It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that city police officers don't arrest people for immigration violations. That's not their job. It was never their job.
So is your piling on, not adding anything substantive to the discussions
, and raw_anon_1111's repeated strawmanning of my point (the claim was never that sanctuary cities were illegal, simply that their existence is a reflection of the Democratic Party's view towards immigration laws).
Yet here we are. You build the community you deserve through your words and actions.
I'm more than happy to have good faith discussion, and legitimately strive to take every point in the best light as possible. That's falling out of favor here, especially for political topics.
If you want to roll in the dirt don't think I'm just going to walk away.
There's no dirt. You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws. I merely pointed out to you misunderstand their job, so that point you made isn't relevant.
> You said those cities' police wouldn't enforce immigration laws.
Please quote where I said that.
The point I am making has nothing to do with whether sanctuary cities are "legal", whether the cops in them are or aren't required to enforce immigration laws, etc.
Speaking of what's appropriate for Hacker News, if I wanted discourse like "bazinga! The Supreme Court already ruled that sanctuary cities are allowed to exist. Checkmate xD" I would be on Reddit.
I (obviously wrongly) thought HN could handle higher level conversation that repeating the same "gotcha" 7 times in a thread.
> There's no dirt.
The dirt is your derisive, self righteous comment, which you had to make to get your little jab in, which added nothing past the repeated, redundant statements of raw_anon_1111. Hope you feel proud of your contribution to this site.
Okay, it immediately costs more to buy an EV than it does to run my existing car. The monthly payment to buy an EV is more than I spend on fuel.
Then I'd be paying roughly ten times as much for insurance, because it's a new and valuable car, and being "keyless" it cannot be secured in any meaningful way without locking it in a garage, which I don't have.
Because I don't have a garage or a driveway I can't park right at my house, so I would not be able to charge at home. So I'd have to park an EV up at the nearest charging point several miles away, cycle home, and then cycle back to the car to retrieve it. This would then be costing roughly the same per mile to charge it up as it costs per mile for propane (my car is dual-fuel).
That's before you add in the exorbitant cost of servicing an EV, which can only be done at a dealer.
All told, I'd be spending a grand a month to replace a vehicle that costs a couple of hundred a month, that - crucially - wouldn't allow me to actually do the things I need it to do.
> Because I don't have a garage or a driveway I can't park right at my house, so I would not be able to charge at home.
IMO, this matters more than anything else.
If you can't charge at home, then an EV becomes rather nonviable unless you drive very little and your usual grocery store has a fast charger. But then public chargers are typically at least double the price per kilowatt hour compared to charging at home.
Based on your attitude I now can't tell if you're being led astray or if you're actively attempting to lead others astray. Here's a set of guidelines for that vehicle, which do not remotely align with your claims:
Pretty much everything is keyless these days, which makes them expensive to insure since you can steal them with a very small and inexpensive device. The problem is not just limited to EVs though.
Okay, for even a very basic EV I'd be paying £400 per month.
This is more than the £200-300 or so it costs to run my existing car.
Straight off, it's costing me more just to even own one - that's before it turns a wheel.
Tax on an EV is free just now, and about £300ish a year for the vehicle I have now, so that's got the difference down a little.
Insurance on even a fairly basic EV would be a couple of hundred quid a month, as opposed to a couple of hundred quid a year. This immediately makes running an EV uneconomic.
At the end of the five year lease (you can't buy them outright, without getting entirely ripped off) I'd have spent 24 grand to still not actually own a car. This is roughly 100 times as much as I spent to actually own a car. This too makes things uneconomic.
Thank you, this makes sense out of the gate, and I appreciate you sharing!
I'm not seeing you calculate any repair costs for your vehicle. Or depreciation overall, especially not replacement. What year do you expect to replace your vehicle? What would you replace it with? How much would you get for trading in your vehicle if you buy a new car now?
I think you're missing pretty large parts of the math - what happens if you take your likely depreciation/replacement costs into account over time?
