up to 200 miles on weekends. For me, the ID4 Pro dual motor is looking good, but my wife drives even less, now that she works from home. The Rav4 hybrid comes out to a better buy for her since fuel savings are low with low mileage. She does about 8-10k miles a year. I do about 14k.
The ID4 Pro dual motor has AWD and costs $44,870 (msrp). I get $9600 in tax breaks on it. That means it’s $35,270. At 295hp it’s no race car, but no Prius either. It does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds (far faster than I’ll ever want to go) and tows up to 2,700lbs. The range of the 82 kWh pack is 250 miles (I’ll assume real winter mileage to be 200, as it doesn’t have a heat pump.) For long trips we’d take my wife’s hybrid. The dual motor Mach-E starts at $55,800, which is just too much for me. I live in NY, so I want AWD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dns711 it's not about you. It's about the people who are actually buying them. With just 5% of Foresters sold being XTs, the market has spoken and said that the purchase price, plus the ownership price of an XT is just to expensive for the wants and needs of the segment. The up-charge for the Turbo was $1500-2000 depending on the trim, it did not come with an option of an EyeSight system on the XT Premium and the additional cost of 91+ octane fuel was clearly an issue for buyers. Subaru lost money on the XT. That's why they produced so few in the last few years and why you couldn't find any in stock at dealerships. Each one sold, meant a loss. To make the thing sell well, they'd need to lower the price even more, making them lose even more money for each one. To make a profit, they'd need to raise the price even more, causing their sales to fall even lower, making it impossible to produce the engine in sufficient quantities to satisfy the engine plant to operate at a steady pace. If it makes you feel better, Subaru killed that 2.0T everywhere, not just the US because it was losing money on it everywhere. It wasn't a random decision made out of feelings. It wasn't a financially sustainable model, that's all. Ford is phasing out its 2.0 EcoBoost as well. It has now limited it only to the Titanium trim of the Escape. It actually sold well, compared to their other engines, but they make no profit on it. Both, Forester and Escape will have a hybrid and probably a plug-in hybrid powertrain within the next 2-3 years and that will be the faster option that people actually will pay extra for because it pays them back in fuel savings, versus having to pay extra for the premium gas. You will see the same issues with the Equinox and the Terrain in the next 2 years. They have a 1.6t that runs on regular gas and a 2.0t that runs on premium and costs $2000 to upgrade to. They won't sell enough of the 2.0 and will switch to a hybrid powertrain either for the refresh or the next generation. You'll see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamessanders8895 No, YOU are incorrect. I spent 18 years in the Reserves and the National Guard. Learn not to speak when you’re ignorant.
National Guard units are activated for active duty, never part-time duty, by either the state (SAD) of federal (Title 10) governments. They DO NOT turn into Army or Air Force reserves. EVER! There is no process for it and all of our laws on the military expressly prohibit the federal government from taking away Guard units. They can only federalize them in time of need, and only on defined, limited basis.
Once under federal orders for active duty, the soldier or airman remain members of the National Guard and still belong to their home Guard unit, but are temporarily attached to other units or deploy as an entire Guard unit. They stay administratively and financially separate, ALWAYS. Even in basic and follow-on training, Guard units pay for their members’ training to the actual branches. The money comes out of their unit budgets. In return, the departments of the Army and Air Force transfer funds and equipment to State Divisions of Military and Naval Affairs or Military and Veterans Affairs, whatever each state decides to call them.
Again, Guard NEVER become federal reserves. Reserves are ENTIRELY separate things under separate commands and separate budgets. Reserves are covered by different policies and laws. For example, Army Reserves are not combat arms specialties, while Army National Guard can be. Reserves cannot enforce laws, but Guard members can. They receive different points and benefits too.
You are incorrect about the ownership of Guard units. They always have been and always will he owned by the states, but in return for some funding and equipment, may be appropriated by the federal government, TEMPORARILY. This is CLEARLY outlined in the National Defense Act of 1916. The Act expanded the President’s authority to mobilize the Guard during war or national emergencies here or for service in different parts of the world for the duration of the event that caused the mobilization. Previously, the 1908 Militia Act authorized the Guard’s use overseas and the 1903 Militia Act established the first National Guard. No law has ever stipulated that National Guards are owned by the federal government. In fact, that goes against the very mature of our Constitution and federal law!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Paladin1873 You’re wrong on three points.
First, the National Guard, by the law that created it, IS a militia.
Second, the National Guard is PARTIALLY funded by the federal government. Its day-to-day operations, routine training and state missions are funded by the states.
Third, the National Guards are not a part of the DoD. They are represented at the DoD by National Guard Bureaus, but each state’s National Guards are part of their states, so not the DoD, the same way as State Guards are not part of the DoD. National Guard units and personnel come under the command of the DoD once federally activated, but they are not owned by them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gyver8448 Summary executions aren’t exclusive to Nazis, sorry. They have been happening for thousands of years before the Nazis ever existed, all around the globe. The issue with wars, especially such widespread wars, was that they were far too widespread to be able to have a proper justice system implemented for all involved. The strategy, following the Geneva Conventions is to hold the highest officers responsible, and not others. However, that simply didn’t hold water in the middle of the war, as often the lower officers and even low ranked enlisted committed atrocities out of their own will. The summary executions of military personnel happened all over. They were considered no different than being killed in combat, by all sides. The torture of prisoners and the imprisonment/execution of civilians was something else. Those things were never tolerated to any degree. As such, anyone who tortured those prisoners by keeping them without water, food and executing them, warranted summary executions, without a trial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jongordon7914 Except you seem to lack basic IQ. Just because people before you are mispronouncing a word, doesn’t mean the followers of them are all of a sudden pronouncing it properly. Also, just because I watch YT videos doesn’t mean I get educated by them or reference them in collegiate discussions (I do not.) Your ad-hominem attacks when you run out of subject matter are noted, and sadly aren’t surprising.
The English language word “Dutch” comes from a mispronunciation of the German word “Deutsche”. FULL STOP. PERIOD.
The English dictionaries of the 1700s refer to “Dutch” as to “of the Netherlands”, after they became an independent state in 1648. It is only in the Americas that “Dutch” is used in references to Germans past that point, and even to today.
You should look up this thing called “etymology.” It’s a real science, not a YT video.
So to recap: Germans spoke Deutsche long before the unification of Germany and the English language word “Dutch” had already been used to refer to the Netherlands exclusively, except in the Americas, where people kept confusing “Deutsch” for “Dutch.” So while even in England “Dutch” stood for Netherlandish or German back up until the 1600s, after that it discerned between the Netherlands and German regions you “politely” call fiefdoms, even though the 1700s is FAR from feudalism.
Those are historical FACTS, contrary to your opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cyril Matthew The Type R, though not at all the car reviewed here, uses a 2.0 turbo engine that pits out about 290bhp and 280lb/ft of torque. Given its size, weight, AWD and price, the R has NO competition.
Looking at displacement as the measure of capability of an engine is dumb. Plain old dumb. First off, the current Golf engine bay won’t fit the 2.5 with the turbo and intercooler. So there’s that reason. Second, why? That same 2.0 can be tuned to produce an extra 100bhp, if needed. Why put in a larger engine? That would make the car overpowered, unreliable and very costly. Why do that? The Type R is a daily driver, not a track car. You want a Viper? Type R fans don’t. There’s a reason most people opt for the GTI instead of the R. That’s value. In the United States and Canada (North America), there is no culture of hot hatch racing, track days or hot hatch mods. There is instead a culture of value and an excessive amount of choices. Do you honestly think people who are looking at the Golf R are cross-shopping anything else? They may be looking at the Audi S3, but that’s it. They cost about the same. The R is much faster than the S3. That’s considering they don’t care if the car is a hatch or a sedan, which most people do. The RS3 is MUCH more expensive than the S3 or R. Do you know why? The 2.5T is why. https://jalopnik.com/is-the-golf-r-faster-than-the-way-more-expensive-audi-r-1722005901/amp
Your argument is a good argument in Europe, where hot hatches are a big, money-making segment because of their fandom, but it does not apply to North America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you have a link to that 12 engine claim? In general, when you make a claim, try to provide a reference, please. Also, if Hyundai made a claim of 12 engine options, it includes older engines and absolutely engines that won’t all be available in the same market. It’s likely to have at least 2 Diesels, 4 gasoline, 2 hybrids, one PHEV and what else? Hydrogen? Do they have 2 electrics they’re making? 1 electric and 3 Diesels?
For North America they’ll likely provide 2 gasoline, a hybrid, a plug-in, and a fuel cell (maybe).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SkinnySkinch While American cars are far less complex (on average) and cheaper to repair (on average), European cars (again, on average) are FAR more reliable. The big issue is the cost of failure, not the rate of failure, especially as the car gets older and older. For example, Volvos don’t fail often, but when they do, you can be sure it will be a costly and complex fix.
To answer your question, Volvo, Audi and Mercedes always top reliability ratings around the world. Fiats, Renaults and Peugeots are just above average in most surveys as well.
1
-
@markmiller3279 Except CR is known to do the PREDICTED reliability ratings. Those ratings have proven to be absolute bullshit and CR has backtracked on many, many cars over the years. J.D. Power surveys are the only ones the industry in the US even bothers with. Look those up. Porsche right now is number two. BMW is number 11. Only Buick, Lincoln and Cadillac (unsurprisingly, only luxury brands do well) sit above those. Mercedes is ranked just below average, but Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, GMC, Ford, and Jeep are all below that.
The issue with this list is that the US gets very limited European brands and models, often made purposefully worse and cheaper than ones anywhere else and often made in the US or Mexico instead of Europe. Volkswagen is a great example. They make direct injection engines for North America (in Mexico) for models that have switched to dual injection years ago. They also make completely separate models for North America like the Passat, Jetta, Taos and Atlas. They’re absolute garbage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shawn Lee You would ask those questions since you clearly have no concept of contract law. The manufacturer will attempt to not pay out lost warranty claims. That’s just how it is. The FTC has NOTHING to do with that. It’s simply a contract law battle. They will use every option available to them to not pay. You can dislike it all you want. It still remains the truth. Plenty if records on that truth exist online. Do some looking up and you’ll see,
Furthermore, why don’t you loom up what the FTC does. It’s not at all what you think they do. They primarily work to fight trusts and monopolies. They also promote legislation for anti-trust purposes.
Their consumer protection bureau enforces federal laws that have to do with deceptive acts in commerce. However, they do not litigate business contracts, which is what a warranty promise is. No, the FTC would not investigate that as it is a different case each time, with different circumstances, AND since it involves local dealerships, it is outside the federal jurisdiction too. Now if the FTC got wind of a document or email from Hyundai of America that they intentionally deny rightful claims... Then they certainly would investigate as that is a crime. However, short of that, they cannot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lifeofmike556 NONE of these are “meant to be race cars”. Lets just get that out of the way. NONE. They’re sports cars, at best. The one thing the Veloster N had going for it and that the Kona N does not is a low center of gravity. If you’ve ever raced or even driven fast, you know what happens as you approach a corner and oversteer kicks in as you’re staring at the apex. This is why every performance driver hates FWD setups. No LSD, however good it may be, provides torque to the rear wheels as you attempt to correct that oversteer on acceleration in the corner. This is why it absolutely is a problem. Your claim is that the Kona N shouldn’t be driven so fast, but then there is no point to it being that powerful or its suspension setup. It also will be driven that fast. Despite how good the tires are, they’re not slicks or magical.
As most drivers of these cars aren’t professionals, they will tend to take the corners a bit too fast, and then feel the center of gravity take over, release the accelerator, and BOOM, huge oversteer, as the weight shifts forward. This results in countless accidents in people driving too fast. I can’t even tell you how many cars wrap the selves around trees… normal cars… because of this. AWD eliminates this, but LSD does nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a former operations manager of a very major rental car company I’ve experienced almost every brand and every model out there, from BMW 7-series to Mitsubishi Mirage. We tended to hold our cars for about a year, on average, in which time they would pick up 35,000 miles, on average. Very rough use, only 87 fuel (even if needs higher) and minimal maintenance. I have a pretty steady hand on the pulse of quality building.
All I can tell you is that our Mazda 6s, 3s and CX-5s have been below average in build quality. While they suffer few mechanical issues (most cars do in their first 40k miles), their interiors and body panels have not fared well compared to most other brands. Oddly enough, Fords seem to hold up the best of all, although they tend to have a bit more engine troubles.
This video is basic marketing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In think you, and most other people are a bit too… limited in knowledge to understand.
You think that Ukraine can either be a part of Russia proper, be a vassal state (partner/ally) or be completely independent. In reality, Russia didn’t want any of that.
What Russia was looking to do was to resurrect a USSR-type of arrangement, where Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and others become a union, under the general leadership of Moscow and under the military protection of Moscow. The inly way to get there was for Belarus and Ukraine to voluntarily request such a state. It was already started between Putin and Lukashenko - The Union State. For this, Putin needed a leader in Ukraine who would play ball. That plan went to shit in February 2014 with the Maidan Revolution, so Putin put his Plan B into play - dissent of Donbas. That plan was a longer-term, strategic one. He hoped the dissent against Zelensky would spread, but instead, the country prospered financially, and people actually turned away from Russia. So what you see now is really Plan C. If this succeeds, Kazakhstan and others will fall in line, quietly. If it fails, Putin and his party are done for, likely to be replaced by even more hardline nationalists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CanalTremocos Again, EVs don’t impact the industry all that much. Their sales are still low, comparatively. To understand that, one must understand the statistics.
Global EV sales have reached about 18% of all cars (huge!), accounting for about 70% of cars in stock, but… about 60% of them were sold in China, 25% in Europe and 10% in the US. The rest of the world accounts for about 5% of EV sales. So lesson 1: there are only 3 markets.
While (by manufacturer) Tesla is the largest producer, it produces in the US, Europe, and China. Volkswagen produces in Europe, China and the US. Geely/Volvo/Polestar produced in… Europe, China and the US. I think you get lesson 2: EVs are being manufactured in their domestic markets.
By nation, China produces more EVs than the rest of the world, combined, but again, mostly for domestic use, so it doesn’t require any shipping use. That’s lesson 3: most EVs never get shipped.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffjo8732 False. Honda’s hybrids are SERIAL, never parallel - the car is propelled either by the electric motor OR the gasoline engine, but never both at the same time. That clutch is either open - electric drive or closed - engine drive. It has no ability to combine the two.
Toyota’s system is PARALLEL - able to use mechanical energy from the gasoline engine AND the electric motor at the same time (in parallel). The planetary gear set drivetrain allows for that. Both systems are always connected to the drive train, but may or may not spin their cogs to drive the vehicle, depending on power/charging needs.
You just lack ALL knowledge of how hybrids work and how power calculations are made in vehicles, and because of that, you’re rambling on, trying desperately to seem smart. You also lack the physics knowledge to discern POWER versus ENERGY. Energy is converted (ex: stored, electric, mechanical, heat, kinetic, etc.) Power is a measure at the shaft. Horsepower is a unit of power (not energy), equal to 550 ft-lbs per second (the power needed to move 550lbs one foot in one second). That is mechanical, not electrical horsepower, which is the measure for moving mechanical machines, regardless of how that power is generated, as it uses mechanical links to move the weight. You also don’t understand the difference between power measurements of horsepower versus torque, not HP measures in electric versus mechanical devices.
Go research the topics first. Then come discuss them.
1
-
@jeffjo8732 Again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how this (and other) hybrid drive systems work. Also, you don’t read what you link.
The Honda system works in three ways:
1. Electric Only: the electric battery powers the traction motor, which turns the drive shaft.
2. Hybrid: Engine generates electricity, which joins the electricity from the battery to drive the. drive shaft via that same traction motor.
3. Engine drives the wheels, electric motor does nothing.
That is the serial hybrid function. The drive is either via the traction (electric) motor or via the ICE engine, NEVER both. And no, the traction motor doesn’t take away power.
In a parallel hybrid system, the drive is powered by both, the electric motor AND the ICE engine, at the same time, when needed. The 1MG on the Toyota NEVER acts to generate drive power. It has just two functions:
1. Charge the battery and
2. Start the ICE engine.
That’s all it does, so it’s NOT a series hybrid setup at all.
You don’t even understand that both, Honda and Toyota use two MGs! One that is connected to the driveshaft (MG2) and one that isn’t (MG1) and is only used to generate electricity and start the ICE engine, instead of the 12v battery!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FirstNameLastName-wt5to The warrant shows you that the search was lawful, PERIOD. Whether you like it or not, if a judge issues a warrant, it’s lawful. It’s not your decision, it’s the judge’s.
Also, if there is ever a trial, the affidavit WILL be released as a part of court documents. It’s not like it can stay sealed.
If you release the affidavit, you get the public seeing evidence before a trial, which isn’t fair to the accused, you get a tainted jury, which isn’t fair to anyone, and you give criminals a chance to suppress and tamper with witnesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What a great question! Absolutely, if you aren’t abusing the car/engine, use a good oil (synthetic) and filter then yes, extend those changes (after break-in).
Countless laboratory tests have shown no significant oil degradation even at 15k miles (full synth). In the end, oil cools and lubricates and if those chemical properties are still in tact, and the particulates are low (effect of a good filter), you don’t need to change it. That said, for the first 2 years/25k miles, I’d still do 5k in city or 10k hwy changes, full synthetic, because particulates shed off new engines like crazy during break-in. After that, bump them up. I’d go to 10k city/towing, 15k hwy changes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thelegendarymskatlynn My views are simple: Israel is a multi-ethnic, secular democracy that was created to give Jews their ancestral home. Jews chose to share their home with Muslims, Christians, Hindus… whomever. About 20% of Israelis are Arabs. A large percentage are Africans.
On the other side you have Palestinian sociopaths, who refuse to live together with ANYONE, be it a Palestinian state of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, or Syria. They have fought with all of the above and have been exiled and isolated by all of the above specifically because they are hateful, vengeful people who don’t respect people’s rights. They believe in stoning women, gay people, or anyone of any other religion. They are run by basic warlords who squander away any and all money and foreign aid. If you give a Palestinian money, they will buy a gun before they buy food. In fact, the gun industry is by far the largest industry in Gaza and the West Bank. It should be agriculture, but no, it’s weapons. They instead demand food from the international community.
Don’t listen to me though… look it all up! Educate yourself! Go look up what “from the river to the sea” means!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youreterriblemuriel5903 Trump had policies and agendas. That’s not the point. They clearly created agendas too big to push through and they’re themselves using criticism of individuals, not policies to win. The fact is that Biden has kept many policies instituted by Trump and when he fails to push ideas through Congress, he will blame it on McCarthy, McConnell, etc. He won’t blame it on the extremist liberal wing or his own party, nor on himself. He won’t say his proposal was too big. It’s typical politics. Lets face it, Biden’s sole election point was “I’m not Trump.”
As far as policies… I just looked up the DNC site and it has none either. Why? Committees don’t set policies. You’re being dishonest in this discourse. GOP policies are pretty clear. They want to eliminate illegal immigration, reduce federal government spending, increase states’ rights, decrease unemployment, strengthen the 2nd amendment, protect their religious views (abortion, LGBTQ+, etc.) and improve the trade conditions. The funny part is that the Democrats want to achieve some of the same goals. It’s how they want to do it that differs.
By the way, I belong to neither party and I’m certainly not a leader in either.
1
-
1
-
@Nomad22280 There have been many infrastructure bills presented, even during Trump’s time. This final build includes excessive spending (in my opinion) on purely political projects, like some Amtrak routes that no one will ever use, too much on startups and not enough on things like actual utilities, bridge repairs or mass transit. This is especially considering how much unrelated pork barrel was stuffed into the bill, stuff that has NOTHING to do with infrastructure. Of course we shouldn’t be surprised by this as both sides have been sneaking in a ton of things into large bills, but it is getting worse and worse. Also, if you want any real election reform you will need to amend the Constitution. not pass federal legislation, especially in a SCOTUS minority situation.
And yes, my stance on ignorance is very clear. I don’t tolerate, especially from trolls like you, which is why you’re now on MUTE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jeff if that is their point, it is misplaced, as no one here argued it, AND it is wrong, as a computer-controlled injection system can control the injection timing and fuel mixture just as well. It may be complicated and expensive, but it is perfectly possible. Diesels are not direct injection engines. They work just fine. The key to making a gasoline compression work is getting the fuel mixture, temperature and timing precise in a very high compression engine. You do not, in theory, need DI for it. You can run it on LL100 or higher octanes. Something that has only been achieved in laboratories and on Formula 1. No manufacturer has yet produced any en masse, though many have tried.
Those two morons are trying to sound smart, without being smart. They butted into a conversation without even understanding the topic.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-compression-ignition-engines2.htm
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SEPTaskForce Actually, given the show’s actual reach and following, nationally and internationally, I could argue that Noah’s words reach much farther and have a greater effect than DeSantis’ words or even policies. Major media outlets destabilizing government guidances and trust in the only agencies actually fighting the pandemic (CDC, FDA, WHO, etc.) do FAR more damage than some pokey governor of a state. His damage only affects his constituents (most of whom chose him as their leader). Noah’s and his network’s words affect the whole country and even opinions of foreigners. You better believe that it worsens the opinion of the US and its government across the globe. If it was based on actual facts, I wouldn’t even mind it - I’m pro honest criticism, but this is distortion of truth at best, and willful lies at worst. Why criticize Fox News, constantly for doing this, and then do the exact same thing, for the exact same reason?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@z00h That has more to do with smaller engines being prevalent in Europe (compared to the United States). Higher octane yields more fuel efficiency and more power out of each litre of fuel, so higher octane engines were always preferred in Europe where fuel is MUCH more expensive than in North America. Here in the U.S. most cars until the 2000's ran on the RON equivalent of 91 (87 U.S.) just fine, being that they were naturally aspirated large V6 or V8. They yielded enough power to move the big cars and fuel efficiency wasn't an issue since a gallon of fuel used to cost less than $1US. There was no reason to refine higher octane fuels which cost more because of their knock-retarding additives. Now it's different and most manufacturers, even Ford and GM are switching to small displacement, direct injection turbo engines which are good around the world (1.5 and smaller) and have to move to a higher octane fuel to make them work properly. Unfortunately, 87 octane in the U.S. is still the standard fuel and it costs roughly 25% less than 91 octane U.S., which is a big margin to overcome when it comes to fuel costs. If they were to eliminate 87 octane from sale, then people would get used to paying more at the pump, but until then....
You also have to remember that while Diesel fuel costs less than 95 RON in Europe, it costs more than 100 RON in the United States, which is why Diesel fuel cars just never took off here. That price can go even higher during winter months in cold areas, where most heavy fuel oil goes to heating homes and drives the supply of Diesel down. In the U.S. 87 Octane (91 RON) is what Diesel is in Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jean-Paul Le Clercq The only way to figure out 3-year reliability records is to have the car be out for 3 years, right?
