Relocating to Substack

I’m extremely happy I picked the blogging mantle back up recently. It’s good to have a long form platform to express one’s inane ramblings again. Twitter is just a cesspool of people yelling at each other (including me…), and just isn’t suited for any kind of cognitive discourse. WordPress is a fantastic home for blogs like this, but I don’t like many of the changes that they’ve made since I last regularly blogged. Particularly the new editor. You can only access the “classic” editor if you pay, which I’m happy to do. But not at the price WordPress is demanding. In fact, I think the prices WordPress demands for various features are out of tune with their value. Debatable, but that’s my take.

I’ve decided to relocate to Substack. I intend to leave my content here for link purposes, but have also duplicated it at https://politicalnumbness.substack.com/ where you’ll also find all of my new content, as well.

The NHTSA’s Investigation of Tesla

On August 31^st, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a formal investigation into 11 vehicle crashes, involving Tesla vehicles while using autopilot (since increased to 12 crashes), and broadened the investigation to include 12 other US automobile manufacturers on September 14^th.  The investigation specifically seeks to ascertain handling of Tesla’s autopilot system with regard to stopped emergency vehicles, and will seek to compare similar systems from the other 12 manufacturers.  How manufacturers develop, test, and track their “driver assist systems”, and how these systems track user attentiveness is a key element in the investigation and could lead to new regulation.

The investigation is said to be long overdue by many, but it’s helpful to understand the broader context.  The crashes under investigation resulted in the injury of 17 people, and one death.  All of them involving stopped emergency vehicles.  How could a car possibly run into a stopped emergency vehicle you might ask?  It unfortunately happens all too often.  But the Tesla drivers all had autopilot enabled, which is an advanced driver assist system intended for use on highways, and is capable of lane and distance keeping.  Surely a system like this should stop the vehicle when it notices it’s getting too close to a vehicle in front of it?

Autopilot is designed to “detect objects that the car may impact and applies the brakes accordingly”, and “Helps warn of impending collisions with slower moving or stationary cars”.  So, yes, one would think it wouldn’t be possible for a Tesla to collide with a stopped vehicle while autopilot was engaged.  So how did they?

Until quite recently Tesla’s driver assistance features utilized radar, ultrasonic, and visual camera sensors to collect information around the vehicle, and as with other similar systems from other manufacturers, uses its onboard computer to determine what the vehicle should do.  Tesla has begun phasing out radar sensors as they’ve traditionally had difficulty differentiating between stopped vehicles along the road (or in a lane) and other stationary objects like road signs, overpasses, and other objects and were not originally designed for the use case that Tesla was seeking to use them for.  They depend upon human drivers to be attentive and take necessary action.

Therein lies the rub.  Highly adaptable and capable driver assistance features like autopilot give drivers a sense of security and can (do) lead to inattentiveness.  But while there are many crashes with emergency vehicles throughout the US every year, Tesla crashes grab the headlines.  I’ll leave you to speculate why on your own.

Tesla is now moving forward with a mostly visual camera based system, using ultrasonic sensors as short range augmentation.  They’re also dramatically increasing compute power within the system, which will coincidentally also be needed by Full Self Driving (FSD).  Cameras are not the only way of dealing with situation of inattentive drivers.  Higher resolution radar sensors could better differentiate between roadside objects and stopped vehicles as well, but it wouldn’t solve the myriad of other issues FSD would encounter, including pedestrians.  That’s the reason for betting everything on cameras and a neural net capable of the necessary compute power and machine learning characteristics.

There are many hours worth of videos on YouTube showing how autopilot works.  You should watch some.  Autopilot works well, but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible.  It still ultimately relies upon a human driver being attentive and take action as necessary.  When they don’t, autopilot needs to be able to safely bring a vehicle to a stop.  Phasing out low resolution radars in favor of cameras will go a long distance in ensuring that happens.  In fact, it’s already been proven effective in one recent example.

