Billionaires have no fucks to give about anything except mean tweets. They weirdly seem to care a hell of a lot about those.
post
The caps are not attached to reduce our carbon footprint but to reduce overall pollution. I don't like when people paint over such issues with a too-broad brush.
Also what idiocy did Me-me-me-lon come up with now?
The Tesla flying car is clearly a Spectacle for Fools, but the gas being used is basically compressed air and doesn't contribute to our greenhouse gas problem.
There's plenty of other aspects to this to make fun of that are factually accurate.
Mine does.
No, you blow to compress air, you suck to decompress air.
I'm pretty sure you blow
It uses an electric compressor.
Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro
Why are you responding in such a condescending tone? Was my reply in any way as rude? Do you hold all of your internet conversations by talking down to your fellow contributors? You don’t know who we are; you don’t have any right to reply like that. Grow up. Keep your “gold stars” and “walk step by step for you’s” to yourself. If you can’t be civil to strangers, then keep your opinions to yourself.
The compressed gas that “it” uses is compressed with electricity, yes.
…and yes, I realize the gas is not compressed onboard, and that the car doesn’t accomplish this on “its” own. I’m sorry my simpler phrasing upset you so. If I say “the car uses a DC power supply,” I don’t mean to imply that the car connects “itself” to the charger either. “It” (the car) utilizes a compressed gas source, which was electrically powered.
Sure, that minuscule amount of electricity could be generated by way of fossil fuel power plants, but seeing as how this is a Tesla demo, probably a one-off (assuming Musk is lying about delivering - as he usually is), and Tesla’s “gigafactory” uses a massive solar farm in addition to the local power grid (which may include fossil fuels), it’s nearly a wash. A tiny “carbon footprint,” if any at all. Hell, manufacturing those bottle lids probably generates a larger carbon footprint.
Like [@DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works]\ said, there are plenty of other aspects to this to make fun of. Arguing that the compressed gas is somehow contributing to its global footprint is stupid. But then, so is arguing with strangers on the internet.
Could also be Hydrazine. But that still would only result in nitrogen and hydrogen
Is anyone else mortified by how such an obvious and blatant attention grab can so easily captivate the attention of literally every circle of the internet?
I actually didn't see any news on this except for some coworkers asking if I saw it. First time I saw it was yesterday.. on lemmy. So maybe we should do better here and not talk about it, like at all? Delete this post and move on?
Everything I’ve seen has just been about how stupid this thing is.
You should look outside of lemmy. In my circle people are genuinely impressed.
yea, they were discussing in a game im playing the other day, they actually believe it. if it wasnt an obvious distraction from MUSK TURNING OF STARSHIELD/LINK BY TELLING TRUMP TO DO IT.
Not really. They made an actual flying car, and that's just plain awesome.
We know it's an attention grab, that's the entire point of doing a product demonstration. You're not special for noticing that, in fact it's so obvious most people don't feel the need to comment on it.
They made an actual flying car
"flying" is doing a lot of those heavy lifting, like 2000kg lifting. It's like saying Buzz Lightyear from Toys Story can fly.
That space convertible shows that it was an actually car with seats and everything. All the clips I've seen showed a sealed cockpit and tinted windows. So it could have esially been an empty frame with is lighter to do those stunts with
And smaller battery pack to compensate for the pressurised tank and a compliment for Melon Husk small dick.
Yeah, I think it was basically the RCS unit from a Space-X rocket stuffed into a car-shaped frame with some parts from an electric golf cart glued in there to move it around on the wheels.
You have to be in the air longer than Kitty Hawk to call it flying. I don't make the rules...
10 seconds of hovering ain't exactly flying. It would have been impressive if they framed it as these are the thrusters we've been working on to help land on Mars, heres what we can do with them on a car.
Instead Musk just goes we can kick flip a car!!!!!! The same presentation goes from interesting tech to eyerollingly cringe. Absolutely a cool tech but has no business being sold in a car road legal or not. It should stay a prototype tech demo.
