That requires more energy than shooting him out of the solar system.I'm all for energy efficiency!Nice side effect: he has more time to contemplate the reason behind his long journey.
Well, in the sense of this comic it'd be about hoping for a date and receiving a fig instead; the difference is what'd make it funny just like hoping for a jacket and receiving trousers is.
It sure does. But we have to consider that recharging is less efficient than not spending the energy on acceleration in the first place, so heavier EVs are worse off than lighter ones; it's not only losses from friction and heat losses - those come on top.And you're spot-on with the danger that comes from weight; being in an accident with a lot of kinetic energy that needs to be absorbed is not great.
I was comparing EVs with different weight and not comparing EVs with ICE vehicles, though.And in that case the heavier EVs are less efficient than more leightweight versions even with regenerative breaking, because the process of accelerating and breaking cant' regenerate all energy that was spent for accelerating.
That's not that big of a deal for long-range trips, on which you typically don't have to accelarate often.Keeping the car going at a certain speed depends on several types of resistance, most importantly air resistance, but not really on weight.More weight plays a bigger role for energy consumption in urban ares, where the weight needs to be accelerated more often than on the highway, the mileage per kWh is yet typically higher than on the highway due to the lower speed and less air resistance.What I'm trying to say: I'd pick the bigger battery any time over the smaller one, if the price is reasonable.EVs are already heavy. The weight from some additional batteries don't play a big role.
I once installed Windows on a Pentium 3 without cooler - not on purpose though - and it worked!Well, installing the OS was on purpose, the CPU being without cooler not so much.Apparently modern CPUs are snow flakes 🤓
So trying to get legit projects off the ground makes no sense, because 99.9% of all projects are scams?I beg to differ!Or did you want to insinuate something else?
That's where our perceptions differ. There'd be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.The revenue could be had without additonal effort.
How is done correctly?How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people's biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.
Well, maybe they have, maybe they haven't.At least they made the effort and a better system than CAPTCHAs to make it available to people without the need for special hardware or other prerequisites aside from a computer with internet access was just not there.Plus I wonder why they've continued developing that project for the last 10+ years in case it was just meant as cash grab for insiders.
You've convinced me of it. Into the sun it is!