But it’s not the only issue Tesla must overcome.  In fact, FSD is a far more daunting challenge.  Human beings miscalculate and cause vehicle accidents all the time.  Even when not impaired.  But we’re going to hold computers to a higher standard.  Tesla wants to develop a fully autonomous system capable of driving a vehicle in all weather, and conditions without ever having an accident.  FSD is clearly not that yet, and may never be.  But it has come a long way from its announced beginning in 2016.  Watch some FSD videos on YouTube and you will find many that amaze you to see what the system is actually capable of.  You will also see some pretty cringe worthy examples of “what the hell was it thinking” too.  FSD is a long way from what Elon Musk claims it will be, but it’s not what many of his critics’ say it is either.

Speaking of Elon Musk, he often elicits strong opinions about him as an individual.  Some view him as a visionary, while others view him as a snake oil salesman.  I can readily understand how some would view him negatively, and in truth I did for many years as well.  I thought of him as just another billionaire sucking off the government teat to grow even richer on the taxpayer’s back.  But I also pride myself in keeping an open mind.  I form strong opinions, but not many that are resistant to facts.  I took the time to listen to Elon speak, and read what he had to say on many subjects.  My opinion on him has changed in recent years.

Anyone who has spent much time listening to him speak can readily determine that money is not his primary motivation.  He’s focused on legacy and improving humanity.  Both of which are notable and complimentary goals.  In listening to him speak, one would also likely notice that he has a penchant for under-estimating difficulties.  Another, less polite way of saying it is that he over sells.  It’s become something of a meme that whatever timeframe Elon relays, one must multiple that by some factor to get a possible real timeframe.  Called “Elon Time”, the running joke is both laughed at by his followers, and pointed at by his critics.

Take the situation with Full Self Driving (FSD).  Announced in 2016, Elon has at many times predicted that FSD would be feature complete and ready for the masses ever since.  Obviously this hasn’t come to pass, as FSD is still in beta (beta 10.0.1 released this past weekend) and only specifically chosen drivers currently have access to the full FSD beta.  Yet many Tesla purchasers have been paying for the FSD package since it was first released.  The FSD package currently costs $10,000, but isn’t feature complete and even fully accessible to many purchasers.  So you can begin to see how critics view this and other examples as over selling or even outright deception.  Full disclosure, the FSD package contains many features.  Some of which work quite well, while others, like FSD on city streets that are not ready for wide-spread use by everyone.

I think many would agree that Elon needs to be more careful and precise when speaking in the future.  Particularly as Tesla has no Public Relations department and spends no money on advertising.  Elon has become the face of Tesla and when he speaks, investors and consumers act on that knowledge.  But a snake oil salesman, he is not.

Washington Post – towing the UAW’s line in EV debate

The Washington Post’s writer, Faiz Siddiqui, beclowned himself in penning a garbage hit piece on Tesla and Elon Musk so devoid of logic and objectivity that it boggles the mind how the Washington Post would have allowed it to be posted.  The intent of the article is clearly to portray that there’s a “new Sheriff in town”, and that Tesla’s days on the government dole are over.  But the article conveniently neglects to mention that the “dole” had nothing to do with Tesla in the first place.  Or, that every EV and hybrid vehicle sold by manufacturers in the US has been made under the same dole the article insinuates was unique to Tesla.  Inconvenient facts are not to be mentioned in this article!

Other inconvenient facts: 
The current $7,500 tax credit is something of smoke and mirrors.  The tax credit for EV purchases are non-refundable and are realized through a purchaser’s tax return.  Purchasers realize only up to whatever federal income tax they owe, or $7,500.  Whichever is lower.  If a purchaser owes no federal income tax, they realize no tax credit.  If a purchaser owes $3,000 in federal income tax, then they get a $3,000 tax credit.  But the tax credit hasn’t applied to Tesla sales since 2018, while sales have only increased.  Odd how Faiz Siddiqui and the Washington Post would neglect to mention this.

