butwhywhyoh

> If trees did not shed their leaves, their soft vegetation would certainly freeze during winter time, damaging and, no doubt, killing the tree.

This is just plain wrong, and makes no sense. If the leaves froze and died during the winter, how is this different from the tree losing the leaves to begin with?

Trees lose their leaves to stop the process of drawing water up from the roots through their trunks. If water were to go through the freeze/thaw cycle inside the long "straws" of the tree trunk, the tree would be torn apart from the expansion/contraction cycle of the ice.

It would be exactly as funny and exactly as interesting, which is to say: not very.

This is right up there with noticing that sometimes the "b" in certain English words is completely silent! Haha isn't that totally irrational and crazy you guys??

> I just don't get it. Governments around the world and spending trillions on this stuff so why is there no clear answer on this?

Why would there need to be a "clear answer" on something that quite obviously wouldn't work?

Everyone here has done a great job of explaining to you the complexity of your "simple" solution, but you don't seem to want to accept any of the explanations. You seem to think that your back-of-the-napkin calculation can just be magically turned into a major part of our transportation infrastructure.

Cars aren't television remotes. The batteries in the cars aren't your standard AA battery. The situation is far more complicated than you're making it out to be.

It sounds like you _literally have a choice_.

In other words, an elaborate justification for him joining the other YouTube clickbait clowns.

Been watching him from basically when his channel started many, many years ago. Was really disappointed to see him give in to this.

For every story like this, I imagine there's (at least) one other where some green engineer set up a simulation with garbage assumptions, and argued that since the calculation was done by <insert advanced software package>, they must be right.

I could tell you many stories of witnessing otherwise smart engineers run the worst possible simulations I've ever seen, but argue that their results were correct simply because the computer generated them.

You used the word literally four times in your post, and even twice in one sentence.

What's the fascination with this word? It seems to be used to add completely unneeded emphasis, rather than anything resembling its original definition.

But you just said "no degradation".

You're right. I guess if you can't tell the difference, that means everyone who claims to be able to tell the difference is lying!

I'm not particularly familiar with squirrels and something about that "photo" looks very off. If you showed it to me in a vacuum I'd just assume someone was trying to make a highly stylized version of something they had a photo reference for, but under no circumstances would I believe that's a real photo.

I guess because you're happy with the Amazon Prime service, it's OK for them to use scummy business practices to sign up the OP?

I'm genuinely confused by your take here.

Wait a minute. If this site is true, then everyone doesn't get everything they want out of life 100% of the time?

This is fascinating!

Could you explain why those are things you "shouldn't have to do"?

Who owes you this functionality?

How exactly would you expect someone to ask questions when you don't include a way for them to see what you're talking about?

My first question to your original post would be: "where's the link so I can see what you built?"

Exactly. I have never met anyone in my life with the fear they are describing in learning to cook. Is there a person on earth actually afraid of the "literal fire on their stove"? I don't think an app is going to solve that problem.

Would you give this same critique to someone who was building a go-kart in their backyard for fun?

"Car companies like Honda and Ford have been around for decades, and those vehicles are going to drive considerably better than anything someone working in their backyard could make.

Plus, from my own experience, I've been driving these cars for the past 20 years, and abandoning that experience in how they feel and handle is a no-go.

So good luck, but you've got significant barriers to overcome"

I mean, this is generally good advice, but this reads like an infomercial where they show someone struggling REALLY hard to boil water to make a pot of spaghetti, when we all know it's really not that hard.

They try to make finding your pip executable sound difficult, and even more difficult would be to understand what interpreter its tied to. Except...

> pip -V

> # pip 19.0.3 from /usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip (python 2.7)

I'm all for evangelizing best practices, but let's at least be honest about it.

You just restated what the OP said, but tried to paint it somehow in a more positive light. You yourself stated you are "eating fewer ... highly rewarding foods".

So what exactly are you contradicting in their statement?

Since all of the other comments are just people pasting links to their personal favorite thing that is tangentially related, let me be the first to say that this looks fantastic. I often run into the same frustrations that you're attempting to solve here, and for a demo version it looks like its in great shape. I will likely try to use this at work this week to take it for a test drive.

But you guys, this software isn't practicing good Design. None of those UI elements provide me with any _satisfaction_. I don't care how efficient it is if it doesn't follow solid Design principles (like massive checkboxes that take seconds to activate).

/s

What if the things that were built were built right the first time and take a long time to decay? If you walk around a correctly built city where nothing is falling apart, by this logic, you'd naively think this place was dead and dying.

This kind of evangelizing sounds terrifying to me. I'm expecting more of these "whimsical" "fun" UI elements all done in the service of some poorly defined ideal of capital-D Design! The capital D is important.

Please, just stay away from my car accelerator.

Multiple times a day sure sounds like the opposite of the definition of "rare"

> A neighbor complained, and the city cited him, claiming all the vehicles appeared to be inoperable. It also issued violations for other backyard items — car parts, generators, propane tanks and fruit that had fallen off his orange and grapefruit trees.

Cited for fruit that fell off of your own trees into your own yard. Absolute insanity.

Absolutely. Came here to say exactly the same thing. The first couple of steps were clear and informative. The last step was almost a joke.

I suppose then you're a proponent of photographing all famous works of art and displaying them on a webpage somewhere, because if the painting is worth looking at, the medium shouldn't matter at all, right?

I guess going to a museum to view artwork is an incredibly shallow experience for you?

The limitations are immediately aggravating. Have to reuse correct letters and can't reuse incorrect letters.

For that one semester, until the cycle repeats itself. Smarter students in the future won't allow their professor to join the class chats.

When someone tells you a funny story in person do you respond with this question too?

Why does this force me to scroll through this like a slideshow?

Anyone else reminded of the bad-old-days when Flash websites were common and broke all UI norms?

Teach your kids not to write follow-up articles to things found on Hacker News to gain internet points