It’s 2020 and the only records we have to go by are the 2017-2019 and 2018-2020 ones, right? According to several easily found on Google sources, the statistical track record for those two groups is poor... VERY POOR.
Can things change in the future? Sure. Are they likely to? No. Don’t forget that the 952 was launched as a 2016 model in Europe, a year ahead of North America, and is identical. They’ve also had the Giulietta, MiTo, C4, Stelvio and other models to consider, not to mention their earlier track record with the 159, 147, Brera, GT, 8C, and the rest. The only way to gauge reliability is the history of it. You’re no more a fortune-teller than anyone else.
So if you want to have a conversation about reliability, lets speak honestly. If you want to ignore it and hope for the best, you’re welcome to, but that’s not a conversation, is it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The A-10 is not unique in being solely a subsonic air to ground attack aircraft. The AV-8 had always filled that role for the Maritime services. The Russian equivalent us the SU-25 Grach. All three were developed for the Cold War, traditional European plains war.
What’s lost on most people is called Air War College. What does that mean? They’re missing all of the strategic pieces. The A-10 is absolutely an efficient destroyer of enemy vehicles. That’s what it was designed to do. However, for it to operate you must first gain FULL air superiority. And by that I mean FULL. No enemy SAMs, no MANPADS, no AAA, no attack helicopters, and certainly no foreign fighters. That’s because the A-10 was designed with little protection against these things. It was literally designed as, but a tiny piece of a much larger puzzle that includes JTACs, fighter aircraft, AWACS, air refueling, etc. You remove even one piece of that puzzle and it becomes useless. Oh and by the way, its attack capabilities are greatly reduced by poor weather as it heavily relies on visual contact with the enemy.
The modern MQ-9, Bayraktar TB-2 or Wing Loong Prerodactyl II are more than capable of delivering precision payloads for CAS and with FAR longer loiter times and much better visual observation to boot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geneawisea2708 Yes, but then we start looking to who is in command and what training and funding they received.
Lets start with the School District Police Chief. Just consider that on its own for a moment… schools cannot have properly funded, trained and experienced police officers. By its own concept, these officers would be under-funded, under-trained and inexperienced in general police work because they face so few cases and a broad variety of cases. He assumed command of a situation he had NO training or experience in and he even didn’t consider himself the Incident Commander, according to his words, despite assuming those duties. When the incident scaled up, he did not turn the incident over to a more experienced officer, not create a unified command. He did not hand tactical control to a tactical officer, and pull himself back. Why is he COMPLETELY uninformed, untrained, and working as a police chief? Who hired him? Who funded the department? Who evaluated the department? It has literally 6 officers. How/why is it even a department?!
The county Sheriff cannot be fired. That’s an elected position. People get what they elect..
The acting police Chief for the town of Uvalde was Lt Pargas, a small town police LT who then found himself lower ranked than a dumbass School Chief. The fact that these departments go from a Lieutenant to a 4-star chief of department is the first clue that they have NO idea of what they do outside of traffic stops (and likely not even that).
When the neighboring county Sheriff arrived with his team, he says he heard no Uvalde radio traffic on the shared Texas joint radio channel that should have been used and that no one on the scene had identified themselves as “in charge.”
The takeaway here is that small town departments in at least Texas are untrained, unsupervised and unable to provide proper police forces and yes, their leadership needs to be fired, but then they just promote the next incompetent officer to the position. The fault here also lies on the Texas DPS for poor oversight in certification, and for poor training of these small town departments. The blame here also has to fall on the town of Uvalde, which instead of defaulting to a Sheriff’s or the State Police for law enforcement duties, created two additional departments, which are too small and inept at dealing with emergencies. All that leads to confusion, as masses of tiny town fiefdoms descend upon crime scenes, each with their own 4-star king, each one with different ideas and rules, each one not taking proper charge or control.
There is lots or blame here to go around, but beyond firings, how will that system be fixed, or even will it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@7aramkeda334 Yeah... you were LIED to. Service managers’ primary job is to sell you services. They’re not engineers or mechanics. They’re literally sales people.
Car manufacturers, decades ago, used to add heavy mineralized oil to speed up the break-in process by having light corrosives in the system. They would basically file down all the imperfections on surfaces. They were supposed to be left in the system, up to 3,000 miles, which is what recommended oil change intervals used to be. During that time, specific break-in protocols had to followed.
That stopped in the 80s and 90s. Today, machined parts are coated in a special lubricant upon assembly, and regular motor oil is added to the system. The machining of the parts is FAR better and the quantity and size of contaminating particulates far smaller. Manufacturers no longer ask for a break-in process because it’s no longer necessary. Just do the oil changes on time and use high quality oil and filters. Don’t skimp on them. Your first oil change at 10k miles will be perfectly good. If you want piece of mind, take an oil sample early and send it out for a test. It’s cheap and enlightening. https://www.blackstone-labs.com/?session-id=wtjb5y55hxmmh3mp3qbd2z45&timeout=20&bslauth&urlbase=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackstone-labs.net%2FBstone%2F%28S%28wtjb5y55hxmmh3mp3qbd2z45%29%29%2F
Then do a test at 10k miles, right before an oil change. You’ll see how it really is. Don’t trust mechanics or sales reps. Trust science!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So first off, FiatChrysler Automobiles or FCA (as the company is known) owns ZERO shares of Ford Motor Company. Second, Ford Motor Company owns ZERO shares of Mazda. Ford divested itself of any Mazda shares in 2015. FCA doesn't invest much into brands they don't own outright (such as Fiat, Iveco, Maserati, Lancia, Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge, and Alfa Romeo.) They do have some local agreements, partnerships and joint ventures, but nothing with the competition. Lastly, there is NOTHING that's even remotely similar in the Taurus and Mazda 3. Unless you consider that having steering wheels, pedals, stalks and screens makes them the same.
Please don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucastherexcat Ah... you're talking about FLAT TOWING. That's what towing, while the car's wheels are on the ground is called. By the way, the word for what you're trying to describe is DINGHY, not dingy. Dingy means old, dirty, worn out.
Most modern cars actually cannot be flat towed, CVT or not. Almost all AWD cars need to be taken on a flat bed. That's because the pump that provides the lubricant for the transaxles doesn't operate unless the engine is turned on and if you don't lubricate the transaxles, they quickly fail and seize. CVTs, by rule, all need that pump active. That's why on cars with a CVT, even if they're front or rear wheel drive, the drive wheels need to be on a dolly. The same thing is true of all hybrids. In fact, the rule today with towing is that any modern car needs to be towed solely on non-drive wheels or on a flat bed because of their engineering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodneybooth4069 Dana makes frames to the manufacturers’ designs, not their own. Also, if it had been, it would have been a party to the class action suit “Brian Warner et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc”, which it wasn’t. Toyota settled it and paid for the replacements. http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/
The worst part is that Toyota denied all claims of this frame issue for about 15 years and then fought in court for two more until settling. That’s the real Toyota way.
My biggest issues aren’t design or manufacturing mistakes. Those happen to everyone. My issue is how the company deals with them. My other issue is that if you maintain your Toyota the way the company tells you to, it won’t see 100k on the odometer. My Rav4 Hybrid, according to the company, needs 10k oil changes, no transmission or differential fluid changes and its hybrid battery filter needs no checking or cleaning, though the cabin air filter certainly does. This all while the dealership techs say 5,000 oil changes, 50k diff and tranny fluid changes and constant hybrid battery filter cleaning. All are systems that are CRITICAL. That’s what Toyota is. They even gave their Tundras a sealed transmission. Tundras! They are 4x4 and tow! Did you know that Toyota cheated on EPA fuel economy tests and was caught back in the 1990’s and fined $180 million for not reporting emissions failures from 2005 to 2015? Apparently the Japanese employees knew, but ignored the issue.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/amp35226937/toyota-fine-clean-air-act-violation/
I’m not implying others haven’t. Not at all. I’m saying Toyota’s just as bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JOHN-OKC no one said it was in the video, but it’s important to mention that even the Adventure trim can be built to $34k, not $40k and can be actually had for less. Furthermore, why didn’t they compare it to an average Rav4? Because they couldn’t get one. The press car was an Adventure. Did they mention that tidbit? No. So if you want to compare the highest trimmed and optioned Rav4 to the Grand Cherokee, lets compare it to the highest trimmed Grand Cherokee. The GC Trackhawk is $80k, or twice the price of the Rav4.
By the way, for the Adventure trim to hit $40K, it needs to be optioned with all the options AND all the dealer accessories as well. Then it hits $40k without any discounts.
However, the Grand Cherokee Trailhawk starts at $42,540 and goes north from there. No safety features like adaptive cruise control, brake assist, collision warning, or lane departure warning that you get on the Toyota. No HID or LED lighting, no cargo area cover, no sunroof. The fact that you’re comparing the two means you don’t actually get it, or cars in general. You wouldn’t buy a compact CUV to begin with. This video... it isn’t for you. You still play Tonka trucks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hedgehogthesonic3181 NO, the link you provided is from 2009, with info from 2006! Look up how current models work! And no, Honda’s system is not even a little bit similar to Toyota’s! Toyota uses a more modern version of what your link shows… a parallel hybrid system with 2-3 motors, that uses a planetary gear set. Honda uses a serial hybrid setup, with 2 motors and direct drive for both systems. There is no transmission in the Hondas at all, just a clutch that disconnects the engine from the drivetrain, much like a manual transmission’s. There is only 1 gear. Unlike a manual transmission though, there is no rev matching needed as the computer only activates it when it reaches a specific speed.
While Honda’s system is slightly less efficient, it is most likely, by simple engineering, more reliable because it’s simpler. Toyota’s eCVT still has gears that will wear out and need regular cooling and lubrication. It may overheat. The Honda’s system has none of that. It has just two modes: 1. fully electric drive with the ICE engine charging the battery and 2. fully ICE direct drive through a single, overdrive reduction gear. That’s it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcoparada6652 you disagree with my "perception"? What exactly are you disagreeing with? I pointed out facts and your whole comment is about your feelings. I won't argue someone's feelings of what's fast enough or not fast enough, but I will argue that some things simply are or aren't fast enough for certain outcomes to happen. Physics are physics. When you accelerate, you either can do it fast enough to achieve the speeds of the traffic flow without getting into an accident or you cannot. Your feelings are irrelevant there. You also have to keep in mind that a 1/4 mile on-ramp may be perfectly sufficient to come to 70mph within the needed time, but an on-ramp of 100 feet may not be, and before you start saying those don't exist... they do. While I'm happy that your flat, open ND driving area and your personal driving preferences accommodate the Forester's 2.5 engine acceleration, you need to understand that my Hudson Valley, New York up/down hill driving with 50 foot on-ramps with stop signs at their beginnings require more power than that. You also have to understand that some people live on mountains, like in New Hampshire or Utah or Colorado, and they require MUCH more power for everyday driving because of oxygen depletion. Those are just facts, powered by physics.
Furthermore, you state, "I'll never consider a 4x4 or all time 4 wheel drive for my own car", but mention the "'12 Forester" you've driven for the "better part of 6 years." Umm... The Subaru Forester has a full-time AWD system. It NEVER sends power to just one axle. Both are ALWAYS engaged. Handling is a function of the suspension, steering system and tires. It is NOT a function of the AWD system. AWD simply gives you initial traction to get going and not get stuck in snow. It seems you don't know much about cars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are acting like a GOP troll, making fun of an agency that’s telling you the truth? You not understanding basic English is the problem here, not the CDC!
Filters aren’t a zero sum game. Even N95 masks only filter out 95% of the particles (hence the name.)
From day 1, the CD has said that cloth masks do protect the wearer from the virus, but not by much. Depending on the type, the protection varies from 10% to 40%, approximately. What those masks do well is reduce the SPREAD of the virus. It’s the same reason why someone would sneeze into a handkerchief or a sleeve. The fabric filters out the larger particles, and absorbs them.
From day 1 they’ve said N95 and KN95 masks, when worn properly, are stronger protection for all sides. They also said there weren’t enough for the first responders and medical workers, so they asked us to wear something else.
I don’t know why you think this DeSantis-like attack and twisting of facts is funny or appropriate, except perhaps you’re just as much of a political extremist as DeSantis is and perhaps political extremists, right or left, are the plague on our humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tamoroso The idea wasn’t Trump’s, but he has been, in the last 50 years, the only President to really push it, and it actually did work. This was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but Russia’s invasion of 2014 was what brought that. There were other successes too. Actually, I hate to say it, but the wall on the Southern border did reduce the number if illegal migrants crossing in.
The issue of bigotry of all kinds only got “flushed out” for the very privileged few white men who enjoyed living in Eden’s Garden. Everyone else has been on the receiving end for centuries. Regardless, Biden has also kept many “America First” policies, immigration (including Title 42), the pullout from Afghanistan, etc. Biden even expanded the “remain in Mexico” program and the China trade policy was kept too.
Anyway, the real point was that Americans aren’t all that clueless, but rather cognizant of the fact that the US has fingers in every part of the world and the often conflicting interests make it impossible to satisfy everyone every day. That’s with the international policy anyway. With the domestic policy, Europe are the last ones who should concern themselves. The craziness going on in Italy, France, the UK, and in the EU in general is something they should be minding, not other nations’ drama laid out in tabloids.
I was in London last week and Trump, who isn’t the President or an official candidate, was talked about more than Johnson, which is typical distraction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dakota Daniel In 2019 Nissan sold 35,076 Maximas, FCA sold 96,935 Chargers, GM sold 44,978 Impalas, and Toyota sold 27,767 Avalons, so it’s not like Nissan was the leader in its class. With the cancellation of the Taurus and Impala and failure of the Cadenza, Maxima is one of very few choices, but it’s likely that those departures will benefit Toyota more, with its AWD and hybrid options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The CH-R actually does compete against it, just maybe not for your personal wants/needs. You see, many CUVs in North America are sold as FWD only (except Subaru, which doesn't come that way) and that goes double for sub-compact CUVs, which these two are. Most don't come with leather either. The majority of the buyers of this size vehicle buy it because it's cheap and with a hatch, it's practical. When that's all you need and you can get it, in a reliable Toyota, for $20k, why would you spend more to get the stuff you don't need in an unreliable Mitsubishi? Toyota knew that and it bet on it. Sells lots of CH-Rs by the way. A lot more than MItsubishi sells of the Eclipse Cross or the Outlander Sport.
Also, these are CUVs, not SUVs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quintrankid8045 Only 13 states have criminal libel laws that are actually enforced: Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. Yes, they’re all rural, Republican states and that’s no coincidence. The ACLU is working hard to have these laws repealed. Look up “Frese v. MacDonald” (2018). The argument of the ACLU in New Hampshire is the vagueness of the statute, not its intent or enforcement. As a whole, the intent isn’t considered to be unconstitutional.
However, many states have VERY specific statutes that would very rarely be used. For example, in Illinois someone can be prosecuted for publishing false and derogatory statements about a bank’s financial well-being. In Kentucky, their libel/slander statute protects only judges.
Apparently 10-20 cases a year are prosecuted for criminal defamation around the country. The general concept is that the defamation must be contrary to facts known to the offender and malicious in nature in order to be prosecuted.
1
-
1
-
@quintrankid8045 Actually, if you dig deeper, you’ll see that case wasn’t Mr Frese’s first offense under the statute, and he had a prior conviction from pleading guilty for same. The issue in New Hampshire, and they’re being sued by the ACLU, is that their statute isn’t specific enough. Nothing in the Constitution allows unfettered free speech. In fact, there are many types of restricted expression: fraud, obscenity, child pornography, incitement of lawless action, perjury, violation of intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial advertising. Defamation is also still a tort, which has to withstand the test of Constitutionality (and has). So the issue is not of it as a general legal matter, but rather of overly broad application through statute wording. That application and wording may be viewed as an overall encroachment onto protected free speech.
In Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) the Supreme Court has said that “there is no Constitutional value in false statements of fact.” The SCOTUS has established four specific areas where free speech is not protected:
First, when false statements of fact are said with a “sufficiently culpable mental state”. This can be persecuted by civil or criminal means. Second, knowingly making a false statement can be punished (this is where defamation falls). Third, negligent false statements of fact may be torts. And lastly, some implicit statements of fact, with a false factual connotation, can also fall under the torts category.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ALMX5DP Endwrench, cars101, even Subaru itself explains how the multi-plate clutch works, but the best deep dive was done on YT by EngineeringExplained.
Subaru direct drives the front axle from the transmission. The multi-plate clutch can rob it of some power depending on how many plates lock up. I believe the current CVTs have 5, but the most that can happen is a full lock, which only gives 50% to the rear. Each plate locking sends an additional 10% of torque to the rear. These plates never fully lock, which is why the most they can give is 60:40. During normal state driving, the clutch is released, but there is still a connection there. That connection, without plates is 10% going to the rear. The TCM manages how many plates lock up, and to what degree (they can partially lock too). That’s how you get 90:10 in ideal situations, variable to a 60:40.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The term, “reasonable” is actually an amazing term, in law. It infers that reason must be used to convict someone, and by multiple people and stages of the legal process. Law enforcement must first consider what is reasonable, given the specific conditions, and be able to express that reasoning to a judge or jury, while the judge and/or jury also have to apply their own judgement to see if it was reasonable.
Standard measures are simply too inapplicable and capricious for most situations. Was that 200 feet in the fog? Are you even able to do it in 200 feet? Ridiculous.
You sewing doubt in the US judicial system is a pure act of anarchism, which is ultimately your goal anyway. It is predicated on an assumption that most cops out there are just in it to nail every motorist. Of course that’s how you make money, off conspiracy theorists and fear-mongering, so I get it.
Folks, the reality of law is that it is a judgement… of a person or a group of people. It is not some arbitrary, black/white thing that little children need. It is open to conjecture, debate and unique circumstances. That is why laws are written vaguely and why law enforcement officials have broad latitude. You cannot write a law for every single possible situation that can or could ever happen in the world. So you need laws that are adaptable and that can use reasoning to be applied. Laws don’t exist so you would comply. Laws exist so that you are protected from others. If a reasonable person concludes your actions were unsafe, they likely were. Do better next time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romancewiththepast7979 Without knowing what was actually happening, said or known, you’re simply making wild assumptions. What we know is that investigations were actually conducted and those officers weren’t charged with anything, or even fired. That means that there was a legitimate reason to do that, even if that reason is unknown to you. You can concede that you don’t know everything, can’t you? They did charge one cop for aiding the rioters afterwards, so that shows the investigations were done, and that the DOJ is willing to charge officers fir even the lightest assistance, as the one who was charged was charged for making social media comments, and not even physical help. Stop assuming or conjuring up conspiracies. You have NO clue of what goes on in the background. You don’t know who the people were, where they went, why, what happened to them, what the reasons for her opening the gate was or what her supervisors ordered. Stop the Qanon bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedude2897 you know the Takata airbags aren't made by Toyota and affected Honda, Subaru, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Audi, BMW, Ferrari, Jaguar, Fisker, Land Rover, Mazda, Nissan, Saab, Tesla, Mitsubishi and also... Volkswagen, right? Enough trolling already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenhendricks103 two points: First, even when you purchase a particular model, that model's average reliability rating is no guarantee your individual vehicle will match that rating. Every single model of every single brands has duds. Second, Consumer Reports reliability ratings are for used vehicles, mostly over 5 years old. Unfortunately, that usually means it's the older model and has little to nothing in common with the current model being sold. It also doesn't account for any changes in production in production or design. For example, the DCT on the Hyundai Tucson was absolutely terrible, and would suggest that I don't buy the 2019 Tucson, but the 2019 model doesn't have the DCT in the line-up, so it's irrelevant. In contrast, the 2018 Subaru Forester 2.5 was VERY reliable, but the 2019, although seemingly much improved, has a Direct Injection engine versus a Port Injection engine and it has an automatic Start/Stop feature. Both are likely to make the new Forester less reliable. Finally, CR relies upon tens of thousands of reviews, not hundreds. Each model probably having just a few hundred of reviews, at best. It also values every failure exactly the same amount. So a total powertrain loss would be the same as a glitch in the infotainment system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterretep1010 First off, read my comments. It’s VERY clear that I do know what WRC is.
Regardless, that is the WRX pedigree. Higher ground clearance is NOT what WRC is about or they’d be racing SUVs. WRCs are relatively low to the ground as they don’t rock climb or wade very deep mud/water. They race off-pavement (mostly dirt roads). Look at the STi… why do you think they’ve made a customizable AWD system? It’s for various drive surfaces. Why do you think they’ve made bronze colored wheels?
The current Subaru Motor Sports USA team uses STis in the Open 4WD Class. They modify their cars straight from the factory floor, keeping the engine and making the 330hp/400lb-ft of torque. They use a Sadev dog-leg gearbox, and whole they add an ECU for the diff, the regular STi DCCD AWD setup is used. They use Recaro seats, carbon fiber door panels, just like the stock WRX. Also, a dark blue is always an option in ode to the 555 tobacco cars.
The cladding is an ode to rally sports. It is an aesthetic treatment, not a practical one.
As far as rally ground clearance goes, it’s changed for every stage, but is required to be a minimum of 2”. Most run at 4.5 to 5.5” of clearance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
asatrv You’re wrong. First, under German law, there would be no charges (as under any nation’s) for leaving the scene, as long as the ambulance was on an emergency. Second, assault charges would indeed stick, under Notwehr, because: 1. There was no attack to defend from and 2. You would be doing the damage to another human by your assault. Notwehr allows any reasonable defense against an *unlawful attack*, if there was no other possibility of defense. Neither condition was met in this instance.
While S. Korea’s law allows for self defense (or defense of another), the law stipulates that if your defense causes injuries that take longer than three weeks to heal, your actions were excessive. The law also states that you should not exert a greater force than the one inflicted on you. In this case, there is none.
Sorry, but it’s clear you’re not a lawyer in any country.
http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=242213
http://m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20121203000521
By the way, common law and statutory laws exist side-by-side. Precedent does not replace written statutes. Modern common law is not what Germany once had (Gemeines Recht). The real difference is whether or not prior precedent is taken into account. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
1
-
1
-
asatrv “There is no self-defense for self-defense”. Please understand that concept yourself. The ambulance hit the car, then tried to take off. The driver was blocking it from leaving in defense of his own property, which was subject to a possibly criminal act and he certainly had the right to stop them to collect information, in the least.
2. My best friend is a prosecutor. They bring up all kinds of charges, hoping something will stick. That doesn’t mean they meet the legal standard of the court. That’s the point of having a trial, isn’t it?
3. You are allowed to use force, but only reasonable force as long as there is force being applied to you, and no, fear of future attack does not constitute a reason. Considering that there are many things you can do short of knocking a man out, possibly causing death yourself, it would not be considered a legal defense in THIS case, even in Germany. As a defense attorney I would expect you to attempt it as a defense, but any reasonable judge would not honor that.