The article also refers to a recently announced NHTSA investigation into Tesla’s driver assistance feature, but the piece neglects to mention that NHTSA is also looking at similar features in 12 other manufactures as well.  The investigation was conveniently launched in close timing with Biden’s recent White House “splashy event” which showcased unionized UAW manufacturers.  Tesla famously being non-unionized wasn’t invited, though being the number one EV seller in North America.  I wonder how that was orchestrated?  However, traffic safety is important, so let’s not criticize NHTSA for its investigation.  The fact remains that there have been several Tesla crashes with autopilot activated, involving parked emergency vehicles.  I believe all of them resulting from inattentiveness by the driver, but that doesn’t mean that Tesla’s autopilot couldn’t be improved or that NHTSA shouldn’t more tightly regulate such systems.

In yet another example of lopsided and incomplete reporting, the article casts doubt on Tesla’s profitability as being reliant upon selling “regulatory credits” (AKA carbon credits), in exactly the manner Democrats envisioned when they created the non-sense to begin with.  The article insinuates that Tesla is, or would not be truly profitable, but a more journalistically sound article would have been careful to note the economy of scale that Tesla is currently operating at.  Yes, starting up a huge manufacturing base of operations is a monumental and expensive task.  Long term profitability for Tesla will only be realized when Tesla is able to ramp up production.  Tesla currently has only one plant in NA (Freemont, CA), but will soon have a second, larger plant coming online in Austin, TX.  And a new plant in Belin, Germany to supply demand in Europe as well.  Tesla sold 235,000 vehicles in NA in 2020, and an estimated 139,000 vehicles in Q1/Q2 in 2021.  By comparison, Toyota sold 1,665,269 vehicles in 2021, and 1,255,101 to date in 2021.  Ford sold 1,233,200 vehicles in 2020, and an estimated 1,310,608 vehicles to date in 2021.  Tesla is healthily leading the NA EV market, with an estimated 54% of all EV vehicle sales in 2021, so I think they’ll be fine as they continue to grow.

And lastly, it’s the tail end of the article that reveals its true intention – furthering UAW unions FUD. 

Musk has long opposed unionization at Tesla and the company has been charged with unfair labor practices over conditions at its Fremont assembly plant. Tesla was found to have unfairly threatened workers with losing their stock options if they unionized and fired a worker for protected union-related activity.

The quote is clearly intended to portray Musk in a specific light.  Reading this quote, one would naturally think that Elon Musk is a union buster, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Let’s see what Musk said that makes him a union buster, illegally infringing upon employees’ rights to unionize:

He had more to say about the matter, and the individual who was fired (reportedly for threatening other workers), but this is the tweet that landed him in the labor board’s cross hairs. How scandalous!

Anyone happen to know how Tesla came into possession of its Fremont, CA plant?  Me either.  Hard to imagine why workers in Fremont wouldn’t want the UAW back.  It’s harder yet to imagine government doing everything it can to hobble the largest EV seller in the US.  At least until one remembers that in Democratic circles, the only things that matter are government control, and left leaning, union supporting politics.

It’s a Trap!

When you accidentally eat your wife’s chocolate chip cookie, and she tells you not to worry about it when you offer to go out and buy her a new one…. It’s a trap. Don’t believe it for a second. Posted without context.

Media is sensationalizing the safety of EVs

While there were a reported 223,000 total vehicles fires in 2019, it’s the Electric Vehicle (EV) fires that grab all the headlines. Some, rightfully so, but the media greatly sensationalizes the topic where EVs are concerned leading many to believe that EVs are less safe than they actually are. This is a common problem with media today, not only associated with this topic.

To set the proper context, in 2019 there were 223,000 total vehicle fires, but that figure includes all types of vehicles, including RVs, off-road vehicles, motorcycles, large trucks and buses, and passenger vehicles. We need to focus on passenger vehicles in order to truly compare apples to apples. Unfortunately, while the overall totals are being reported for 2019, the latest report published in September 2020 is based upon data collected between 2013 and 2018 (tables). Be that as it may, the data states there was an annual average of 117,400 passenger vehicle fires between 2013 and 2018, with an average of 230 deaths and 694 other injuries per year. You’d never know that from the media reporting, however.

By comparison, we’d want to know specifically how many of the 117,400 annual average passenger vehicle fires were in EVs. Unfortunately the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) doesn’t report those numbers.

