Hello all!
While it's 13 months and some change away, I think its important to emphasize our rules and code of conduct before things get too heated.
Post Rules:
- Local and Arizona Politics only
All posts must be directly related to and have a significant involvement/impact on any of:
- Policy. This includes any discussion of specific governmental policies or the development of such policies. Government policy can be developed at any level of government (from elected school board to the Arizona Legislature). It also includes court decisions which either create law itself (appellate court decisions) or involve the government.
- Electioneering. This includes polling, events directly pertaining to elections, and discussion of candidates and political parties, including their platforms and policies.
- Politician Capacity. Any incident or potential incident that could prevent a current politician from serving in their capacity in government (e.g. death, injury/sickness, criminal prosecution or resignation) is topical. We consider politicians to be either (1) elected members of government; or (2) members of government confirmed/voted on by elected members of government.
- Advocacy. Any efforts to influence or promote a position on the above 3 areas of topicality. This includes protests, demonstrations and the positions and advocacy of interest groups.
- Pertinent New Reporting. New articles that cover previously unreported details of past events which both would have been topical if reported when they occurred and have a clear connection to current Arizona or local politics or future elections. Analysis, editorializing, or speculation on prior events with no newly reported facts is not covered under this clause, even if there is a link to current Arizona or local politics.
All posts must at least have a significant internal discussion or focus about current Arizona or Tucson politics as defined above. Therefore, if only a small part of an article contains topical discussion, it may still be considered off-topic.
The following are some common examples of inherently off-topic content:
- Nonpolitical actions of politicians or their relatives, meaning (1) anything a politician does that doesn't impact one of the 4 areas of politics defined above, (2) discussion of the non-political actions of a politician's relatives.
- National level politics that doesn't explicitly impact Arizona or Tucson. Even if the macro impact is significant. (National Debt Showdowns, etc)
- Media discussing other media outlets.
- Crime stories without direct relation to current Arizona politics, such as (1) shootings, (2) crimes of non-politicians such as donors or activists, and (3) and court decisions not tied explicitly to Arizona politics as defined above.
-
Articles must be published within the last two weeks
-
Do not create your own title for Link Posts - Either copy the post title manually, or use Lemmy's suggestion.
-
All submissions must be in English, Español, or O'odham (Tohono, Akimel, etc.)
-
Do not resubmit "already submitted" content
-
Disclosure of employment
Tucson.social expressly forbids users who are employed by a source to post link submissions to that source without broadcasting their affiliation with the source in question.
- No Hateful Speech
People that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.
Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.
While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect those who promote attacks of hate or who try to hide their hate in bad faith claims of discrimination.
- Do not suggest or support harm
Comments that threaten, advocate, celebrate, suggest, wish, hope, dream, express extreme indifference towards, or could result in harm of any kind, violence, or death are prohibited. This includes any comment or opinion post that has the effect of discouraging people from taking the COVID vaccine or playing their part in necessary public health measures.
-
No Spam
-
No unapproved bots
Newsbot is approved.
- No Brigading
Any user caught assisting a brigade from another instance will be permanently banned. Any instances brigading this one will be defederated immediately.
Comment Rules:
- Be civil and constructive at all times.
We understand that sometimes this can slip, so if you are asked politely by a moderator to cool it down - please comply. Being belligerent after this point is not tolerated and will result in a ban.
-
No Personal Attacks
-
No trolling, baiting or flaming
Trolling includes, but is not limited to:
- Commenting or submitting links in a way that can be reasonably interpreted as having the intent to shock, anger, or sow discord without good faith. ¹ ²
- Baiting is the act of making comments that can be reasonably interpreted as having the intention of getting a rise out of other users and goading other users into violating rules. ²
- Flaming is the act of attacking other users for their views or opinions and overlaps significantly with our rules on incivility.
¹ Good faith is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.
² Trolling and baiting do not include expressing personally held views that are objectively false or in the minority opinion unless they are specifically expressed in a manner intended to gain a rise out of other users.
The followings acts are some examples of trolling:
- Editing comments to brag about downvotes or entice inflammatory replies
Linking to media with the intent to shock, anger, or sow discord without good faith.
- Bragging about trolling or participating in bad faith on tucson.social, either on this subreddit or elsewhere on the fediverse.
- Concern trolling; pretending to advocate something not believed in in order to parody, make fun of, or otherwise create discord in a group they disagree with (i.e., playing both sides)
- Using a title for a submission that shows intent to bypass the prohibition of text posts
- "Novelty" or "gimmick" accounts
- No spam or soliciting users
- Do not witch hunt or expose personal information
Do not make calls to action directed at non-public persons. Users are not allowed to post information with the purposes of causing harm to or harassment of other people. This includes but is not limited to: names, telephone numbers, street or email address. Hinting that you have this information of other users may also earn a ban.
I understand the sentiment... But... This is a terribly reasoned and researched article. We only need to look at the NASA to see how this is flawed.
Blown Capacitors/Resistors, Solder failing over time and through various conditions, failing RAM/ROM/NAND chips. Just because the technology has less "moving parts" doesn't mean its any less susceptible to environmental and age based degradation. And we only get around those challenges by necessity and really smart engineers.
The article uses an example of a 2014 Model S - but I don't think it's fair to conflate 2 Million Kilometers in the span of 10 years, vs the same distance in the span of the quoted 74 years. It's just not the same. Time brings seasonal changes which happen regardless if you drive the vehicle or not. Further, in many cases, the car computers never completely turn off, meaning that these computers are running 24/7/365. Not to mention how Tesla's in general have poor reliability as tracked by multiple third parties.
Perhaps if there was an easy-access panel that allowed replacement of 90% of the car's electronics through standardized cards, that would go a long way to realizing a "Buy it for Life" vehicle. Assuming that we can just build 80 year, "all-condition" capacitors, resistors, and other components isn't realistic or scalable.
Whats weird is that they seem to concede the repairability aspect at the end, without any thought whatsoever as to how that impacts reliability.
In Conclusion: A poor article, with a surface level view of reliability, using bad examples (One person's Tesla) to prop up a narrative that EVs - as they exist - could last forever if companies wanted.