Perhaps trying to move the person first? Calling the police? Calling another ambulance? Try to drive around the man? All mitigate the harm upon the patient. All prevent the so called “attack” you allude to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
webcomment Except you’re contradicting yourself, forgetting that old tech mated to new tech makes both fail, and forgetting the simple fact that over the years, cars have been getting MORE reliable, not less, even with turbos and CVTs. Those are plain statistical facts. Also, Toyota’s tech isn’t old. It invented mass hybrid drives, eCVT, and was one of the first dual injection engine users. Aisin invented a CVT with an actual 1st gear and most Toyotas have 8-speed autos. Mazda, on the other hand, isn’t very reliable. It’s average at best. Mazda also innovates like crazy. ActiveDrive engines are crazy modern and Mazda created the first viable compression gasoline engine. So literally everything you’re saying is total bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jjww30 When something is unequivocally proven it is called a FACT, not a theory. You need to grasp that concept.
A theory doesn’t need to be proven to be a theory. Most aren’t. What makes something a theory versus a hypothesis is supporting evidence. Hypotheses are ideas, thoughts. Hypotheses are not supported by any evidence. Once some evidentiary support for a hypothesis exists, it becomes a theory. Once you have enough evidence for it to be evident (through the scientific method), it becomes a scientific fact.
You think you’re the best-educated person here… I assure you, given your arguments and suppositions, that you are far from that, especially in physical sciences.
The scientific method dictates this:
Hypothesis -> Theory -> Fact/Fallacy
There is, at this time, more than sufficient evidence for the hypothesis of this mass extinction event for it to be a theory. It is actually the leading theory among many, and for quite a while. Evidence from multiple disciplines supports this (geology, biology, paleontology, oceanography, physics and chemistry to start).
In fact, once the data from this latest finding is verified by peers and published, it will likely make this a scientific fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It factually isn’t a problem. All nations capable of spying on others, do so. “Spying” is a misunderstood word. This is actually intelligence gathering. A nation is required to gather as much information on what goes on as they can, for the benefit of their country and citizens. This goes for info on all nations, not just adversaries. Governments keep info from each other, even when in an alliance. Leaders don’t always tell the full truth to each other (shocker, I know). Finding out intent of foreign leaders on foreign and economic policies allows you to prepare your own country in advance.
All that said, the UK, France, Israel, Canada, etc. all spy on the US as well.
All of this hyperbolic guessing does no one any good except it makes money for Youtube and the poster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is just an advertisement for this rail company.
The fact is that there is already an existing, robust commuter rail system in South Florida that connects Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. It’s called Tri-Rail and it runs parallel to Brightline, makes mores useful stops including airports and costs far less than Brightline. Because of this, Brightline has been discounting their tickets to meet the investors’ estimates for ridership. In fact, regular coach tickets are sold as “buy one, get three free”. That artificially elevates ridership numbers as numbers of tickets sold far exceed actual bodies on the train, and obviously exceeds revenue collected. This line is trying to he a commuter train AND an intercity train, but it’s going to fail at both. To be a commuter train you need many stops, which cost time. You need to be inexpensive and sell weekly/monthly passes. You need yo serve commuter hubs. This train does none of those things. To be a good intercity train it needs few stops at key cities, and serve large population points without a fast and convenient connection. However, South Florida residents are already well connected by car, bus and air and Miami, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach are just too small and too spread out. There’s a reason why these metro centers are called by County and not city names. Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties are large in population, but those cities aren’t. Orlando is more of a tourist destination than somewhere Floridians go to. It also has the busiest airport in Florida (yes, busier than MIA or FLL). Tourists that go to the theme parks in Orlando and tourists who go to Miami Beach are different tourists and those two vacations are very different.
Brightline is just an exercise in spending the billions of dollars the federal government made available to railroad developers under the Obama administration. They’re actually funding real estate purchases with money intended for infrastructure projects. That’s what Brightline is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamietung8233 That’s a bit off. The revolution happened in February of 1917 in St Petersburg. It was led by Lenin, a Russian man, and fought by Russians. Eastern Ukraine was a part of Russia at the time. Bolsheviks (Communists) had been rising all over the region for decades. The Western part was under the Austro-Hungarian empire. You probably know that in WW1, those two forces were opposing. After a successful offensive by the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, Volhynia and eastern Galicia were ceded to Russia. When the revolution (the first one) happened, the socialists of Ukraine decided to demand autonomy from Russia and a Ukranian republic was created, with very close ties to the new Russian provisional government that replaced the Czar, but wasn’t Communist. Then Russia suffered major losses in the war and lost a lot of soldiers and territory, fast. This led to hunger among the people and a total dissolution of the armed forces. This led to the October revolution (Communism). In Kiev, an uprising took place against the Communists and the Central Council took control from the Russians. This led to the Bolsheviks to declare a separate country, loyal to Russia and Communism called the Ukranian People’s Republic (vs Ukraine) and its capital in Kharkov. This is similar to Korea today.
A war between them broke out immediately. The Central Rada (Council) declared independence of Ukraine on January 22, 1918, but the new USSR government refused to recognize it. A month later, the Bolsheviks took most of Ukraine, forcing the Central Rada government to turn to Germans and Austrians (opposing side of WW2) for help. The Axis powers were able to clear the Russians out of Kiev quickly and Russia withdrew from WW1 on March 1st. The Central Rada’s Army was then able to clear the Bolsheviks (Red Army of the USSR) out of Crimea and Kharkov.
When the Central Powers were defeated in 1918, the pro-Western government left with the Germans and the local socialists easily overthrew the rest of the government. Moscow immediately annulled their treaty and by 1919, the Red Army overran most of Ukraine, even the far Western section in Lviv which was about half Polish ethnically. There were many counter movements in Ukraine and it wasn’t until 2021 that the USSR Red Army finally defeated all opposing forces in all of Ukraine, up to the Polish border, and made it a Soviet Republic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KalifUmestoKalifa Your “logic” makes ZERO sense?
1. No, my dates aren’t off, mostly because they’re not my dates, they’re history’s dates. If you have something to the contrary, other dates, you should have posted them.
1. What difference does where a language was established makes? It only matters where it’s actually used. You say it was established “far away”, but without stating where or how far (very convenient.)
3. Southern Slavic languages come from the modern day Serbian/North Macedonian region, not Greece. You’re confusing a very rarely used Old Church Slavonic, which originally came from a tiny Byzantine Slavic population to whom Cyril belonged. This was the written language that was spread by the Orthodox church. It has NOTHING to do with spoken Russian. “As the oldest attested Slavic language, OCS provides important evidence for the features of Proto-Slavic, the reconstructed common ancestor of all Slavic languages.” - Wiki article on Old Church Slavonic.
So again, everything you’re posting is either ignorant or supports my claim, not yours. So please, keep posting!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Craystuff In North America, luxury brands have nothing to do with size. Acura, Lexus, Infinity, Genesis, Lincoln, Cadillac, Mercedes, Audi, BMW... are all luxury brands. A “premium” isn’t a thing. Large basic sedans used to be called “premium” by rental car fleets: Impala, Cadenza, Taurus, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Huw Williams I said what I meant quite clearly. They would have to price them too high if they were to continue to import them. The tariff is 10%. That tariff doesn’t apply to Mexican or Canadian assembled cars. However, the Cherokee is assembled in the US. Furthermore, it wasn’t designed for Europe. It was designed for a V6 engine, which is far too big for Europe, so it’s simply too long and too heavy for that market.
The Renegade isn’t a “re-skinned Fiat”. It was actually developed in Italy and the US, at the same time, with Fiat developing the Fiat 500x body and interior, Jeep developing the Renegade body and interior, Jeep developing the chassis, AWD system and electronics for both and Fiat developing the engines and transmissions for both. Also, 2019 Renegade sales are so far higher than in 2018 and they’ve been selling about 72,000 units per year, which is not bad at all. In comparison, the Honda HR-V averages less than 30,000 per year in Europe. Also in comparison, the Škoda Karoq, which is a best seller, sold 78,000 cars in 2018.
Also, the Cherokee continues to be sold in Europe. However, in the UK, the Compass will be sold instead. Remember, there’s that Brexit thing too...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mark-de4hj No, Mark. First off, in a free economy with competition, cars are priced competitively and it is the value of vehicle that leads to higher sales, not its cheapness. Second, vehicles are segmented in comparisons. We don’t compare a 911 to an Elantra. Third, You don’t see the Hyundai Venue being the biggest seller in the US, right? You also don’t see a Jaguar being a sales leader, right? No. The F-Series is the top selling light truck and the Rav4 is the top selling passenger vehicle. Neither is luxury nor the cheapest. So it’s not that.
Top trims are NOT better. They’re comfy, and feature-laden, but are not “better.” The value isn’t there and many people think that features are unreliable. Then there’s the “I work in it, I’ll break it, tear it and get it dirty” issue. That’s not better for a work truck. Also, REAR wheel drive pickups account for a small portion of pickup sales nowadays. The vast majority are sold as 4x4.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dirk Diggler The Seltos SX Turbo AWD (top trim) with the sunroof package comes out to $28,590 MSRP, $29,710 with destination. The Encore GX in the video was over $33k and not even the highest trim. The Essence trim without ANY packages lists at over $31k. With the sunroof and advanced tech packages to make it equal, the Buick lists at $35,195. We know GM discounts heavily, but so does Kia. I didn’t bring the Kona into this because much like the Mazda CX-30, the Kona is considerably smaller. Generally, reviewers hate anything CUV, so the Kona preference of a reviewer is of no concern to me. All of that is subjective, except the price. The price is flat out numbers.
So my question to you is... what are you smoking?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZipplyZane Again, it is NOT in the Constitution and courts’ interpretations in US Supreme Court rulings extend certain very specific protections that they believe may apply, but as the overturning of the Roe v Wade decision has proved, those rulings don’t actually provide any concrete protections.
The Fourteenth Amendment abolished slavery and grants equal protection under the law, but it does not require laws to be written to give equal rights. This is how, for example, despite the 14th Amendment having been ratified in 1868, women could not vote until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, legal race segregation existed until 1968, and marriage wasn’t available to gay people until 2015. In fact, MOST civil rights protections that exist in the US today came into existence since 1968, and by codification, not the Constitution. That’s literally over 100 years after the 14th. Amendment was passed.
Stop yapping. You have NO clue of what you’re talking about. You didn’t learn ANYTHING in high school.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keegan [GoatLord] Why? Because Estonia is an independent country and NATO won’t come to its defense for just any reason. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be able to do it quickly enough for the Estonian military to hold. Lets face it, if Russia invaded, Estonia would have to surrender in hours to avoid massive loss of life. They might get rescued by NATO later, but first they’d have to surrender. It’s the only sensible action. Their military would be a simple speed bump.
You clearly didn’t serve, don’t know actual invasion scenarios, and don’t know the political reality of NATO either. Turkey is a NATO country and it actually fights against Greece (another NATO country) constantly, and attacks other NATO interests constantly.
Most of NATO alliance countries are solely there as a political entity. They have no capability to defend themselves, right along others. They are in the alliance to allow US, German, and British troops to protect them, to a degree, in return for financial help, training and give up locations for those countries to build strategic air/space defense stations. It’s also there to put political pressure on Russia.
Example: Northern Macedonia has just 8,000 active military with 5,000 reservists. They couldn’t protect their borders with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@r.gronkowski856 You’re spreading NOTHING, but conspiracies. The Federal Reserve controls the supply of our currency. If a country does dump it, which is incredibly improbable, if not impossible, it wouldn’t literally dump cash notes on a street. It would SELL debt notes. That could, short-term, reduce the value of the dollar, but all the Fed would do then is just reduce the circulating cash notes and that would drive the price of the dollar back up. Go study economic policy, please.,
Also, inflation is crazy LITERALLY everywhere, in EVERY country on the planet and it’d because manufacturing is down everywhere, creating a lack of supply of products, which drives speculators.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmiller3279 The odd thing was that when VW replaced the old, small Tiguan, it chose to do it only with the giant long wheel base Tiguan in North America, while doing it with a smaller Tiguan everywhere else, so their strategic thinking was that Americans don’t want small CUVs. Now, instead of introducing the already developed smaller Tiguan, they bring in an odd duck model that was designed only for China. Unfortunately, like all other “only for China/America” models, this one is absolute garbage, with poor dynamics, cheaper engines and many corners cut in QC. Even Škodas and Séats are better quality than what they build in Puebla/Smyrna. Look at all the issues the Jetta, Passat and Titan have had. They’re killing the brand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmetal4138 That's really more of a guess than a rumor. Subaru keeps very tight lips. People had no idea the Forester wasn't going to have a turbo or a manual transmission right up to the release day. People are simply guessing that since the H6 is most likely going away soon (judging by the Outback/Legacy being the only models to still have it), Subaru will use the 2.4T to replace it. People are guessing that because they have no other guesses. However, that engine, while producing more torque and horsepower than the outgoing 3.6 H6, will also consume lots of fuel and will simply be too much for a car the size of the Legacy or Outback. There's also a BIG assumption that Subaru even wants to replace the H6. Considering their move with the Forester, it's more likely they will simply leave the next Legacy/Outback with the 2.5 H4 we now see on the 2019 Forester. Subaru's lineup needs to lower their average fuel consumption. They're behind the curve because they're mostly AWD vehicles. The latter is my guess of what Subaru will do, simply looking at the industry trends. Subaru might surprise me, but I really doubt it. The other thing that might happen is an updated 2.0 Turbo with direct injection, but I'm not sure Subaru is willing too many chances with their powerplants just yet.
Another guess is that Subaru will develop a new 2.0 turbo in the next couple of years, with port and direct injection and will mate it to the Forester, Outback and WRX (in different tunes) and then use the 2.4 turbo on the WRX STi. We have to keep in mind though, that Subaru isn't just supplying North America with its cars. They make these cars for the whole world and foreign legislation covering emissions and foreign economic states do play into design economics. The WRX STi has already been killed in Europe because the EJ25 engine is non-compliant there. Let's see if they have a market for the car there or not.
The last possibility is that they will continue the 2.5 engine and use either a 2.0 or 2.5 plug-in hybrid powertrain on the Outback and Forester as the upgrade engine. Hybrids tend to have better acceleration due to their instant 100% torque and the Crosstrek Hybrid is coming with the Toyota Rav4 AWD-i system paired to Subaru's Boxer engine. The increase in weight below the belt line would also improve handling on cars/CUVs that are already popular because of their lower centers of gravity. That would allow Subaru to catch up to average MPGs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnKellett_kreativarchitects You know, you say you know physics, but then what you say actually shows otherwise. First off, the kinetic energy is in PART generated by the ICE (petrol), but partly by that same recovery process, as it is stored back in the battery to be used to create more kinetic energy. Second, even in a full EV, much of the electricity is generated through the burning of coal or petroleum. It's true that more and more, sustainable sources are used, but right now, they're not able to use them in an efficient and steady manner (mostly because you cannot control the wind direction/speed or the availability of the sun), so that electricity also comes from dirty sources. Furthermore, while there is some extra added weight on the hybrid, it is more efficient despite that weight. That is how it gets about 50% better fuel efficiency than the petrol version of that same car (despite the added weight). Finally, why are PHEVs fine when they also use petrol? You're trolling. Pure trolling.
1
-
@JohnKellett_kreativarchitects Why do you INSIST on being a little troll? 2 weeks? That's great! For the other 50 it cannot be done. The UK has way too many gloomy days and days without sufficient wind to provide enough electricity. Just because it's a cloudy day, doesn't mean people use less electricity. In fact, they use more. You see more usage during the winter, when many solar panels are covered by snow and you see very short, cloudy days. Right now, there is no way to consistently generate a steady flow of electricity from a renewable source outside of geothermic, which Iceland uses. There simply isn't. The other 50 weeks, the UK still relies on coal, natural gas and nuclear energy it generates or buys from other countries. That's just the reality, versus your dream.
To add to that, there is a lithium battery shortage. The Kia Soul EV will not be released as scheduled because of that shortage. It looks like it will be at least 2020 until it is. It was supposed to be in stores already. I imagine since most manufacturers are dropping their EV models in 2020, you will see an even larger shortage of lithium batteries next year. The RAV4 Hybrid doesn't use a Lithium battery. It uses a more basic, Nickel Hydride battery that allows it to be cheaper and to hold a charge better in cold weather, where many of these cars will end up. It allows people at a lower income to swap out their Diesel or Petrol cars for cars that run on Petrol, but only part-time and are substantially cleaner and more efficient. That's something EVs simply can't do.
Then you have the issue of a lack of infrastructure in the UK and around the world. Recently I read an article by a car reporter who set out on a drive from South England, to North England in a Hyundai Kona EV, to see how it works in the real world and he was not too thrilled. Most charging stations were either broken or taken by someone when he pulled up, causing hours and hours added to his trip. Adding to that is the fact that most manufacturers plan to release an EV or few in 2020, due to new Euro emissions laws and tightened California CAFE laws. Since all these cars will drop in 2020, you will see a magnificent rise in demand on the electrical grid and charging infrastructure, without any added charge points. That will cause the electrical rates to go up for everyone, even if they don't own an EV and long lines for charges. Adding to the debacle is are the increased sales of PHEVs, which will be competing with EVs for those same few charge stations. Sorry, the world, even the UK, is not ready for all these EVs, YET. Don't forget that MANY people don't even have access to a garage, where they could charge an EV. If you live in a house without a garage or in a flat in a building, you're out of luck! EVs continue to be niche vehicles designed for short commutes for those who live in suburbs and have garages (and if best, solar panels on the roof.) The rest, have to drive petrol or Diesel vehicles and out of those, the Hybrids offer the biggest financial savings and best environmental impact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I read a lot of these comments and NONE are coming from knowledgeable Air Force maintainers or logisticians.
The reality is that no, the F-16 doesn’t require all those man hours to generate sorties. That’s just what the US uses because we have the personnel and it increases safety and long-term reliability. We have different airmen specifically trained to arm/disarm aircraft, fuel/de-fuel, crew chiefs, avionics, structures, hydraulics, etc. and they all do major maintenance as well as mission generation. The tale of a Gripen needing just one crew chief and a few untrained airmen is absolutely misleading. They still need to do proper maintenance every few flights and untrained people have NO idea of what they’re doing. That’s all just a sales pitch to developing nations - the primary users of the Gripen. Also, not a single Gripen has ever been used in any combat. They’re completely unproven.
I’ll be honest, a C Gripen may be better than a Block 15 Viper, but a Block 52 will annihilate it all day, every day, in both, air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. I don’t even want to go into the Wild Weasel capabilities, which the Gripen simply doesn’t have and Ukraine desperately needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DixonMarshall No, they’re still mechanical. There is software involved in all automatics and CVTs, for sure, but the “electronic” in this context refers to how it operates and that it operates to manage torque from an electric source. In a CVT, a computer manages the “shift” points, that’s all. In an eCVT it literally manages everything. It has multiple modes of operation. The cogs and spindles (there are multiple in a planetary gear set) only spin forward, stop or spin backward and which one is doing what when is all regulated by a computer. It can charge and drive on the electric motor, charge and drive on the ICE engine, charge and drive on both, motor and engine, drive on both without charging, charge while disconnecting both, motor and engine, drive in reverse on the electric motor or stand while charging from the ICE engine. It’s all a combination of which gears are spinning in which direction or not spinning, and all controlled by a computer.
The fact that it’s so simple mechanically is why it’s incredibly reliable.
If you know how the system works then you know not to group them. The eCVT has as little in common with the CVT as it does with a manual transmission.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesreisenauer1778 First off, it doesn’t keep its members from integrating in the local community. Most airmen and other personnel assigned to Ramstein live in the towns around it. The products sold at the Base Exchange at Ramstein are very often local. The fuel and supplies are local. There are actually whole cities that have grown just on US service members being there. The mist famous one is Kaiserslautern in Rhineland-Palatinate. It’s a city if 100,000 native residents and about 45,000 NATO personnel, which contribute about $1 billion USD a year to the German economy.
As per Afghanistan… I don’t even know where to start with you. You’re INCREDIBLY ignorant on the subject. The North of Afghanistan is the MOST friendly area to the US and the West in general out of the whole country. The North is held by Pashtun and Uzbek tribes that paired with the US to topple the Taliban. The Northern AOR (RC-N) was divided between Germany, Hungary, Norway, and Sweden to patrol because it had very friendly populations. The toughest areas were the East and Southeast, which were almost completely American responsibility, with assistance from France, Denmark, Australia and Georgia. Why do I know this? I spent an entire deployment in working C-17 operations out of Bagram AB and three years working out of Ramstein AB. Why was Germany there? That’s simple. The US invoked the NATO Article 5 after 9/11. This created the ISAF mission to eradicate Al Qaeda and Taliban that supported it. All of NATO was involved. The fact thar you don’t know this demonstrates just how ignorant you are about events of just 22 years ago (or thar you are a simple internet troll).
The events at Chernobyl and Fukushima were great examples of mismanagement at power stations, but the safety record of the world’s nuclear power stations is incredible. There are 440 nuclear power reactors in the world, in 32 countries, plus Taiwan. They provide about 10% of the world’s electricity. If German plants were old, the solution to that is to build modern ones. Modern plants are small, clean, and incredibly safe. Instead, Germany chose the easy way out - buy fossil fuels from Russia.
Germany wants to LOOK like they’re using clean energy, but in reality simply increased their fossil fuel expenditures.
Fossil fuel pollution has NOT increased in Russia or in the US. In fact, it has decreased, as both have switched to cleaner coal, natural gas and renewable energy production, including wind and solar. Russia was never a large CO2 producer. It relies mostly on hydro power for electricity. Most of its coal and oil were, and are, for export.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
guy proulx Except that is a low number. First off, that’s less than Toyota sells of Highlanders, Camrys or Rav4s. Second, you just proved your case. Wranglers’ value is high too! Their good used examples are highly sought after, just like TaCos’! I know people who have gone across the country to snag a good used Taco and Wrangler! No one had to go across a county to find a Camry or a Rav4. They’re EVERYWHERE!
Both, Wranglers and Tacomas are in classes of little demand and both represent the majority of the market. Think about it... what are their competitors, how many do they sell, and why so few? Both of these cars have low demand for new examples and high demand of used ones.
Besides, up until 20-8, Toyota only sold 130k to 150k a year, and that’s the used market, not the 18 and 19 models.
1
-
guy proulx You can keep “boggling” your mind, but I and Alex know exactly why. The examples in this video clearly show how the Camry’s resale value is lower than the Accord and some others, despite being a top seller and a highly regarded car. The same is true of the Rav4, but I get it, you’re not one to understand numbers, and thus not one to value the lesson they provide. As I’ve demonstrated and commented on before, until 2018, Tacomas only sold about 150k a year, or about what Kia Soul sold. You can keep believing what you believe though, despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.
