The legal process in USA is not trustworthy, it’s been shown time and again that USA punish people with extreme sentences to make an example of them. USA even tried to kidnap Kim Dotcom bypassing normal New Zealand procedure.

I have no particular sympathies for Kim Dotcom, but the way USA behaves in cases of “national interest” is scary.
Never forget Aaron Swartz! Who was driven to suicide, for copying data he had legal access to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

The problem is not that they are billionaires. But one is run by an obvious malignant narcissist, and the other is not.
One is responsible the other is not.

Here’s a very down to earth explanation of why Twitter after Musk became an ethical problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8zfgIgZ4c0

The chatbot is a front end to an LLM, you are being needlessly pedantic. What the chatbot serves you, is the result of LLM queries.

LLM is the technology, Chatbot is an implementation of it. So yes a Chatbot as it’s talked about here is an LLM. Although obviously chatbots don’t have to be LLM, those that are not are irrelevant.

You’ve been listening to a lot of anti EV propaganda.

the hybrid electric engine of the Prius line, produces enough greenhouse gasses in the production of a single Hybrid/EV car to completely eclipse the lifetime operating emissions of a single ICE car.

This myth has been thoroughly debunked multiple times, even from official sources:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing.

The electricity that powers the Tesla might be “clean”, but if it was produced by burning fossil fuels at a power plant, it’s just shifting the method of combustion

No even if a Tesla drives on pure coal based electricity it’s still slightly cleaner. Because powerplants are more efficient than a car engine and don’t idle, and the emissions are more efficiently treated from a powerplant. This is also when accounting for transportation and charging of the electricity, but without accounting for the waste when producing and transporting the fuel to suit an iCE car. So there is a healthy margin in favor of EV and PHEV. So even when driving a Tesla in say Poland which is the most coal heavy country in EU, an EV still pollute less than an ICE car. When you drive it in for instance Denmark, France Sweden, the EV pollute less than a fourth of an ICE car.

it’s arguably worse than economy ICE alternatives

Yeah an economy ICE is obviously not as bad as a NON economy. For more than half a century, We’ve had the option to mandate “economy fuel consumption” on cars, but haven’t done so. I agree that that’s a failure of policy.

The batteries are full of rare earth metals and toxic as fuck.

Batteries can be repurposed and recycled, and new batteries are free of rare earth metals.

https://thenextweb.com/news/the-cobalt-free-electric-vehicle-batteries-are-here

No, lithium-ion batteries do not have to use cobalt.

The newer LFP (Lithium Phosphate) batteries already widely in use do NOT use rare earth minerals, and are better than older batteries.
Old fashioned car battery uses lead, and is heavily regulated in EU, and is recycled. The new LFP batteries will probably rid os this use of lead.

Although I do agree with some of your other points, I don’t see any of them really relating to the better sustainability of an EV over an ICE. I also don’t see an argument against working towards better sustainability.

That’s bullshit. EU has halved pollution and energy consumption since 1985, don’t tell me it doesn’t make a difference to work towards sustainability.

Goddam I’m happy to live in a place where these things are well regulated!
This is an absolute horror story, people chose a saving account they thought was super secured, and instead it’s a total scam.

If you want a more environmentally friendly car, which would you prefer: A Tesla or a Prius?
A lot of Tesla cars were sold when there were very few to no alternatives if you wanted an EV.
Also 2.1-2.4 is not normal for a Tesla. That’s the very fastest of them.

That’s Exactly my experience with Tesla drivers too (Denmark), Tesla drivers generally drive “comfortably” as I see it, and I’ve never seen a Tesla show off at a red light.
In my experience Tesla drivers are responsible drivers as much as everybody else. So I am pretty sure this is NOT a driver issue.

I haven’t noticed that at all for Tesla, and I did absolutely notice with BMW and AUDI for many years. Not so much driving fast, as driving like assholes. Yes an EV often starts quicker at a read light, but I’ve never seen anything wild here that I recall, and we have a lot of Tesla and other EV cars here now (Denmark).

But to be honest, it may be different here, because ICE cars are generally manual, which is way more fun to drive. With A Tesla you just press the speeder like an Automatic. It just responds faster. But a Tesla can also be driven for comfort, and it seems to me that’s what just about everybody does here.

Yes that is weird, maybe you have a cache problem? I always have a backup browser that uses another engine to test if it’s a browser problem when such things happen to me.
And for me it works exactly the same in both my primary (Firefox), and backup (Falkon).

If there’s a systemic reason Tesla drivers have more accidents in a Tesla than drivers of other cars, that car is inherently less safe.
You can’t simply put it down to “Tesla drivers suck”, that’s irresponsible and flawed logic.

If it’s the acceleration, maybe we shouldn’t have cars that accelerate the way a Tesla can. But I very much doubt that is the reason except anecdotally. I suspect more that safety features may in fact serve to distract, or people “learn” to rely on them, and than they turn out to not be 100% reliable.

We’ve all heard the weird tendency of Tesla breaking for no reason, that is hazard, also the turn signals are placed wrong, causing them to be impractical in some situations like roundabouts. Also the instrumentation in general of a Tesla is centered very much around the touch screen, another source of potential distraction. AFAIK even the speedometer isn’t placed where it should be to observe it quickly without looking away from the road for too long.

A lot of inherent safety feature in traditional cars, have been shaved away in Tesla cars. Even getting out in an emergency can be a problem, as the handles may fail because they are electric, and the “real” handles are hidden.

There a dozens of examples where Tesla is designed for less safety than traditional cars, and if (when) the safety features fail, I bet they are a lot less safe than if those features weren’t there to begin with.

Tesla cars are designed with a VERY strong focus on reducing production cost, Elon Musk is even boasting about it, and how he has an uncompromising goal to simplify production. But Tesla also lack the experience about why things are like they are in traditional cars.

This is insane, there should be fines for frivolous lawsuits like this.

I understand that was meant as sarcasm, but actually they have become cheaper, in the way that new cheap EV models are arriving with much better range than previous cheap models.

I don’t get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

I don’t see how that’s relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That’s normal discourse to progress on the issue.

But this part:

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment “you are hurt and angry” is exactly that. If it’s not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That’s an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.

your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

I’m surprised you still consider it fallacious?

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

Yes I know, it’s the way the argument is put with “You have to understand”, as if I wasn’t aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using “you too” arguments.

Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

That’s the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I’m uninformed from living in a bubble.

Yet I’m the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to “explain” that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I’m aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn’t aware of that?

None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can’t.

But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because “obvious fact”, and you live in a Bubble.

So do you think that’s an OK comment to our discussion? Because that’s EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It’s an even bigger ad hominem when put together.

A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

He/She doesn’t understand anything, he/she doesn’t know me.

If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: “But you have to understand…” Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."

But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.