I've had the feeling, OK, he's gamed the system by making ridiculous claims and enough lies to make his nose grow to the moon.
He figured out how to divide and conquer, played that into huge personal gain.
He's pretty smart.

But I had the thought last night, what if he's not that smart, what if he's actually tweeting and saying what he really believes.
I'm afraid, very afraid. :unsure:

It would look like how most Americans would look if we tweeted similarly.

We don't tweet though. We stop, we think, we test it out on the cellar, we realize we're being dumb, and then we throw it in the ash bin. He should have a group of area competent people to talk to... you know, like a cabinet.

He's just a fly by the seat of your pants kind of guy and you can do some death defying stunts when you're wearing bespoke pants.

His cabinet is his fly girls.

Everyone would be appalled at our own "raw feed", and so we don't tend to offer it.

And so, when someone does offer a raw feed, and one reaction is to be appalled by it and viciously attack it? That's an easy game, but there is a hypocritical element to it. And what we don't notice is that the game doesn't necessarily play out in favor of the attackers. I think that is the game theory Trump is working by.

The person who came closest to giving us a raw feed was Sundae. There are dwellars here who attacked her for the weaknesses she freely offered us. What do we make of that?

Raw feed will usually come back to bite you in the ass. Constructive criticism or just criticism(attack)? In print it's sometimes not easy to tell the spirit in which it's given, no matter how carefully you chose your words.

Some who give raw feed become successful, others fall by the wayside, the outcome depends on the perceived objective behind it.

Except his staff have admitted the "rawness" is often faked, tweets written by others on his account with the intent of being inflammatory--they even bragged about putting in intentional typos for authenticity's sake.

Then that's exactly the game theory Trump is working by, and being outraged is playing on his game field.

Next level: watch the media with that in mind. They have been trolled. They have lost.

Some in the media became conceited and thought they could become activists hiding behind the journalism banner. They bastardized their 1st Amendment protections without being astute enough to realize the same could be done by counter-activists. They got what they bargained for including the collateral damage to their peer group which will have to do a better job of policing their own. If they don't, they'll fall by the wayside in public opinion.

The American Press (ALL of it from MSNBC to FOX News; from the New York Times to the New York Post) is nuthin' but a vast propaganda machine, sumthin' largely ignored by various strains of communitarian. These various outlets lie all the damn time (out & out, and through skewin' and interpretin') and are given a pass.

Trump fights fire with fire and he's the bad guy.

Friggin' hypocrites: you got a log stuck in your eye but all you worry about is the speck in his. Your garden is nuthin' but weeds, but his -- mostly flowers -- is an affront to the eye.

The American press is not mandated to lead the nation.

"The American press is not mandated to lead the nation."
 

No, the press is mandated to 'report' (sumthn' it hasn't done in a coon's age).

C'mon Henry, Trump's a lying motherfucker, over and over and over again. :rolleyes:

Of course he's a lyin' motherfucker,

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I didn't hire him to be honest, I hired him to wreck shit.

Mebbe you like the status quo: bully for you.

Me: I want government pared down, leaned out, powered down, and brought under heel.

Trump ain't the end point; he just a goddamned waystation.

He's doin' exactly what I want him to do, so he can lie, cheat, steal, and whore around to his heart's content.

Trump fills a niche.

I'd like to fill Ivanka's niche.

It's all about the niches.

This discounts the realization by others of the value of a good government.

"This discounts the realization by others of the value of a good government."
 

By 'their' standards: probably.

By my standards: nope.

Good government is minimal, weak, under heel, manned by proxies.

To get to 'that' what we have 'now' has to be beaten black and blue like a hooker on a Saturday night. It has to be castrated like a child-rapin' priest oughta be. It has to be shackled in the basement, fed week-old roadkill and hauled out only to chop wood and fetch water.

Government should rightfully be our bitch.

Trump is a (not 'the') awkward means to that, a halting step in the right direction; he's a blunt instrument, a jagged piece of shit-covered glass.

I'm sure you disagree with my notions about government and how I assess Trump.

That's okay. Don't be a 'tw' and I got no beef with you.

The trouble with wrecking shit is that the results are wholly unpredictable.

