If you could edit in an instance-agnostic link (!communityname@host-instance.com) for example: !newcommunities@lemmy.world would be this one.

Makes finding your community on other instances easier (and is technically required for our formatting rules)

1. I didn’t state it for EV ranges because my stated ranges accounted for that fact. To say “they can only use 80% of their battery charge” would be misleading in the context of the listed ranges.
2. This isn’t false you’re essentially saying “you’re right but it’s mostly not the engine” in other words: you’re being a pedantic git
3. They can disagree all they want, I’m actually correct and have the stats (which you have yet to refute) to back my statements up.
4. I never claimed to be nice.

I’m not twisting any stars at all. If you have an issue with my math: present it or gtfo

Users here who have not sourced shit and mentioned objectively false information.

Moment you put forth false info, I ignore your opinion as invalid. So frankly, idgaf what the very clearly incorrect people in this thread think. Their opinion is based in falsehoods.

See now you’re both wrong and a prick.

If your point is that phenotype at all defines sex, you are objectively wrong. It is a function of sex. If your point is that phenotype is a reliable indicator of sexing in humans, you are also objectively wrong.

My statistics come from WLTP. You might want to follow your own advice. Also: pickups and other trucks only account for 12% of cars on road in America. So again, wrong. Confidently wrong, but still wrong.

Also it’s not anecdotal if I have a plurality of reviewers agreeing with me. The plural of anecdote is in fact data.

Owned both a Model S and a Taycan. Both have exceeded WLTP in my experience. So you’d be wrong on that assumption.

Edit: and most reviewers agree that both cars exceed their tested ranges. Not seen one say otherwise

Phenotype doesn’t determine sex. It’s a function of it. You literally agreed with me on this.

My numbers came from WLTP which considers EV range “a functional range for which you can safely drive without harm to the systems.” So it already took into account that issue.

Your anecdotal evidence does not a statistic make. The average fuel efficiency for all cars in the road in America is 25 mpg. This is not counting lorries or other commercial vehicles. The average tank size is 12-16 gallons. You. Are. Wrong.

But still love the assured confidence.

Except I wasn’t incorrect. They are. Objectively speaking they are using anecdotal evidence (as they have literally stated) while my numbers literally come from actually testing.

Your engine doesn’t like to run dry and when you let your car run to E you do run it drier than it typically operates. This can overheat parts. It’s not an issue if this is an occasional thing but overtime you can and will damage the vehicle.

“Climate lunatics” I am 20yo. I can literally observe the climate as being different than it was when I was a child. It is plainly obvious something has changed. What should we call this change in the climate of our planet? Hmmmm… maybe, climate change is an apt descriptor for the change in our planet’s climate wouldn’t you agree?

As to its existence? I’m not going to debate you on it. Climate change does exist. To deny that is to deny facts and science. To deny it is to deny literal reality. I don’t debate people who live in fantasyland.

Yet, I am still correct and you are still not. But no. I’m also talking about damage to the cat, the fuel pump, your actual engine block… you should never let your car suck empty. You can and will damage it. It’s about as bad as driving a diesel on petrol.

Tell me you don’t understand biology and genetics without telling me you don’t understand biology and genetics. You’ve succeeded.

Also biology hates binaries. Nature hates binaries. They’re exceedingly rare.

Sexing in humans isn’t phenotypic though. It is chromosomal.

Most people don’t (and shouldn’t) run their car to empty causing the average consumer to fill up after ~300 miles, when they get to roughly 1/4 their tank.

This has been proven time and time again. If you consistently got the true 400 miles a tank out of your car, you’d damage it.

(Also average fuel efficiency is 25mpg, average fuel tank size is 12-16 gallons. Average that 12-16 to 14 gallons. 25x14=350 miles per tank)

But I love the absolute assured confidence in your incorrect reply here.

I just knew that you could swap OS on Mac to have a Windows system, wasn’t sure if it worked the same for the iOS.

I agree with you that is likely a blatant attempt to copy NSQ but we don’t exist to moderate which communities get to have visibility or not unless they violate the rules of this instance or this community. They do neither and as such they get to advertise here.

Range matters to a point. 250+ miles is where we consider it comparable to an ICE in terms of driving time to charge.

Essentially at 250+ miles you are driving about as long as your average driver of an ICE would before filling up.

Charger availability is only going to improve for Porsche as the Taycan becomes more widely available but they’ve already rolled out in most major metro areas… and have stated plans to be in every state. The Taycan is also expensive for a Porsche so comparing to the Model S (which is the best like for like comparison) seems fair. Albeit other Porsches are ICEs (the Cayenne is currently about as expensive as a model X)

Edit:

Also, while my experience has been that the Model S has better range. In WLTP testing, the current standard, the Taycan beats the Model S by 13 miles.