This is a Flying Car. Musk has built a Fast and Furious jumping stunt car.
"an actual flying car" "product demonstration" lmao
It's neither a flying car nor a product that will ever be sold on the market. Crazy how gullible the average person is.
I bet you're one of those people who insisted FSD was right around the corner 10 years ago.
-
Heard it was just compressed air?
-
it's about plastic pollution not carbon
-
But like, still, yeah... "pLaStIc StRaWs"
It is just compressed air, though it's an insane amount of energy stored in that form. The number that will actually have that function will be so small that it probably doesn't matter, though the emissions of car-centric transport are absolutely crazy. give me more trains!
Sorry, best we can do is reinvent a bus for the 50th time and make it get stuck at a red light.
I'm curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh. How much battery range will go to car RCS thrusters?
Scott Manley estimated it at around 45kWh, so about 2/3 of a charge. Not that much energy in the grand scheme of things, but not anywhere near practical either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4Qg-gkLNg&t=530
By car battery standards, an absurdly large amount of energy. And it's released in a pretty inefficient manner. So not a good plan for EV range.
I don't think you could reasonably use them on the road without harming people around you either (though Musk's target audience may not be very concerned about that aspect).
I think it works for track usage / showing off to your wealthy friends. I have no clue how the flying version would work control wise, as you'd need to plan the entire flight ahead of time so it could verify it's possible (before you take off down the Grand Canyon and run out of gas a few seconds later). Probably one of the reasons it's not being sold to everyone.
I'm curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh.
Compressed air is one of the most expensive ways of storing energy.
Tesla and other EV companies tend to have a bunch of carbon credits earned (from being EV companies) which they sell to polluters for the right to pollute.
It earns EV companies a lot of money.
There's this stupid incentive in the Netherlands now where people with an EV charger can get ERE certificates for every kWh they charge, which they can sell for money to the government (I believe). Oil companies then buy these certificates so they can pretend to be green.
And of course everyone with a charger wants this now (you do need a charger with certified meter), because for them it's free money.
The attached bottle caps are pretty stupid, but people who get unreasonably angry about it are even worse.
If the things piss people off so much, it barely take any effort to just pull them the fuck off the bottle.
Attached caps are there for a purpose. They work. So no, they are not stupid.
What is stupid is that comic which is completely misrepresenting what those attached caps are about to create a false hypocrisy to make fun of (about the caps probably even more than about the Tech bros).
It is strange, to see how it is taking up the same anti-EU propaganda usually spread by Tech bros. The attached caps solve a problem and that is that caps are one of the largest trash types on beaches and in forests. They are such a big issue because due to the small size they are also laboursome to clean. Attached caps considerably reduce the number of separated caps and also of trash as a whole ending up there. They don't really cost more, don't need more resources and you can use them just as easily, if you are not completely incapable of adapting to change on a most fundamental level.
So no, they are not stupid.
The purpose was to reduce plastic pollution. According to latest data, across entire EU beverage industry, the plastic usage for attached caps is around 200,000 tonnes, equaling to around 381 million kg CO2 increase and that's not even taking in mind how much re-fitting and throwing out perfectly good manufacturing machines costs.
Initially I was supportive of this, but after experts around the EU started coming out about how bad of an idea this actually was.. I don't know man.
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a "CO2 increase". Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.
Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn't enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn't do anything for them, right?
Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
You could have spent 10 seconds googling this before typing all that. They literally do.
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense
You do know manufacturing is a major contributor to CO2, right? ....right?
I don't think posting a link to a sponsored article does help your argument.
Sponsored by..UNESDA. Literally the same association that fought for this in the first place. This helps my argument immensely.
If they fought for this in the first place then why did they sponsor an article discrediting themselves?
Not everything works like Trump being unable to admit your mistakes. These organizations are commonly interested in improving EU, not purely selfish motives.
