New production line and tooling fixed costs are included in the per vehicle costs. Ford is missing their delivery estimates so the fixed costs get spread out across significantly less vehicles.
I'd argue not. Many trucks are driven by folks in the trades. If I were to guess, I'd put my money on SUVs having the largest fraction of users who rarely if ever push the vehicle to its limits. That or sports cars.
I doubt all these new trucks are for trades people. Honestly most tradespeople I see drive older trucks because they are beating them up anyway. There's a LOT of people driving trucks who are not trades people.
I’ve noticed large regional differences in truck prevalence (vs. more jeeps and even more SUVs, it seemed to my eye, in the relatively-low-truck regions) so that may be account for difference in perception.
In my part of the Midwest, the vast majority of trucks aren’t seeing truck-like use more than a countable-on-fingers number of days per year. A relatively small proportion are owned by tradespeople, who are at least as likely to drive a van-body vehicle as a normal truck, from what I’ve seen. Most are owned as status symbols, in-group signaling consumption, and (no joke, many owners will tell you this) so they’re more likely to “win” in a crash and/or so they feel bigger on the road (again, not mean-spirited speculation, I’ve repeatedly heard that cited as a reason to favor trucks, from truck owners)
Some of these folks will say they really need them for that handful of times a year they tow or haul, but the price and gas consumption difference vs a sedan would likely cover years and years of delivery fees, paid towing, lake slip fees, et c, so that’s not really what’s getting them to sign on the dotted line for these things.
It's a little hard to believe that's the primary market given the design trends in trucks that seemingly make them less attractive and useful to tradespeople while being more appealing to folks in the fashion accessory market.
For example, the trend of trucks getting more and more expensive with luxury features and interiors or the increasing popularity of short beds with giant cabins or the higher ride height that makes it more of a pain if you actually lift things in and out of the bed. Or even the enormous tall fronts that make it a lot more likely you're going to run over stuff you can't see. I'm not sure why anyone with an actual job related need for a truck would be driving those trends.
The ride height is useful for road visibility; you can actually see over the top of smaller vehicles. There are also unintended consequences from how a lot of car regulations are written.
I’d have agreed around the turn of the century but it’s really hard to believe that’s driving the current sales boom. I see new trucks all the time - as part of the morning commute, loaded with frills which wouldn’t hold up in a work environment, and in pristine condition. The actual tradesmen are driving vans and older trucks because those cost half as much. There’s a huge construction sight near me, and the actual workers are arriving on bike, bus, or carpool in a sedan – except for two fancy trucks parked near the foreman’s office, which are pristine (not even mud) and always parked in the same spot morning, lunch, or afternoon.
Now, I live in a city so I’d discount that except that we’ve spent a lot of time driving through rural areas (my son loves railroads) and the same trend holds there, although less intense. You see the pretty rancher cosplay trucks in the rich exurbs, and then when you cross into actual farm or mining country you see a lot fewer of the $70+k new ones and more beat up old trucks which are clearly heavily used, and almost 90s levels of smaller cars because they’re so much cheaper.
Crash tests are shown in the release videos. It'll probably end up with a pretty decent rating. 3mm stainless steel will crumple when confronted with several tons of weight behind it.
It's my understanding good front end crash tests are a bit simpler for ev's because you aren't worried about a 300 lb chunk of cast iron coming through to the front of cabin.
> Pedestrians be dammed apparently. This is merica.
With that shape and with steel panels there is absolutely zero change of survival for pedestrians with this. You are hit, you are dead.
I thought the SUV mega monster trend was a huge setback in Vehicle Design but somehow Tesla found a way to surpass that.
We have set ourselves so far back. It will be decades into the future before we are able to reverse this reptilian brain meme of vehicle arm's race purchases'.
It's going to be pretty hard to heat soak a 911 to get it down on power. They're proper sports cars designed to hit the track.
The shenanigans was simply in choosing that car at all. A base 911 only claims a 0-60 of 4s and doesn't even break 400hp. It's never been a straight line car, that's not what it's trying to do or why enthusiasts love it.
It’s also not meant to be a direct comparison of any sort, but for some reason the people on HN manage to completely overlook that. The highly analytical mind truly is a blessing and a curse, especially when coupled with blind contempt for something.
First of all, here is a selection of the Findings section:
"(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
...
"(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services."
Obviously the intention of the law is to preserve diversity of political and cultural discourse. Not eliminate entire points of view which is the point in question here.
Next, here is the pertinent section of the law that I feel covers the
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
In (c)(1) above it's important to define "interactive computer service":
> (2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
While it's true that at their basic foundations one could call Facebook an “interactive computer service” it has become SO MUCH more than that. It controls massive quantities of communication and the dissemination of editorials and diverse opinion. They can't hide behind this one vague definition with a straight face.
