That’s nice and all but not what the headline compared and therefore not the point. That comparison was specifically between ICEs and EVs.

Yes.

Is this a writing prompt about being left behind on a dying earth because you’d starve on your voyage to Mars?

There’s a small company party near to where I live that converts ICEs to EVs.

Bottom line is that it’s expensive as fuck to do so and the clients are either well-off folks that want an electric version of their favourite historic car (DeLorean or 2cv or something like that) or companies that calculate much differently, with six digits worth of km on their delivery vehicles. It’s not economical to do that to an ordinary car with ordinary kilometres per year.

I’m driving one.

It’s nice.

So? Overall risk is still much lower.

First time I ever heard about guardrails having issues with EVs. Do you have a source for that?

Also the comment was about the fire risk, which the article was about.

The article is about batteries that might catch fire less often.

ICEs catch fire much more often than EVs already. The comment was specifically about that.

They don’t catch fire that often though.

Which is what that headline is about.

Which has nothing to do with the drive train.

the breakthrough that makes EVs safer than ICE cars

Did Toyota write this? EVs already are much safer than ICEs, the headline reads like it’s trying to gaslight people into thinking otherwise.

This just in: You can be against something without being for something else. More news at 11.

Yeah. That’s pretty much the point of citizenship.

Damn leftists! They ruined leftism!!

Boo hoo, a country doesn’t let a fascist in.

Countries have no obligation to let people from other countries in. It’s a good will gesture to do so. And why on earth would you show good will to a fascist?

What’s wrong with VWs?

So, I was such a train kid. When my aunt picked me up from school, we took trams to get to her home but had to switch at the main station, so we had to just sit there and watch the trains come in and leave.

Back then, the first high speed trains were put into service and I was hooked. Like, we had to spend so much more time at the station on the vague hope one of them would maybe come in. I learned to read the huge schedule tables to be able to tell which platform to go to to see them or leave if we had to wait too long.

One christmas, I opened an envelope… In there was a train ticket. One of those fancy new high speed trains.

The whole ride was magic. They had headphone plugs in the armrests, they had screens that showed the current speed. I had a little table I could draw on. It was all so terrific. Seeing the landscape pass by, the new seats, the air suspension. I loved it.

Damn… That’s a good reason.

For the study that’s fine. I never argued the study should have more groups.

It’s the article that should be more precise. An article that starts with “there are these two groups” for a study that simply studied these two groups but never said there weren’t more is wrong. So that’s bad writing.

Not here.