I have no idea where you have the idea from that UNESDA was for tethered caps, at any point. You linked to an ad from UNESDA from before 2020 and quoted a contract PWC study from that time. All against it. Many of the assumptions in that study have become either obsolete or were shown to be wrong.
"sponosored content" Do you have a source for your claims or only an ad?
Of course the beverage industry did not like it. It was new regulation while the only one benefitting being the environment, with less hard to ckean waste. That does nothing to raise their profits.
The comment made no sense not because it is unknown that production causes CO2 emmissions but because you threw in a single weight number without any reference and then drew from that a conclusion about increased CO2 emissions. The ad and its delivered to order contract study actually writes it more cohesively, interestingly. What I find fascinating is that you went for the max value instead if quoting the range in that ad. Apperently you considered the numbers in the ad not convincing enough.
Sponsored by UNESDA, the same association that fought for this in the first place. I picked the max value because it's 9 months old data. Surely by now it's even higher than the max.
Why are European associations and organizations writing such articles "an ad"? What exactly are they even advertising? That they themselves were wrong?
What do you mean by "faught for this"? UNESDA paid for a contract study against tethered caps so it is clearly not impartial on this, nor is the study.
The report does not specify what this amount of extra plastic is supposed to be. A yearly rate? In any case, just taking randomly the larger number because the transition was 9 months ago is kindergarten math.
The UNESDA isn't writing such an ad, it was buying that ad already over 6 years ago, in order to lobby against the law for tethered caps.
Bottle caps being attached is about the bottle and the cap being recycled/landfilled together instead of caps ending up in a different location. This works well with the return money you get for recycling bottles so everything gets disposed properly.
The general idea is that plastic in the environment is more of a problem than pollution from producing the little extra per bottle. Microplastics from plastics that don't make it to the landfill are becoming a big issue and the EU is working on it.
Refitting machines to produce them is also not a big issue since that's a one-time cost for not that many machines.
To be fair, the caps do piss me off when they mess up me pouring a drink for the 100th time. But yeah, I just pull them off. I never threw them out separately anyway (who tf would do that???).
Musk has perfected the art of bedazzling people with precision controlled compressed gaslighting.
So this Tesla rocket flying car thing I'm hearing about is actually taken seriously?
Like, actual human beings with brains actually believe this shit will happen? I mean, come on now... You have a brain, evolution given, please, use it?
This is another musk thing. Elmo tells obvious lies, his groupies will repeat it as fact ad nauseum, the news sites will obviously publish said nonsense as fact because of course, and three weeks later people will have forgotten about the next bullshit lie from Elmo. Rinse and repeat, he has pulled this bullshit off dozens of times now and he keeps getting away with it. Other people would have been sued into the ground but Elmo? Nope. I guess the guy has charisma or something (the something doing all the lifting because claiming that musk has charisma is just idiotic)
That thing uses nitrogen to do that silly bunnyhop, but compressing all that nitrogen is what has the carbon footprint.
I could be done with solar power. Of all the criticism Musk deserves, the carbon footprint of a one-off show is not in the top 30.
When it's the prototype of a vehicle feature, scalability is expected.
Of course, this was just for show, as a distraction from other nasty things that were being done behind the curtains, but it's the principle. Don't show it unless you mean it.
Assuming the same number of panels, if you use X amount of solar power to do Y, then X amount of solar power isn't available for something else and it has to use non-solar. The only thing that increases solar is adding more panels, rather than nitpicking which thing used the solar and which didn't.
The use of energy generally is non-green as long as non-green is a major part of the energy market. Ascribing some end uses of energy as green or non-green is silly and wrong. It is only the production end that can be green or non-green. On the use end all energy is equal.
There is no way its legal for cars to fly around like that. The kill enough people on the ground I dont want them trying to kickflip over traffic.
Of course it's not legal, even Tesla said so, why would this be something to question?
The wildest part? It’ll (probably) kick flip over and into an accident; it’s not like the speed direction is going to change with those thrusters.
You know, like games where you go left to avoid something and right into another object or pit.

top 96 comments