Just as a news organization would be held in contempt of the public interest for selectively editing a recording of someone to make them appear to say things that they didn't say, it's equally unethical to call oneself a provider of an "interactive computer service" while selectively editing the flow of diverse viewpoints and opinion to essentially accomplish the same cultural effect of selectively editing a recording.
Now, in (c)(2)(A) the "interactive computer service" is allowed to take steps to filter at its discretion what it deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The last bit otherwise objectionable is essentially a blank check and really should not have been in the law. The US flag may in some circles be considered "objectionable". Should this give Facebook the right to censor patriotism to the US flag as it may be "objectionable"?
The problem is that "objectionable" is based on opinion where the other criteria are more closely definable.
I am all for blocking some speech. I just believe that, for example, incitement of violence means that one tells another to hurt another explicitly. Not implicitly.
I cannot recall any misinformation campaign as spectacularly successful as the one that has convinced many Americans that the GP post's publisher/platform distinction is actually the law. And they don't seem to have had any special trick to it, they just repeat the lie enough times that people believe it.
It's impressive considering how readable the text is. I'm especially impressed with ted Cruz who is a lawyer and literally works in the same building as the guy who wrote it but still manages to spend his days misrepresenting it.
>And they don't seem to have had any special trick to it, they just repeat the lie enough times that people believe it.
That is the special trick. It's a technique often attributed to Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
You don't need to convince people to believe a lie, despite arguments about "truth being the best disinfectant" and "good speech being the solution to bad speech," because belief is not a process of logical deduction, rather it's an adaptation to stimulus. Surround a person in an environment of coherent lies long enough and their minds will simply adapt to it.
Absolutely! Indeed, the protection was crafted specifically for platforms to engage in moderation without being held liable for the content they host. The whole point is to encourage moderation.
But section 230 is not a blanket immunity for anything a platform may wish to do with their content. If the actions of the social media platforms fall outside of section 230 protections (and I think such a thing could be argued) it is on the following grounds:
1. One of the stated purposes of this legislation was to maximize user control over what they view (230[b][3]). Social media censorship and algorithmic feeds take away that power.
2. Protection from civil liability extends only to those actions taken in "good faith" (230[c][2][A]). I'm not fully prepared to to outline what I think is meant by good faith here, but I think it is fair to say that not all moderation actions we have seen are "in good faith".
Outside of section 230, I also think that platforms which employ "fact-checkers" should be open to defamation suits if they make false statements of fact. Recently a court ruled that these fact-checks were "protected opinion", which is utterly stupid.
Again, very easy to say as you talk about the issue in the abstract, behind a keyboard across the internet. Wake up in the middle of the night to strangers at your home - you just caught a bunch of people in the middle of committing a felony and maybe they are not the type to leave witnesses behind.
I don't know if you are putting on the airs of being a brave knight, or you truly are detached, but there's such a thing as visceral fear that people are coming to take your stuff or hurt you. Be glad that you've lived a privileged life where you've never known such a fear
The strangers are outside my home, and your suggestion is to leave my home to confront them? With lethal force?
That is crazy to me. Truly insane. If they tried to enter my home or harm my loved ones, that’s a different story. But if I saw people destroying my property, not attempting to get to me, I would call the police and lock the doors, not go fucking hunting.
No one in this thread that I've seen is using the language of hunting. No one is saying "boy I wish some fools would come try some shit so I can bag a couple of heads". Do those people exist in the world? Sure, of course there are. There's a few people of every view point given 7 billion of us.
Here people are saying, "Well I can't just let them have this valuable part of my car (that I might not be able to afford to replace). And I'm pretty sure the police aren't going to help me. And I don't think they will stop if I ask them. So I guess I have to shoot"
If you've already judged those people in your head as "hunters", then you're the one who's lost, not them. You have this completely distorted perception of your fellow human perhaps based on the media reporting on 0.0001% of crazy people in the world, and now you believe everyone who lives in texas thinks that way or something.
No, no one in this thread is using that vocabulary. I am, because I think that's what people are describing, and it makes me sick.
I'm not misinterpreting a thing you said. No, I'm looking at exactly the situation you are describing:
I'm in my house. It's 2am. I see a couple of people in my driveway fucking around under my car.
And you're saying that a valid moral decision is to leave my house with the intention to kill someone?
That is seeing a situation that you know you could leave alone, and choosing to introduce lethal force. That is fucking hunting for conflict to a degree that is absolutely frightening.
> I don't think they will stop if I ask them. So I guess I have to shoot
You are not saying "I would confront the thieves and bring a weapon in case I am attacked".