Also, it seems you’re from the shallow IQ pool. Did you not bother to read my original comment? It seems you were too eager to jump in to troll, so you didn’t bother. I didn’t say that a car’s rarity is the sole driver of resale value. That’s just stupid. I said it’s a factor in addition to what Alex said.
Stay ignorant, my friend!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ramadamming8498 I think your confusion comes from not understanding how DNA relates to history. DNA is sampled today, not 1000 years ago. DNA from people in Ulster would have been different 1000 years ago than it is today.
Southern Irish DNA does not have Czech, Swiss or Austrian DNA. It has more bits of Belgian, Dutch, Welsh, and French DNA than Northern Irish DNA does, which has more bits of Norwegian, Scottish, English and Danish ancestry. But that’s today, not 1000 years ago. Back then the DNA samples would have been much more specific to local populations due to their remoteness and frankly, a lack of DNA variety. There are generally 7 broad groups of Irish DNA ancestry. Central Ireland (Connacht and Leinster) have lots of commonality with Wales and Western England. Ulster shows strong DNA commonality with Scottish lowlands, but again, this is because of the last 900 years.
The TRUE Irish DNA, the Gaels, was established around 3500 years ago and then changed by migrating Vikings, Normans, and the Plantations. But if you know the island’s history you’ll know that those groups settled mostly along the coasts and mostly in the East. That’s why you see less and less Western European haplogroups as you test farther West and specifically North-West. So the Ulster and Leinster populations were affected the most by this diversity, while Munster and Connacht, the least (especially the latter).
1
-
1
-
@ramadamming8498 The Norse impact was large at the time, but has been watered down by the impact of the British. The same is true of Normans. There are still many Irish surnames of Norse origin like Arthur, Bligh, Harold, Toner, Reynolds, O’Hever, Sugrue, Godfrey, Jennings, and many others. Most of the largest Irish cities were established by the Norse: Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Wexford and Waterford. In fact, the Norse really controlled the Uí Néill until Brian Boru. In fact, he was killed by the Norse-Dublin and Leinstermen in the Battle of Clontarf.
The Vikings had their impact on Eastern Britain as well, especially Scotland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toyotaprius79 you seem to like comparing apples to pork chops.
Kia Niro - Is a hybrid, but not a CUV or an SUV and is only front wheel drive.
Hyundai Kona - a subcompact CUV and comes in AWD, but doesn't come in a hybrid and gets 28mpg city/32mpg highway. Nowhere near the Rav4 Hybrid's fuel economy.
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid is a minivan and starts at $42,000 in the United States, has no AWD and has no "Stow-And-Go" seating. It gets a combined 32mpg rating once it's out of electricity in the battery (which is good for up to 33 miles).
The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is the only hybrid CUV with AWD aside from the Rav4 and unfortunately, once the Outlander's battery is drained, it cannot recharge it. That means that it then gets 25mpg in combined driving. It can only travel up to 22 miles on that battery. It's a decent setup, considering the weight of the car. Unfortunately, the Outlander is a car designed straight up in the early 2000's, outside, inside and suspension/steering-wise. Even as soon as it came out, it was already severely outdated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BigHeadClan
1. All or some, NONE of the information you referred to in your original post is in public filings. It’s all proprietary. The fact that you’ve never read a prospectus, but was referring to them was evident immediately.
2. Yes, I’ve driven over 300hp vehicles with front, rear, 4 and even 6 wheel drive. I’ve owned an Impala with a 3.5 V6, and driven a Lincoln MKZ and a Maxima, both at or over 300hp and FWD. Now what? Overwhelming crappy tires is easy in any car, front, rear or even all-wheel-drive. No, you don’t need AWD in such cars if you’re having difficulties. You need to learn how to drive better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People are asking why this was done. You should ask why this was done in Miami, in a public housing complex, to minority voters.
Florida has closed primary elections, which means that only members of the party can vote for their candidate: Democrats choose their democratic candidate for the general election, Republicans choose theirs. You cannot vote for anyone outside your party.
What this accomplishes for the GOP is disqualification of established, Democrat minority voters from the Democratic primaries. When they show up, they will not be able to select their candidate, who is likely to be a minority. This is a voter suppression tactic. It IS racist. The LatinX vote in Florida is a huge battle, with most Cuban-Americans and Venezuelan-Americans siding with the GOP, but others with the Democrats. With a large influx of Central and South Americans, the GOP is seeing that balance starting to flip Blue, so they are desperate.,
The idea is to get these people not to vote in the Democratic primaries, so not push through a hispanic Democratic candidate that can take on Marco Rubio.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He’s not wrong. In large, unionized department things are done in a pretty consistent way, barring mistakes. In a case like this, the CO of the arresting department calls his CO in the morning and the CO of the arrested officer starts “paper”work. I use quotation marks because it’s computerized, of course. That triggers a paid suspension pending departmental review. The CO calls the cop to come in, takes his badge and gun, provides union rep info and that’s it. The internal affairs and higher ups at HQ take over. The officer may be told to stay home or be placed on modified duty (paperwork or watching CCTV all day”, while IA looks over charging paperwork and eventually the case disposition. If the crime is serious (a felony or violent), the officer may be moved to unpaid suspension. Once a conviction comes in, he is automatically placed on unpaid suspension either way, and pending any departmental hearings and appeals he/she stays there until they are processed out/terminated.
Those are all processes required by the contract. However, the reality is that there is irrefutable proof of misuse of a department vehicle, reckless driving (in FL) and at least an initial refusal for a breathalyzer. Each of those is an offense for which you can be terminated. Together, even without a conviction, they’re more than enough to terminate. Even if his blood test came back .000 BAC, he’ll still be fired. This isn’t the 1980’s anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cadsux I wouldn't know if it is or isn't because to know that, I'd have to have looked into the specific transmission response programming for both cars. I know for a fact that you don't know either because you don't seem to know the difference between throttle response, engine power production or transmission design.
That said, the CR-V is faster. It is faster because it has a more powerful engine that puts out more torque, more horsepower and more importantly, it puts out that torque at a lower RPM range because it is a turbo engine (than a naturally aspirated engine.) Nowhere is it more evident than when you compare the CR-V's two different engines. The only thing different between the base CR-V and the other trims is the engine. The transmission and weight are the same. The AWD is the same. CVTs can "gear" up or down faster or slower, but you wouldn't be able to tell their "response time" as it is instantaneous. They may not "respond" the right way for the situation, making them less smooth, but they respond faster than you can blink. They're completely electronic. What can have a response time is the throttle. In fact, the Sport trim of the 2019 Forester has a differently calibrated throttle response than the other trims. It is calibrated to respond faster, with more open throttle, given the same amount of pedal pressed. This is similar to "Sport" modes on many cars, when the throttle input gets modified by the computer. The other factor is the CVT modulation which causes it to become more aggressive by keeping a lower ratio, longer. On other trims, it would decrease the ratio quicker, to provide lower RPMs and thereby improve fuel savings. On the Sport, it sacrifices some fuel savings for slightly better performance. Again, the CVT responds immediately, but the response type is different. That's because the CVT is ALWAYS connected to the drive shaft. It's actually why CVT cars cannot be flat towed. Finally, because of the way turbo spools are designed, there can be lag in power response from the engine. It takes a second for the exhaust gasses to work their way back into the system, through the turbo, spool up and get back into the system, so that's lag between you pressing the gas pedal and you getting that "oomph" from the turbo.
To summarize, throttle response can produce lag. Turbo spools can produce lag. CVTs do not produce lag.
1
-
@cadsux even then, the rubber band effect is only present on CVTs without simulated gears. The effect is of the transmission sending the RPMs into one, peak, level and keeping them there for as long as the accelerator is steadily pressed, like when merging onto a highway or starting at a red light. Then when the car gets enough momentum, the CVT drops the rpms to usually around 2000, where it is most efficient (uses least gas while maintaining speed). A lot of people aren't used to that. They're used to the see-saw action of an automatic transmission, which constantly goes up and down, through the gears, until it reaches the cruise speed, at which it also settles into the highest (most efficient) gear at around 2000rpms. CVTs are NEVER less responsive. They are ALWAYS more responsive. That is they stay in the peak of efficiency at all times instead of going above the peak torque for a few seconds, just to drop down into below the peak torque curve for few more every few seconds. The only difference is how people respond to it because it's a new (to them) feeling of sound and vibration. It's 100% psychological and every engineer will back me up on this. The only reason that CVTs aren't used in motor sports yet is that they haven't developed one that will take the sports beating. CVTs are more complex and cannot take the heat as well as manual transmission can. To be honest, neither can a regular automatic. That said, transmissions are physically connected to the engine and react instantaneously. What they may not do is change their gearing as quickly as you'd like them to, but one could make a case for saying that it's your expectation that's off, not their programming. They do as they're programmed.
The perfect example for this is the Jeep Cherokee's 9-speed automatic transmission, which is notorious for not being able to find the proper gear for the conditions. It keeps switching gears and adjusting the throttle input, but never quite settles down on one when you're climbing a hill. That is a programming issue that Jeep and the transmission manufacturer, ZF Friedrichshafen, have been trying to resolve for years now, with incremental improvements, but not final fix yet. That said, the Subaru's CVT has never been accused for hunting for the right ratios.
I suggest that the quality you don't like in Subaru Forester's CVT is its frugality. It is programmed to increase the ratios very quickly after initial acceleration, and it is programmed to hesitate before reducing ratios during acceleration, all to improve the fuel economy. Honda's CVT does the same exact thing in its Eco mode. It's not that there's lag, it's just that it's purposefully designed to provide smoother throttle response and a better fuel efficiency than what you prefer. You may want to try out the Sport model of the Forester because even though the reviewer didn't mention it, its CVT and throttle responses are programmed to be more aggressive. I'm guessing that if you drive the Sport and you disengage the Auto Start/Stop, you will see a 0-60mph time shortened by .3-.4 seconds, but you will see a loss of at least 2-3mpgs in the city and 1mpg on the highway, with around -2mpg in a combined cycle. The MPGs supplied by the EPA all take into effect the Auto Start/Stop working and are figured out at the most economic setting for the powerplant, which is the regular (base) model, not the Sport.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
EcSight Games I say “IF” precisely because that happens quite a often. Many startups build the infrastructure and release a ton of press to attract further needed investments and drive evaluations up, but when they don’t get enough, they fold. Yes, BMWs engines are horrific. Land Rover owners know this all too well. If JLR cars are your benchmark for reliability, then this manufacturer will hit the mark well.
As far as the pricing goes... Here, read this article, and pay special attention to the very bottom of it: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/amp/car-news/first-official-pictures/ineos-projekt-grenadier-an-old-school-4x4-off-roader-for-2020/
The old 110 sold for mid-upper 30s, so this thing... My guess is that the starting price will be around £43k and a well-equipped one will be around £50k.
And then there’s another possible snag... while the final assembly will be in Wales, for PR’s sake, the ENTIRE car will actually be manufactured, and even painted in the EU. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the whole Brexit thing, but that may be a big issue as well.
1
-
EcSight Games While that’s true, they’ve also said that a long wheel base 4-door model will be the first one, followed by a 4-door pickup, so 110 and 130 competitors, so lets use those prices for fairness. I can’t find any of your claimed quotes, but I linked a quote relating to pricing from one of their executives. He said they can’t sell them as cheaply, and it makes lots of sense. It’s a small production factory of a brand with ZERO recognition, so very limited. It will need to be profitable right off the start to continue to produce and since it’s a modern vehicle with modern emissions and safety requirements, it will be significantly more expensive to produce. Then there’s a whole issue of a non-existent dealer network that will want to make back their investments into infrastructure. My guess is that the first model will actually sell for closer to £80k and will never see any dirt. Footballers and their wives will be collecting them in their Cheshire mansions.
As far as the main company having money... that’s not how businesses work. The books are kept separately. Investors frown upon mixing revenues and expenses between different industries. The main company is a chemicals manufacturer and has nothing in common with automobile manufacturing. They will not move the funds around.
Ineos is comprised of over 20 separate businesses, each with its own board, budget and Ineos Automotive, Ltd id just one of them. These are basically independent businesses under one umbrella.
Meanwhile Ratcliffe and the other two owners are moving to Monaco, they’re shutting down a plant in England, with hundreds of jobs lost, and the car is even supposed to be designed in Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/09/britains-richest-man-to-leave-uk-for-tax-free-monaco
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughgrection3052 The central core in a TBX is a high explosive and the external secondary charge is the outside, which is a fuel-rich formulation. There is first an anaerobic explosion of the inner core, then a delayed outer charge aerobic detonation of the dispersed fuel mixture.
The resulting explosive effect is considerably weaker than a conventional explosive like RDX, but it diffuses and delivers an extreme high heat blast. So, the percussive wave blast is a lot smaller, but the fireball superheats the surrounding area, and if you are in a confined space, even a large one, the intense fire eats up all of the oxygen in the space within a second and you die not from the blast, but from the abrupt atmospheric pressure (superheating gasses), followed by abrupt gas expansion due to rapid oxidation and loss of atmospheric pressure. If you are very far from the explosion and in a sealed space you could theoretically die from suffocation as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Robert Duklus The 2.0 EcoBlue Diesel (Panther) engines were developed in the UK and Germany by Ford Europe to meet Euro 6 standards. What happened to all that knowledge, asshole?
The cars that are designed in North America are designed for gasoline engines. Always have been. Whether it’s a Ford, Jeep or a Chevy, if it’s designed in NA, they later go on to look for an already-existing European Diesel to fit the export version. That’s why they’re almost after-market. The European Diesels were never designed for the Edge and the Edge was never designed for Europe, unlike the Kuga/Escape, Mondeo/Fusion, Transit, Transit Connect, Focus, C-Max and Fiesta lines, which were always designed as world vehicles, with Diesels and small I-4s to power them from the start. The Edge didn’t even have a 4 cylinder engine as an option until Ford decided to export the 2nd generation to Europe. It was always designed as a V6.
While a DCT may be faster-shifting (which matters in sports cars), it is very rough and prone to failure in high torque/high weight applications.
I’m not too fragile. I’m a war veteran. You’re just a simpleton asshole, burger-eating non-yank.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sher's Fords and Others So lets not bullshit here.
The Civic Base/LX Sedan (2.0L) is rated 30mpg city/33 combined/38 hwy. The Jetta is rated 30mpg city/35mpg combined/40mpg hwy. However, Car and Driver tested it and got 43mpg highway on the Jetta with auto, 48mpg on the Jetta manual. https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/jetta
The Civic LX sedan has 158hp and 138 lb-ft of torque and its 0-60 time is 8.2 seconds (Car and Driver test). The Jetta’s 1.4T produces 147hp and 184 lb-ft of torque with a 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds (0.6 seconds FASTER than the Civic).
So to recap, the Civic LX sedan has a little more horsepower, a LOT less torque, is .6 seconds slower and gets worse fuel economy than the Jetta. To get the better (still not better than the Jetta) fuel economy you have to pony up to the EX or higher, which gets the 1.5T. That 1.5T is also more powerful, at 174hp/162 lb-ft of torque (still less than the Jetta) and clocks in at 6.8 seconds.That trim starts at $23,800. The Jetta starts at $18,895. That’s an almost $5,000 difference.
The important part of the acceleration curve is that the Jetta will actually be faster at 0-30 than the Civic as the Civic 1.5T’s torque is lower and that peak horsepower comes in at the crazy 6,000rpms that no one will drive at. The Jetta’s torque peaks at around 1,300rpm and stays there until 4,000rpm. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/a-new-engine-shows-that-vws-turbo-power-is-better-than-ever/
The Civic’s peak torque starts at 1,900rpms and stays until 5,000rpms. So to utilize the most of it, you’d have to rev that engine high, destroying the fuel economy.
So unless you’re full on racing, the Jetta is the winner.
#factsmatter
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vyli1 I think you’re missing the internal political climate of Russia. If Ukraine manages to push Russia back to its original border, especially if it manages to re-take Crimea, Putin will not only be embarrassed, but will lose ALL support within his party, the Duma as a whole, his governors and the people. It will be the biggest national embarrassment in Russia’s history. Putin will not remain in power in that case. He may choose to off himself, to flee into exile or he may be arrested as a national traitor, but he will not remain President. When Putin call things “existential” for Russia what he really means is they are existential for him personally, and Medvedev, Shoigu, Peskov, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Please do research on AWD systems before commenting.
No subaru is able to distribute power side to side. The best they can do is apply brakes to a wheel without traction (traction control), which in an open differential reserves some of the torque of that wheel for its axle mate on the other side.
The manual transmission has a mechanical viscous coupling system thatvis only reactive. No sensors. However, it defaults to 50/50 in regular driving and when one axle slips, it sends 80% to the opposite and leaves 20% on the slipping one. No XDrive on that. Just a regular traction control system.
The CVT paired cars have a reactive, sensor based system, but its default setting is 60:40 toward the front. As it senses slippage is happening or about to happen, it snaps into 50:50. That’s all it can do. It does, however, have XDrive, which uses brakes, transmission and throttle to keep a controlled pace through descents and bigger obstacles and on some models, torque vectoring through braking, which creates better handling in high speeds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sethchong571 This has absolutely ZERO to do with the length of the aircraft. Hence the MAX8 (shorter) has the same problem as the MAX9. By the way, the MAXs are only a couple of inches longer than the NGs.
The issue is the engines. The MAX engines are highly efficient and thus require a larger diameter of fan blades. On the NG models, the engine fan blades were shorter and were able to fit, if the cowling was flattened on the bottom edge, which it was. WIth these engines, that's not enough. However, when you simply lengthen the landing gear, you completely change all dynamics of take-offs and landings and you'd need to completely scrap the design and create a new one. There simply isn't enough space for the longer gear to even be retracted into. Anyway, the engines were moved up and to the front to make room for them. The ONLY thing that moved changed, in terms of performance, was the degree to which the aircraft pitches its nose up when throttle is applied. The NG pitched the nose more than the Classic. The MAX pitches it more than the NG. In normal operations, that pitching is simply either controlled by the pilot or the autopilot via trim and is no big deal at all. In a situation where a plane approaches a stall (very rare to begin with), a 737 pilot would pitch the nose down until established speed, and then add thrust gradually, once speed has been been picked up, because adding thrust will pitch the nose up (and you don't want that in a stall). The MCAS was designed to push the nose down a bit more when the aircraft is in a stall, so that when the throttle is applied, it doesn't just pitch up and go back into a stall. That's all it is and all it does.
The problem was simply that the MCAS was told by a single sensor that the planes were in a stall. Why it said that is CRUCIALLY important to the case. There are two sensors, but the MCAS only gets data from a single one. That was Boeing's major contribution to the incident. Both sensors should have been feeding info into MCAS. Once the MCAS thought the plane was in a stall, it pushed the nose down, so throttle could be applied, but unfortunately, since the plane was not in a stall, it pushed it toward the ground.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Donald Boughton I’m not the one who is deflecting. The millions of safe flights by the 737 are evidence that is a perfectly stable platform, and has been throughout decades and numerous modifications.
The debate is being made here mostly by people who wouldn’t know a flight surface from a water bucket, which is why it’s not a debate at all.
I am a former USAF aircraft maintainer, an accredited aerospace educator and a GA pilot. When you are debating a specific incident that happened to a specific system, but are applying conceptual theses of engineering, without ANY knowledge if the system or the incident, you’re only proving that you don’t belong in the debate.
And no, I don’t work for any aircraft manufacturer, not that that would change any facts.
The MCAS using a single sensor for data is a fault, but the MCAS is not a structural component, it is simply software. It does not render the design of the aircraft faulty and the only ones thinking that are simply and comprehensively ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MU-rx1tc The conversation is about legal process, not degrees, am I wrong? Please give me some time stamps of observed improper behavior on the judge and why it was improper. Please use concepts of legal practice in your arguments. From my experience in court rooms, the practice of a judge instructing jurors on hearsay is not just appropriate, but necessary to a fair trial. It’s not something a layman would necessarily know and we know that hearsay evidence is complex, even for those in the legal profession, being that it’s generally inadmissible in court. A jury has to understand that what someone thinks another person has said, felt or heard is not admissible as a statement of fact. Not in a courtroom.
In this instance, a third party video was being submitted as evidence. The video included brief remarks by the defendant, which are, of course, admissible and not hearsay, but the rest of the video was an editorial montage by a third party, containing a monologue and opinions of the video editor. The judge admonished the jury on the concepts of hearsay and what is and isn’t admissible, and yes, used a well-known example of a trial in ancient Rome, where the legal concept of hearsay comes from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sybrand Botes First off, Canadian laws allow this type of searches and seizures (it’s in the video). Second, a lawyer, knowing that law, should not have kept that information on his devices, if he knew it was sensitive. There are ways to email, transfer or carry files on a zip drive or the like, without having them on a laptop or smart phone. Furthermore, the specific files could have been encrypted, allowing him to open his devices for the customs, while keeping specific sensitive files secure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Greg It’s unfortunate that you’re a level 10 troll. First off, if you make a claim, the burden of supporting that claim is on you, not everyone else. That’s 9th grade level stuff. Second, the article you’ve linked isn’t about reliability. Did you even bother reading it?! You knew it wasn’t, which is why you said I wouldn’t accept it. Of course I wouldn’t. No one would!
The fact is, Genesis G90 was dropped by Consumer Reports from its “recommended” list for dependability in 2019. Hyundai comes in at #10, but Genesis at #12 on the 2019 list for reliability for CR (since you chose to use them as a reference.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2018/10/25/the-most-and-least-reliable-rides-on-the-road/amp/
JD Power evaluates 3 year-old cars for reliability rankings and Genesis is only 2 years old as an “independent” brand, but Hyundai has been making Genesis cars for many years. Hyundai comes in at #9 on the 2019 JD Power list for reliability. https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2019-us-vehicle-dependability-studyvds
You’re constantly arguing here with people, but you clearly argue only to create conflict, as you don’t even try to make any point. Get a life!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Baltazar Campos Nieto You are thinking too simply. AWD is about power. It’s about power delivery. Look, the Crosstrek has as good a system as a Forester XT, but it doesn’t do this test nearly as well. Meanwhile, BMWs AWD is nowhere as good, but it does better than a Crosstrek.
The first thing you need is sufficient power. The second thing you need is that power to be delivered in a sufficient way. The third is to have traction. Without any of those, you have nothing. However, on a dry incline like this test... power is the more important factor. You always have at least 2 tires on a nice, dry surface, and one is always the front and other is always the rear. Always. If you have enough power, the one drive wheel that’s on the surface will push/pull you up.
If this was on a slick surface or if a whole front/rear axle lost traction, like on rollers, then you would be testing mostly the power delivery system, not inertia or total power itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First off, GM used to own Opel and sold it to PSA just a couple of years ago. The reason why some Opels are sold under the Buick brand in the United States is because that as an agreement as part of the sale. GM invested into those models' developments. Once they are updated, they won't be sold under a GM brand anymore. So, no, there's no PSA brand to sell them under in the United States as no other PSA brands are sold here. Furthermore, each model would need to comply with US safety standards, which are different than anywhere else. They'd also have to meet US emissions standards, which are also different. All of that would require special development and investment with a belief that the car would sell enough to make a profit. Considering the lack of brand awareness, trust in French reliability (when that trust isn't even there in Europe), an already loaded market and the difficulties of establishing dealership and distribution networks all mean that there's almost no chance that PSA will bring anything here anytime soon. If anything, Fiat is proving just how hard that is and Fiat actually has lots of support from the Chrysler side. PSA's brands are all very European and its focus is on that market.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan… you’re wrong on the Iran pronunciation thing, buddy. It has NOTHING to do with your accent either. You just learned to pronounce it wrong. In every word in English that starts with an I, the letter is pronounced as “ee”. Example: information, indigo, irrelevant, input, etc.
Iran is a proper name. It should be pronounced as intended. We don’t call you Reeean, even after you correct us, and blame it on an accent. It’s a simple matter of proper reading and respect. Passaic Co here, btw.
After all, there’s no “Eyendia” or “Eyesrael”, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonaswladimir6889 No one was talking about democracy. Are you developmentally challenged? I claimed that EU nations aren’t really neutral because if one EU state is attacked, all other EU countries would have to defend it as it’s an attack on the EU itself, not just one member. It would fall apart if it didn’t. That means Sweden, Finland and Ireland, despite being non-NATO, despite being “neutral”, would still have to defend a country like Estonia, Poland or Romania, if they’re attacked.
The issue is that EU nations would stand to lose far more without the US, Canada, Norway and Turkey (non-EU NATO members) involvement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vic Wiseman You’re completely ignorant on these topics.
First off, Subaru forums don’t talk about all the issues on other brand cars.
Second, automatic transmission Subarus also fail. A 100k mark is a very high mileage for any transmission and failures are common at that point, on any transmission, on any car.
Third, Subarus’ primary issue is head gasket failures on the 2.5 non-turbo engines. These failures persisted from the mid-1990s to today.
Fourth, as far as CVTs go, Subaru’s is the toughest, especially the WRX one. They are chain-driven CVTs. Most other are driven by steel belts and are far more prone to failures.
Fifth, a CVT is cheaper to replace than an automatic transmission, but is almost impossible to repair/rebuild.
Finally, the SH-AWD system on the Hondas/Acuras, the system on the Rav4 Adventure and the system on Cadillacs is better in terms of active torque vectoring versus brake torque vectoring, but all cost quite a bit more than the Forester. The big thing going for Subaru is that it is the only one which always drives all 4 wheels. Always. All others disconnect an axle at highway speeds, usually around 45mph. It’s not a huge thing, but it’s a thing. Driving on snowy highways at 50mph is more sure footed with all 4s powered, especially in turns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MeBallerman NONE of that was true. While the US did send trucks and jeeps, the Katyushas were originally mounted on GAZ chassis. Also, the US sent massive amounts of fighter planes until the USSR started building them by license, and a crazy amount of food. All Russians grew up knowing what canned corned beef, pork and condensed milk were because of the US.
As far as mobility is concerned, all armies at the time used horses extensively, but Germany was almost entirely motorized, compared to the USSR. Between bicycles, motorcycles, cars, vans, trucks, half-tracks and heavy, tracked vehicles, this was how Germany waged Blitzkrieg - fast, large maneuvers. Most Soviet Union infantry units still used horses and carts to get around.
1
-
@MeBallerman Again, you’re completely misinformed. Where did you get all that from?
You’re confusing infantry elements for the entire army and not understanding how the German logistics system worked. In early WW2, Germans indeed used horses heavily. Horses were plentiful, traditional and cheap. It was also central Europe. During blitzkrieg, Germany lost almost all of its horses in infantry battalions and gave up on cavalry recon. They instead used captured Soviet, Polish and Romanian trucks. Germany also employed horses as a “last mile” supply system between the rail lines and active units, something that could not be done in Russia. As I’ve said, all players in WW2 used horses extensively, not just the Germans. The USSR lost 11 million horses in the German advance in 1941-1942 alone. The Red Army employed FAR more combat cavalry than the Germans. A standard Russian rifle division had about 14-15 thousand men and 3-4 thousand horses. Now, that’s about half of a German infantry division’s hose count, but… the German army was far more dependent on their elite mechanized and panzer divisions during the initial months of the Soviet invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rocketman1058 To be fair, what started WW2 for the West was Britain and France declaring war on Germany in response to its invasion of Poland. They did not declare war on the USSR for its involvement in invading Eastern Poland or Estonia, Latvia and Romania (today’s Moldova). One could also remind everyone that Poland was occupying Western Ukraine, Lithuania, part of Romania and Belarus until that point, as a remnant of the Austro-Hungarian empire (the Hapsburgs). i don’t know if I’d call that revisionism. Is a non-invasion pact the same as starting a war? Finland, Sweden and Norway had non-invasion pacts in place too. Every neutral nation does.
While the invasion of Finland was a real “war machine” act for sure, it really isn’t considered to be a part of WW2 at all. As for the others, there really was no military invasion because those areas were already aiming at communism, and many saw it as a liberation from Poland, not realizing that the USSR wouldn’t give them independence.
Every nation on earth calls itself the “good guy”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fireteam_ We don’t know yet, but it certainly won’t be the 2.5. There’s nothing to de-tune there. It won’t fit.
The best we can hope for is the 2.0 that we see here, with an added 3-motor hybrid system, but since that’s not a thing yet, it’ll likely be the 1.8 Hybrid from the Corolla (121hp), but with an added 30hp or so rear electric motor.
In Asia they only have FWD hybrid that yields 134hp and 153lb/ft of torque. I fear that’s too little for anyone here, even if the fuel economy is excellent, though the thermal efficiency there is just 38.5%, which is less than the Rav’s 2.5 system. My guess that the hybrid here will get a standard eAWD, with a third, rear electric motor, and that’s why it’s delayed. It will likely bump this up to 160hp and around 180 lb/ft of torque.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@watchreport That’s not how the law works, sorry. That IS still a contract. Very often people can walk away from a contract breach without damages, but the breaching party is not in control of that. The fact is that once both parties agree on a selling price, and consideration (a deposit) is accepted, it’s a contract. I’d have to read how the contract is worded specifically to know what’s established in it, but… the big differentiator is the price.
For example, Tesla Model 3 pre-orders were sold for $1,000 years prior to the car’s sales. Those pre-orders had no price quotes or even equipment builds/trims listed. They were very specific in saying that you are purchasing a place on a waitlist, not a car. The stipulation was that Tesla would reduce the price of the car by $1,000 “coincidentally” when the sale is finalized. Those were contracts for waitlists, not cars.
What we’re seeing with Ford is a bit different. It is like any company’s pre-order, where you are agreeing on a price and a build, then even a VIN number, and the money exchange is quoted as a “deposit” on the sale. It is refundable, but that’s by dealer’s choice. It is still a contract. If I have a reliance on that car’s delivery and the dealer/manufacturer fails to produce, I not only have a right to get my deposit back, but I can also sue them for my damages.
Car dealerships and manufacturers are sued CONSTANTLY. If you’re a lawyer working for a dealership, you are doing well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DumbDuck44 I work in the auto industry and don’t make money iff of reviews, so I’m likely MUCH smarter, when it comes to cars, than all of the above. Mind you that none of the above are people, but rather companies, which hire all types of journalists and not actual industry insiders.
Anyway, the fact that you don’t know me (or any of the others you’ve listed to be fair) is irrelevant. What I said is true. They can compare a Golf to a Hummer for all I care. It doesn’t make them logical comparisons. They make money off of ENTERTAINMENT, not science.
If you actually know ANYTHING about those cars then you know they are not only if very different size (something all writers if the comparison mention all the time), but also in cost and capabilities. They mention the AWD and ground clearance differences and the utility differences, the towing capabilities and the available V6 (now V6-like) power. They mention that the two aren’t actually comparable, but that they are simply the two “wagons on stilts” out there.
1
-
DumbDuck44 you are a true moron! I never said the Alltrack is available with anything, but AWD. I said their AWD systems are different! God, did you drop out of school or something?!
Some of those reviews throw in the Volvo V90 XC for good measure. Do you really think the Alltrack is comparable to that too? It’s done for content, to make money! No one, NO ONE, cross-shops those cars, EVER.
You can cross-shop the Buick Regal CrossTour with the Outback or, if you want, you can compare a fully loaded Outback Touring with a base V90 XC, but that’s it. The Audi and the VW are in a separate, smaller group. Now if Volvo makes a V60XC, then they will get a competitor, maybe.
Oh and I honestly don’t care who you trust or don’t trust. There are people walking around believing the Earth is flat. You think I care? If you want to continue to be an ignorant idiot, go right ahead, knock yourself out!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RubenDReyna FACT: in 2020 only 10 states sent out ballots automatically and only to registered voters.
States that allow elections by mail: Florida, Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico… are you getting the pattern? Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, and others. You’re not getting the pattern? They’re hardcore RED states! They all allow voting by mail and for many, many years!
Voting by mail isn’t fraudulent, you moron! As ling as it’s a US citizen voting only once in their precinct there us NOTHING wrong or unlawful about ANY of it! Sure, you don’t like it. You’re old and can’t deal with anything. It’s been going on for DECADES! No issues!
YOU are the problem with elections and democracy! Not processes… YOU!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Deano TheSaxman I comment in things I know, not things I wish I knew, unlike you. You’re making a hefty (and stupid) claim. Do you have concrete evidence of the FAA’s lack of expertise? No, you do not.
The reason why the FAA (and Canadian, European, British, Chinese, UAE and many other authorities) allow Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, and Aerospatiale and others to self-certify in SOME aspects of development and certification is not because of a lack of expertise, but because it’s simply impossible to check, verify and certify every single tiny component, down to each wire and screw. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. So major systems, as they get developed, are scrutinized, but basic and carry-over items are not. It’s understood that all sides are building for safety. Why? Every time there is a crash, it becomes clear why: bad PR = bad sales. Now stop running your stupid mouth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@obinator9065 That’s FALSE.
From DefenseNews on September 12 of this year (look it up): “WASHINGTON — The German government will work to ease its restrictive export policy when pursuing joint weapon programs with European partners, German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Monday.
The pledge follows a provision in the governing coalition’s charter, approved last year, that envisions a complete revamp of Berlin’s bureaucracy, famous for its secrecy and, as critics would argue, the appearance of political doublespeak on sales to problematic regimes like Saudi Arabia.
Speaking at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, Lambrecht argued Germany “owes” to its European partners a guarantee it will refrain from derailing exports of jointly developed weapons those countries need to offset their initial investments. “We make cooperation hard because we insist on special provisions and veto power,” Lambrecht said.
If countries like France, Italy or Spain see no problem with giving arms to a given country, Germany won’t invoke its “values caveats” and hold up sales, she added. “We’re not talking about delivering to rogue states,” Lambrecht clarified.
Arms exports have been an evergreen topic in Berlin policy circles, as the issue combines thorny questions on military and morality for which no muscle memory exists in modern Germany.
The country’s cabinet agency devoted to economic affairs has the lead for arms exports, combining input from the Defense and Foreign Affairs departments.
The trinational Future Combat Air System of Germany, France and Spain — now hindered by work-share disagreements among key industry players Dassault and Airbus Defence and Space — almost died some years ago because of export disagreements. French officials were pushing against a German veto caveat for eventual exports of the aerial weapon, going so far as to threaten abandoning the project over the disagreement.
In the end, officials decided to table the issue, as Germany instituted a policy of approving exports by default if components included few Teutonic contributions.
It remains to be seen how Lambrecht and Chancellor Olaf Scholz can wrangle their party, the Social Democrats, as well as the Greens into a compromise. Both parties have vocal opponents to loosening arms export controls.
According to Lambrecht, finding a more permissive policy could give a needed push to European Union defense-related development programs.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Despite Trump’s language and ridiculousness, I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish with your own ridiculousness.
1. He is trying to portray a general condition (in his mind), not relay data. That’s his role in this (again, in his kind). He gets the experts to relay the data and he tries to relay his views. You can cling onto it how you want, but that’s politics, not facts.
2. The US having 1/3 of the positive cases in the world isn’t a function of us testing less. We have done more testing, actual and per capita. New York State alone is doing 40k tests per day. In fact, you can say that with more tests you will record more positive (and negative) results than you will with less tests.
3. Both South Korea and China started testing very quickly and are both in a condition of actual war, with little concept of democracy or civil rights. Vietnam too. When it comes to a pandemic, democracy is an enemy. That’s why the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc. all democratic countries, have high rates and Cuba, S. Korea, China and Vietnam do not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinW826 There are always trim and package differences between the US and Canada due to our climate variance, languages differences and market quirks, but… The U.S. and Canada are a single market for all car manufacturers and that is a fact, not my opinion. The major components get sent to both countries, always. This is due to NAFTA, as well as regulatory and geographic similarities.
As far as leasing managers go… they get no more information than anyone else. Once Toyota has all the marketing to be released to the public, they will let the dealerships know. Remember, dealers don’t work for Toyota. They’re independent businesses. Also, don’t think dealer people know much about their cars. Even the GM at my Toyota dealership keeps making stuff up when he doesn’t know (which is often.) We think they should know, but they’re in the business to sell and make money, not to be gear heads. I knew FAR more about my Rav4 than anyone at my dealership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinW826 The CR-V hybrid is not available in Canada for a funny reason: no spare tire, as required by law, and no room for one.
Again, despite some model trim variations, the US and Canada are a single market. Latin America and the Caribbean are a single market, Asia (without China) is a market, China, Europe, Russia, Africa, and Australia/NZ/Pacific Islands round out the list. There are model and trim differences within markets, but they’re small. The fact is, the Corolla Cross Hybrid IS coming to the US AND Canada.
For example, the current Rav4 Hybrid came with Nickel Hydride batteries at first, but switched to Lithium-Ion in 2021, but kept Nickel Hydride in Canada for better cold weather performance. The performance is the same on both, as is the fuel economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ No, it’s LITERALLY your opinion about other people’s opinions. Did you drop out of school or something?
The Gamma 1.6 is Hyundai’s 8th most reliable engine, according to experts. And that’s without the Turbo.
It is a FACT that Hyundai is notorious for engine troubles, especially their GDIs.
It is a FACT that carbon build-up is a problem on ALL direct injected engines.
It is a FACT that turbos add tons of complexity and failure points to all turbo engines.
That alone, given that the Toyota’s 2.5 is dual-injected and has no turbo, makes the Toyota’s engine more durable. It’s literally basic engineering.
The way the eCVT works and the way it’s made FACTUALLY makes it simpler than ANY automatic, DCT or CVT transmission and it’s arguable that it makes it more durable than even manual transmissions because it has a lot fewer moving parts, more robust gears and no switching of gears.
You’re ignorant, and my guess a huge MAGA fan because you like being ignorant, preferring simply to double down on your BS (and lie) instead of educating yourself.
Oh and I don’t care about how it acts. You don’t grasp how hybrids work, so you don’t grasp how it acts anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GROGU123 1. I never said lots of AWD systems have torque vectoring, but the number of them is increasing. The Forester has it, now the Rav4 has it too. It's no longer reserved for the performance or luxury CUVs.
2. Most economy cars don't have AWD, but AWD systems do help the car rotate better. With a front wheel drive, only the front inside tire (during a turn) gets any torque. On an AWD car, if there is a loss of traction on the inside wheel, that wheel gets torque as well. Not true of a FWD or RWD car.
3. Vehicles that have full-time AWD systems like Subaru, Audi, etc always provide torque to both axles (at varying levels).
4. While AWD is especially helpful to get going and at low speeds and up hills, there are very few times that actually comes in play and in most times, having winter tires will actually provide you with better traction than an AWD can. I'm not saying AWD has no use. I'm saying its benefit is limited compared to what most people believe it does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You obviously misread the case. The case upheld that the state has no legal obligation to control the private actions that are not regulated by the Constitution. The question here was of due process afforded by the 14th amendment.
In other words, the court recognized that nothing in the 14th Amendment due process clause requires the government to protect the life, liberty or property against private individuals. The court was correct on that. It has no such language. State and federal laws must indicate what they want their law enforcement to do. It is NOT a Constitutional question. Law enforcement are employees, just like all others. Their employers must state their terms of employment. If we want our states to have more broad indifference laws, we must press for that.
Right now, the governing federal law is Title 42 U.S.C., Section 1983. It permits people to hold government employees and their employers accountable for violation of rights protected by the US Constitution, civilly.
Furthermore, DeShaney draws a difference between a failure to act and intentional indifference. The case DOES NOT stipulate that law enforcement authorities have the right to disregard people’s safety. Not at all. The court found that the state’s failure to prevent child abuse by his father is simply not something the state can be held liable for. In other words, there are just things the government is unable to protect you from. That’s not to say that the agency in this case acted appropriately or even lawfully. This is simply a matter of applying the Constitution to a civil tort case. The agency’s employees could (and should) have been fired, and if the DA finds illegality, prosecuted as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericfitzpatrick5319 First off, no one ran into a station. The guy called. Also, he had little to no information to go on. It’s not that they didn’t take him seriously, but rather that he didn’t stay on scene, didn’t go to a police station and had no good info to provide over the phone. The police had nothing to go on. It wasn’t until the van renter - FedEx went in with photos of the damage to the van that they had more to go on. Then they could canvass the area and get video from third parties, which you need subpoenas for often. They could then get access to the van from FedEx to get ballistics involved, etc. 911 likely dispatched a unit to where he said it happened, which found nothing there, and that was that. A 911 call isn’t a police report. It’s just a call for help. The report comes later, when the police contact you back, IF you left contact information. That contact was made the following day when they walked into the station.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heretoforeunknown Which mental illness do you suffer from exactly??
This is a tunnel owned and operated by Amtrak and despite your obvious lack of education, and an abundance of hate (one stems from the other), Penn Station serves over 500,000 riders PER DAY, many of whom aren’t New Yorkers and aren’t even going to New York. Since Amtrak owns and operates that tunnel, it is the Federal government that pays for it. In turn, NJ Transit pays Amtrak for using it.
Like it or not, this city is currently THRIVING, and it’s continuing to be the hub of business, politics, arts, entertainment, tourism and frankly, civilized life in this country. From your comments I can CLEARLY see you hate all those things along with you know… human rights, people of color, non-Christians and women, but that’s not a part of this debate. You’ll deal with God on that one.
New York and New Jersey are running large tax surpluses and pay more to the Feds than they get back (donor states), so in a way we’re actually paying for YOUR stuff. You actually owe us a “thank you”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every single aviation authority in the world signed off on them, not just the FAA. Think about that... they were cleared to fly by the EU, UK, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, the UAE, Indonesia, India, and many, many others. They all signed off on the plane and authorized it to fly in their countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mitsubishi doesn’t make cars for the North American Market. They used to, in partnership with Chrysler. They’re too small to do it on their own. CAFE and safety regulations killed their bread and butter SUVs in North America as well. Pajero, Pajero Sport (Montero and Montero Sport in N.A.) and their puck-ups continue to be their brand’s money makers, but cannot be sold in the US. They are old designs that simply don’t meet regulations. So the only cars that Mitsubishi can sell here are three CUVs (Outlander Sport, Eclipse Cross and Outlander) and the Mirage. Since the CUVs were designed for a low budget, they are not fuel economical, so to remain in North America, Mitsubishi needed cheap compliance vehicles. The unchanged since forever Mirage and Outlander PHEV do that job. They allow Mitsubishi to sell the three CUVs on which they make a ton of profit. This is why their cars seem not to fit any car classes we know - they are Asian car classes. Their biggest markets are Southeast Asia, Australia, China and India.
Renault-Nissan, the parent company, recognized that and are introducing Nissan-based CUVs starting with the next generation because they are fuel economical. That will eliminate the Mirage and the Outlander PHEV, while meeting safety and CAFE standards. They will also continue to focus the company on their Asia/Pacific markets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alwaysgreatusa223 Mockery… I doubt you have a grasp on what the word means, yet without the understanding, one cannot explain it to you. This person isn’t being mocked. They’re being ostracized, judged and vilified. Why? Simple: because of their deeds. Do evil onto others and you will be ostracized, judged and vilified. Why? Because societies have norms and moors. We live by societal rules that protect us. When a person intentionally goes on a crusade to destroy us as a community, as families and individuals we publicly shake them to send a message to others: DO NOT DO THAT. That’s how it works.
You want to put yourself in danger when it only endangers yourself? Knock yourself out… literally. But if you want to endanger others, we will push back, as a society. And yes, you will be mocked, in life and in death, among other things, if you attempt to do that. Choose wisely!
1
-
1
-
@ssunii7891 No… deaths are not inevitable. The world isn’t a binary code. Take a statistics class! Vaccines… ALL of them, REDUCE the severity of an infection, by teaching your cells the best ways to attack specific pathogens. That severity reduction can range from almost complete ~99% to just slight ~5%. Where you fall on that spectrum depends on many factors, including your own body’s immune strength, previous infection with the virus or vaccine, viral efficiency (infectiousness, replication, severity, etc.) and even external factors like the environment. Their effects are also reduced with time. MANY require periodic boosters. This is basic, high level biology. If you don’t know what viruses are of how they work, if you don’t know how cells work, if you don’t know how immunity works or what mRNA is, then you have NO business trying to tell others ANYTHING about them.
1
-
@CursedLemon That’s partially true. To be an anti-vaxxer one needs a willful hate of science and humanity in general and we all recognize that someone who is against very basic truths is most likely suffering from a serious mental illness, rather than basic ignorance. Making fun of them won’t magically change their nature. What can do, however, is highlight the insanity to those who are simply unaware of these people’s pathology and might be thinking that there’s enough truth in what they say to not trust the facts.
There is a huge set of people who claim that science needs to be questioned. Science doesn’t need to be questioned. Science is a STUDY, a PROCESS OF QUESTIONING. The results of any scientific study are what may be questioned. One may, and should do that, if they have at least the basic understanding of the study, the methods and the subject. After all, how can you question if something is correct if you don’t even know what it is? These people aren’t calling for an objective review of data… they’re simply calling for a general mistrust of people who know more. It comes from personal insecurities of their own knowledge - it’s fear of the unknown. To them, viruses, vaccines, mRNA, DNA, cellular structures… they’re all things as wild and unknown as quarks, black holes, demon magic. It’s the same principle the church applied to Copernicus and Galileo and countless of other scientists before. These people are a symptom of failed secondary school systems in this country, that don’t demand a basic comprehension of physical sciences in order to graduate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DrScopeify I’m a major rental car fleet manager.
1. The smallest car in our fleet is the Mitsubishi Mirage, Chevy Spark, Ford Fiesta, etc.
2. The Camry, Altima, etc are full-size sedans, which are 4 classes larger than those I just mentioned in point 1. In fact, only 2 classes of larger sedans exist (premium and luxury).
3. The CH-R and HR-V are sub-compact crossovers and are 2-3 classes smaller than the crossover equivalent of the Altima or Camry, which would be something like a Grand Cherokee, Edge, Santa Fe or Blazer.
4. Uber drivers need more rear leg room and trunk space. A Corolla/Civic would be more economical, cheaper and roomier for Uber use. A hybrid is ultimately what is best for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@midnattsol6207 The issue is not whether or not drones can spot SAM sites… (they’re just cameras, of course they can), but rather if they would be spotted, and if a SAM site would allow itself to be seen. SAM sites exist to be mobile, secretive, and literally scan for aircraft. Even though drones fly below radar altitude, their operators constantly scan for them, visually and electronically. The chances that a Russian drone would be filming a SAM station at the time of a strike are zero to none, not just because the SAM site crew wouldn’t allow it, not just because they wouldn’t leave the site up in the open like that, but mostly because there’s no point. If it’s a high tech, military drone, it’s expensive and would be able to take the site out itself, but would also be seen by the site’s radar and intercepted. If it’s a small, tactical military drone then it get blown away with the strike. If it’s one of those tiny, commercial ones then there is a control unit within close range (couple of kms) of the site and they’d strike the site easier than sending in a ballistic missile. In short, this situation makes NO sense unless you’re using it as an exercise and evaluation, in which case you film to do BDA (battle damage assessment) to see how effective the targeting was.
Also, quit pretending someone accused you of things that no one did. I never said you assumed anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Glenn Carpenter thanks for copying and pasting the basic formulas, but you’ve just proved you have NO idea what you’re talking about. You don’t need to be a crack physicist, mathematician or engineer to understand the basic relationships those formulas display:
Power = torque * RPMs
Fuel Efficiency = Power/Fuel
Delta RPMs = Delta Fuel
That means peak fuel efficiency = peak torque.
Do the math!
Now if we were talking electric motors, which produce a constant amount of torque at all RPMs, you would be at least partially right: they are equally fuel efficient at all RPMs, so at peak at full RPMs (as well as at just 1 RPM).
However, if you take a look at any torque curve of any ICE engine, you’ll see the torque output is not steady, nor linear. It increases, peaks, and then drops off as RPMs increase, so while some engines’ maximum power production may well be at full throttle (max RPMs), their efficiency suffers at that point.
Also, you seem to get lost in the understanding of power versus unite of measurement of power like Horsepower. In fact, horsepower also drops off at peak RPMs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mborok It’s not entirely wrong, but also not really right either. While in the ancient city of Rome the official language was Latin, the Holy Roman Empire had many official languages like Greek, Etruscan, Oscan, Aramaic, Syrian, etc., with both, Greek and Latin being the major languages. That’s why the term “Roman language” is ambiguous. There were many Roman languages, but only one Latin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thomas Maresh Aside from good maintenance there are inherent engineering or building flaws in some cars. That’s what we’re talking about, not properly done oil changes.
For example, in the mid-2000s, Toyota had a very popular 4-cylinder engine called the 2AZ-FE. It was standard on their North American Camrys, Rav4s and Highlanders. A HUGE seller, you’ll agree. Generally, those cars are considered to be near perfect when it comes to reliability, right? However, the engine had a major engineering flaw that only came to light years later: head bolts. Aluminum head with steel bolts and no jackets plus a new heat dissipation cover over the intake manifold often results in loosened bolts due to stripped threads. That causes major head gasket leaks, both internal and/or external. Toyota has a TSB on it, but since it takes years for the threads to strip, no recall as the cars are past their warranty. That’s the type of reliability we’re speaking of. No form of good maintenance will prevent this from happening and it’s a $2000+ fix.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s a lacking understanding of Subaru’s current 4 AWD systems, but then again, every single commenter on here is ignorant of these systems, how they work and how they don’t work.
The CVT-paired AWD system on all Subarus is front-biased and electronic. Yes, it is “full-time”. ALL AWD systems are “full-time” because that means they do not need to be turned on or off by the driver to initiate. The terms “full-time” and “part-time” are 4WD terms, not AWD.
The CVT models’ AWD system has a default 60:40 torque split and if the sensors predict or sense slippage, the system goes into a 50:50 split until it no longer does. It does that through a wet multi-plate clutch system. That’s all the system does in the CVT models.
On automatic (not CVT) transmission systems, it’s the same, but can split up to 40:60, so it’s slightly better.
Manual transmission systems are viscous coupling systems that use no sensors. They default to 50:50 in normal conditions and once there is slippage, go to either 80:20 or 20:80, depending on which axle slipped. Thus, this is a more robust system, but it’s slower to react and has no sensors to predict slippage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@naughtysauce4323 Except that all completely untrue. Most hybrids have at least two motors. Toyota’s AWD ones have three. No added complexity to that as they’re incredibly simple. Also, given that most people commute under 20 miles a day, they all seem to have plenty of EV mileage in them, even in the winter. The Volvo S90, Lincoln Aviator, Audi Q5, Jeep Wrangler 4xe, Chrysler Pacifica, BMW 330e/530e, Polestar 1, Mitsubishi Outlander and the Hyundai/Kia products are all selling well and can do these things (20+ miles EV).
Also, the Volt production ended in 2019. I think you’re a few years behind the rest of the world. And the Clarity plug-in’s total range of just 340 miles makes it a terrible car of any kind. Even with gasoline, it doesn’t have range. It’s purely a compliance car, which is why only CA dealerships stock them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Humberto Rubi I think you have a hard time understanding between safety ratings/tests and government safety regulations.
Let me explain: Safety regulations are legal design requirements which MUST be met for a vehicle to be sold in a certain market.
Safety ratings and tests exist for those vehicles that have already met the basic legal requirements to be sold, to see how well they fare in accidents.
The Suzuki, regardless of its NCAP or ANCAP ratings, cannot be sold in North America because it doesn’t meet North American safety (and emissions) legal requirements. For it to be sold in North America, substantial redesigns will need to be made. How that vehicle would then fare in NHTSA or IIHS safety tests would then be a whole other question. At this point, the Jimny simply doesn’t meet U.S. Department of Transportation safety standards.
On top of that, Jeep’s European or Australian models may have been modified to fit those countries’ regulations, that have caused them to fare worse on tests or it could simply be the fact that Wranglers were built to IIHS and NHTSA testing parameters, not NCAP or ANCAP, meaning they pass the basic requirements, but given how those tests are scored and what they value, it doesn’t do well.
I’ll give you an example: NCAP scores reflect the lowest common equipment for the trims, so if one of 5 trims doesn’t come with autonomous braking, the entire range loses a point. Other countries don’t grade that way. They may grade it based on the system’s availability, but provide a caveat for the trim that does not get the option. NCAP looks at damage done to pedestrians in a collision as a point of the vehicle’s safety in their score. In North America that is not a factor at all. The safety rating is for the vehicle’s occupants only. In Sweden and a few other countries, a “moose” test is done. Not in North America. There are many other such examples of differences in testing and all influence how cars are designed for those markets or even if they are designed for those markets. Suzuki left the North American market specifically because it was too expensive for it to make alterations in design to fit North American safety and emissions regulations, given their market share here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sooththetruth What do you base that on?
There are no facts to support that. First off, VW just stopped the Golf in the US because the production all moved back to Germany and there was no profit in exporting it to the US anymore, except in more expensive GTI and R versions. Audi/VW make all their cars sold in North America in Mexico or the US. In fact, they make many cars in Mexico, then sell them in Germany. The same with Mercedes and BMW too. GLE, GLS, C-Class, X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 are all built in the United States. BMW builds 3-Series sedans sold in North America and elsewhere in Mexico. Tariffs are the issue, not manufacturers.
Meanwhile, a good chunk of Hondas, Toyotas and Subarus are still imported from Japan, even in models that are also made in North America.
1
-
sooththetruth You’re a bit contradicting in your comments, so I agree with some of what you’re saying and disagree with some too.
Are Japanese cars keeping up with the technology of Korean cars? No. I think the Koreans are trying to catch up with the Japanese, and are doing well to reduce that gap. Technology-wise, the Japanese are still the leaders. From successful dual injection, to solid transmissions, including CVTs, to innovative hybrid and AWD systems... Toyota, Honda, Subaru and even Mazda are still the ones Hyundai/Kia are emulating and hoping to beat. Are Japanese luxury brands positioned well? No, as a whole, they aren’t. Lexus, Acura and Infiniti are having a hard time building popular world luxury cars because their non-luxury offerings now offer the same features, for less. To be fair, Cadillac and Lincoln are having the same problem. Much of it is simply a marketing perception of European being elite. Some of it is rooted in “luxury” having been synonymous with “comfortable” in the past, but now pointing more toward “high performance”, something the Japanese simply aren’t attracted to (ever see a Japanese car racing league or team?) Yes, they likely did hitch their horse to the wrong wagon, and they may simplify their offerings in the future. Think about it... would an Accord with SH-AWD and 350hp sell? Yes, probably better than a TLX would. So yeah, I disagree with some, but not everything.
1
-
sooththetruth The Germans and Koreans did adapt dual injection systems (yes, that’s what I meant), eventually. Volkswagen’s TSi engines are now dual injected, just not in North America, and Hyundai has just released their first TDI engine with dual injectors. It’s just that they’re behind Toyota and Ford on this.
Regarding transmissions... Aisin makes fantastic transmissions for many brands, not just their owner (Toyota), but... Honda makes fantastic CVTs and Subaru’s are chain-driven and though are applied on the wrong cars (not for off-road use, really), are pretty good. I don’r even want to start with the hybrid tech. Nissan is not on my list of anything. They’re bad at everything they do. Mitsubishi and Suzuki are almost at that point too.
Especially true of luxury cars, longevity is not a concern. People who can afford these cars generally lease them anyway. Jaguars lose 60% of their value within 5 years. All luxury cars have poor resale values. Yes, that is where Honda and Toyota went wrong. In Nissan’s case, Infinity actually does better than Nissan itself because of the RWD performance sedans they brand as Infinity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The pay/benefits in the armed forces are actually pretty good and job stability is a big factor too. A large part of those who enlist come from the poorer parts of the country and it’s either the military or coal mines/farms or similar.
E-1 pay is $1,733.10/month, plus $369.39/month allowance for food (tax exempt) for the soldier. If you don’t live in base housing, you get a tax-free allowance for housing (BAH), which grows with your family size and time in service/rank. You may get special pay for hazard duty, combat duty, flight duty, submarine duty, foreign language proficiency, or diver duty. Free medical for entire family. 30 days leave. You get to shop at the commissary for food, which is very cheap, the Exchange store system for everything else, which is cheap, and various commercial discounts like mobile phone service, car purchases, loans, even home improvement stores. Unlimited sick days. You also get good retirement benefits, including pay and benefits.
A typical soldier does 4 years in the service and leaves as an E-4. The base pay for an E-4 with over 3 years service is $2,507.10/month. That’s $30,000 per year in base pay only, plus $4,400 tax-free in food allowance. Not bad for someone with no college education.
If you make it a career, an E-7 at 20 years of service (typical) earns $4,946 per month, plus the food allowance, which is about $65,000 per year.
You also get free university tuition after your first contract, so that’s a big attraction too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beberivera7011 Of course not. You need to gather sufficient evidence to indict. With a high profile person that would likely mean a Grand Jury. Property searches are a way to gather some of that evidence. They may lead to further witnesses or even more searches to get even more evidence. They may also lead to nothing. You never know. A search is an investigational tool. It is not a prosecutorial tool. Often searches uncover evidence that completely vindicates the suspect.
People act like searches are a punishment or are only done on guilty people. That stems from their ignorance of law and the judicial process. Searches are simply fact-finding tools.
The fact that Trump’s home was searched for confidential documents doesn’t mean a law was broken. It means there’s a chance it was. Considering he was already given a chance to turn the material over before and didn’t, suggests there was possibly a crime. That’s why a search warrant was issued.
The FBI has to go over each document, meticulously, and then start work on finding out the case with each one. Was it allowed off premises of the WH? Was it confidential? Was it supposed to have been turned over to the archives? Then, if they determine that laws were, in fact, broken, they will then go forward and work to determine who broke them. Only once they identify who, how, when, what and where, will they turn it over to the federal prosecutors to evaluate if it’s something they want to move to indictment with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pierresaelen3097 First, to answer your main question, of course I think they’re wasting MLRS munitions. 100% they are. When they’re hitting high value, strategic targets like supply depots and C4I buildings then they’re doing it right. Targeting Gvozdikas and Grads? No.
Now I didn’t say Russia has an infinite amount of that equipment, but it likely outnumbers Ukraine’s MLRS rockets by well over 1000 to 1 and that’s not counting what Russia has in reserve, which unlike modern tanks, Russia has tons of.
Also, none of the commenters on the weather have ever even been close to Ukraine. I’m half Ukrainian, half Russian, and born and raised there. They have NO CLUE of what they’re talking about.
I know Ukraine won’t rush. They’ve chosen to grind along the entire front line instead of picking one or two spots to spearhead, which is exactly what Russian/Soviet doctrine dictates. NATO would never fight that way. This is why Ukraine risks losing support by underutilizing the equipment given.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iowaviking An employer absolutely CAN fire you for it, and courts have upheld that on state and federal levels, including the SCOTUS very recently. The disability act has NOTHING to do with it. What is a protected disability has NOTHING to do with your medical record and firing someone based on a protected disability, without attempt at accommodation may be unlawful in any situation, whether you have access to their medical history or not.
Both, employees and employers have SOME rights and not others. Knowing what rights each side has is important in arguing it.
If you cannot read, don’t comment. If you don’t know the subject (and you clearly do not), don’t comment. Go to your HR manager and find out, or simply research the subject. The legal info is easy to find. You don’t need to be a lawyer, but you do need to read, carefully.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua Michael There is no Golf Wagon. It’s a thing of the past!
Not only do I watch reviews, but I literally know cars. I work in the industry. It’s literally my job. Keep watching those reviews though!
Also, I know a guy who bought 3 Yugos. That is in no way indicative of Yugos having been good cars. Volkswagen moving a “ton” of those... umm... you don’t actually know how many they’re moving, do you?
Here, I’ll help. In 2019 they sold 109,963 Tiguans in the United States. Toyota sold 448,068 Rav4s, Honda sold 384,168 CR-Vs and even Ford sold 241,387 Escapes (even though they were the last year of that generation).
In fact, out of non-luxury CUVs only the Kia Sportage and GMC Terrain sold fewer than the Tiguan. That’s saying a lot because those sales are dismal!
The Tiguan’s approach angle (that’s what that’s called) is 26°, exactly the same as a CR-V. That’s actually good, but the departure angle is far lower (23°) and the actual ground clearance is only 7.9”. That may be fine for running to the mall (which is what you clearly live for), but in states where you actually drive in snow and through snow banks, that’s not enough. What’s worse is the breakover angle on the Tiguan, because the wheelbase is so long.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Soviet and Russian military doctrine had always been very different than the modern US system or even the older US system that included the draft.
The bulk of the armed forces’ enlisted personnel are draftees. The conscripts are drafted for a one-year term in order to provide them basic and specialty (equivalent to US AIT) training. They are then released and listed as reservists. Russia has no active reserve or guard system. It relies on the active duty and inactive reserve only.
As such, conscription serves to give basic military skills to all men, leaving them in reserves if needed, and to make up the bulk of the active forces at any time.
During the Soviet times, there were very few professional, contracted personnel. Conscripts in all services except the Navy did 2 year conscriptions. The Navy did 3 years. That allowed them to train and then retain members to actually do their work after training.
In 2007 that all ended with a professional force being instituted, though it is still less than 1/3 of the total force.
Officers have always been commissioned from military schools (colleges) and served careers much like their Western counterparts. Military Academies, in Russia, are considered to be graduate level schools, similar to War Colleges in the US. Generally, you’d attend an Academy when you are a Captain/Captain-Lieutenant.
So why did I just write all that? The training, given the goals, is quite limited for conscripts since they’re unlikely to ever be mobilized once they are reservists and the training for reservists is limited because they’ve already had one year of service. The entire system is predicated on having very large amounts of very basically trained men to defend the country if attacked. A competent force to invade simply doesn’t exist in large enough numbers to deal with a peer nation. Yes, they could fight a developing nation, but not a large force.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
occckid123 No single place tracks failure rates. The sources for the lawyers (which need evidence for far more examples than just their clients) come from the manufacturer, which track failure rates reported by the dealerships. Owners often don’t repair out of warranty cars through dealerships and individual mechanics don’t report their work to anyone. Attorneys get the data from the manufacturer via court subpoenas, but manufacturers don’t make it public. In fact, in settlement cases, it is specifically stipulated that the data won’t be leaked to the public or the press by either party.
So not only is that data not compiled centrally, and not available to the public, but because of its underreporting, would not be trust-worthy for statistical reasons. Thankfully, car buyers aren’t scientists (usually) and can rely on non-empirical data to make decisions. Recalls, settlements, case losses, extended warranties and data from some mechanical compilers all serve to inform COLLECTIVELY. Thankfully, all that data is plentiful and easily searched for. Now stop being a troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alan Bowers The GLB that starts at $36,600 is FWD. You’re comparing it (a completely stripped FWD car) to a Tiguan that’s fully loaded and AWD?
The GLB 250 4Matic starts at $38,600. For that, you get your choice of two flat colors: polar white or night black, an 18” wheel, no sunroof, no active safety features, M-B Tex seats with no heating or ventilation, and no 3rd row seats (because those cost an extra $850). You don’t get navigation, an upgraded infotainment or stereo (you get a 7” system) or digital instruments. You don’t even get 2nd row side impact air bags (an extra $700 option).
Now you can claim you don’t want any of that stuff, but then you can get a Tiguan SE with all those same things (but safety systems included) for $27,095 MSRP, but with an 8” infotainment screen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NateTrynaMakeMoney What do you want to see? Reliability figures? Here, READ!
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2020-us-vehicle-dependability-study
https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2020-us-vehicle-dependability-study
https://repairpal.com/reliability
The reality is that for the first three years of ownership, the reliability percentage (how many cars present some failure) varies from 92% for the worst and 98% for the best brand sold, with the bulk of cars being in the 94-96 percentile. That means they’re all basically the same as it all falls into the statistical margin of error.
The other reality is that because there are countless variables that impact cars, how they’re used and their owners, there are no very long-term reliability studies on cars, as it’s impossible to do AND… you can’t do a 10 year study on a current year car, can you?
So we go by the studies we have, and if you follow them, long-term, you can extrapolate some conclusions - that the car manufacturing world is dynamic and each model varies from another, that if you generalize you’re being stupid and that things change, not every century, but every year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moose354 I think YOU missed the point. He says to do it EARLIER than on time during break-in, but then defaults to Toyota recommendations, which makes zero sense. He was trained by Toyota to pitch their logic instead of relying on engineering and science. My driving is 90% city. I mean REAL city, stop and go. I live in NYC. Every single car I’ve owned before said 3,000 miles (defaulting to organic oil) in city, mountains, towing or dirty environment. My 2005 Camry just said “5,000”. My 2021 Rav4 hybrid says “10,000”. Meanwhile those same cars with those same engines have other distances listed in other countries. Urban driving isn’t even listed as a reason to do more frequent changes in the Toyota manuals. Why?
Toyota capriciously placed arbitrary figures that have NOTHING to do with real world maintenance. Then they said, organic or synthetic oils are the same. That’s a lie too.
The truth is that whatever your oil is, you need to clean the system out soon after getting the car, but you need time to first let the engine shed the extra metal debris. Ideally, 2500 miles, then 5000 miles. Factory oil is organic. I would stick to Toyota organic at those changes. Then, I would do a change at 10,000, but now full synthetic and high grade filter. At that point, I would switch to 10k intervals with top end oil/filter. That’s with city driving.
I ran my Camry ran on Mobil 1 oil and filters for 15 years (after 1 year of 3,000 mile organic changes) and I changed those every 6,000 miles. I had the oil lab tested twice. Once at 6,000 miles, with 50k on the odometer. It was well within tolerances, with low contaminants. Then I ran 7500 miles with 90k on the odometer and again, it was well within tolerances, but getting close to needing to be changed. So... in NYC driving, that old 4-cyl Camry could do 8,000 mile intervals, safely.
Given the nature of my hybrid (that the engine runs only about 50% of the time, mostly when I’m driving faster), there is no reason to do 5,000 mile oil changes after initial break in, with synthetic oil. It’s just money down the drain.
Does Toyota want to get into that so technically? No, of course not. Every person’s experience is a bit different, so they just make up a number from the top of their heads, mostly relying on Toyota Care costs, to keep them down, and to create future warranty claim denials. All manufacturers do this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theshinobi01 I don't think you're at all familiar with the Opel/Vauxhall brands or GMs European operations. First off, Opel and Vauxhall are the same company. Vauxhall is the UK brand of Opel cars. Second, none of American GM cars were brought to Europe. Opel/Vauxhall and even Saab (when they were under GM's ownership) always designed their own vehicles. The exceptions being vehicles from GM South Korea, which were sold in Europe under Opel and North America under Saturn and Chevy brands. Opel was always plagued by design and production issues, before GM bought them, after GM bought them and even now that GM no longer owns them, they're still bad. Very underfunded. GM even tried to help Opel's sales by bringing some of its cars here (rebaged) under the Saturn and Buick brand names. In fact, they still sell a few of them... Opel/Vauxhall Insignia (Buick Regal), Opel/Vauxhall Mokka (Buick Encore/Chevy Trax) and Opel/Vauxhall Cascada (Buick Cascada). In return, only Cadillacs are sold in Europe, where they're extremely rare and extremely expensive due to import tariffs.
1
-
@looncraz I disagree with ya, bud. The issue here is that first off, even small truck/SUVs are subject to CAFE standards, albeit less strict than passenger vehicles. These standards have also become more strict. Second, the current CAFE standards started in 2017, but were enacted and publicized years ago. In fact, this year, the administration has directed the EPA to roll back the recent CAFE restrictions. So why is it that all three American auto makers cutting sedans THIS year, when things are returning back instead of years ago when they knew things were getting worse for them?
Subaru's Crosstrek may be a small SUV, but the Impreza hatchback isn't, so why isn't that cut? Why cut the small hatchbacks that are FAR outpacing CAFE restrictions? I mean I can see cutting the V6s and big sedans like the Impala, Taurus and 300, but why the Focus and the Cruze? On the other hand, FiatChrysler is sticking with the Challenger and Charger and they're definitely not compliant.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. It doesn't make sense. What makes sense are the sales numbers. Sales say that outside of the fleet purchases, sedans simply don't sell anymore and small hatches never really did. Utility vehicles sell like hot cakes though, AWD and FWD versions, all sell. They make a huge profit on them too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You keep forgetting that the United States are 253 times larger than Estonia, by population and 217 times larger than Estonia by area.
So... take the number of the Estonian Army, which is about 6,425 and multiply that by 253 and you get 1.625 million. That’s the number of active peace time soldiers the United States should have, adjusted for population (per capita) to be the same as Estonia. The active US Army strength is 476,000, by federal law. Including reserves and national guard (all part-time, like you), there are 1,018,000 soldiers in the US Army. Estonia’s full Army strength is 35,350, including reservists. When adjusted for population, it is 8,943,550 soldiers!!!
Consider those as you talk about how militarized the United States are. Estonia is FAR more militarized than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gerri577 Palestinians in the West Bank never had problems rebelling before and Hamas isn’t a rebellion. According to Hamas itself, it couldn’t care less about the Palestinians. It is simply an extremist, self-serving organization.
Also, every person arguing with a “trust me” is an uneducated moron.
I’ve been to the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank looked like Beirut, with major shopping malls, architecture, actual street infrastructure, art, even luxuries, e. Gaza looked like Central Africa, with nothing. Not even regular electricity or running water, and this was because of their government (Hamas), not Israel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dobsr1184 We factually do, actually. Federal agencies very often assist local law enforcement in all kinds of functions, whether it be administrative, fiscal, investigative, forensic, or technological. You just have no idea. Also, harassment via mail and electronic means is always a federal matter because by its very nature it knows no state boundaries and uses federal government resources.
The point is that if you’re not attacking or threatening people then no one, not local, not state or federal law enforcement will be sent, and if you are then it doesn’t matter which level cops cuff you. I remember the good old days when Republicans appreciated law enforcement and valued Judeo-Christian values like respect and peace. Now they’re just as bad as the Taliban. What happened? You’re an inch from destroying democracy and making women wear hijabs. Why are you all religious extremists nowadays and think the world will allow it? I didn’t fight in Afghanistan for you to make one here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doug, like others have mentioned, this is a cargo van that's been adopted for limited passenger use. What they didn't mention (I don't think) and certainly what you didn't mention, is that it is sold not by Mercedes-Benz the normal car company, but rather by the Mercedes-Benz Commercial Vehicles division.
In fact, if you wanted to buy this minivan for your family and you went to the Mercedes-Benz website (www.mbusa), you wouldn't find the Metris or any reference to it. Not in any category. This van is sold alongside the Sprinter vans and trucks through www.mbvans.com, which is their commercial vehicle website. This vehicle isn't meant to be sold to families. This is a FLEET vehicle. It is meant to be a taxi, corporate shuttle or delivery van. It is very similar to the use of Ford Transit Connect and Dodge PromasterCity and not at all comparable to the Honda Oddyseys, Toyota Siennas or Chrysler Pacificas.
You just fail to understand this whole vehicle segment which is common in other countries, but only starting in the United States. These are commercial vehicles and are not there to compete with passenger vehicles just like buses aren't meant to compete with limousines. These are not marketed to families. They are marketed toward corporations and fleet managers. This was the decision of M-B when they evaluated their presence in the minivan segment. They didn't want to enter their V Class as they didn't see people spending that much on a luxury minivan. However, they identified a niche in the commercial market for a people hauler at the 8 person capacity. It is attractive to fleet buyers who simply don't need the 10+ Ford Transit, Ram Promaster (Fiat Doblo) or Mercedes-Benz Sprinter capacity. The van bypasses the chicken tax by being built and shipped to the United States as a cargo version, where it is converted with seats and windows into what you see there. That's why it's so spartan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BaBaYaga1999-p7u That’s false. Both parties have been absolutely stupid to what Russia, and specifically Putin have been doing. Every single US administration since 2000, when Putin came into power, has been dismissing Russia, thinking it will either turn for help or just fade into the night. Even when Russia invaded Nagorniy Karobakh, Chechnya, Georgia, then Crimea, Syria, and then Donbas… the attention was always on Iraq, Afghanistan and then China. You could clearly see, for 20 years, the re-arming of Russia, the change in the sentiment of Russians, the media, and in the Duma. The problem is that no matter who is in the White House, the CIA and military intelligence senior people are ones who’ve been at it for decades, and people don’t change. They’ve been ignoring Russia and this is what that gets you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tinker1148 Sure it is, and that’s why every modern AWD vehicle is programmed to start in a 50/50 torque distribution from a stop and then, as speed picks up, pick up a front bias, and on some vehicles, disconnect the rear wheels completely at speeds over 45mph. Google isn’t enough of a research source. You gotta know your cars. And no, given laws of physics, four powered wheels don’t always have more traction than two, even if everything equal. They won’t have less traction, but in most situations, they will have the same traction. In situations where they do not, there is AWD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
T R To be honest, and this is as a former CDL Class A (hazmat, passenger, multi-trailer and air brakes endorsements) I must admit that most truck drivers are indeed dumb. They know most truck regulations, but often ignore them all. Don’t forget that regular drivers are supposed to know all driving regulations, but how well does that turn out?
Anyway, the VAST majority of truck drivers are very uneducated, don’t read, don’t socialize well and are generally loners. It’s the type of personality that goes into the job, but most importantly, stays on the job. It’s a hard job and a dangerous job to be sure, but it doesn’t require smarts, AT ALL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don’t actually know what these systems are, do you? You just read what it has, but have no clue of how cars work.
The multi-plate clutch system acts as a smart VLSD. All AWD/4WD cars have some sort of a differential system to get power from the engine (transmission) to the wheels and split the torque between the front and the rear. A viscous coupling is one form of a center differential. A multi-plate clutch is another form. It's simply a different design of the same system.
Furthermore, having 3 limited slip differentials doesn't make a 4WD system. That's still an AWD system. A 4WD system doesn't have an open differential down the center (between axles). A 4WD system locks the front axle to the rear, making them spin the same amount, splitting torque 50/50. That old system is great off-road, but is destructive on smooth pavement, at high speeds because the front wheels should naturally travel more than rear wheels (due to steering) and while they're locked, they cannot, causing havoc on the transmission and engine. You're probably confused because many modern vehicles have a system that incorporates locks into their AWD system. Those vehicles are still All Wheel Drive, not 4 Wheel Drive. The ability to variably split torque between the front and the rear is what defines an AWD system versus a 4 Wheel Drive system.
There's YOUR homework. Now go study it.
Oh and the answer to your question of the center viscous coupling overheating in Subarus... it can, if it is improperly maintained. The coupling is designed for VERY aggressive use, but if you don't change the fluid or otherwise abuse the system, yes, it can overheat and fail. It can also simply wear out if you don't change the fluid and become just an open diff because the silicone won't thicken. It's a common problem among WRX owners who are young and don't know what not to do, plus skip proper and regular maintenance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All of Eastern Europe’s munitions manufacturing is being switched over to NATO standards as these countries are running out of Soviet-era guns to fire Soviet-era rounds, and have been for decades. Poland, for example, designed its own 155mm AHS Krab howitzer. They are also taking delivery of South Korean 155mm self-propelled K9A1 howitzers. Danas and Gvozdikas are being donated to Ukraine as well. The BWP-1s are going…
You get the point.
The infantry uses the 5.56 NATO MSBS Grot as the standard rifle, not an AK, NATO chambered sniper rifles, UKM-200 and MG-63 7.62mm NATO machine guns, as well
as 50BMG heavy machine guns firing NATO .50 caliber rounds.
About 2/3 of T-72s in the Polish inventory have already been donated to Ukraine, and as the new South Korean K2PL tanks are arriving, even more T-72s and then PT-91s will be given up. In 2024 the Abrams will start arriving, leaving Poland with just NATO standard caliber tanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ I won’t lay off calling out your BS until you stop the BS. The XLE trim is $34k!!!
The trim in the video is the XSE trim, which is one of the most loafed trims there is! Again, stop being a moron and read the comments that were made to you nicely!
I don’t give a F what you, a total clown 🤡 think a car should cost. Look at ACTUAL prices of cars today!!! There are NO cars under $20k at all! No compact CUV costs below $30k to start! NONE!
The Passport starts at $42,400! BASE! No options, no packages and no extras! The Rav4 in that condition starts at $30,645. Every competitor does too! Tucson, CR-V, Rogue, Forester, Equinox… all compact CUVs start at about $30k. Loaded, they can all go up to the mid-40s. ALL OF THEM!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@celesteg5802 Hands can only be ruled as a deadly weapon in cases with extremely severe injuries, usually when either death or severe injuries occur (brain injury, organ damage, etc.), in combination with intent to cause such grave harm.
I’m not a judge, nor have I claimed to be one. What does being a judge have to do with any of the conversation?
My attempt is to insert FACTS into arguments between people who are spreading misinformation. Usually, when you start to do that, you end the stupidity of the argument, though take attacks from both sides (which is exactly what happened here too.)
Read your comment again. You are doubling down on you being wrong by lying about your comment. Your comment was, “Self-defense law requires you to de-escalate…”. I told you that no, it does not. Self-defense as a legal defense does not require one to attempt to de-escalate the situation first. It allows for immediate action to save your life or the life of another. Use of force policies also allow for immediate use of force in defense of self or another, WITHOUT an attempt to de-escalate. I even cited the federal statute on the matter. There are states which require a person to attempt to de-escalate or escape IF the situation permits or if it’s feasible, not a single one requires it flat out. Some states have “stand your ground” laws which don’t require any attempt at de-escalation at all, in any situation.
Would you like a specific state statute cited to you? You just tell me the state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erockoutdoors633 You digress.. Indeed. That’s all that you do, as yes, you ARE being a drama queen. Ukraine us repairing bombed tracks within hours, but apparently in your brain, they aren’t and can’t, or… only Russians aren’t and can’t.
Also, an NLAW hasn’t destroyed even a single airborne helicopter to date, and even in direct attack mode, it would not. An NLAW is not a Javelin, which is a “fire and forget” weapon that tracks its target or a Stugna-P remotely controlled missile, all ATGM weapons. An NLAW may be effective against helicopters in terminal operations (taking off or landing), but it’s pretty useless against one in flight, even at low altitudes. More so because the helo will warn the pilot of a lock-on and because using an NLAW that way is an extremely expensive gamble.
All of that shows that you know little to nothing about the realities of either train track repair or employment of ATGMs, but are very opinionated on both subjects.
1
-
1
-
Okay, then treat him as if he’s not misinformed. Treat him as a fully aware and intentional war criminal. Take him into custody as soon as he’s outside the borders and drag him to the Hague, like you did with Milosevic. Do the same with Lavrov, Shoigu, Mishustin, Belousov, Abramchenko, Grigorenko, Shadayev, Shulginov, Kolokoltsev, and Saveliev as well!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unfortunately, the performance aspects that are common to traditional VWs are absent from this one. The reviewers clearly lack experience and expertise and are confusing a tight steering wheel and firm seats for accurate steering and a taught suspension. The European Tiguan is all that one would expect from a Golf, but the North American version foregoes all of that. It’s heavy, large, soft, lacks steering and pedal input and its engine under-delivers power die to its de-tuning. The transmission is very jerky in low gears, making city driving bothersome, while it actually delivers little torque at low speeds, considering it has a turbo. Why? The transmission keeps it in low revs to maximize fuel economy, so it always tends to stay unboosted. Although it has little ground clearance, it has a soft suspension to absorb bumps better, but lots of body roll and little sure-footedness on dry pavement. Plus, the Rav4 has actual torque vectoring, which impacts cornering in a big way. The Euro Tiguan is a blast. Ours is a bore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrybyaqussamprayuga1756 It does explode. It has no explosives in it, but the sabot part explodes into millions of hot, tiny, metal fragments, liquifying everything inside the vehicle, including the crew. I mean it literally turns everyone inside into a red mist. I’ve seen the aftermath in person. In a T-62 or T-72, which keeps its rounds in an unprotected auto-loader, it turns them into what we Americans call a “Jack-In-The-Box”. It cooks those rounds off, popping the turret from the explosive pressure like a champagne cork. In a BTR there are no rounds, so you just get a whole bunch of unidentifiable human parts, mostly tiny, and a whole lot of blood. The heat differential creates a high pressure inside, so the liquid remains spray out the holes made by the round. It’s gruesome to say the least.
If the space where the sabot hits is empty inside, the front of the sabot cooks off and the remainder self-sharpens, penetrating the other side of the armor, all the way through. However, not in the engine. Then it’ll just get stuck there, melting it. If it hits a very think armored vehicle in an empty spot, then it can literally fly through and have no effect at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Again, the ICC turned away Palestinian assertions of ICC jurisdiction until 2015 and that motion was made SOLELY by the Palestinian Authority and not by Hamas. In 2015 those two territories were independent of each other, with separate governments. As such, that jurisdiction can ONLY be applied to the West Bank at best, although considering it isn’t a state, it can’t pass that legal test either.
As per Palestine signing, from the ICC website itself: “On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General.” And that brings us back to the UN because it was the UN vote in 2012 to include Palestine as a non-member observer that allowed that motion to proceed. And again, “the State of Palestine” in the UN is reserved to the Palestinian Authority, which was not, and is not the elected government of Gaza.
In July of 2024 Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement (Beijing Declaration) to move toward a unified government for both regions and once that happens, and that government is recognized at the UN, can the ICC have legal jurisdiction over Gaza.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
robert bond I know it’s late, but it was a good question and you were given a bad answer.
Hybrids do, in fact, use electric on highways. The difference is in regenerative braking and the split of electric/gas driving. In hybrids, every time you brake, your battery is charged up via regenerative braking. That keeps the battery topped off in city driving and allows the car to use electric power often. Hybrids always shut off the gas engine at idle if the air conditioner isn’t running. On the highway, hybrids empty out the battery rather quickly and then have to simply run on gasoline. No regen braking to recharge the battery and no idle time. They still run at low RPMs, so highway economy is good, but with hybrids, city economy is much, much better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bamascubaman I’m curious as to what they told you? They saw that the car was in their inventory or did they investigate and call you back?
I used to be a manager at Avis/Budget and have had people drop off their cars outside our location, on the street, including a few blocks away, drop them on the lot, but not in return areas and walk away… all kinds of crazy scenarios which would cause us not to know the car was ever dropped off. People have dropped off a car and walked away, without it being returned in. Then the car is taken by a service agent and washed, placed on the ready line to be rented, and when it is rented, the computer prompts that it’s already out on a contract. We then have to go in and investigate. We’ve even had National and Hertz call us to tell us our car is in their return lane, with no renter. And we sometimes find theirs on our lots. People forget where they rented from and are late for their flight, causing them to do crazy things. Airport locations often have over 2000 cars on their lot. Cars are stolen frequently. Cars are misplaced. It’s not so simple as it seems.
As soon as the car is checked in, the customer gets a receipt and the car is in our inventory to be rented again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kessiawright1710 That state mandate… can you point us to where we can find it? It would be a pretty important document in this conversation, but I can’t find it anywhere. I don’t even see a single police procedure manual for the state of Texas. Each department writes its own. Not that such a manual would dictate how you must decide on what type of a situation a particular situation falls under.
By the way, I’m being facetious. I know there’s no such mandate. Police work is highly subjective in nature and relies on police officers’ training, talent, skills and reasoning to decide how to handle each situation individually.
Yes, I know the media are all yelling that officers had to go on immediately. Sadly, the media are idiots. You can’t. The media is a business. They hype up the viewers’ emotions to sell air time (ads). They don’t really care about facts. Or rather they purposefully omit relevant facts in order to build an audience.
The fact is… you, a cop, show up to a school because of a reported shooter, you run to the sound of fire, you bust in… First off, you likely die, without helping anyone. Your partner, if you have one, dies too. Why? You have no situational awareness in there, nor an element of surprise, and you don’t outgun the suspect. FURTHERMORE, before you take that bullet, you realize the gunman has 10 hostages, and after he shoots you, he decides to kill all of them.
Now you’re dead and also the reason why 10 kids are dead. Now the media and the entire country are saying you and the entire department are incompetent because you barged in without waiting, because you assumed it was an active shooter situation when you had no idea.
The thing is… the cops there LITERALLY could not know what the situation was for almost the entire time they were in the school. It’s a horrible situation and that school Chief absolutely deserves to be fired for being a total moron and a disgrace, but… you can’t judge this situation. You have NO clue. That scenario was just one if a hundred that this situation could have been completely not what it turned out to be, and where assuming things would made it far much worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigteddy66 Why would I ever buy a Fiat? They are folding up in North America, again, because of how horrendous they’ve been, again. The 500x is by far their best, most reliable model and even that has absolutely dismal sales. Furthermore, year over year, their sales have been plummeting because their past owners aren’t buying them again. Look at the numbers! The numbers don’t lie! While this segment is one of the hottest in North America right now, Fiat sells absolutely nothing! 1,443 Fiat 500x sold in the United States in all of 2020!!! In 2016 they sold 12,600 of them! https://carsalesbase.com/us-fiat-500x/
Meanwhile Honda sold 84,027 HR-Vs in 2020! https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/honda-hrv-sales-figures-usa-canada/
Chevy sold 106,299 Trax in 2020 in the US! Chevy Trax, which is also total shite! https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/chevrolet-trax-sales-figures/
That’s how bad Fiat really is!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's the dumbest Land Rover model EVER made and it simply emphasizes the idiocy of Land Rover. It is, indeed, slotted to fight the SUV coupes, which are only popular because they are... get this... SUV COUPES, so of course LR make it non-coupe. It also produces a Jaguar that sits on the exact same platform and is the same size, but is faster AND cheaper, so (shocker!) it's more popular. This car is desperately underpowered with either engine choice available in the US, has approach and departure angles which ensure it will never go off-road and competes ONLY against other JLR products. Well done!
I like technology. No, I LOVE technology, but at some point, the technology needs to improve the driving and utility aspects of the vehicle, not be gimmicks prone to breakage. Now I get that this is a luxury car, but let's face it, its capabilities are still mostly mechanical, not electronic. Oh and by the way, the F-Pace, according to all actual measured reviews is faster, stops faster and provides more grip on the skid pad.
P.S. Considering LR's famous (err... infamous) dependability issues with electronics, those electrical panels that handle EVERY SINGLE FUNCTION will mean the car will literally put on more miles on the bed of a flatbed truck than on its own rolling wheels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What this local media piece is focusing on is the new jobs, and not the Boeing plan.
Boeing is hiring primarily cleaners and some certified maintainers because they’re getting close to being re-certified by the FAA, as it’s been in testing for over two months now. Given the number of parked planes, they will need extra hands delivering these aircraft as quickly as possible. No, these will not be fresh out of school A&P mechanics as the college administrator happily hinted on. He’s just trying to boost his school’s enrollment numbers. These will be 737 certified mechanics who typically handle heavy maintenance, which is almost always dome by contractors and not the airlines themselves. Many airlines are sending the heavy maintenance (C and D checks) to Asian companies nowadays and that means many American and Canadian mechanics now work on contractor basis. However, most are going to be cleaners, tug drivers, painters and electricians, not engine or avionics specialists.
All this information is out there, if you spend the time looking. It’s just that local media’s interests aren’t in explaining facts or even making sure they present the full picture. They just need news bits that keep you tuning in. Freedom of speech protects them from being misleading or incomplete.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pikminiman absolutely the wrong conclusion and I'll try to show you why. First off, I'm sure you'll agree that warranties are simply a sales tool. Without warranties, car companies simply wouldn't sell many cars. It's been proven that a longer warranty range garners more new cars sales. I hope you agree with that basic premise.
Second, cars don't make shotty cars simply because they don't know how to make cars better. Engineers and designers all have generally the same education and experience background and manufacturing technologies are the same around the world over. The difference in quality of vehicles is the result of a conscious lack of two things: investment into higher quality materials/designs and investment into quality control. Both of those items require substantial investments of capital and make the car more expensive to manufacture, therefore increasing the sales price as well. From there, it's just an issue of what the manufacturer is willing to invest into increasing quality. As you've pointed out, having a longer warranty means that the manufacturer may have to invest extra into repairing vehicles farther down the line. However, it's well documented that the average reliability of any modern vehicle is about the same. In fact, it rangers between about 92% and 96% for the first 3 years. Hyundai/Kia offer a 5yr/60k miles basic warranty, which is slightly above the average in the industry. They also offer a 10yr/100k limited warranty for the powertrain to the original owner. It is well known in the industry that engines/transmissions generally last 10 years/100k miles without any major problems UNLESS they are not maintained properly. In such a case, Hyundai/Kia will deny the claim anyway. The list of what they will cover to 10/100k is very limited to begin with, but even then, they will deny the claim.
Let's come back to your original claim that on a macro scale, a longer warranty forces a manufacturer to invest into quality. I think you will agree that Toyota has been on the "most reliable" list of both, publications and car buyers for a VERY long time. Even if you don't like Toyotas for other reasons, generally you have to agree it's one of the most trusted brands for reliability. However, their warranty is just average for the market. Given your theory, their reliability should also be just average for the market because the lack of a larger warranty should have driven their quality down. Let's examine a different manufacturer that has the same warranty as Hyundai/Kia USA... Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi offers a 5/60k bumper-to-bumper and 10/100k powertrain warranty in the United States and alas, Mitsubishi has a poor reliability perception, just like Hyundai/Kia. Notice I didn't say its actual reliability is poor. It isn't, it's actually pretty average. It has a poor perception of reliability because of its issues with a number of cars back in the 90s and 2000s. Cars that they don't make anymore. If your theory was true, their reliability would be above average. It isn't. How about another example? Volkswagen has a 6yr/72k bumper-to-bumper transferrable warranty, making it the longest comprehensive warranty in the business. Given your theory, the conclusion would be that Volkswagen is then the most reliable car on the market, isn't it? Well, it's actually not. Its reliability ratings are just below the average. Even worse than Mitsubishi's. What it does have in common with Mitsubishi and Hyundai/Kia is a perception of poor reliability among shoppers.
You see, my friend, warranties are marketing tools and they are changed to improve brand perception and increase sales. The investment into fixing extra cars down the line is to increase sales, not improve quality. After all, a car company can improve quality without investing into a longer warranty. GM's Chevrolet brand is a good example of that. Their reliability has improved a large amount in the recent years, yet their warranty remains the same. All a company needs to do to improve reliability is invest into better designs, better materials and better quality control: all very expensive to be sure, but necessary to reduce imperfections and catch the ones that are made by mistake. Warranties don't change that. Warranties just change perceptions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesthecryptonian3725 In the spirit of any PR being good PR... I get what you’re saying, but I must disagree. Branding isn’t PR. It’s more psychological and methodical. I’m not so sure Ford is in such dire straits. In fact, they seem to be the strongest US manufacturer and their product is the biggest selling automobile in the US right now. I would speculate that their Transit van and Transit Connect are also leaders in their classes. There’s a lot going in their car division though. They’ve literally eliminated every range. The Focus, Fusion, C-Max, Taurus... all gone. Passenger Lincolns are gone with them. All they’ve got are crossovers and SUVs, but... those are highly profitable, generally speaking. I hear the Edge and Nautilus are being axed, with nothing to replace them. Lots of big changes doesn’t strike me as a time to make moves like that - name a whole new class vehicle after an existing one. It doesn’t make sense and to be honest, it seems that people like the car, but hate the name and logos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teemcshanney8910 Except when you compare the brand names that actually sell, and that are actually recognizable around the world, and that actually invoke the car that it is then the Rav4, CR-V, and Corolla are the actual monsters in the industry, not “Mustang”. After all, the biggest selling passenger car in the US is a Rav4 and in the world it’s the Corolla, and there is literally not a single country where those two aren’t well-known and sold. A Mustang, o. the other hand, isn’t as well-known and sells relatively poorly and almost exclusively in North America.
