Russia abstained as UN Security Council adopts resolution condemning Houthi attacks. They want the world to be distracted from their atrack on Ukraine. I'm sure, once russia has been beaten, suddenly a lot of other conflicts will dwindle away
No matter how bad my life gets, I’ll always be able to say “at least I didn’t stand outside a courthouse in winter to give moral support to Donald Trump.”
I live in a ski town, people in rentals drive recklessly and crash the things A LOT. I can absolutely understand the decision to switch to cheaper cars.
I totally get the other judges doing things by the book to reduce the chances of things getting overturned on appeal. But FFS, that behavior is way out of line.
There have been systems like that to replace locks in the past. Not for the whole of the country of course but essentially wide rails that lift a shift up a hill along some rails.
How is it unilateral if two countries are coordinated?
(Yes, I'm being pedantic. My apologies.)
Also, it's not the job of the UNSC to "authorize" military action of individual nations. UNSC authorization of force (Article 42) refers to sending UN peacekeeping forces, like in the Korean war. This hasn't happened many times.
Article 51 allows member states to use force to defend themselves. US and UK military ships were being attacked.
International law also allows a country to protect its own territorial waters and enforce sanctions through them. Sovereignty supercedes the right to self-defence: if a US warship sails into Chinese territorial waters and gets beat down, international law sides with China.
The Panama Canal Authority has reduced the amount and weight of vessels passing through based on current and projected water levels in Gatun Lake, the rainfall-fed principal reservoir that floats ships through the canal's lock system…
I mistakenly thought the locks were filled entirely with seawater, so I didn’t understand how the canal could be affected by drought.
Locks do not work that way, at least not unless you want to use them to go below sea level.
Locks always have to be fed from reservoirs on the upper side of the lock and each lock cycle transports one lock full of water to the lower side of the lock. This is the reason locks are so energy efficient, because we do not need to do the lifting ourselves, we just let the water do it.
There are some lock designs that store part of the lock's content in some side-reservoir to use e.g. the upper half of the water to refill the lower half on the next cycle but that is about as much as can be done to conserve water without installing huge pumps that would require a lot of energy.
Everyone seems to miss the "higher expenses related to collision and damage" part which is actually the most important part.
Why would electric cars crash more often than ICE cars? EV and ICE cars should drive exactly the same. I know my electric Berlingo drives exactly the same as ICE Berlingo.
Maybe the reason is that some popular EV brand makes cars that are dangerous to drive by installing non-standard steering wheels, turn signal switches and touch screens instead of buttons (not to mention too powerful engines)? If that's the case it says nothing about EVs in general and definitely doesn't indicate there are 'hidden' costs to EV ownership. Just don't buy bad EVs only because they have more range.
Nothing in that statement indicates EVs are crashing more frequently. What they're saying is that all their rental vehicles are susceptible to crashing but these ones cost a lot more to fix compared to the rest.
Again, why would EV be more expensive to fix after a crash? EV Berlingo uses the same components as ICE Berlingo so as long as the crash doesn't damage the battery cost will be the same. And if battery is damaged the car is probably totalled anyway. So again, is it simply because fixing Teslas is more expensive?
P.S. more frequent crashes could still be the reason and since we recently saw reports about Tesla drivers causing more crashes it probable is.
Perhaps the battery is damaged? In some EV it runs the full length of the car. Side impact in ICE dents door and side frame but engine is fine. Getting hit basically anywhere has potential to damage battery.
Also probably is just more expensive to repair and requires specalized/qualified repair places. Kinda like Iphones with lack of Right to Repair protection.
Batteries in EVs are easily demanded. I found this:
Carmakers including Ford and General Motors have said they’re developing battery packs that are easier to repair, replace and, ultimately, reuse, but Tesla and other EV makers are reportedly going in the opposite direction. Tesla’s use of structural batteries that are integral into an EV’s architecture make it difficult to repair or recycle a damaged battery.
So Tesla definitely has this problem. I can't find info about other brands but my guess is that for example my Berlingo doesn't use structural battery since it has the same design as ICE version. It really looks like Teslas as just terrible cars for car rental but not necessarily indicate 'hidden' costs for EVs in general.
They're not repairing whatever a Berlingo is. They're repairing Teslas and Polestars. This is like saying my Camry is cheap to fix, so an SL500 Mercedes should also be cheap to fix.
Also that report about Tesla drivers having the most accidents was complete garbage based on junk data (car insurance applications using the driver's complete record but only the current vehicle they wanted to insure). Even the company he worked for included a large heading at the top of the page indicating that the statements were simply the opinion of the author.
Companies this size might self insure and do their own repairs. If parts cost 5x as much, the repair is going to cost more. Same as with a Toyota versus an Audi.
reuters.com
Oldest