You are not even saying "I would use a weapon to threaten them into compliance".
You are saying you would shoot on sight. Instead of de-escalating, you would take the opportunity to ambush and kill. Can you see why some people might call that "hunting"?
I'm sorry you live in a world where the theft of a car part is a life-threatening event. I can see how vigilante justice would make a crazy sort of sense in that situation. However, in a stable society, those actions would be considered a serious crime.
'Wake up in the middle of the night to strangers at your home - you just caught a bunch of people in the middle of committing a felony and maybe they are not the type to leave witnesses behind.' Literally every country deals with this problem, the vast majority of us do without using firearms.
Do you think that 'visceral fear'? only exists in the USA? Normal people in England, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, etc have had their home invaded or the car broken into and have dealt with the situation without guns.
Well what do you want me to do? Apologize? Parts of the US are shitty and not as good the countries you listed. The police show up and beat the people who called them
You can judge us if you want. It really doesn't matter what some far away people who have no understanding of the way of life here think. It's good a thing we have a system where we are judged by a jury of our own peers here.
Police have beaten people who have called them in Australia, it does not justify me shooting criminals for taking my car parts.
You say 'not as good as the countries you listed.' Yet you dismiss the thoughts of someone from who is trying to explain why people like YOU think we are 'good' countries.
Your last sentence is the summation of the modern American attitude that is so problematic, it is parochial, arrogant and unable learn from the rest of the world unless it is for profit.
And re jury, who do you think the jury is in each of those countries I listed? In Australia my jury is made of my 'peers' too buddy. It just my peers in my system don't believe crime against property justifies summary execution.
In the US, "physicians" might be less numerous, but there are a lot of highly-skilled intermediary roles that fill the gap -- Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, etc, all perform routine treatment performed by "physicians" in other countries.
US physician training is honestly excessively long, complicated, and expensive (although there are justifications for making it this way), but it's a simplification to point out that there aren't as many doctors, without noting all the other doctor-esque roles with significant overlap.
> it's a simplification to point out that there aren't as many doctors, without noting all the other doctor-esque roles with significant overlap.
Comparing the number of doctors in the US to other countries is not a good measure of anything. But noting that americans spend more per capita and get worse health outcomes is pretty significant.
This is possibly the worst metric as it can mean so many things.
Here [1] we have more numbers.
Most importantly the # of beds seems to correlate strongly to the 'average time in hospital' eg. Japan has 3x beds but stays are 3x longer. That stays are shorter is not an indication of poorer quality.
The US has fewer doctors, about the same nurses, but 3x more MRIs per capita, and probably similar inventories of other kinds of equipment.
As for respirators? Who knows. But The US is a major exporter of medicine, equipment, and they spend considerably more. Just like in every major war there's a 'key weapons system' that wins the day while the underlying economy wins the war ... the US might be in a decent position with enough equipment, and a resilient enough economy and populace to fight coronavirus.
Don't be fooled by Trump's shenanigans, Americans are not fools. When they decide to do whatever they do it in a way that few can match. FYI I'm not American.
There will be ugly issues for those without insurance but I suggest that states will take over there with emergency solutions or else they'll all be voted out of office instantly and they know it. Even Trump isn't stupid enough to fail to recognize that people dying en masse on TV will make him look, in his own terminology 'really, really, really bad'.
Also, thankfully, once again, North America seems to be a tiny bit isolated from the 'rest of the world' and has just enough time to see what's happening in Italy and can possibly act a little sooner on some things.
I expect lock-downs and social distancing measures to take effect earlier in America on an per-capita-infected-basis.
I don't think simple comparisons between Japan and US are meaningful. Japan has a universal health care system so everyone is covered by health insurance. There is little incentive to leave hospitals prematurely.
One of our children spent a week in hospital and the out of pocket cost was 500yen (about $5USD)[1] plus food. My mother in law joked that it was cheaper then childcare.
Hospitals are also not incentivized to mess around with trying to extract the most from billing because its prescribed.
A friend from Australia needed stitches while in Japan and didn't have travel insurance. We went to the local doctor explained the situation and they refereed us to a hospital. They didn't charge us for the consultation because "they didn't do anything, only gave a referral". At the hospital we explained the situation and the bill was less then the excess they would have payed in Australia. My impression is that they didn't feel the need to extract every dollar because they were getting full payment from everyone else.
These are exceptional cases and the usually out of pocket is more like $30~$50 for a consultation.
1. Where we are children cost a flat rate of 500yen for a consultation and as the hospital stay was a result of the consultation that was also covered.
Every other nation on the list has socialized medicine and they leave have considerably shorter hospital stays. Japan is an outlier for their quite long avg. hospital stays.