Repair costs are pretty minimal. I just spent £120 on some bearings that I intend to replace while I'm off for the Easter holidays which isn't bad.
I don't much care about the depreciation on a 30-year-old vehicle that I bought outright for considerably less than the price of a single car payment for something new.
I doubt I'd get anything for trading it in, and I'd probably get about £100-£150 if I scrapped it, or several thousand quid if I parted it out (you're looking at about £500 for the engine and about £300 for the gearbox alone).
If I was going to replace it, I'd probably replace it with another one the same, although admittedly I don't have to tow 3500kg trailers off road nearly as often as I did a couple of years ago. The choice would be driven by the fact that I have a complete service and workshop manual for it and suitable diagnostics.
I don't want to drive something that has an always-on internet connection or any sort of screen. That's also a pretty big factor.
What would the math look like to make an EV cheaper than using an ICE car you already own? It looks an awful lot like you're just dodging the numbers yourself.
I would be happy to share the exact numbers I used to figure out replacing a 2017 Ford Fusion with a 2023 Tesla Model 3 would save me money. And it has.
When most people make these comparisons, they don't consider depreciation, trade-in value, or maintenance costs.
I don't understand what I was dodging though. Can you be really specific? Help me out.
> I would be happy to share the exact numbers I used to figure out replacing a 2017 Ford Fusion with a 2023 Tesla Model 3 would save me money. And it has.
I'd like to see those. Do you own both vehicles outright?
Can you buy an EV for less than about £300 per month total running costs (insurance, charging, finance payment, etc) that can tow a 3500kg trailer off road?
OP said this, you clearly don't fall into this category. And if servicing an electric car costs more than servicing an old Landrover I will not eat for a week
The only service it's needed beyond tires, wiper blades, and wiper fluid is a replacement of the low-voltage battery last year, which was under $200.
If you're paying $300/year to service your EV, either you drive a LOT or you're getting ripped off. There's nothing in an EV that requires $300/year in service.
There's no oil changes, no transmission fluid. Brake pads will last forever since regen should be doing at least 90% of your braking. Sure, maybe you still need tire rotations, but most tire shops will do it for free if you buy tires from them. I do them myself when I do the swap between winter and summer tires.
There is. You think those gears run completely dry?
> Brake pads will last forever since regen should be doing at least 90% of your braking.
Turns out they don't. Maybe if you are driving slowly in a completely flat part of the world they will. In an ICE-powered car, engine braking does most of the work anyway.
Incidentally, a set of brake pads lasts me two or three years, even allowing for pulling heavy trailers quite frequently. They're about £80 for a full set. Brake discs are more expensive but they last a very long time if you don't let the pads wear to the metal.
> There is. You think those gears run completely dry?
Sure, there's a fixed gear reduction that is lubricated, but it doesn't need frequent changing. It's a sealed unit. No moisture or debris from the outside gets in. As a result, it lasts an exceptionally long time, likely even the life of the car.
> Turns out they don't. Maybe if you are driving slowly in a completely flat part of the world they will.
I drive in Portland, which is anything but flat. I rarely use the foot brake.
> In an ICE-powered car, engine braking does most of the work anyway.
Absolutely not, especially in modern automatics which coast exceptionally well.
Another commenter said you're arguing in bad faith, and at this point, I'm highly inclined to believe them. You really just have no idea what you're talking about. Somebody has sold you lies, and the disappointing thing is, you bought the lies and even argue against people with first-hand experience.
You really just don't have a clue.
If you don't want an EV because an EV doesn't fit your lifestyle, that's fine. You mentioned pulling heavy trailers frequently. EVs absolutely suck balls at that. Sure, they've got tons of torque and certainly have the power to pull a trailer, but their range goes into the toilet. So an EV doesn't work for you, and that's okay, but that doesn't mean you have to believe in lies and spread them.