I used to have a similar attitude - though coming at it from a different angle and with a different end goal in mind...seems the only thing Trump voters share with revolutionary politics is nihilism. Burn it down and start again - shatter the body politic to rebuild it differently.

No, it's burn down everybody's shit but mine. :rolleyes:

"The trouble with wrecking shit is that the results are wholly unpredictable."

No, that's not the 'trouble', that's the 'point'.

#

"nihilism"

I'm no nihilist.

#

"Burn it down and start again - shatter the body politic to rebuild it differently."

Yep. That's 'optimism'. The nihilist, having no hope, just accepts the garbage and wallows in it.

##

"No, it's burn down everybody's shit but mine."

No, it's 'have the right kind of shit to begin with and defend it in rough times'.

If you don't, if you can't: :cry:

But isn't "the right kind of shit" pretty subjective?

you 'can' wear stilettos while rock hikin', but 'should' you?
 

In context: 'right' ain't all that subjective.

There are many kinds of footwear that people will argue is best from sneakers to steel arched hiking boots.
Heels? Nope, says so on the sign.

Attachment 65643

Now I bet your thinking that ain't right, you(they) should be able to wear what you want.

But if you do you'll probably get hurt maybe break an ankle. Then you'll be looking for paramedics, a mountain rescue team, an ambulance, maybe even a helicopter. All that manpower(money) and resources(mo money) to save your dumb ass.
Not to mention the cost of insurance to cover, and lawyers to defend the trail owner, medics, rescue team and shoe manufacturer from your lawsuits. :p:

"they should be able to wear what they want."

Absolutely. They 'can' wear what they like.

#

"break an ankle...paramedics, mountain rescue team, ambulance, maybe a helicopter, all to save their dumb ass."

In the world I want: they got thenselves into it, they can get themselves out of it.

#

"Not to mention the cost of insurance to cover, and lawyers to defend the trail owner, medics, rescue team and shoe manufacturer from your lawsuits."

In the world I want: financing their healthcare is 'their' business, and the court would dismiss any such case based on 'hiker beware' (your dumb ass is your concern, dumbass).

In the world I want: morons and parasites wouldn't last long.

In the current world: hikers who stumble out unprepared can get others to foot the bill for their ill-preperation.

Yeah, let's keep doin' that... :mad:

Is that a suicide note?

First indications of a recession are apparent. First to suffer will be the least innovative companies operated to make profits; not a better product.

GM is spending about $1billion more each year for steel because the scumbag Don wants to protect least productie (not innovative) industries - ie steel manufacturer.

That stupidity combined with bad designing over the past 20 years means GM must now fire 15% of its white collar employees and shut five assembly plants. The Don will deny he made it worse - because he is only preaching to brainwashed supporters - who will deny facts.

This problem is easily seen in one of the world's crappiest cars - Chevy Volt.

Clinton spend $millions in 1994 so that GM could have a world first hybrid in 1999. The Precept was canceled by Donald Trump type dummies (ie John Smith and Rick Wagoner) because George Jr said hybrid innovation was from Clinton - so it must be evil.

Business school graduates hate anything that is innovative. That will only increase costs. So they killed all hybrids to increase profits. Patriotic American companies (all foreign manufacturers) even in Asia and Europe made hybrids. Finally GM created the Chevy Volt in 2010. How many years to finally do what Honda and Toyota sold in 2001? Worse, a Chevy Volt engine cannot even recharge its battery. It is that Donald Trump dumb.

Since business school graduates (not product people) designed GM products 10 and 20 years ago, then cars like the Volt mean more and massive losses and employee firings. GM product are so bad that GM even needs V-8 engines.

A problem only made worse by The Don who has no idea what makes a business profitable. Wacko extremist is so dumb as to erect tariffs to further destroy American jobs. This is only a precursor to what is coming.

So many facts say a recession has started. George Jr did same in 2001 (destroy a Clinton economy) to create a massive downturn in 2007. That is how depressions and recessions happen.

Of course extremists will deny this. The current Obama economy is being harmed. Wackos do not like their hero being accurately described as dumb - and a daily liar.

GM simply demonstrates what has already started in other industries - in part due to obvious lies and harm created by a business school graduate.

Plans submitted this year for housing developments in four years have slowed to a trickle in many counties. Another fact that says, "Here comes the Trump economy".

That is weird... I guess I understand their explanation (arriving at the destination with an empty battery and charging there will likely be cheaper than charging using gas). Whether it's a good strategy would likely depend on your usage; if you almost never fully drain the battery, it probably is a cost saver.


But they're eliminating the Volt, so it'll be up to Tesla and foreign manufacturers to learn any such lessons.

The Chevy Volt was suppose to be 100% electric. But the design, when it was proposed, was subverted repeatedly by cost controllers. To save the design, it was patched together to a gas motor.

Read what Toyota did to implement a gas motor with a battery, energy from brakes, etc. That controller is complex - more complex than the design of a new motor. So business school graduates did what they understand. They understood obsolete technologies. So that was pushed into the Volt as a separated system.

Cost controls. Eliminate the complex interface and costs go down ... only on a spread sheet.

Chevy Volt is a kludge created because business school graduates constantly 'fixed' the design. Then they made some silly excuse that people would rarely need the motor.

BTW, gasoline uses less energy than recharging from fossil fuels burned in some distant generation station. Also explains why electric heat is also so expensive. Currently is no alternative to fossil fuels - either burned efficiently in the car or burned far away and transported to the car with greater thermodynamic losses and further battery losses.

Well it could be worse. Someone could foolishly propose hydrogen as a fuel.

What makes a hybrid so superior? Same reason why 1940 locomotives used that technology So that a rail car can go 400 miles on one gallon of fuel. Electricity stored in a battery could never do that. Too many losses.

Hybrid was the innovation in 1990s. 2020 and GM business school graduates still cannot make one. Mary Barra must now first what the Donald Trump types did that long ago.

GM (like Kmart and Sears, GE, etc) are first indicators of a recession that has started. First to be hurt are companies who made profits rather than innovated ten years ago. What happened ten years ago determines an economy today. In the case of the Volt, what happened 17 years ago is why that piece of crap exists today - destroying jobs.

I can't speak at all to how well they implemented it, but the idea itself makes sense. If you don't run out of battery, the gas motor never turns on, and it is an electric car. For regular use, you never use gas.

If you do run out of battery, you can do two things - run the motor to generate power, use the power to charge the battery, and then run off of the battery, or run the motor to generate electric power and run the motor with that power, leaving the battery drained until you can plug it in. The latter seems more efficient.

I doubt that, or it would be more efficient to run your house off of a generator than the grid.

From that article: It was a lie back then when we engineers were saying so long ago. They lied for the same reason why The Don lies. Its all about enriching the Central Committee of the Party. And raping the many fools who know only because they are liberal or conservative - do not think for themself.

Facts and numbers said Chevy Volt was promoted using Trump style lies. Like Trump, they were business school graduates - educated to even make spread sheets lie.

Another lie pushed by same liars was ethanol (ie E85). That lie also was expose here long ago by others.
Why gas prices are too high...
Rescind The Ethanol Mandate
Again, from that article is what so many naysayers should now be sheepishly admitting today:
It does not have power because GM engines often need two extra pistons to get power routinely found in patriotic Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, and Honda engines. This was also constantly discussed here long ago - horsepower per liter. Problem exists because so many wackos hate America: "Buy American" rather than do what patriots do: "Believe in the free market. Buy the best."

But patriotism does not create bigger bonuses for the Central Committee (Trump types). So even the naive here denied it back then and may still deny these many examples today.

Anyone can see why diesel-electric locomotives in the 1930s were the future. And still GM cannot make one work in 2010s - eighty years later. And GM even made locomotives. Another trophy for people who are as smart as Donald Trump.

Fortunately Volt is a first victim of what appears to be the beginning of a Trump inspired recession. Volt has long been an example of what makes America grate.

Indeed; the article itself is about how that quote was not true. I was talking about the later quotes, also in the article.

Which ones? As stated earlier, recharging from the grid is less efficient than a gasoline-electric or diesel-electric technology. Losses in creating, transporting, charging and storing energy in a battery is still inefficient.

There are only two others.
As stated earlier, I doubt it, or we'd all be running our houses off of generators.

