This is not the whole story because not every heating day is equally cold. I have a high end cold climate heat pump in Colorado (which works great btw). I use about 1/3 of my total annual heating energy in January, despite heating for >6 months of the year. I'll use 10% of my annual energy budget for a long weekend if its -10F, and that's all heat pump (I don't even have backup strip heat). It would be 20% if i was using electric resistnace for those 4 days. Electric resistance is really not great, so folks really should get the best heat pumps they can that cover the coldest normal days. It's fine to install strips as a true backup but you're going to have some very high bills and high carbon if you're using it 20-30 days/year. If its hydro/nuclear power you'll still come ahead on carbon but that's not the case everywhere.
spidermanchild
It's something. I'd like to see something more comprehensive, like also public transit for the islands and dramatically higher gas/car costs. Maui has like two roads, it can't be that hard to add a train and kill all the tourist parking. Blows my mind that this isn't a thing already.
Suing oil companies is great too but why not actually eliminate oil from the state entirely and make tourists pay for it? Hell I'd price out carbon for their flights and find a way to charge for that too, and spend the money on decarbonizing the entire state and climate adaptation.
That all being said, this is a start so let's build from here and force the wealthiest tourists to be carbon neutral and take care of these places.
People that finance literally will pay less each month for the car. I don't understand the semantics game here to avoid calling this a "discount". If you pay less each month it's ok to call it a discount. I'd argue neither scenario justifies a news story, but the Tesla demand cliff is trendy (justifiably so of course, fuck Nazis) so here we are.
You're just playing semantics. Lots of customers finance cars. Before the "discount" they had to pay $X/month, now they pay $(X-discount)/month. They literally pay less each month because of the discounted, subsidized rates. It's a discount for folks that finance through Tesla. I'm not sure why you think you're the only person that understands the simple concept of interest here. You've just decided that the definition of discount only applies to MSRP arbitrarily. Is a point of sale tax credit not a discount either?
I only opened this thread becuaae I knew this picture would be at the top. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Appreciate the conversation, and I definitely bat an eye at the overpriced mall crawlers people blow absurd amounts of money on to get groceries. I actually do think a $50k car is generally a bit nicer than a 20k car, so in my analogy that could maybe be justified, but $120k is getting a bit silly with marginal gains that are not meaningful (to me at least).
But back to bikes, curious of you're actually able to compare these bikes you mentioned apples to apples. Same geometry, saddle, tires, grip tape, etc? If it's frame compliance you're after, I'm curious for your thoughts on some of the higher end steel frames out there. I ride mostly gravel and am large, so e.g long setback seatposts and 45mm tires soak up everything to the point that frame compliance matters less (but still some of course). I could see that being a bigger deal for smaller/lighter riders though. On the other end of the spectrum for trail bikes the frame just needs to be stiff, so I see zero benefit to carbon there (outside weight of course, but thankfully people learned to care less about weight in the MTB world finally). Back to road I'd also argue aero matters more than those last few grams for just about everything outside of massive climbs. I recall hearing that on any road below 7-8%, aero is still "more important" than weight, meaning you should spend your money there instead. Who knows though, every few years there's a new trend and every few years I find I value comfort over speed even more.
I just love riding bikes and I spend way too much time learning about tech I have very little desire to actually buy. I'm glad you found a bike you're super stoked to ride, that's what that matters at the end of the day!
Maybe. Tire rubber compounds continue to improve, along with construction and tread design. So newer tires might be just as grippy and more efficient. Or way less grippy and way more efficient. Or way grippier and just as efficient. It just depends on the tradeoffs the manufacturer decided to make.
Look I get it, I love cycling and own a few nice bikes ($1-4k) but let's not pretend that the value is there at $11k. Outside of world tour riders, there's no way you're actually faster or more comfortable at $11k than about $5k. You already get carbon frame/wheels and near top of the line components for $5k-ish. So to OPs question, to me that's the upper limit for what fancy bikes should cost for actual normal humans. Realistically 2k for road/gravel, maybe 3k for MTB is jusy barely slower and almost imperceptively less nice than 5k bikes. "High end" is only meaningful if there are actual tangible benefits that come along with the price tag. I support anyone out there on bikes, i just think $11k is a bit silly in a world with this much wealth inequality. I'm sure some folks think the exact same thing about me and my bikes tbf. Have fun and be safe out there.
What does this have to do with any economist? Are they supposed to be able to predict a cheeto imposing absurd global tarriffs? "Once in a lifetime" is just an expression the media likes to use.
It seems like the obvious solution is to use education and career experience to bring folks over that will support their economies. The side benefit will be relatively good cultural alignment. No need to bring race into this at all, just do the brain drain.
I am of the fuckcars persuasion myself, so while this economic policy is beyond stupid I can't help but see a silver lining here.
Maybe the study was more robust that this article suggests, but this doesn't tell me anything. Humans are amazing at regulating our remperature via sweat, so I have zero doubt that normal healthy people will have the same internal and even skin temps wearing different color clothing in different conditions. If the group wearing e.g. dark codlors just sweat X% more to compensate, we can't draw any conclusions at all. Clothing is complicated, since airflow and moisture retention matter significantly, but we know for a fact that lighter colors reflect more energy than darker colors.