While hybrid and electric vehicles have become more common, existing data collection systems have not yet adequately captured the frequency of fires involving these specific vehicles.

Vehicles Fires, March 2020 (pg 10) – NFPA

However, Tesla’s 2020 Impact report indicates their data shows from 2012 to 2019 there has been one Tesla fire for every 205 million miles driven, compared to one fire every 19 million miles driven in an internal combustion (ICE) vehicle. So a small percentage of the overall 117,400 annual passenger vehicle fire total. While a small percentage of the total, EV fires catch headlines because the fires are not as easy to put out.

EV fires are almost entirely related to their battery packs, which are comprised of many individual batteries. Imagine up to about 7,000 cylindrical batteries about twice the size of a AA battery, grouped together into cells of a few hundred, that are then tied together to form the vehicle’s battery pack. The pack is encased within a protective metal shell. Battery fires stem from damage causing thermal build up in individual batteries as can occur during a severe vehicle crash, or thermal build up caused by other malfunction. Where firefighters can quickly quench a fire in an ICE vehicle, that’s more difficult in an EV due to the vehicle structure, and battery pack enclosure impeding direct access to the individual batteries. One recent crash in a Tesla took firefighters 4 hours, and over 20,000 gallons of water to fully extinguish the fire and cool the batteries down.

So what’s the deal? Why are batteries so dangerous? They aren’t, but they can be. Don’t think this is an issue with “EVs”. Its an issue with some types of batteries. Most notably with Lithium Ion batteries. Batteries are electrochemical devices comprised of three elements. Two electrodes (a Cathode and an Anode), separated by a chemical electrolyte substance that mediates the free flow of electrons between the electrodes. The electrolyte substance in Lithium Ion batteries is highly combustible so manufacturers design cells to be as protective as possible, and In normal use conditions there’s no problem. But malfunctions do occur, which could lead to thermal build up and fires. It’s why the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has special handling instructions for Lithium batteries on aircraft.

EVs are designed with Thermal Protection Systems (TPS) that regulates the vehicles battery pack as an additional safety measure. But when there’s mass damage to the pack, and especially when many individual batteries are damaged, it can still lead to a fire. Luckily, industry is working as quickly as possible on new, non-flammable electrolyte formulas (solid state batteries) that should usher in a much safer future for EVs. By most estimates, it’s likely to be 5-10 years, however, before this new slate of battery technology will be available for production.

The bottom line is that EVs are safe. Outside of issues like the Chevy Bolt is undergoing now, where the battery manufacturer had an apparently bad design and QA problem, you can expect to drive a vehicles lifetime without ever having to worry. Well, so long as you don’t drive erratically and plow into a tree at 80 miles per hour and virtually crush the vehicle.

Will Democrats Push EV Incentives Past the Finish Line?

Whether you like it or not, government subsidies drive many industries and technological advancements in the U.S. and around the world.  So it should not surprise anyone that as with Europe, Congress is now beginning to remove all the stops toward transformation of the auto and transportation industries.  Congressional Democrats had recently proposed new EV incentives, which appears to be going nowhere fast.  Not to be stymied, however, Congressional Democrats have apparently proposed another bill that may or may not move forward as well. 

This new incentive proposal has the same union favoring flaw as the previous one, but it does at least modify the incentive into an instant point-of-sale rebate.  Let’s be honest about the previous incentive proposal.  Creating an incentive structure, realized only through one’s tax return, and valued only up to the amount of federal income tax you actually owe was going to sow great confusion among consumers.  Not to mention it not solving the biggest issue with EVs, which is their cost relative to comparable ICE vehicles.  A non-refundable, variable tax rebate doesn’t reduce the consumer’s monthly payment one cent.  An instant point-of-sale rebate, does.  So at least that is a step in the right direction.

Whether the bill survives, and whether it does so in its current form is an open question. Democrats have a razor thin majority in congress. Especially in the Senate where defection of a single vote could doom a bill. Reconciliation, or no. This is all part of Democrats proposed $3.5T “Infrastructure” bill that is more social benefit tax and spend, than infrastructure. To which Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Sinema (D-AZ) are proving to be roadblocks. It’ll be interesting to see what Democrats can cobble together at the end of the day.