For fuck's sake, the brake pad thing is very widely known and accepted. I have no idea how you got convinced that brake pads in EVs don't last. Yes, they're heavy cars, but regen braking is huge. EVs actually typically have brake problems from the brakes being underused.
I don't think it's a tech issue. I have a Tesla, it's a few years old now, and it's still better than most of what legacy car makers produce. The tech has been mature for several years.
I think legacy car makers have been slow rolling. They might have to in order to allow their organizations and customers to adapt.
While I would generally sympathize on that front, it doesn't really apply here.
None of the management-level desiderata he appealed to require that the user experience be broken this bad. There is very little bot deterrence from prevention of typing at that stage, while it heavily impacts user experience, especially on mobile.
This will become default. Siri (new) and Gemini will eventually run simple tasks locally and only switch to cloud compute when necessary. Apple and Google then won't have to spend as much on their datacenters.
I expect OpenAI, Anthropic, and other companies will attempt to do the same, but the OS manufacturers will have a step up.
I think you might be very surprised by what you can do with eight gigs of RAM on Apple Silicon. Apple does hardware compression into memory - it performs as well as a 16 GB machine did with an Intel chip.
I don't know where this myth has come from that macOS magically uses less RAM even though you are using the same applications as everyone else.
The Just Josh Tech review of the MacBook Neo demonstrated that the Neo cannot do a fractional resolution playback of a very simple Adobe Premiere project. We are not even talking about doing any editing work, simply playing back the project in the timeline.
The ~$500 Acer loaded with 16GB of RAM performed much better on that workflow.
I think it's worth pointing out that the base RAM on a MacBook Air was 8GB six years ago.
The Neo is a low end machine that trades RAM, storage, keyboard backlight, I/O and battery capacity for fit and finish and aesthetics.
It is a machine that will introduce many people to the Mac, and it will be very successful, but I also think it is a machine that for many people will not last them a very long time. And who knows, that might have the same negative impact that cheap Windows PCs have had for Microsoft in the long run, which was the whole reason they started their premium Surface brand.
> I don't know where this myth has come from that macOS magically uses less RAM even though you are using the same applications as everyone else.
Well, you're certainly not running the same code on both systems. Some applications absolutely use less RAM on MacOS... some use less on Windows.
Some of this is due to the various builds of the software itself, some of it is due to architectural differences in memory management, CPU instructions, differing memory access capabilities, etc.
8GB is tight for power users, definitely. But it is certainly very usable for on a Mac for the average person.
I agree that it’s usable, but I think it’s still worth pointing out that it was the base configuration of the M1 Air almost 6 full years ago.
It feels to me a lot like past cut down systems such as the eMac or that horrendous 21” 1080p Intel iMac that sort of make sense by being cheap but don’t make as much sense in wider context of available choices.
Of course, I think the Neo will be a huge success and is a good product overall, but a product where an informed buyer can do better.
It is potentially a purchase decision that really won’t last as long as a cheap Acer with 16GB of memory, even though the Neo is built better.
In the last six years, the memory footprint of most Mac apps I use has decreased. When Apple Silicon was new, a lot of apps were still running Intel binaries. Now they almost all have native binaries and memory footprint has shrunk quite a bit!
8gb on a apple is not enough and its not surprising at all.
Source: dealing with dozens of Mac devices with 8gb memory that clients had which all can't handle their workloads. I've switched whole companies from Mac back to pcs. And I've watched companies try switch to Apple and go from reasonably problem free operations to a nightmare of broken systems. Want to use apples data transfer to migrate from windows to Mac? Good luck it just plain doesn't work.
Device management on macs is an absolute nightmare along with the hell hole that is apple ID and the app store. Not to mention their absolutely abysmal performance with rmm. You can literally configure a machines permissions to allow remote access apps to work then a week later they just break the software and your access to manage the device is broken too.
Apple products are absolutely terrible for business from phones to laptops to their entire office suite.
reply