Other factors (ie changing loads, constant maintenance, less reliability, etc) make home generation impractical. And that is only one of many reasons why batteries are not - cannot be 1/6th less expensive. Less expensive than current obsolete gas only? Yes. Only slightly. Obviously. Because even the changing load problem is massive in cars. Gasoline engines are particularly bad - efficiencies drip massively - when loads are constantly changing.

Best efficiencies are still found in gas-electric and diesel-electric technologies. GM does not even have that. Then suddenly those business school graduates will make electric only work? Well, that will probably be the technology in 30 years. But currently it still does not work - except in vehicles that never travel any distances. And in vehicles that can wait long periods to recharge.

What is the worst (most destructive) thing to do to a battery? Run it all the way down. Then batteries must be replaced often. American hybrids (from companies who let engineers design) will get about 100,00 miles from a battery. Why? Batteries are not deeply discharged. One never wants to arrive with the battery empty.

BTW why do you give credence to a guy who only recently discovered that the Volt was that crappy? He did not know what was obvious back then. So where is he getting his numbers from? He does not give a single reason why. He has a credibility problem.

Like I said, I make no claims on the actual performance of the Volt in particular.


I was just surprised by the claim that it didn't charge the battery with the gas motor, because it was counter-intuitive, but then the explanation made sense, and it is probably the correct behavior for a vehicle intended to primarily be a plug-in electric car.
The biggest factor making home generation impractical is economies of scale, which a plug-in car can take full advantage of.

That is the intended market for the Volt; the gas engine is for the rare cases when it goes past the battery range.The second quote has quotes around 'empty'; it doesn't actually go to zero. The first quote says it sustains the charge of the battery, presumably at the level GM felt was the proper minimum for the battery type they were using.

That was not the original design. Volt originally was suppose to have no engine - only batteries. But it did not do what was required - too late. So a motor was added afterwards - a kludge. Without the tiny but complex box that would make it a hybrid.

I noted that both before AND so many years ago. It was a kludge because GM engineers no longer design products. Engine was not in the original design.

Volt was so badly designed that when taken to a interview with PBS reporters, it was rolled out of the tractor trailer and would not move.

Biggest factor in home generation is changing loads. Economies of scale is a very popular myth promoted inaccurately by economists. Previous attempts to use an otherwise more efficient solution discovered other problems.

Example: over ten years ago, an airport operator was moving his entire facility off the grid. But that meant he could not have electric clocks, TVs that power on using a remote controller, etc. Because these thing draw power constantly (ie vampire consumers). Meaning generation must provide massive power to only power tiny watt appliances.

Just one of many reasons why single home power generation does not work.

Fiat tried doing same some 20 years ago (using Fiat engines). They discovered same problems. Electricity from fuel was most efficient when loads were constant. But loads vary massively in homes - subverting those efficiencies.

Hybrids do not have that problem.

Volt was suppose to be all electric. But its design ended up being so bad that a gasoline engine was added. Since that design had already taken too many years, then no time existed to properly implement a gas engine into a hybrid.

Apparently that author did not know many things. He did not know the engine could not charge its battery. He believed GM lies. And he did not understand that electric only cars still do not achieve the necessary 'less energy' requirement. And have numerous other compromises.

So Elon Musk is spending so much to still fix those problems.

A battery company A123 was not so successful - was not doing the necessary innovations. So they went bankrupt in 2012.

Too many problems still remain to be solved. Hybrids have not yet achieved their superiority. And are the future. All electric cars need maybe another 20 years of development.

Meanwhile, The Don is attacking GM repeatedly today. He will not admit why he has caused GM's necessary 15% employee layoff. He protected the anti-America steel manufacturers by doing what always destroys trade and jobs - tariffs. So GM's costs increased by $1 billion annually. Directly traceable to a president with micro intelligence and an excessive ego. Who then blames all other for disasters that he creates.

Volt is an early victim. Questions remain if a Chevy Spark may be the next victim.

Comparison

If the owner of a Volt makes lots of long trips, their cost can approach $1.60 per 25 miles, which is more than that of a Prius, at $1.29.

If they never run down the battery, their cost is $1.01.

Which approach is better depends on expected usage.

The first x miles of the trip will be at $1.01/25 mi, and $1.60 after that. It starts cheaper, but there's a point at which it gets more expensive than the Prius.

(Assumptions from the page: gas is $2.69/gal, electricity $0.13/kWh. Local rates will affect the crossover point as well.)

Those numbers are highly inflated. GM cars are routinely designed to get a highest EPA number at the expense of reality. EPA says the engine gets 42 MPG. Most owners are getting 35. Road and Track could not exceed 39 MPG.

Meanwhile, EPA highway mileage numbers are achieved or exceeded in competition products. For example, my Honda Accord, rated 28 MPG on the highway, routinely does over 30 MPG in all driving - local or highway. Lowest I ever got was 28 in much local driving short distances in winter.

GM's 42 MPG for Volt is clearly suspect. It was always a bad design since it was originally designed to only be an EV - no gasoline motor. It took almost 10 years to design and still does not do what superior cars do - a true hybrid.

As a kludge, numbers that GM promotes are always suspect. It is and should be a early victim of The Don's campaign to harm America business with tariffs, trade wars, subverting trade deals, and other job destroying actions.

Just talked to a Chevy salesman. They sold no Volts. They are not even permitted to sell Bolts. And the Chevy Spark is another disaster. They often do not have any in stock since it does not sell.

Meanwhile, I believe Ford sells a true hybrid that can also be charged from AC for short distances. Then a cold gasoline engine need not run when it is least efficient and causing most wear.

Eh, they're all based on best-case scenarios. My Prius doesn't get 52 unless I hit a major traffic jam on the Beltway (suspect definition of "best-case scenario"). On average, it's below 45. YMMV (ha ha!)

tw missed his calling, he could have been the next Dr Seuss. With his talent for taking a fact or two and weaving a story that works his fantasies and prejudices into the scenario. The scary part is he believes it. :rolleyes:

On the bright side, Trumpy had a no good very bad day yesterday.

Volt as designed was so bad that they had to remove batteries and add a motor. There is no replacement for that Kludge. Trump actually did good for America. His tariffs killed crap called a Volt.

As usual, GM's mythical 42 MPG from its motor is only a pathetic 35 MPG. My Civics routinely did 40 MPG. A Lexus hybrid just up from Virginia - he was routinely doing in the mid to high 40s MPG. That is a larger car.

Many Chevy dealers are not permitted to sell the Bolt. Bolt is the $50,000 attempt to compete with Tesla. Obviously it is also not selling.

Chevy Spark, that should have been a hybrid, was designed using last generations technology. No hybrid version (as best I can tell) is even in the planning stage. Another trophy for the GM showcase.

No fact yet justified the Volt. It was crap. Any advantage it has is even found in hybrids from Ford. Volt is another GM trophy alongside the EV1.

A Volt battery only gets 40 miles? Golf carts designed to be licensed are almost as good.

The automotive press has also been just as critical. So the naive also call them demented.

Which part was significant?

They will sell you a Bolt for like $38K, with a range of 238 miles per charge.

This is actually ahead of Tesla Model 3. Currently you can buy a Model 3 for $45K, with a "mid range" battery pack and a range of 260 miles. They are hoping to find the efficiencies to bring that down to $38K for a "standard" battery pack with a range of 220 miles, in the next six months, and they have a whole set of reservations for that car at that price.

I read the Car and Driver review for the Bolt and they love it

I would not buy one... I would get the Tesla.

Because Autopilot.

Due to massive overhead, GM cannot make a profit if they do not sell 50,000 annually. The Corvette has always been a problem due to so few sales.

I was surprised to learn that Bolt can only be sold by a few dealers. At 20,000, it does not and cannot make a profit. Volts sales were also as pathetic.

Because their cars are designed by engineers, for example, Mazda made a profit on the Miyata in its first year at 17,000. Due to the 'economy of scale' myth, GM can never make a profit on sales that tiny. Meaning the Volt and Bolt remain unprofitable.

Ironically the Chevy Cruz. that sells just under 200,000 annually, is also being canceled as unprofitable. Another trophy for The Donald showcase.