When considering an EV purchase, make sure you understand whats important

As I mentioned in my blog post, trips in EVs need to be more carefully planned and there are a range of considerations a consumer must look at when making a purchase. This video does a great job at explaining how best to compare the most popular EVs as they relate to road trips:

EVs are not taking over, but even if they were, is the right one?

Following up from yesterday’s blog post, I’m very much in an EV mindset currently.  It’s an interesting topic and one worthy of more discussion.  While I harbor no illusions that internal combustion vehicles will go the way of the Dodo any time soon, it’s quite possible that we may see an increasing uptick in consumer adoption of EVs as we move forward.  At some point, increased adoption would flip the script, so to speak, at least within the consumer market.  But everyone should understand the scale we’re talking about here.  Global annual auto sales are generally around 80 million units (pre-pandemic).  With EVs accounting for only around 2 million, or 2.5% annually.  Don’t buy into the hype, or expect EV sales to tip the scales for many, many years to come.

However, one area where I have a hard time believing there will be any significant movement to EVs over the next several decades is in industry.  Large vehicles would require dramatic improvements in battery capacity, efficiency, and power output to replace internal combustion.  All due respect to Elon Musk, but his dream of EV semis will be just that for the foreseeable future.

Increasing consumer adoption of EVs will require incremental improvements in battery technology, decreasing vehicle cost, charging stations becoming as ubiquitous as gas stations, and further decreasing charging time.  Charging time is only an issue for non-local trips, and for consumers who don’t own their own home.  Who are not an insignificant segment of the market.  Decreasing cost will occur as battery technology increases, and as consumer scale increases.  But if you want to reach most consumers, vehicle price point needs to decrease considerably without sacrificing features and comfort consumers have become accustomed to.

As I pointed out yesterday, EVs come at a premium.  While fueling them is much cheaper, and maintenance is generally cheaper as well, the higher cost offsets a lot of the financial savings.  EV manufacturers need to drive their price points down into the $30,000 range or lower for their to be clear advantage for EVs.

Regarding battery powered EVs, I’m not convinced that’s the best technological way forward.  Assuming we are going to move away from internal combustion at some point.  I believe Fuel Cell technology is the best way forward.  Though admittedly I’m less convinced of it now than in years past.  Fuel cell technology has been around since the 1960’s, being used in NASA’s space craft.  But it’s generally been a technology used by governments or industries, and not consumers.  So, it hasn’t enjoyed wide-spread adoption and research that traditional battery technology has.  But it does have one clear advantage over batteries, which is its byproduct.  Fuel cells produce pure water, in addition to electricity and heat.  Imagine how useful it might be right now in the western US for millions of consumers to use the pure water they produce in their vehicles from merely driving around.  I had imagined in years past where drivers could deposit water during refueling.  Collected from potentially millions of drivers in a metropolitan area, that could add a considerable amount of water to available local supplies.

This may be a debatable point, but I think you’d have to say fuel cells have another big advantage over battery EVs.  Fuel cells don’t suffer efficiency degradation in cold weather.  Cold weather can sap battery efficiency by as much as 30-40% during extreme cold.  And by extreme, I mean around or below freezing.  With progressive difference above, and below freezing.  Not so with fuel cells.  This may not be much of an issue for Battery EVs moving forward, but models without heat pumps draw directly from battery capacity for heating, further exacerbating inefficiency.

While we’ve seen a lot of battery powered EVs in the market in recent years, there’s really only one “well known” fuel cell alternative.  Toyota’s Mirai has an advertised range of 500 km / 310 miles for about $50,000.  But limited fueling stations, and currently higher fuel cost relative to electricity and gasoline are limiting factors.  Range is something that would continue to increase over time (as well as for EVs).  But whether cost of Hydrogen will come down, as reported by the MotorTrend article is still in question.

