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.

 

[QP!]

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

I'm saying that AI makes mistakes too often.

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

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

More ICE fires happen and more people die in them so the other part is less relevant.

What does do your research mean if you do not use search engines, or AI?

If you need to travel to a place you have never been and not familiar with how do you research it. be specific?

 

[gfm7175]

If you need to travel to a place you have never been and not familiar with how do you research it. be specific?

Let's say that I wish to travel from Wisconsin to Glacier National Park (Montana). I will first figure out the travel logistics (and anything else that I'd wish to do along the way). I will open up Google Maps and I will put in a start and end destination and determine what particular route makes the most sense for getting from A to B. I will then figure out some good stopping points for motels along the way.

For instance, from southern Wisconsin, it makes for a comfortable travel day to at least get as far as Murdo, SD during the first travel day. Then, maybe one wishes to drive through and see the Bighorn Mountains in WY on the way there. Seeing that, and then arriving in the Billings MT area for the second motel stay makes sense. Then, since MT is so large/expansive, it takes another day just to travel all the way up to the "base motel" near Glacier National Park that one is staying at while taking a few days to explore the park and other nearby attractions.

I'll also look up information about Glacial National Park itself to figure out exactly what I wish to do there. I'll look up hiking trail maps (right on the park's website itself) and plan out a few day's worth of activities there.

I'm not sure what else you're looking for, but that's the basic version. I make sure the vehicle is ready to go, I plan out the route, I plan out the stops, I plan out the activities, and I plan out the return route/stops back home.

 

[QP!]

Let's say that I wish to travel from Wisconsin to Glacier National Park (Montana). I will first figure out the travel logistics (and anything else that I'd wish to do along the way). I will open up Google Maps and I will put in a start and end destination and determine what particular route makes the most sense for getting from A to B...

So why are you allowing google maps to think for you and not just using logic?

you have said you were against that prior.

 

[gfm7175]

So why are you allowing google maps to think for you and not just using logic?

Google Maps is but one way to look at a map of the United States. I could also pull out some paper maps and look at a map that way.

you have said you were against that prior.

Google Maps isn't doing any thinking for me. It's just showing me a map of the United States. I'm still the one who is doing all of the planning (not AI).

 

[QP!]

Google Maps is but one way to look at a map of the United States. I could also pull out some paper maps and look at a map that way.

Google Maps isn't doing any thinking for me. It's just showing me a map of the United States. I'm still the one who is doing all of the planning (not AI).

Yes google maps, like google search, like AI are just one of MANY ways to quickly find the data and information needed. We agree.

yes you could take more time and pull out physical maps or you could mail or phone the location visitor or tourist centers (if they have them) and they will help.

But Google maps, Ai and google search are just quicker and put more data and information at your finger tips, allowing you to consider MORE and be more accurate. They are not perfect. Google maps can and will lead you astray at times but they are BETTER than using 'logic' to get to a place.

AI nor google search do not think for me either. Never have. I cite them to provide the PROOF for my statements. So if i say Trump was at Bedminster golf course last week, and someone is arguing with me he was not, i will cite the actual proof via a quick AI or google search so they can see and read it as opposed to you who would cite no proof and just claim 'logic' is your proof.

but glad you agree, that google maps, and Ai or google search can be a good part of collecting the data and facts you need to plan your trip. it was a long time coming but i made you agree with me and go against your prior point that you would not use them, do not consider the data reliable.

 

[gfm7175]

Yes google maps, like google search, like AI are just one of MANY ways to quickly find the data and information needed. We agree.

Yes, Google Maps works well for map-related data.

AI nor google search do not think for me either. Never have. I cite them to provide the PROOF for my statements.

You use AI to do your thinking for you.

So if i say Trump was at Bedminster golf course last week, and someone is arguing with me he was not, i will cite the actual proof via a quick AI or google search so they can see and read it as opposed to you who would cite no proof and just claim 'logic' is your proof.

Trump was not at Bedminster golf course last week.

but glad you agree, that google maps, and Ai or google search can be a good part of collecting the data and facts you need to plan your trip.

I said Google Maps (or paper maps or etc). I didn't say AI.

it was a long time coming but i made you agree with me and go against your prior point that you would not use them, do not consider the data reliable.

You're lying about what I've said. This is what you always do.

 

[QP!]

Yes, Google Maps works well for map-related data.

You use AI to do your thinking for you.

Trump was not at Bedminster golf course last week.

I said Google Maps (or paper maps or etc). I didn't say AI.

You're lying about what I've said. This is what you always do.

Ai and google search work well for aggragating basic data which allows the person sort thru it and verify and substantiate their point.

So here is example for you. I know thru past readings that google maps still makes errors but without using google search to find an example for you i would have an enormous chore in giving any proof. so AGAIN i ask you, tell me how you would get this type of proof, for any such instance like this where you were telling someone something that they did not believe or agree with? be specific.

When Google Maps gets it wrong, who's to blame? And how do you get it fixed?​

It's users beware, says expert, when following Google Maps, and people need to realize app has limitations​

 

[QP!]

....

You're lying about what I've said. This is what you always do.

and i am not lying about what you said.

you went from claiming using these things instead of 'logic' was wrong to me finally getting you to admit you do use them and think they are helpful.

You are trying to pretend there is some big difference in the way you use them but that is the lie.