Tesla dealerships are prohibited by law in Michigan, Texas, Connecticut, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. They are allowed five dealerships in all of New York State.

That's another reason why I would buy one if I could. Because fuck that.

But they're not dealerships are they? They're Tesla showrooms and service centers owned and operated by Tesla? If this becomes legal how long before Toyota and Ford start doing this to enhance their bottom line?

We should let LJ weigh in on this, but --

How long before they can freely sell the things they create? (In a free market?)

Anyone should be able to sell anything to anyone, as long as it's legal. It seems to me that many/most car companies will still want the leave the messy business of dealing with the general public to some other... entity.

Tesla's early market is people looking for a car averaging $100K. They are all early adopters; they've drunk the kool-aid. I suspect it will be a very different experience selling to average Josephine -- who walks in, with a credit rating lower than mine, and still wants the premium cupholders (and expects to charge the thing through a wall outlet and an extension cord out the window).

I'm not so sure

link

I can envision the day when I can go to Amazon and order a car to my specifications and have it delivered to a dealership nearby. Or perhaps they can deliver to ANY dealer, like ordering tires and having them delivered to my tire shop.

Also, I can see porch pirates moving up to grand theft auto if they deliver to my door and I'm not at home. I dunno how my UPS mail store, who so ably handles my packages for me, would handle THAT!

That's used cars though.

Yabbut. Online shopping(!), plus they bring the car to your door (or send a token to get it out of a vending machine). You get a week to decide if you like it, and they'll take your old car in trade. How nutty is that?

:D

And in my own personal opinion, buying a new car is a losing deal - the car loses value the second you drive it off the lot, and insurance companies don't give a rat's ass if you wreck it on the way home from the dealership - you will NOT get full replacement value.

When you buy a "certified" used car, the vehicle has presumably been gone over by a crew of professional repair dudes, you can research typical problems with that particular make/model, and check costs against other similar vehicles sold in your area (price comparison tools), thereby ensuring that you're not paying too much for a decent vehicle.

You know, if I ever thought I would need another vehicle, I'd definitely consider this service. My Chevy Silverado (285,000 miles) and Volvo station wagon (82,000 miles) are both 20 years old and in excellent condition. I fully expect them both to outlive me, but if they don't, I'd definitely do some research on the Carvana webite.

With Chevy's new design your old Silverado's value just went way up!

Fine but keep in mind you're paying for all that, plus buying a car sight unseen.
Professional repair dudes know what they have to take care of, and what can be hidden so it won't be a problem until it's your problem. You're still buying a pig in a poke for probably more money than a private sale, but if you trust them, and you're willing to pay for the convenience, that's cool.

Heh. I think EVERY full-size truck's value just went up. Honestly, the new Silverado exterior is awful. :greenface

2020 Chevy Silverado HD is 910 pound-feet of ugly

http://cellar.org/2017/2020-Chevy-Si...or-768x410.jpg

As for my Silverado, I wouldn't sell this thing for any amount of money! In my opinion, the older Silverados are some of the toughest, longest-lasting, always dependable trucks ever made. Mine has a nearly indestructible 350 vortec engine, the body doesn't have a lick of rust, starts first time every time, takes me up and down crazy gravel roads in any weather, it's got a hauling package so I can load it to the gills and it doesn't falter or complain, it just keeps going. Other than regular maintenance and the occasional renew/repair job (I did have the steering replaced a few years ago), it has been reliably worry-free.

If my truck somehow died, I'd absolutely buy an exact duplicate. :heart-on:

But you have a week to like it or send it back. That means (as you should do when buying ANY used car), you research the make/model first, choose the one you like, then take it to your own mechanic and have him give it a good going over.

Enh. It's all theoretical anyway, since my two vehicles are going to last at least as long as I do. ;)

Remember the old square-bodied pre-1987 Chevy/GMC pick-em-up-trucks?

I used to joke that, because they were made for so long, you could set one on fire, push it over a cliff into a pond, then come back a year later and $500 would put that sumbitch back on the road.

As long as ya didn't mind holes in your cab corners.

And the rocker panels.

And the bedsides.

And the bed.

I still see those old trucks on the road all the time, out here. They're usually pretty beat up, but they're still rolling and that's saying something.