The fact is that technology innovation and adoption is a fickle business.  And there are no better examples of it than the infamous video tape format war in the 70’s and 80’s, or more recently the Optical Disk format war.  Better technology is not always guaranteed to win, and that is what I see occurring between battery-based EV technology and fuel cell based EV technology now.  Unless something dramatic happens to fuel cell technology within the next 5 years, a betting person would probably have to bet on battery-based technology as the eventual winner.  Consumers are stuck in the middle of such technological wars until there’s a tipping point.  Whether consumers directly provide the necessary weight, or whether retailers/industry do, amounts to the same thing.

The EV market can be confusing, even without Democrats tipping the scale

Like many families, I’ve found myself in the car market recently. Trade in value for used cars is high, though new car inventories may be somewhat impacted depending on specific make and model of car you’re looking for. In any event, my wife has decided she wants a new car. She’s owned a Honda CR-V for seven years, but has never really liked it. She’s ready to move on. She’s been looking at a few different vehicles, but based on the recommendation of two of her friends from work the Mazda CX-5 had crept to the top of her list.

But, she’s also been looking at a few Electric Vehicles (EV) as well, one of which is now in a virtual dead heat with the Mazda. Having no experience with EVs — hands on, or otherwise — I’ve had to delve into all things EV. To say the least, my eyes were opened to the confused mess that is the EV market.

If you spend any time at all looking at EVs, it won’t take long for you to notice the cost of EVs are generally higher than comparable Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. Greatly so in many cases, which should make you question how EVs can compete with ICE vehicles. While there is a segment of consumers who view this question very differently, the majority of consumers look at the financial bottom line. Money doesn’t grow on trees, and with the cost of everything going up in the great Biden economy, spending several thousand dollars more on an EV might not make sense to many.

So again you ask, how can EVs compete with ICE vehicles? Like so many green deals, EVs largely depend upon tax subsidies to bring the overall cost of ownership down to ICE vehicles. But, you’ll definitely need to do your homework before purchasing, however, as not all EVs get federal tax incentives. And, each state also have their own range of subsidies (or don’t). I live in a state that doesn’t have state or local level tax incentives. And here is potentially the most important point, the federal tax incentive is an offset only. In other words, you will receive up to $7,500 in tax offset, or up to whatever lessor amount of federal tax you owe. If you owe no federal tax, you get no federal tax offset. The incentive is not a refundable tax credit.

For the nearly 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax, this could be a big factor when comparing total cost of a vehicle. To further complicate matters, state, local, and federal incentive laws can, and do change without much warning. Especially at the federal level when Democrats are in office, or in states where Democrats heavily outnumber opposition. Democrats in Congress are trying to pass a bill that greatly expands, and increases EV tax incentives. But mostly for their favored union manufacturers.

That’s right. Instead of a neutral EV incentive, Democrats are now trying to put their finger on the market scale to help their union buddies. Union buddies who work for manufacturers making inferior EVs at higher cost due to union wages. As if you, the consumer, needed any more confusion to be introduced into the equation.

I mentioned earlier that my wife has been seriously considering a Mazda CX-5, but also two EVs. Those EVs being the Tesla model Y and Model 3. There are a lot of other EVs now on the market, but lets be honest, Tesla is the market behemoth for a reason. Of course Tesla has its fanbois, but they also have great technology that attracts consumers. The Y and 3 series have the best price point to range available, even without tax credits.

Best price point to range, doesn’t mean they compare well to other available options like the CX-5 though. There are a lot of factors one can (should) consider when purchasing a car, but the drive off price is certainly a big one. Total cost of ownership (purchase price, insurance, maintenance, fuel economy, and others) is another. But does the average consumer truly pour over these details? I don’t believe so. I believe most consumers look at drive off cost, insurance cost, and potentially tax incentives/rebates. Most consumers aren’t going to look at a vehicle from a total cost of ownership (TCOO) perspective and certainly aren’t going to look at greenhouse gas production. Even if one is so inclined, it takes research to truly understand that convoluted metric.

