Comment by asoneth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by asoneth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> “Oh that 7 minutes of checking my email while I refill my tank was horrible. Leaving the house so much earlier if I hadn’t done it the day before was truly oppressive. And these days I luxuriate in those rare gifted 20 minutes of leisure when I choose to recharge my battery while on the go!”

Please avoid strawman arguments.

If you're truly curious why some people prefer longer electric charging stops on road trips to shorter bi-weekly gas station stops:

Even when not strictly necessary for refueling, my family takes a ~10 minute break after every ~4 hours of driving to let everyone stretch and use a restroom. No one has objected to extending these stops to ~15 minutes when we take the EV. The primary inconvenience has been that it has constrained where we stop, as many of our old stops do not have charging infrastructure.

Whereas a refueling stop during a shorter trip (including running errands or during a daily commute) introduces an entirely new stop that serves no additional purpose.

As someone who takes several long road trips a year, it's wild to hear about only 10 minute breaks every four hours.

My wife and I often do at least a ten minute break every 90 minutes! The idea of just grinding on and on for hours feels like torture. My car forcing frequent stops to charge sounds great! I'd go for a nice walk, maybe find a local eatery.

There is a difference between a straw man and satire presented in a clear tone that cannot be mistaken as a reconstruction of the other person’s statements.

A clearer straw man is the presentation of leaving a location a sparse few minutes earlier as significant cause and disproportionate offset of the also negligible time to pull a cable to a car to plug it in & briefly wrap & tuck it away when you leave.

I also clearly do understand that people may not mind a longer stop: I didn’t contradict that sentiment directly and otherwise expressly stated the opinion that each option seems to have somewhat equal offsetting considerations.

> There is a difference between a straw man and satire presented in a clear tone that cannot be mistaken as a reconstruction of the other person’s statements.

You are correct, my apologies. However, it's unclear to me how satire is any more useful a contribution to this discussion.

I think there is potential for useful satire in nearly any conversation where teasing out nuances of opinion and meaning are also useful. It serves as a tool for highlighting and contrast by virtue of extremes or absurdity or surfacing of illogical reasoning.

I was fine with the comment you are complaining about. Not everything is factional

Reply on news.ycombinator.com