JoshuaFalken

Some years ago, I wanted to know if an electric car would fit my lifestyle. I drove a gasoline sedan at the time. I decided to refuel my car at the end of every day, and take notes on the distance I had driven and where the needle was on the gas gauge. I did this for two months in the summer, when I knew I did most of my driving. The data I collected about my own habits showed me I didn't really drive a lot most days. There were only a handful of times I went over 100km in a day. The gas needle rarely dipped below three quarters full, and never below half.

There's about 12,000 gas stations in Canada, and nearly 9,000 charging stations - up 30% last year. If you're able to plug in for fifteen minutes or so at a destination you're already stopping at, that really helps with the longer distance issue. It's only getting easier to have a low range car as the years go by.

In my view, driving out of town every other week is a poor argument for buying a vehicle with twice the range than it needs the other 339 days of the year.

That's another good point. I guess I assumed that A-B-A was a trip to the grocers and back, for example, but a trip out to the countryside to see the inlaws for the weekend would count as two trips, the A-B and the B-A. Counting the grocery trip as two trips doesn't seem right to me, I don't take hours in there.

For what it's worth, the various electrification plans I've been involved with all assume that these 'long stops' being the employment location, the hotel, the theatre, the doctors offices, all have charging on site. If this were the case - even just at the workplace - it would be a big help for electric vehicles that have small capacity batteries.

Visiting family out of town every weekend is 104 trips a year. Commuting each work day is 520 trips. That's 16% of all those trips that are long distance.

Once you add in the grocery getting; the drives to school (only 10% of children walk or ride bikes); the doctors appointments; the local leisure related trips; I can see how 90% of trips could be short range - and that's still accounting for taking a long weekly trip, which I don't think most people do.

From the way you wrote, "The car needs to be able to handle that, without being a huge pain to charge all the time," gives me the impression you don't like electric vehicles and might not be open to any of these conversations without it turning into an argument. I could be misinterpreting your tone, and if so I apologise, but I don't think the content nor the conclusion of that study should be called moronic.

I see your point, though my own experience is similar to @[email protected], and perhaps just as anecdotal as yours, is that people more often take trips that are A-B-A, A-C-A, A-D-A, than they do A-B-C-D-A.

I suppose it's just a matter of convenience or time constraints, but running more errands in one trip is an overall time save in many occurrences, and more people should do that.

Makes me wonder how many of these 'trips' are one stop then back home and is many contain multiple stops. Or if it would drastically change the average to remove the multiple stop trips.

Thanks for raising that point, I hadn't considered it before.

It was found recently that most trips were less than three miles, with only 2% of all trips made are more than 50 miles.

Might just be me, but I don't like double tap to skip. Findroid has another scrubbing method I've not seen anywhere else but I wish it were the standard.

When you drag your finger to the right, it says how far you're about to skip ahead. The longer your swipe, the further you go. When you release, it scrubs to that timestamp. Same with going backwards.

I find it faster, more accurate, and more versatile. The only thing I don't like about the Findroid player is the UI timeout is twice as long as I need it to be.

From what that article says, this fee is only charged to a PayPal balance. I have no clue who's keeping a balance in a PayPal account, but it's not like they're going to charge someone's payment methods.

Not defending them, I just find it surprising that they have any customers this could even apply to.

Not sure why people are beating up on @[email protected] for saying his opinion. Different people value different things.

I think I can answer your question though. Buying a console is a plug and play experience. Building a PC is not. Not everyone has the time, the patience, or the technical experience required to purchase compatible components, assemble the machine, and install the various software.

Anyone that's ever bought a prepared meal has overpaid in comparison to acquiring the ingredients, prepping them, and cooking the dish. It's worth the price to do so because I sure as hell don't want to spend time making a bowl of French onion soup.

If only people would remember there's two other steps before recycling. Not really helpful to corporate marketing strategies though now is it.

Perhaps that is one of the intended purposes - to trick people into thinking its a new video, so more ads are delivered by such mistakes.

Some more analytically inclined creators have been aware of this musical thumbnail game long before YouTube implemented what I described. They would just do it manually before, or perhaps even had custom software to do it for them.

I'm not aware of any option that allows creators to enter multiple titles in the same fashion as the thumbnail mechanism, though it wouldn't surprise me. There have long been videos that dynamically change their titles based on video analytics. Perhaps most famously exemplified by Tom Scott.

Unfortunately, when these types of titles draw views, this trend won't be slowing down any time soon.

I'd encourage people to look into the DeArrow extension, which replaces both clickbait titles (like how OP did on this post) and the thumbnail to remove the eye catching nature of the originals.

One of the many mechanisms within the YouTube algorithm these days is a feature that allows creators to upload multiple thumbnails, and the system switches between them to see which one works better for which audience. From what I've heard, this thumbnail feature even leads to years old videos being 'revived' and pulling in additional ad revenue for the creator.

That's great for the creators, but it does have this side effect where the - let's say quality - of thumbnails and titles is sliding in a less that ideal direction. Though this could be said of the platform, or even the internet, in general.