My wife would like a Mazda CX-5, Tesla model 3 LR, or a Tesla model Y LR. So lets look at some numbers. Obviously numbers alone aren’t the whole picture, but its the largest part of it. By that metric alone, the CX-5 has a clear advantage over either of the Teslas. A massive one if you look at annualized cost of ownership over only a 5 year period. Most especially if you drive closer to 100 miles than 300 miles per week.

That advantage is eroded over a 10 year period, however. Less severely if you drive closer to 100 miles per week, than not. By 275 miles per week the cost of ownership advantage the CX-5 enjoys should have nearly evaporated.

If you were interested, the average driver in the US drives 13,500 miles, or 259 miles per week. The CX-5 would still hold a cost advantage for the average driver, even over a 10 year ownership period. The battery pack is the most expensive part of an EV. Until, or unless those costs come down considerably, you will continue to see disparate cost comparisons with comparable ICE vehicles. Tax incentives won’t help if they continue to be passed along as subsidies. Not for the nearly 50% of Americans that pay no federal income tax. If Democrats were as remotely interested in increasing EV sales as they say, they wouldn’t be playing games by trying to prop up specific manufacturers. But they are, and the average consumer (including those who pay no taxes) will look at cost and range of those vehicles and continue to pass on them. If they buy an EV at all.

So done deal, right? The CX-5 is the car my wife should buy? It’s complicated. As I said, numbers alone are not the entire picture. Would she keep the CX-5 for 10 years? How reliable would the CX-5 be in 10 years? ICE vehicles have a lot more moving parts, and a lot more maintenance demands than EVs do in general. Especially as the vehicle ages.

There are other things to consider with an EV. Charging being the elephant in the room. Its not easy to pull over on the side of the road if you run dry, and walk to the nearest gas station for a can of electrons. You have to plan trips more carefully than you do with an ICE vehicle. While there are tens of thousands of public charging locations across the US, there are still huge swaths of the country where those are few and far between. If you live in an apartment or condominium, home charging may be difficult, or impossible. You may have to take short trips to the nearest charger regularly to charge up. And of course, charging isn’t as quick as gassing up. Even with high amperage super chargers, it can take 3-4 hours to completely charge an EV from nearly depleted to full. But even when charging a minimal amount, it can still take 15-45 minutes to charge, as Lithium Ion batteries charge quickest below 75% capacity, and much slower above 75%. If you own a home, and drive relatively few miles per day (50 or less), keeping the vehicle charged should be no problem at all, however. Even if charging from a 120v 12A outlet.

We’re still talking it through, but hope to make a decision soon.

Rebecca Ferguson cries sexism

If you don’t know who Rebecca Ferguson is, don’t worry. I didn’t either. I had to look up her career to realize I’ve only seen two films she’s been in. She was so forgettable that I wouldn’t have know it was Rebecca Ferguson without consulting IMDB. But I digress. Rebecca has been cast as Jessica Atreides in the upcoming Dune remake, scheduled for release in October. Most literary minded people will know about Dune, being one of the most popular works of science fiction ever published. But if you don’t, then you’re probably not a literary minded person and don’t necessarily care about this in the first place. After all, cries of sexism or other isms are a dime a dozen these days.

And that’s honestly how I’d feel about this specific instance too. Except, Jessica Atreides is a pivotal character in the first three books of Frank Herbert’s seminal series. I’ve read the series many times. She’s a strong character. So I wondered what Rebecca Ferguson was on about. It’s everything you’d expect in today’s society where every slight “imperfection” is an affront to “I AM WOMAN! HEAR ME ROAR!”. The really crazy part though is she never read the novel, and had to have it explained to her by the director and others.

“Oh my god, I read like 20 pages and I went absolutely not. You must be joking.” Hear Rebecca in her own words, at around 3m15s here:

So Rebecca has never read the novel, didn’t understand what little she had actually read, but concluded it was sexist anyway. This says everything you need to know about Rebecca Ferguson, and is just another example of how terrible wokeism is. Wokeism, like it’s little sister, Liberalism, are not based on any form of logic. Both are malignant expressions of unadulterated emotional hatred that ruin everything in our society they touch.