OopsCriticality

Thank you for writing that. It is very well stated.

Of course, but Chademo isn't designed for a Model S, it's designed for more affordable cars with smaller capacity batteries. The market requirement for both a Leaf and Model S DC fast-charge is the same: charge to roughly 80% capacity in 30 minutes.

As I said elsewhere, the Chademo connector can support higher currents when there is a need. When there are Leafs (and Souls? I think think those are the only two in the US on Chademo) with 200mi range batteries, I'm sure we'll see the existing chargers upgraded to the higher current capability.

Chademo charges a Leaf (or similar class car) to 80% in around the same time as SuperCharger does for a Tesla Model S, doesn't it?

Also there is no currently deployed charging standard that comes closer to SuperCharger. Chademo is 60kW spec but usually 40 or 50 depending on how downrated the charger has been. I've never seen less than 118kW on a Supercharger and had multiple Chademo's that have throttled down to 35kW in some cases.

Chademo deliberately selected 50kW as being optimal given the cars using the charger and the infrastructure available; the connector is designed for up to 200A (up from 125A at present) which would yield 100kW.[0] My understanding is that the CCS connector is being deployed at 200A now. I don't know what you're definition of "close to" is, but I would consider 100kW and 118kW to be close.

[0] http://www.chademo.com/wp/technology/optimal/

Did you have any licensed IP, and if so, how did you deal with that during the hibernation period?

But aren't criminal acts (i.e., criminal negligence) committed by the insured not covered by insurance?

As far as the comparison to cars, we require insurance for cars operated on public roads. Also with cars, the morbidity and mortality is overwhelmingly associated with accidents; with firearms, it's deliberate acts (either suicides or intentional shootings), neither of which would be covered by insurance.

I'm not sure I see what mandatory liability insurance is supposed to accomplish, since it would rarely seem to be applicable. The cost of the insurance, since it would likely rarely pay out, would seem to be too low to make gun ownership unaffordable (which would seem to be your goal, based on your earlier comment of "Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy!").

I don't understand these sorts of proposals: what are you insuring?

I think it would be instructive if you spoke on needing to keep a bound book, dealing with inspections, and the time/money cost of attaining and maintaining your FFL.

Sure, we'll see a decrease in gun related suicides... but the suicides will still occur, just with an alternate method.

Suicide attempts by any method might be practically constant; alternate methods of suicide tend to be less successful however, so the rate of completed suicides would likely go down.

I suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.

There's also the concierge-style who do things primarily by appointment and primarily handle transfers/consignments and sell accessories. Kind of splits the difference between a store proper and the "kitchen table" folk.

There is an effective ban on selling any new pistol designs in CA due to a dubious microstamping requirement. Manufacturers are unable to change their current designs that are on the roster (even color!) without triggering a recertification process that cannot be passed. This also means that new, safer designs cannot be sold in CA as things stand now.

My first thought is a reporting issue. Look at New York and the neighboring states for example: it is hard to believe that drug overdose deaths are so thoughtful that they respect a state border.

What about the complex battery management needed for an EV? Or the power and vehicle dynamics management needed if there are multiple motors? Or the additional complexity of the regenerative braking system? Or the fact that the car itself is a very small part of the entire product lifecycle (think design, testing, parts availability, service, etc.)?

I thought Tesla sent out letters to people using Superchargers for daily charging, clarifying that they were intended for long-distance travel.

I think it's time for pg to review the idea that there should be only one SV.

Having only one startup center in the country contributes to limiting social mobility (how many can afford to move to and live in SV; amazingly, some don't want to live in SV; what about people with an "n-body problem"?) and deprives other areas of the country of the tax base in SV. It could be transformative for, say Detroit, to get even a fraction of the attention of SV. "Spreading the love" is also beneficial with respect to diversity, finding problems to solve, and to robustness (e.g., natural disasters).

Are you taking advantage of your college alumni association? They may have a job board or career counseling; related, you may want to find an alumni meetup in Chicago for networking. The alumni angle can be surprisingly effective.

de gustibus non est disputandum

I can understand why you feel it is a hideous vehicle, it's certainly not traditionally styled. I think there's a lot more to the design of a car than the curb appeal, for lack of a better term, and with that in mind it is a very interesting car.

To be fair, the picture you've linked is a concept version, and is taken from an odd angle. Regardless, the i3 does not photograph well.

The interior is indeed nice, and overall, the car is thoughtfully designed. In terms of engineering, I'll argue it's one of the most innovative cars in a decade. That matters to some more than the, shall we say, adventurous styling.

It reminds me of the halogen infrared (HIR) bulbs used for automotive lighting. I'm not clear on what advantage a theoretical mass-produced photonic crystal bulb would offer for this application that HIR does not. Any thoughts?

Sorry I can't offer anything more specific and actionable; I guess comparing Rust to a fine wine, something that must be aged to reach full potential, will have to do :)

Fortunately, that specific hype train appears to have left the station. The worst for me at the peak were nanotechnology articles where the structure in question was somewhere in the submicron (or rarely, micron!) range.

Not OP but from the perspective of the industrial side: no track record, no formal standard, changes too fast, incomplete documentation, doesn't have an extensive commercial and supporting ecosystem (e.g. Parasoft, Java Path Finder), limited pool of experienced programmers with embedded and regulated environment experience. Arguably, it falls under the heading of "too new".

I'd prefer to deal with known knowns rather than the known unknowns or gasp unknown unknowns of something new. It's a very conservative position, but it's borne out of the expense associated with mistakes and corrections of.

There's also the Seek Thermal cameras: http://www.thermal.com/thermal-cameras/

I have one of the Compact model, and I think it's paid for itself with a few repair jobs around the house.

I was under the impression that was exactly the case, sometimes guided by A/B testing.

This community seems to have its own definition for a lot of words, startup included. Nothing wrong with that, so long as one recognizes that. The trouble for me tends to be when the wider press gets involved, and it isn't clear if the "two-letter acronym world" (nice expression!) definition is intended, or the definition used by others is intended.

What does one call a new company formed to develop a pharmaceutical candidate? I would call it a startup, but I don't know that such a company has much at all in common with what people around these parts call a startup.

Certainly it makes sense to consider genetic profile in treatment, but doesn't the statement "that drug should be used regardless of whether you have breast cancer or lung cancer" ignore the local tumor microenvironment and possible differences in drug resistance expression between cell types, i.e., isn't reducing cancer down to genetic profile alone potentially as problematic as reducing cancer down to its tissue of origin?

There is absolutely no reason that approved anti-cancer drugs in one cancer type and stage should be limited to just those cases.

Can you expand on that?

It is neither fair nor accurate to assume that someone with a CDL necessarily lives in a rural area or is poor, especially the latter.

It would seem that other than being a little more automated (giving anyone access to my email however is a deal breaker in my book), this Paribus service wouldn't seem to have any real advantages over (what appears to be) a competing service from Citibank: https://www.citipricerewind.com

A compare/contrast on the Paribus website would be helpful.

I see statements that Paribus doesn't sell customer data, but on the Paribus blog, I see analytics run against what appears to be customer data. That dichotomy concerns me.

Are there any limits on how often a customer can request a rebate? What happens if the customer hits that limit? Will a company "fire" a customer, as can happen to people who return items too frequently?

I'm also surprised to see that Citibank has a patent in this area…