Musk has swatted people he disagreed with. He is the antithesis of a free speech absolutist.

Have you seen the steam stats? Very few people played this game.

GM had record sales figures, just before they filed for bankruptcy. The problem with the car industry is that if you’re willing to sell at a loss, any level of sales can be achieved. But that is not a viable business. In reality, too many car companies are selling BEVs at a loss. This will have consequences soon.

The solution is to eliminate self-driving cars and instead invest more in mass transit and walkable neighborhoods.

It could mirror the economic stagnation of Japan that begun in the 1990s. Very similar set of circumstances.

That’s the OP. You didn’t provide any sources yourself.

The issue of leakage is just a potential risk, as your own link mentions. In practice, it’s a non-issue. We don’t worry about gasoline begin too dangerous or EVs being too quiet. It is just fearmongering. Like I pointed out in my study, they are looking at hydrogen for long term energy storage, because it is good at it. Your claim that we can’t store for long periods is simply wrong.

People have looked at hydrogen for long term storage. There is real science to back this up. Also, you never provided any sources to begin with. So you are demanding a double standard here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X21011580

We can it store it long term. It is one of the major strengths of hydrogen. Your claim is near 180 of reality.

No he didn’t. It’s just a bunch of random talking points and myths. He could’ve copy and pasted that answer from any of thousands of social media posts and it would’ve been nearly identical.

Critics of hydrogen are just repeating BS from either the fossil fuel industry or the battery industry. It is just a repeat of anti-wind and anti-solar rhetoric back when they were just getting started.

Except that also applies to the x-axis. Unless you invert everything, this is just a preference that is likely a holdover from some old flight game.

I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t really make sense as a product to me. If all it is is some extra raytracing features + slight resolution bump, then it’s not really worth it. Especially if it is a significant price increase over the regular PS5. And if you need significant development work to achieve those results, then I can see many devs just giving it a pass and not bothering to add any features.

Developer feedback is usually about answering questions that the players have, or finding bugs that were missed in QA. What Bethesda is doing is quite a bit more ridiculous.

There’s an old adage in programming that you should almost never rewrite everything: https://www.onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/2596/Why-You-Should-Almost-Never-Rewrite-Your-Software.aspx

Going from their existing RED engine to Unreal is basically the same idea. Almost nothing from the original Cyberpunk game is going to be easily translated to the new platform. I think CDPR just set their development timeline back by at least 3 years.

There will come a day when people will realize that even tech companies aren’t worth that much.

I suspect there is something more to this than just that. After all, the car in question did this:

Earlier this month, a Cruise robotaxi notably ran over a pedestrian who had been hit by another vehicle driven by a human. The pedestrian became pinned under a tire of the Cruise vehicle after it came to a stop — and then was pulled for about 20 feet (six meters) as the car attempted to move off the road.

It seems like there are unsolvable safety problems going on.

People move to Florida for the same reason why people use to move to California. So you wonder when housing prices will absolutely soar. Also, lack of natural disaster preparedness is something that can’t be ignored in Florida. Deregulation won’t solve that problem.

People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It’s not the first time they behave like that, so don’t think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It’s purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.

Actually no. You actually need a chemical fuel in a lot of cases.

A hydrogen car is basically an EV but with a vastly more energy dense battery. Hence why it is a better idea than a BEV.

And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.

Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.

Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.