Yep, having to charge them at public charging stations is pretty shitty, takes a long time, and a lot of time they're not available to use.
I used to work in a large business building a few years ago, and they had 4 charging stations right next to the main entrance, and having an electric car then was great... the "plebs" would have to park behind the building or in the garage under, and you'd have priority parking infront. Then, the number of electic cars rose to above 4 there, and first 4 that came, parked there, connected the chargers and went to work. If you came 5th, there was nothing you could do, except maybe if you knew one of those 4, politely ask them to move their car during lunch, so you can charge yours too.. but most of the people left their car there until end of work at 3-5h in the afternoon.
Ive charged plenty of times on road trips on both the Tesla and Electrify America networks. Charge time is usually under 20-30 at places and times I’d already be stopping to use the bathroom and stretch my legs.
In regards to the chargers in your work garage: most modern charge systems let you set idle fees. If you install anything worthwhile you could easily configure it so people have to move after their car has been sitting fully charged for an hour.
It can be for sure, but at least in Northern Europe, it can also suggest a more social liberal ideology (e.g. look at Sweden’s recent debacle)
To be honest, my comment was mostly a jab at the GP for their touch anxiety when using the word “liberal”, although it’s less obvious now, when their followup comment is dead.
Judging from my experience - restaurants are not. We have started cooking more since the beginning of the lockdown being able to cook during the time that would have otherwise been spent on commute. And we have saved a surprisingly large amount of money in the process.
What you say sounds more like "to hell with those beggars who can barely afford current fees. Air travel should become a luxury as it used to be in the past".
Go buy a ticket in business class if you want a better service and leg room. It also goes with that warm "I'm better than the tramps several rows behind" feeling.
If planes are going to be empty anyway, and the ticket prices have to go up anyway, the airlines may as well differentiate themselves with better customer service.
Sheesh. I'm a lefty too but not everything has to be class warfare.
Food isn't a right. Let's produce only organic super healthy food for 3x the price and save the planet from the global warming, pollution and everything. Everyone would win, right?
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the fact that most flights are useless or vain. Global warming is real. Increasing the fare would discourage needless trips, while also improving customer service for those who need to get on a flight.
Who's going to decide which trip is useless and which is not? The market has clearly decided that it is more profitable (hence useful) to offer cheap flights in not-so-great conditions for mere mortals than elite service for few. And those with money can get better service if they need it anyway.
Mass killings of useless people would help stop global warming as well. Why don't do that and leave only those worthy of living. Great idea, isn't it?
They were reusing bottles not because they were so conscious of the environment but because the country was dirt poor and could not afford producing enough new bottles.
And believe me, Warsaw's buses and trams are much more comfortable and less overcrowded than they used to be ever before.
I am a middle aged Varsovian. I know exactly how they used to function and how they function today. It's a mixed bag. The transit vehicles are more comfortable but less frequent on many routes and often get bogged down in car traffic which used to never happen in the eighties.
But people don't need cars, they mostly need a way to commute, possibly for cheap
Would you say that the policies that San Francisco is implementing now, banning cars from the city centre, are a consequence of the city being dirty poor?
Aside from poverty it indicates something about the government - that they didn't value the time of their workers and took it for granted. Essentially the same economic flaw as slavery which is rather telling.
Requiring car ownership to survive is not valuing the time of your workers.
The full cost of owning a car (Purchase price, insurance, maintenance, gas, replacement of tires, filters, storage, parking) in the US is ~2 years of post-tax wages for the average person, every 15 years. That's 4,000 hours at work, or ~266 hours/year.
That is a gross disregard of the value of human time - all because we can't figure out how to properly plan our communities. You drive to work, where you spend the first hour of your day, and much of the second hour, working to pay for the car that drove you to work. It's madness.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that car based commute is inherently quicker than public transit based commute. Especially in the aggregate.
And he didn't mention that in Arch a routine upgrade can break everything which rather doesn't happen in the release-based distros. It has happened to me more that once over the last 8 years.
I still use it nevertheless, but it's definitely not for everyone.
To name a few:
when systemd was introduced;
when there were changes made to the file structure (moving everything to /usr);
when kde4 was replaced with kde5.
And there were more issues, I just don't remember all of them.
Reading the news before the update could have helped sometimes but I don't do that every time I execute `pacman -Syu` for various reasons; and sometimes problems are unexpected or just bugs fixed on the next update.
Yeah but that's the point of Arch: teaching new blood to RTFM when it's patchday.
You can trivially fubar an arch install by updating your base install+user additions if you're not in the loop with the releases of whatever you installed.
That also makes it a bad distro to choose unless you want to be a hardcore sysadmin and micromanage your personal system.
That's generally what distro maintainers are supposed to minimize for the end users.
I see people recommending Arch for newbies, who maybe just want to dip their toes. They're figuratively thrown into the deep end, and I just don't think that's a particularly good idea for most people.
Yeah if you're looking for easy and risk free, yiu should stay with windows or mac. OTOH, if you want linux to stop being a black box, install arch. Just don't expect it to be your stable day to day workhorse with no effort.
I used Arch for ~9 years. I like it, but it absolutely isn't a good beginner distro, nor a good distro for people who just want to get on with life.
Mint (or Ubuntu) is a perfectly good alternative to Windows or Mac OS for an easy and "risk free" experience. Most people are perfectly satisfied with a black box OS.
Not that Mint has to be a black box at all. There's plenty of room for hacking around, if you're into that.
I used Arch Linux around 4 years back. I did a routine upgrade and it broke my system.
What is this rolling release fiasco? Even Ubuntu, which I use now has a "release" (technically an pt-get upgrade), almost every other day. But I've never had it break my system. If you keep your Ubuntu updated a dist-upgrade works just fine.
I might try Arch again, but for now I'm sticking to Ubuntu.
What you describe sounds like the consequence of installing a lot of packages. Arch "prefers" when you strip it down to what you need, if only because that way you don't need to worry about too many version mismatches.
You put it well in another thread with "it absolutely isn't [...] a good distro for people who just want to get on with life."
If you're looking for your computer to Just Work(tm) look elsewhere. However I stand by my comment about it being an outstanding learning tool for the curious & future sysadmins.
The workforce is currently cheap compared to western countries because of the local currency's low value, and IT being one of the very few fields where people get paid in dollars.
So as a result, what would be a low wage in the west is an extremely high wage in Ukraine (e.g. $1k a month = 25k hryvnias, which is 8 times more than country's minimum wage).
It's not true that it is cheap because of the local currency low value: the IT wages were approximately the same when $1k was 8k hrn.
Ukrainian IT market is mostly outsourcing and does not depend much on the internal market and local currency, outsourcing developers usually get paid in USD (or equivalent) regardless of the hryvnia value.
