Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jopsen's commentslogin

If the life cycle is 25 years we crunch to find a new supplier (should it be necessary) won't come as urgently :)

Agreed, but the headline should be "Europeans buying mini solar farms", in my opinion.

In Denmark fuel is so expensive they sell it by litre :)

> Sanctions could be lifted on Russian oil

I'd rather freeze.


The initial car is more expensive. You'll typically make it up, but it depends on how much you drive.

And you have to pay interest on larger car loan.

But in practice, yes, when charging at home EVs are dirty cheap to charge.

The total cost of ownership (toc) for an EV is much lower. But you are paying it all upfront.


I don't know about that, this car cost 23k EUR which is cheaper than a VW Polo, which is roughly in the same category.

That is cheap..

But there is are lots of people buying a used car for 10k

Regardless, I do a agree, EV is absolutely the way to go.


Electric cars are mechanically simpler.

Subsidizing gas is an expensive temporary bandaid solution.

Higher prices will drive EV adoption and busses.

In the EU, EVs or public transit is the only long term solutions we have.


Lifting the gas price regulations will somehow make EVs more affordable to the average Slovenian?

Electricity is expensive here too.

Public transit wise, good luck. The bus system has only been getting worse (despite sustained usage), trains are not much better. There just aren’t any viable routes in many places — it would take me 6h to commute 80km to Ljubljana (3 transfers with waiting time in between), it takes 1h30 by car in peak traffic.

Both busses and trains are also much more expensive than just driving yourself unless you’re retired or in school and thus have a subsidized ticket. And this is with regulated gas prices.


Lots of claims on cost, very little data.

You're right. I did a fair amount of hand-waving, and I'm leaning pretty heavily on Ed Zitron's investigative reporting to make the case instead: https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai_docs/

Currently conflict is a really good sales pitch for buying more interceptors.

You could expect order books to get so thick that production increases.

I mean looking from the side lines, I could see why many countries might want to have a few interceptors on hand. Just in case, it's certainly a nice way to buy some time.


Even if you find a safe resin.

Might there be microscopic layer lines? Or other unknowns you're not familiar with? Making 3d prints that can be cleaned is non-trivial, maybe there is a surface finish involved, etc.

Also how do you know your design is correct? Won't cause your teeth to move? A 3d scan doesn't mean you know what a mouth guard should look like.

All of a sudden, having a product that's made with a vetted process is pretty attractive -- and 600 USD seems like a bargain.

What's the cost of having your teeth fixed, if they accidentally move? (Not to mention the discomfort, which can be considerable)


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to convince me of. I did pay the $600, I even said that it's probably a cheap price to pay to treat the apnea.

That doesn't really change the fact that it feels kind of viscerally wrong to pay $600 to pay for two glorified pieces of plastic, and a part of me still does feel I could clone it competently. I haven't bothered for the aforementioned safe resin, and also because I already have it and I have enough money to just eat the cost and complain about it.


> it's all about managing upwards

That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.


It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.

There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.


The outcomes is very different from 2010, how so?

> The outcomes is very different from 2010

Not really. What we're seeing today is similar to what was being discussed in 2010 [0]. Heck, this failed missile attempt confirms capabilities that were being discussed in 2010 [1].

[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/4/22/us-iran-strike-stil...

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...


Do you think launching a dumb ICBM at New York would make the US put boots on the ground.

I kind of doubt it's enough. This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation.


> This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation

The Japanese and Al Qaeda framed their attacks defensively. An attack on the homeland is an attack on the homeland. I wouldn’t put it past Iran. But you’d rapidly see political consensus to ensure the regime is destroyed at all costs, including and up to leaving a power vacuum and humanitarian crisis.


It already looks like the US is sending marines over. Any excuse to make it more politically palatable would be latched onto.

the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)

Probably all true, except for the "within a week" part. We don't have nearly enough there yet to do that, and buildups take time.

9/11 was retaliation for US imperialism.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: