Forum: Author Hangout

It's become fashionable to depict horrible violent worlds where everyone is scheming and murdering in each other in increasingly gruesome ways.

The "It's Snow White meets Sopranos with a dash of Game of Thrones" approach.

It's an overall violent world. How's it go... If it bleeds, it leads.
Fiction is not divorced from the news in that regards. If only sunshine and rainbows are presented, the book and or news would lose badly to the more violent presentation.

To each their own.

Denial is a terrible thing. Exchanging one reality for another only to one day wake up and realize actual reality has only gotten worse.

Precisely because there's enough trouble in the real world, I've just had my fill.

I think most sane people would agree with that. Turning my head and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Turning my head and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

Seeking out entertainment that reflects the senseless violence of the real world won't make it go away either.

Choosing to seek out entertainment that presents a better world isn't pretending that it doesn't exist in the real world.

Denial is a terrible thing. Exchanging one reality for another only to one day wake up and realize actual reality has only gotten worse.

Remus, I enjoy your comments, but I have to take a little different view of this.

You also said,

How's it go... If it bleeds, it leads.
Fiction is not divorced from the news in that regards. If only sunshine and rainbows are presented, the book and or news would lose badly to the more violent presentation.

These are two different statements. One is about the overall nature of human society and the world, the other is about "news." The first can be studied objectively. The latter is subjective -- "news judgment" as they call it in journalism -- and is mostly the result of negativity bias (bad outweighs good and is more prominent in our minds) and confirmation bias (our minds sort and shape the "facts" to fit our beliefs -- "See! I'm right!")

Objectively, the world is better than it has ever been. The percentage of the world's population living on less than $5.50/day (2011 dollars) has dropped twenty percentage points in the last twenty years (see here). The rate of violent deaths is also much lower today, both in very recent terms and over very long time periods. (See here.)

And, as tenyari has pointed out, dark, violent, dystopian stories do NOT necessarily prove more popular than works that focus on awe, love, and community. She gives examples from current popular media, but themes of friendship (ET, for example), good triumphing over evil (Star Wars, all of the Marvel movies), and just love and family (romance novels, Hallmark movies) enjoy tremendous popular success. In fact, a great many of the most highly rated works on this site are upbeat, hopeful, and portray their characters achieving love, family, happiness, and success.

I admit that "critical acclaim" may lean more toward dark, dystopian, morally ambiguous works, but I suspect this is, again, more like "news judgment" than reality -- it's negativity bias and confirmation bias at work. Plus, we unfortunately tend to think negative, critical people are smarter, even though we wouldn't want to work for them.
"Harvard professor Teresa Amabile shows that those publishing negative book reviews are seen as smarter and more competent than those giving positive reviews of the same book. 'Only pessimism sounds profound. Optimism sounds superficial, she wrote."

Is there a market for the dark, the dystopian, the works that stare into what the authors portray as the abyss of humanity? Yup. But I don't think it is either the bigger market or that those works are more "real." And I think the evidence backs me up.

If it's to be broken down by subjectivity, the entire topic is subjective.

I see what's sold as news as reflective of society as a whole. News is a business with a product to sell. They hope to attract advertising to fund their business. The viewers/readers go away if they don't like the product produced.

A vast number of people pay for their daily dose of doom and gloom by sitting through adverts.

- So much sap nearby trees are drying out.

Funny!

Football and GOT mixed would be awesome

Soccer or American Football?

American 'football' is just rugby with armour.

British Football is really Association Football, aka Soccer :-)

The strange things is that US Football is more dangerous than Rugby.

It's gets more serious injuries. The theory being that the players have a false sense of security due to the padding and so go after each other harder.

I recall reading that after the introduction of Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS), a study showed that cars with ABS were suffering the same rate of accidents, including in slippery conditions when ABS was most useful, as cars without. The theory was that drivers felt more secure with ABS, and drove more aggressively in those conditions.

The theory was that drivers felt more secure with ABS, and drove more aggressively in those conditions.

If it still holds true today, that is probably the case.

If not, there's another possible explanation.

One driver centric solution before ABS breaks was for the driver to manually "pump" the breaks.

From what I've read, manually pumping the break on a car with ABS breaks is actually counter productive.

So potentially, when ABS breaks first came out, drivers not used to ABS breaks and used to manually pumping the break were defeating the point of the ABS breaks.

From what I've read, manually pumping the break on a car with ABS breaks is actually counter productive.

It is counter productive. The whole point of pumping the breaks was a rapid clamp and release of the brake shoes and pads. It was also known as cadence braking.
In many ABS systems, there are in-line valves in the brake line. These days they are electronically controlled. Those valves rapidly cycle during heavy braking. Pumping the brakes causes those valves to reset every time. As far as the car knows, each application of foot pressure is a separate braking incidence. Pumping the brakes on an ABS system resets the entire system each time. Including those valves. The anti-lock braking system (ABS) takes time to initiate. It's not unknown for such systems to lock up under pump braking conditions.
Next time it rains if you have an ABS equipped vehicle, go to an empty parking lot, and try it. Rapidly pump the brakes while trying to turn. Plan on the brakes locking up. I can make my Silverado lock up every time.

Proponents claim driverless cars will be safer than manually-controlled cars. While that might be true if the driver is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or smartphones, or physically impaired (eg tired), all the existing precedents point to driverless cars being deleterious to good drivers.

If there were only driverless cars on the road that would probably be true.

There is already considerable public information that the politicians intend to severely restrict the ownership of POVs (banning all vehicles using "carbon emitting fuels") by 2035.

They'll certainly try. They will also certainly fail. Especially in rural settings.

Range is certainly a shortcoming of electric cars.
I've traveled from NYC to Seattle in three days. That would be impossible for an electric vehicle.
The issue is recharging time.
Unlike a gas or diesel engine, recharge time is in terms of hours, not minutes to fuel the car. That is assuming there is a place to recharge.
There is a design that would allow for rapid battery swap, but that would require all electric cars to use the same battery for feasibility. That's not going to happen.

Unlike a gas or diesel engine, recharge time is in terms of hours, not minutes to fuel the car. That is assuming there is a place to recharge.

There is a way around that if the idea ever gets to market.

The problem with traditional hybrids is they have two transmissions electric and mechanical increasing the weight and reducing fuel efficiency of what the vehicle would have in either gas or electric mode vs a straight gas or straight electric car.

IIRC, when GM first announced the Chevy Volt hybrid car, they announced it as electric transmission only and all the gas engine did was run an electric generator at a constant rate when the batteries needed charging.

Basically a gas/electric car that runs the way a diesel/electric locomotive runs.

Other hybrid makers complained to the US government and got the government to declare that GM couldn't call that a hybrid and when the volt finally made it to market it was a traditional dual transmission hybrid.

Of course the government folded on that.
It wasn't just Chevy that tried that either. Volkswagen, and others did as well.
The Volkswagen blue motion was a more egregious example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion
It set world records on fuel economy. However, it was banned from import to the US after a concerted on the part of the big three auto makers in the US.
The version that set the records had the generator system you spoke of installed among other technology.

IIRC: GM/Chevy tried to focus group rebranding the original design of the volt as an "extended range electric vehicle". But apparently the focus groups didn't like that branding because they changed the design to a traditional hybrid.

It wasn't just Chevy that tried that either. Volkswagen, and others did as well.
The Volkswagen blue motion was a more egregious example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion

If you read the article at that link, the BlueMotion is not the same design as what the Volt was originally intended to be. The article clearly indicates it has a mechanical, not an electrical transmission (article talks about gear ratios) which you wouldn't have with a electrical transmission with a direct drive electric motor on each wheel.

It wasn't just Chevy that tried that either. Volkswagen, and others did as well.
The Volkswagen blue motion was a more egregious example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion

If you read the article at that link, the BlueMotion is not the same design as what the Volt was originally intended to be. The article clearly indicates it has a mechanical, not an electrical transmission (article talks about gear ratios) which you wouldn't have with a electrical transmission with a direct drive electric motor on each wheel.

The BlueMotion had several configurations, what you stated is among them.

The underlying moral is, if you want less fossil fuel use, why prevent the record holder from import?