In fact, most people just call the car the “Mach E”, which is what it should have been called. Note how EVERY company has created a brand new nomenclature for their BEV product lines. That’s actual marketing. Calling an EV hatchback a “Mustang” is a textbook definition of marketing laziness.
1
-
1
-
Winroo Wherever they’re modified, they’re modified for the client, or at least the local market preferences. The preferences in S. Korea and China are mostly fake wood and gold plating... everywhere! In Japan they are different. Much more modest and more into quality leather. The Japanese also don’t like light color interiors much.
What it seems you wanted to comment on was the aesthetics of electrical components, not the seats, cabinetry, carpeting or 99% of other stuff you see in that van. Electrical options, like everything else are completely up to the owner. This is CUSTOM work, after all. It’s all specialized to order. These vehicles, in the US are mostly owned by limousine fleet owners, not celebrities. They’re rented out for parties or VIP transportation, along with the driver, just like a limousine. They’re great for a trip to Las Vegas or Atlantic City!
Also, if you don’t know about Korea’s situation, why did you specifically mention Korea?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sadly it’d FAR from everyone, and that’s the big issue. A HUGE percentage of the Russian populous loves that this war was started. Yes, they were misled and brainwashed from… birth, really, but that’s irrelevant because they do, in fact, want this war. It’s not just Putin like so many of us believe. It isn’t certainly all Russians either, but it is a majority of Russians that support the expansion of Russian power through force. Russians are simply a pragmatic bunch, much like Trump, who believe that brute force is what gets the power, and that the ends justify the means.
To be honest, historically they aren’t wrong. It’s how humans have always lived. The physically strong dominated the weak. While much of the Western want to evolve past that, most of the planet is pragmatic about it and believes that’s just not human nature. It’s a dichotomy between the “First World” and others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@russellmillar7132 Socialism is not exactly what you’re claiming it to be: “a form of government wherein the means of production are under control of the state.” That’s definitively Marxist Communism. This is where most Americans get lost between Communism and Socialism.
First off, socialism can be an economic concept, but also a political concept. After all, control over commerce is in large control over people as well. Furthermore, socialism isn’t a zero sum system. It is not either everything is private or everything is government. Socialism is simply a preference of government ownership of some key industries. The fact is that every single government in the world is socialist to some degree. Governments own and operate transit, ports, airports, rail, police, hospital, fire, schools, and other services that could otherwise be private. There are countries that are extremely capitalist and extremely socialist, but most lay somewhere in the middle: it’s a scale.
Anyone who claims a country is “socialist” or “capitalist” immediately exclaims that they’re morons on the topic and that they’ve never taken an economics class in their lives. All countries have elements of both. Even the Soviet Union, where I grew up as a child, had some free economy (capitalism) and the United States has ALWAYS had some socialist programs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lebron3505 Oh Mr Tactician… What MOS did you have? You’re only “over-qualified” in your own mind, I assure you.
I’ve been commenting on why armor doesn’t work for the Marines. You’re welcome to read those comments instead of mouthing off the way you have with everyone here. By the way, 16 years of Marine logistical aviation here, on the CH-53 and V-22. My job is LITERALLY to get Marines and equipment from the ship to the battle and then support the fight. You think you’re an expert? HA! You don’t even get that armor in general is an outdated concept. A single LCpl can defeat a heavy tank with a single shot, from a stand-off distance. My brothers in attack squadrons eat armor for lunch. Armor is useless in what the Corps are designed for - amphibious warfare. Armor has limited usefulness in maneuver warfare, which is the Army’s job, not ours.
So… drop your credentials here, and the next time when we’re all discussing the Army’s need and use for something, you may have an expert’s opinion (if it’s within your MOS’ wheelhouse) and we’ll all listen, but right now, an INTELLIGENT person in your position would listen to those who know the subject matter better than you, and maybe ask some questions if you’re curious.
1
-
1
-
@ElkaPME Your example is a bit off into WW2 land.
First off, landings are done by amphibious combat groups of ships, including destroyers and cruisers armed with Tomahawks. The island (or a beach, as it more often would be) is first targeted by F-35s and/or F-18s and major C4 and defenses are taken out via missiles.
Second, amphibious assaults are actually not so hard to do with modern tactics and equipment. It’s literally the whole purpose of the Marines. Without giving away too much, it’s a multi-pronged effort that combines air, sea and land (joint arms) assaults.
Third, anti-ship defenses are used against ships, not landing craft. It is the reason why our landing ships are stationed at stand-off distances. Our landing craft can travel 50+ miles to the shore, and it’s a big part of the tactical plan.
Also please understand that beaches are not ports. There is often no more than a few inches of water for hundreds of feet out, meaning that your equipment cannot get to dry land. Wet sand displaces underneath you in seconds, sinking everything on it (ever try standing on the sand in a foot of water?) Once you’re on a beach, you have natural obstacles like marshes and dunes to scale. Then you often have wetlands beyond them. Once past that, you will often face a tree or heavy brush line or even mangroves. This is all terrain a tank cannot deal with. Even a very lightly loaded 13 ton LAV often has trouble getting stuck. This tank, although “light” and tracked is still 40 tons. An Abrams weighs 80 tons. They simply CANNOT roll into a beach and go through it until days after we take it and engineers have a chance to put down planks, blow through dunes, and cut through the forest growth. Ideally, we find the closest port, take it, and then simply offload armor with cranes, onto pavement.
Keep in mind too that those tanks cannot simply fire while being transported or even once on the beach. They will have no visibility or situational awareness, but will be giant targets. That’s not even considering the fact that landing sites are very often full of anti-armor mines that engineers don’t get to clear before assaults.
Which brings us to beach defenses. The enemy has a stable ground and time on their hands. Very basic beach defense hardening makes it impossible to penetrate with large vehicles. Ditches, steel barriers, etc, added to natural ones just make it hard for anything, but infantry. Add enemy RPGs, arty, and ATW systems and you pretty much make armor obsolete in amphib warfare.
Oh and contrary to your personal beliefs, the FACT is that tanks are LESS survivable today than they were 20 years ago. Modern anti-armor weapons are exploiting all the weak sides of tanks, from beyond visual range (distances) and are simply plentiful. Gone are the days when a TOW missile on top
of a humvee was the way to kill an MBT. A practically untrained guy with a Javelin, sitting in a fox hole can kill one at 2+ miles, fire and forget. We’re not talking T-72s either. We’re talking modern reactive armor heavy tanks. Remember, you don’t need to completely destroy a vehicle and its crew for effect. All you need is to disable it. A lighter vehicle can be disabled by even more basic weapons. Light, 105mm direct fired sabot rounds will decimate light tanks.
There is a big question nowadays in the Army armor community, in light of seeing modern weapons’ effectiveness in Ukraine, of whether armor is really going to be a big part of war in the future at all. It’s one of the reasons the Army is looking at a faster, cheaper tank. A heavy tank simply doesn’t provide the protection to infantry that it once did. In fact, it needs infantry to protect it, unlike in WW2 when you had big tank battles like Kursk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lebron3505 And the experiences of fighting battles the Marines weren’t trained, equipped or missioned to fight taught us that we need to be more specializes at what we do. Ever since the 1990’s the Corps have been fighting an Army fight and a tremendous amount of money and attention was put into traditional Army fighting, which is traditional joint arms, maneuver warfare and asymmetric warfare. Meanwhile, the Corps de-focused from the Marine specialties like amphibious warfare, world-wide QRF, asset security and integrated, organic combined arms. By doing “Army work”, our abilities on those fronts have atrophied by loss of specialized equipment and training. Furthermore, the more you don’t use something, the less the chances of you ever gaining it back because the folks on Capitol Hill start thinking, “eh, they don’t do that anyway.”
The Marines need to be light because the nature of their work demands it, not because it’s more lethal. It’s the reason why the Coast Guard has no big ships. We operate in littoral waters, in wetlands, in sand, mud and the tropics. That dictates what we need, not our egos. What we need is light, easy to transport equipment that can withstand salt water and get into a fight quickly, without a logistical train behind it. Tanks and heavy artillery just aren’t it. Yes, we got rid of 155 howitzers too. We have our own attack planes and helicopters. We have the Navy. Those bring capabilities that the Army typically don’t get to enjoy. That means we don’t need our own field hospitals or large caliber fires.
What the Marines are supposed to do is bring self-sustainable, battalion-sized QRFs anywhere in the world at any moment, and to do it consistently. That is a very different role than the Army’s. What learned that on D-Day in 1944 because despite winning the assault, we took tremendous losses doing it, mostly because our troops were never trained to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These are 100% not mortar hits, but rather MLAW and AT mines. MLAWs hit targets from above, just like mortars do, and penetrate the turret, cooking off the rounds in Russian tanks, causing major fires that ignite one after the other. Everyone inside that tank, when the first round cooks off is dead. The last tank was clearly blown up from below, with a significant charge, so either an IED, or more likely an AT mine, which the Ukranian army has a ton of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bindingcurve A wise person once said, “you can’t fix stupid.” If you leave your belongings out in the open they will be stolen eventually. Duh!
I’ve had pick-ups my whole life and I live in NYC. I’ve always had retractable covers or caps on them. They’ve always given me flexibility and and fantastic utility. I can drive 4 passengers, each with five large suitcases, to the airport. No SUV aside from a Suburban can do that. I have a Frontier mind you. Nothing huge or fancy. I’ve always had compact/mid-size trucks, from a 1988 Toyota pick-up, to a Ranger, a Mazda B, a Raider and now a Frontier. I’ve also had a number of sedans as my dailies. While the sedans were far more comfortable and economical, their trunks are simply limiting. The Maverick combines the utility I’ve always had and needed with the space, comfort and fuel economy of a sedan, meaning I won’t need two vehicles anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are many other multiethnic countries around the world, but the big differentiator between them is how they got to be that way, through conquest or migration. You have countries in Europe and the Americas that are only multiethnic because of immigrants and then you have China, Russia, etc. that are almost exclusively multiethnic because they own other people, basically as slaves.
Growing up in St Petersburg/Leningrad I thought I was Russian, like everyone else, but I absolutely wasn’t. I was a very persecuted minority because my parents’ passport didn’t say “Русский”. I was constantly beaten by groups of classmates for being “a jew” and no one, not even school staff, wanted to stand up for me. They all ignored it. My parents couldn’t be promoted in their careers past low management. Sure, we were treated equally by those who didn’t know… until they knew. Russia isn’t just a very racist culture. It’s just a very bigoted culture. Bigotry of every kind is tolerated there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ichibuns Even at low sales numbers, WRX and STis are HUGE money makers because the profit on each one sold is into thousands, versus hundreds for a car like an Outback or a Forester, which only make profit through large volume sales. That's how niche product lines work. They are supposed to garner large margins per unit sold, but the number of units sold is low. Remember, WRX and STi are over 80% exactly the same as a standard Impreza sedan, so they are CHEAP to build and can make a huge profit if priced high enough, just like the Volkswagen GTI and the Golf R. The commonality with the basic Golf make them CHEAP to build, but the sales prices are HUGE. This is what Mazda failed to do with the Mazdaspeed3 package. First off, it wasn't a separate model, but just a trim level of a Mazda 3. Not enough product differentiation there to convince people to spend the extra money. Second, they priced it LESS than top level Mazda 3s. You could get one for $28k when the top trim cost over $30k! There was no profit in it! It cost more than the basic Mazda 3 because of the engine and special body panels, but it sold for less!
While you're right about Subaru sales improving across the board, there's absolutely no sign of them dropping the WRX or the STi. You simply pulled that out of your ass. You know how I know? In the United States alone, Subaru has sold over 31,000 WRXs and STis and while their sales were down 2000 units in 2017 versus 2016, they were still 6000 units higher than in 2014 or before that and in 2018, they're on pace to sell over 28,000 units as well. Yes, the WRX sales, GTI sales and other hot hatch/hot compact sales are dropping. People are moving away from cars and into CUVs, but that's all the more reason why it would be STUPID for Mazda to even try to go back into the Mazdaspeed3 business. The market just isn't there for it anymore!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ErickDoe With respect, I’m bilingual (Russian and English) and have degrees in both. No, it does not come from that. Articles aren’t used in Slavic languages at all, and the term used here is strictly in English.
Plain and simple, the country’s name is UKRAINE, and just like you don’t say, “the Russia”, “the Italy”, “the Germany”, “the Japan” or any other singular proper name, it is wrong to use here. Some uneducated dolt started sating it and you’re copying it. Stop.
“The Netherlands” vs. “Holland” is a perfect example: one is a singular proper name. The other is a plurality, which requires an article to distinguish the proper name from some actual netherlands.
1
-
1
-
@ErickDoe You are absolutely exhibiting very clear signs of the personality disorder called psychopathy (and very obviously don’t understand what it is or isn’t.) You’re also very obvious in your lying, very carefully omitting sources (or even a mention of them), omitting source languages, omitting what languages you have degrees in or actually anything on the subject. Furthermore, you’re deflecting from the actual language (English) and its use of articles onto some mysterious “group” of languages. In English, an article “a” or “the” is used to denote or modify definite and indefinite nouns.
Ukraine always has been a PROPER NOUN - a name of a specific, single object. As such, according to the rules of the English language, articles do not apply to it. That has been the linguistic rule of the language since before it was even considered modern English. Even old English had incorporated the use of articles in this manner. In fact, the use of indefinite articles wasn’t even a thing in Old English. The rule in English usage is: “In general, do not use an article with a proper noun unless the noun contains a prepositional phrase.” You’re welcome to do your own research on the use of articles with proper nouns, of course, but it’s very clear that you will not.
You’re also showing your absolute idiocy in references to Norse mythology when the context of “troll” is very obviously of you being an internet troll here - another sign of a personality disorder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joseph G You’re simply misinterpreting the data.
You’re looking at data per capita, not per car owner, which is completely wrong. The rate of car ownership in Europe is MUCH lower. Furthermore, due to high fuel prices, Europeans rely on public transport for commuting FAR more than people in North America, where they mostly drive to work. Your “statistic” completely ignores that. Had you looked at how much Europeans spend on commuting versus North Americans, you’d find that Europeans spend far more. As of 2017, the average U.S. driver spent $8USD per week in fuel on commuting to work and $13USD in fuel for other purposes. Meanwhile, in most of Western Europe, $21USD won’t even cover your weekly work commute expenses on public transport, right along fuel for a car or other transportation needs.
Also, when it comes to classification of emissions, the engines in Europe are classified mostly by age, not by output, so you end up with having engines that put out significantly less than other engines in the same class.
I think you’re smart enough to know these and you’re just being a troll.
1
-
Joseph G Where are you getting your numbers? Making them up?
The car ownership rate in the US is 88%. The median ownership rate in Europe is 79%. Germany tops the bicycle ownership rate in the world, at 80%, versus 53% in the United States.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/
But those are not causes or effects of having small engines.
Europeans drive smaller cars with smaller engines, AND use public transportation and bicycles a LOT more often because they live in more dense, urban environments where distances are shorter, public transport is more effective and fuel is MUCH more expensive. I have A LOT of family in Germany (Hamburg and Dortmund) and have been all over the country. In fact, I grew up in Europe. I know this well. People in Europe drive Diesel because it is cheaper (through subsidies) and they drive tiny engines because they are frugal. Petrol costs $6USD/gallon or more, depending on the country, with Germany leading the way at $6.70. In the United States, the average cost is still just under $3. Those are FACTS. It IS more expensive to operate a car in Europe. Absolutely it is. Europeans drive much less because of it. They prefer to use public transport or walk or cycle whenever possible, but for those who cannot, they drive cars with frugal engines. They have to. Look at the most popular cars through the years and you’ll find that they’re also the most fuel-economic. Toyota Corolla Hatch for many years and Polo/Golf Diesels. Top fuel economy in Europe.
You’re making what’s called straw man arguments, trying to link data that has no relevance on the topic of discussion.
Your argument, when you started, is not that Europeans have less need for cars, which is true, but that American cars have larger engines because Americans drive on highways more (which is not true). Now you’re even trying to move the argument even more off topic by talking about your car’s reliability. That’s not what this conversation is or was about. It was about the difference in size of engines between comparable cars in Europe and North America and why that difference exists.
Europeans drive smaller cars, with smaller engines, and bike/take public transport more because fuel and road taxes are MUCH higher in Europe than North America. That led to the development of public transport. It wasn’t the other way around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lithuaniangiant2676 She did not say how she was going to rule, but rather that she leaned toward a special master, and yes, she’s allowed to say that specifically because of what a special master is - basically a non-binding, neutral, third party arbitrator of documents. It should have been done even if Trump hadn’t requested it, to avoid appearances of impropriety, and it’s done in Federal Courts quite often.
Remember, she’s not deciding a case here, nor whether any evidence is admissible or not. She’s deciding on case administration. She has the right to decide whatever she wants. She is required to allow both sides to make their arguments, but she is not required to be swayed to any one side. It’s her choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randibgood You’re right that his personal correspondence should not be co-mingled with government documents. However, it’s 2022 and most personal correspondence is digital, so there isn’t much chance of it.
When it comes to passports, the explanation is simple: the agents were given a tasking to collect all US government documents on the property for the DOJ to sift through and keep what belongs to the archives or other agencies and what belongs to DJT. Passports are actually property of the US government, so they were collected, just in case, as told to collect everything. The investigators who started going through immediately said the passports can be returned (both, the expired and the valid ones) and they were. They probably didn’t need to be taken, but they were, as they satisfied the search warrant requirements, just in case.
As far as an explanation why Trump kept them in the same places? I don’t know if he did. That hasn’t been released to the public. They may have been kept with completely unclassified and routine papers for government travel. I don’t know. I wasn’t doing the search. Here’s the thing though… neither were you. Calm down and stop the conspiracy theories. You’re not sounding any more sane than MAGAs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looks are subjective (something most commenters still can’t come to terms with) and I, being a 42 year old adult, actually prefer this to the last generation’s design which favored less mature individuals. Lets just say that when I was 18, I would have preferred the last gen too. However, I’m not, and I think this one hits the right notes between classic, classy, elegant and basic. I like the interior as well. Generally, my ideal car is a GTI, but since the North American versions get the DI engine that’s prone to premature failure, I’m forced to look elsewhere. The 2.0 Civic Hatchback is very attractive, to me, but I do wish it came as a hybrid. I love the instant electric torque feel, the lower decibels and obviously fuel economy isn’t bad either. I was sad to see the Elantra GT discontinued honestly. That would have been my other option, but I’m looking at the Kona N-Line AWD now as well, though that’s a bit small.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s absolutely in a ready state to fly, as you can see in the video. It just isn’t meant to fly at 500 feet in low visibility. It also isn’t an “Air Force One”.
First off, ANY USAF aircraft that has the President on board takes on the call sign “Air Force One”, just as if it’s a US Navy aircraft it becomes “Navy One”, any Coast Guard aircraft becomes “Coast Guard One”, etc.
The US Presidential transport aircraft is the VC-25A. There are two of them and they’re identical. They are NOT “doomsday” planes. USAF has four E-4 aircraft that fill that role. They are also heavily modified 747-200s, and have a similar paint job to the VC-25, but are equipped completely differently, with tons of command & control, communications, and shielding, but without guest/media seating. They typically transport the SECDEF and joint chiefs, but they transport the President as well. They are the Doomsday planes the US has.
The plane in the video is Russia’s version of the E-4.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markmiller3279 That’s not quite the story. Yes, Toyota has licensed its Synergy drive before. The Altima, for example, had it. However, Ford actually worked with Toyota on its first generation Escape hybrid, adapting the Synergy drive, and then allowed Ford to adapt the second generation drive to its current Escape and Maverick. In turn, Ford shared its truck hybrid tech, which can be found in the F-150 3.5 EcoBoost Hybrid.
While yes, others have done this (Hyundai/Kia), the specific tech here is, in fact, Ford’s origin. It is a collaboration, which works well for both manufacturers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidf2244 They are in my household, but “nerd” doesn’t mean “cool”. You get that, right? In fact, it means the complete opposite. Nerds are anti-social, excessively studious and technical.
Also, Neumann and Tao aren’t household names either. The VAST majority of physicists and mathematicians are completely unknown, but being famous isn’t a matter of being a nerd or not. Hawking was a gigantic nerd despite being famous.
The whole science of physics and math (they’re basically one field) is anti-social. It rests primarily on individuals, working problems out in their heads and in writing. That’s it.
Not geology. Geology is about teamwork, getting out there, digging, sampling, comparing… Geologists never work by themselves. They simply aren’t that nerdy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ That’s actually ALL false. Categorically.
1. European companies DO participate in arms competitions. BAe, EADS (Airbus) and many others are regular arms manufacturers that compete (and win) in the US. In fact, the new light tank M10 Booker is the GDPS Griffin II, derived from the Austro-Spanish ASCOD. BAE systems had a competing design of the M8 AGS. In fact, both designs in the program were European. The US only requires that it be produced in the US by a US subsidiary, but the parent company and design are perfectly fine being European.
2. Trucks and buses from ANY nation (other than sanctioned ones) are allowed to be sold in the US, as long as they meet US Department of Transportations requirements for safety and size, and EPA requirements for emissions. We actually have European buses all over the place, with Irizar (Spain), Volvo, Mercedes, Setra, Neoplan (in the past), Alexander Dennis, and Van Hool are the most common.
European trucks are not common, but do operate here as well. The two biggest reasons: cabover designs fell out of favor in the 1990s and price. European trucks are significantly more expensive, even without the 25% tariff. Volvo makes a separate design of trucks in the US for North America. Scania is actively trying to market currently.
3. Skanska USA is a MAJOR construction company operating all over the country. However, because of union and legal reasons, yes, the US does require that they be US-registered businesses.
You are confusing me saying that the EU is extremely protectionist with a claim that the US isn’t protectionist. I never made thar claim. EVERY country is protectionist to some degree. It’s just that the EU is EXTREMELY protectionist and most Europeans don’t know or understand that. They are neger self-reflective, always out to down others the way Trump just treated Zelensky.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1