When 52% of all trips made are less than 3 miles and less than 2% are over fifty miles, I don’t think battery swapping is something any individual needs on a regular basis.

I could get on board if manufacturers were making $10,000 sub 50 mile vehicles that were compatible with a swap station so you could switch to a larger battery for the weekend. This would have to be a standard adopted by all however, and even before that, they’d have to make small cars. Which they won’t, because we all know they are too busy making trucks and SUVs.

Ignoring that they shouldn’t be getting any of these ‘gifts’, could you imagine being one of the others only recieving a few thousand a year. I’d be rather annoyed.

Not sure if this image from the DOT is actually of this specific shipment because I found this image from April when they moved the eighth part and it’s less that half the weight. Here’s a two minute video of it.

I agree. A truck can be a good option for some, but as you point out, most people aren’t doing a DIY project each weekend. The F150 can be optioned out to a six figure price tag. It’s inconceivable to me.

I’m acquainted with the owner of a middle sized plumbing company, and he had a close call with a dog that got loose one day. Not his fault, and he was able to stop in time, but nonetheless it bothered him. Couple months go by and he switched all his service trucks out for transit vans.

The newer style vans with the slanted front end gives far more visibility, twice the cargo space without having to climb up into the bed, they don’t weigh as much, and are more fuel efficient. All at the same price point.

An unfortunate side effect of modern life is that many people see purchases like a vehicle or a house as these monthly costs that, on the face of them, they can afford. The trouble is they don’t consider the overall cost of the purchase, let alone the ongoing cost in terms of routine maintenance and unexpected repairs.

It’s a shame, but when something is marketed as though it’ll make you the toughest in town, who wouldn’t pay $181.50 _weekly at 0% APR ~for the first three months~.

Couldn’t put it on the roof? I saw a wagon once with a chest freezer strapped to the roof and couldn’t stop laughing.

U-Haul is a titan of the moving industry, but it’s still surprising how few people would consider an occasional rental, be it a trailer like you used or even a truck, as part of owning a regular car. You spent around $100 to rent that trailer for a day? Imagine spending quadruple that - every month for a decade - just to ensure you have 24/7 access to 24 square feet of cargo space. Not to mention double in fuel compared to your Jetta.

Even ignoring the renting aspect, pretty well everyone knows a couple people that already have a pick up truck. Just borrow it for a day or two when you do a project or buy a new stove, fill the tank, and buy them their beverage of choice. It’s not complicated.

More people should be like you.

You may live somewhere where people constantly tow travel trailers or large boats, but this isn’t the case everywhere. Loads of people buy trucks with the idea the bed will be used every other weekend, then they end up commuting to an office job and getting groceries. If they were primarily used for hauling things around, the average truck wouldn’t have a larger passenger cabin than its cargo bed.

Station wagons can just as easily go to the hardware store and pick up full sheets of plywood, load up the lawn mower and trimmer, and as much sporting equipment as a family could wear. What wagons don’t have is the aggressive design that pick up trucks have come to be.

Most cars could tow a single axle utility trailer if you needed to move what I mentioned - even appliances or furniture. I know a couple that tow a two person caravan with a Mini Cooper. Even when someone does need larger weight or volume capacity on a regular basis, a van has most of the benefits of a pick up truck with better fuel efficiency.

I realize this isn’t why you mentioned the range of those vehicles, but I like to point out where I can that only a single digit percentage of all driven trips are more than fifty miles.

More to the point of the thread, if people could get over this reason for not buying electric, there could be much cheaper options by halving the battery capacities in these vehicles. Of course that would mean the manufacturers would have to make them, which seems unlikely. Worthwhile to point out though I think.

How do you find Ground News? I’ve seen them advertise on Climate Town and similar, but haven’t seen any individual mention them until right now.

I think that last bit is more of a ‘what you make of it’ situation, regardless of how smart or dumb a phone is.

Unfortunately the manufacturers want the data and advertising revenue, and they’d only be persuaded to offer an alternative if they made the same amount of money.

If each sale of a $900 smart phone gives them $100 of ad revenue over a couple years, I’d bet my bottom dollar they would charge $200 for the ‘dumb’ version.

Electricity isn’t critical?

In terms of road costs, the vehicle being electric or combustion isn’t particularly relevant in a country where the most popular vehicle crosses the scales above 4,000 pounds.

Who pays for the roads?

Given the EPAs policy on natural gas leaks was to ask the gas companies if they’ve noticed anything, I’d say we’ve got some distance to go on stopping the sale of natural gas stoves.

Climate Town has a good video on this subject - and others - that might be a good watch.

Almost as if the arrests were made to intimidate the crowd. It makes the rest think they could be next.

You’ve got to admit though - probably wouldn’t do it a second time.

It is quite annoying. Samsung has trimmed up their bloat and strange customizations over the years, but some things are still incorrect as far as I see them.

NetGuard can manage network access on a per app basis but it uses the VPN function to do so, while not actually being a VPN service. Sadly this means I can’t be using an on-device VPN at the same time as turning off app data.

Annoying compromise.

Unfortunately disabling network access entirely isn’t a universal feature.

I see what you’re getting at, but there will always be the higher and lower end of any type of product. Many companies charge orders of magnitude more for goods or services that most people get elsewhere for cheaper.

As with most any issue of a company damaging the environment or abusing their workforce, the answer could lie with stronger regulation, but that’s getting a different subject altogether.

I’m not entirely sure either Tony’s Chocolonely or Castronova would see Toblerone or Hershey’s as direct competition. Maybe Tony’s would, given their lower price point. But if the main allure to a brand is the ethically sourced nature of the product, you’ve already lost most chocolate consumers.

At that point, you can afford to price higher as you’re in a market where people that care more about the societal, humanitarian, ecological, etcetera impact than the impact on their own wallet.

Look, I’ve no interest in arguing the percentage of people that eat a full chocolate bar in one sitting vs not.

What I will point out is that according to a couple headlines I skimmed just now, Snickers appears to be America’s chocolate bar of choice, weighing in at 50g. In the comment you replied to, I was talking about a 180 gram bar of of chocolate.

You won’t catch me eating three and a half Snickers.

Moving on.

I like Consumer Reports. The samples of bars they chose across the chocolate industry seem fine to me. Where I take issue is in the way the data is presented. The article represents neither the manufacturers portion sizing on the nutrition label nor the FDA daily consumption figure.

Also, I’m sure it’s only a fraction of people that bother to read the nutrition labels before purchase. If lead content was written there, then that small group of people would see that information.

I only meant that even these people wouldn’t bother with this type of due diligence - that it would necessitate an organization like Consumer Reports. While it’s an important thing to check, and I am glad they did the checking, my overall point was that the results tell me that lead and cadmium levels in chocolate are not something anyone needs to be particularly concerned about.

I read the Consumer Reports article you linked, but honestly I can’t imagine lead levels in chocolate is something anyone would need to be concerned about.

The testing methodology CR used boils down to ‘we sent the chocolate to a laboratory for testing and turns out there’s lead above the safe limit in each bar.’ Consumers aren’t going to do this.

Also, the list on the article is flawed in my opinion. It shows the amount of lead and cadmium found in each chocolate bar, but doesn’t scale it to the size of the bar. CR estimates in their risk assessment the daily consumption of chocolate by looking at the portioning of the bars on the nutrition label, and the average by the FDA of 30g.

In Tony Chocolonely’s case, these figures are the same. As their regular bar size is 180g and the portioning is 1/6 a bar - 30g. This means that the CR listing a Tony’s bar at 134% of the daily limit of lead, it would also mean eating 500% the amount of chocolate the FDA expects.

If you adhere to the average of 30g, Tony’s is only 22% your daily lead limit.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve eaten a full bar in a day. But it’s far from a daily occurrence, and I’m certainly not thinking of the health ramifications when I indulge.

Even at 265% the lead limit, the Hershey’s bar is 120g, so a portion is 66%. The most frightening thing about that bar is that it’s Hershey’s.