Reality check on electric cars

[T. A. Gardner]

what you offered is absolutely considered anecodotal. it is your PERSONAL observations and reporting. we have to believe what you are reporting.

What other kind of original observations can be made? A PERSON observes and documents or otherwise quantifies data. That's what I did. Sure, it isn't statistically significant on its own, but it is quantitative evidence.

Like you i gave quantification based on observation. The people i personally know who have EV's and you hand waved it away as anecdotal when it is EXACTLY the same value evidence you provide. It is both of our observations .

You gave second hand, hearsay, evidence based on what others told you. That is anecdotal.

 

[QP!]

What other kind of original observations can be made? A PERSON observes and documents or otherwise quantifies data. That's what I did. Sure, it isn't statistically significant on its own, but it is quantitative evidence.


You gave second hand, hearsay, evidence based on what others told you. That is anecdotal.

Exactly.

i know personally a LOT of people with EV's and they love them. What other original observation can be made? That is what i did. Sure it isn't statistically significant and i never said it was, but it is quantitative evidence.

Yours however is subject to you as a liar and not to believed

 

[QP!]

I refuse to use them as sources because they pull from leftist propaganda and they are wrong way too often.

Like I said, I've experimented with AI in something as simple as planning a day at a state park and it gets too many details wrong (which I then have to inform AI as to what it is wrong about and why it is wrong, which it then corrects). In the end, it's still me doing most of the planning because I have to often correct the details that AI gets wrong.

In one example, it was informing me about an underpass project that could affect my day there. The only issue is that the underpass project was already completed years ago. I already knew that fact, but the AI didn't, so I had to correct the AI about that fact. It also gets information about access and availability of bathrooms wrong (e.g. it doesn't list all available bathrooms at the location, gets the locations of the bathrooms wrong, and it isn't always correct about the types of bathrooms that they are). It also too-often gets details about the trails wrong (like where they are, where they go, their length, etc). On a very generic basis, it usually does decent-enough, but diving into details, it too-often gets it wrong.

If I can't even trust it to plan out a simple day at a state park, I most certainly wouldn't trust it to plan out a day trip in an EV.

What do you suppose people did before AI?

Like I said, I've tested out "the tools" and I find them to be very lacking in terms of accuracy. I wouldn't recommend relying upon them.

does not matter.

If you are driving across America today and especially in remote areas and your view is 'i refuse to use google or AI to identify any EV charging or infrastracture as people existed and managed before the internet with logic', and then you are the one reporting back 'EV's are not conventiant yet as i cannot find charging stations and infrastructure' then the only response is to point and laugh at you.

yes we all survived prior to the internet. I have traversed the country with paper maps. But google maps on cell is MUCH better. Just because i can point to times google maps does fail, and it does, does not mean is better to traverse the country using logic.

You are an idiot.

if someone says 'Trump never golfed at XYZ golf course before' and is arguing with someone who says 'yes he did' then arguing using logic only and refusing to google or use AI to aggregate proof (articles and photos) is just idiotic. You both keep claiming 'no my logic is correct... no mine it" and no one wins the argument as you go back and forth forever with no proof.

and i know why magats hate when people bring proof and facts to arguments as those never support magats so they only want the back and forth of logic or opinion as they live in a world of alternative facts and Ai and google won't support that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Exactly.

i know personally a LOT of people with EV's and they love them. What other original observation can be made? That is what i did. Sure it isn't statistically significant and i never said it was, but it is quantitative evidence.

Yours however is subject to you as a liar and not to believed

"A LOT" is not a quantification. It's a vague claim. Define what "a lot" is.

 

[gfm7175]

does not matter.

If you are driving across America today and especially in remote areas and your view is 'i refuse to use google or AI to identify any EV charging or infrastracture as people existed and managed before the internet with logic', and then you are the one reporting back 'EV's are not conventiant yet as i cannot find charging stations and infrastructure' then the only response is to point and laugh at you.

yes we all survived prior to the internet. I have traversed the country with paper maps. But google maps on cell is MUCH better. Just because i can point to times google maps does fail, and it does, does not mean is better to traverse the country using logic.

You are an idiot.

if someone says 'Trump never golfed at XYZ golf course before' and is arguing with someone who says 'yes he did' then arguing using logic only and refusing to google or use AI to aggregate proof (articles and photos) is just idiotic. You both keep claiming 'no my logic is correct... no mine it" and no one wins the argument as you go back and forth forever with no proof.

and i know why magats hate when people bring proof and facts to arguments as those never support magats so they only want the back and forth of logic or opinion as they live in a world of alternative facts and Ai and google won't support that.

Like I said, you go ahead and plan out a day trip driving an EV and let me know how it goes in terms of accuracy. You'll end up pulling up to somewhere where there is SUPPOSED to be an EV charging station and "oh whoops, it's not there" or "oh whoops, it's only lv2 instead of lv3" or "oh whoops, it's not for public use" and all sorts of other differences from what AI claimed was the case.

AI can't be trusted for that sort of stuff. It gets too many things wrong.

 

[QP!]

"A LOT" is not a quantification. It's a vague claim. Define what "a lot" is.

you offering 'your personal count' of EV's is not a real quantification of any meaning. it is a super vague claim if you are trying to establish V use. Define what your personal observation really means how if i drive the same route and see what i observe to be less pick up trucks or convertibles than i THOUGHT i used to see in the past is proof of anything that is not anecdotal?

 

[QP!]

Like I said, you go ahead and plan out a day trip driving an EV and let me know how it goes in terms of accuracy. You'll end up pulling up to somewhere where there is SUPPOSED to be an EV charging station and "oh whoops, it's not there" or "oh whoops, it's only lv2 instead of lv3" or "oh whoops, it's not for public use" and all sorts of other differences from what AI claimed was the case.

AI can't be trusted for that sort of stuff. It gets too many things wrong.

Right. Because driving across the US with an EV using logic will give you better results and you will never pull up somewhere you logic tells you there should be a charging and find your logic did not work.

No thanks stupid. I pass on your way of doing things.

I know more than one person who has driven across the US in their EV and they all use the Trip Planner search engine which gives them guidance on the routes, stops, and time needed at each.

You can keep replying all you want 'if it makes a mistake you should NEVER use them and instead use logic' but you will only convince stupid people like yourself. Smart people will continue to use google maps and EV planners and not just logic even if google or the planner can and does make an occasional mistake and that is because human logic makes FAR MORE mistakes on the same tasks.

 

[QP!]

....

btw this is the same tired argument magats use when they point and laugh at EV fires as proof ev's are not reliable or ready while they IGNORE the facts and data that ICE vehicles catch fire way more and at a higher percent (surprise gas burns) and the magats keep pointing at the failures (EV fire) as if that is proof of your claim.

You saying EV Trip planners or google make mistakes... thus no one should use them and you instead use your logic to plan trips and cross the country, is just another layer of that same type of stupid as people would make far more mistakes that way but you do not care about those mistakes.

 

[gfm7175]

btw this is the same tired argument magats use when they point and laugh at EV fires as proof ev's are not reliable or ready while they IGNORE the facts and data that ICE vehicles catch fire way more and at a higher percent (surprise gas burns)

EV fires are much harder to put out than ICE vehicle fires.

You saying EV Trip planners or google make mistakes...

I'm saying that AI makes mistakes too often.

thus no one should use them

I'm saying to BE CAREFUL while using them (don't just blindly reply upon them).

and you instead use your logic to plan trips and cross the country,

Yes, I use logic to plan trips. I do my own research and I do not rely upon AI at all.