Setting up such a system isn't hard to do in a garage either. I've done it, just to test the feasibility of it.
In my case, I used a 74 mustang II. Drive wheels powered by electric motors, no mechanical connection to the motor. The motor is a diesel engine out of a portable welding rig (Kubota V1505 out of a Miller big blue).
It's not rocket science by any means.
The weak point is the batteries. Mostly I just run on the current from the generator. That particular motor is designed for the draw down of heavy current from the generator as would happen if you were welding with it.
It gets 50mpg just drawing from the generator. If I had a source of decent batteries, I could double that by keeping the initial charge of the batteries from my solar output at home.

The premise was well worked out a long time ago with trains as you've previously noted. People mistakenly think when they hear a train motor ramp up, it's to pull the train. It's actually the draw down from the load that causes that. One of those trains could power a small to medium neighborhood.

The reason it was banned in the US was due to failure to meet US emissions standards, not because of lobbying. Turns out that the failure was even worse than thought since VW was faking the test results.

The reason it was banned in the US was due to failure to meet US emissions standards, not because of lobbying. Turns out that the failure was even worse than thought since VW was faking the test results.

US emmission standards are much lower than European standards.
What you quoted was the official bullshit line.
You will also come across another line of bullshit if you dig past the emissions lie. You will find some BS that says it failed on safety standards. Which once again, doesn't wash because the Euro standards are higher than the US counter part.

US emmission standards are much lower than European standards

Not true. The EU allows higher levels for diesels than gasoline fueled vehicles. That's where VW ran into problems in the US and led them to falsify emissions results.

Not true. The EU allows higher levels for diesels

You need to do a better job of verification.
https://chemicals.basf.com/global/en/Monomers/adblue.html
The US doesn't require adblue.
If you're looking at 'just' the diesel it would not be true.
However with the requirements for adblue, it's another story.

The US doesn't require adblue.

Right, but the same technology is available in the US under different brand names and the generic term DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid).

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/722580

Urea tanks will be standard equipment for most new diesel trucks, buses, cars, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) manufactured in the United States after Jan. 1, 2010.

Being available and being mandated by government are two different things.

Being available and being mandated by government are two different things.

https://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/do-all-new-diesel-engine-use-def/

This says it's mandatory for new trucks since 2010.

They are not the same thing. A fuel treatment verses an exhaust treatment.
If you poured Adblue into the diesel, you'll only manage to get a massive mechanics bill.

They are not the same thing.

They are exactly the same chemical, urea. And DEF stands for Diesel Exhaust Fluid. It is not a fuel treatment.

Adblue is not the same as American DEF. Go look up the chemicals in use for each.

Getting back to the original point, the Euro standards are in fact tighter than the US versions. They have been for a very long time.

Euro standards are on par with Japanese standards.

Also remember the original point included fuel economy. I've followed the blue motion technology since VW invented it. I've got a mass of documentation for it as I tried to import a Golf with it. First it was the bullshit about emissions, when I proved that wrong, they threw out the safety standards. Still working on that part.

However, crash impact standards are definitely different between Europe and America. They know this. Short of buying ten of them and crashing them into a wall to reproduce the US standard, it looks like they have a stranglehold on it.

Bottom line is, it was blocked for import for commercial reasons. No US manufacturer can compete with it for fuel economy.

I've since made my own way. I got hold of four Seimens Sivetec MSA 3300 motors, and tied two of them to a Kubota V1505 diesel. The next step is to work out an exaust treatment system.

I still run a 76 Kenworth cabover with a VT 903 Cummins motor in it.

It gets what I need done. But it's not exactly environmentally friendly by today's standards. This is more a matter of fuck you to the asshats that talk out or both sides of their mouth.

They fly all over the world, ride in limousines all while telling us plebiscites how we should live and suffer to help the environment.

Yet at the same time put up roadblocks on actual solutions that affect their bottom line. If there is no monetary gain for them, they are not interested and damn the environment if it cuts into their profits.

Adblue is not the same as American DEF. Go look up the chemicals in use for each.

I have.

https://www.discoverdef.com/def-overview/

Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) is an emissions control liquid required by modern diesel engines. It is injected into the exhaust stream. DEF is never added to diesel fuel. It is a non-hazardous solution of 32.5% urea in 67.5% de-ionized water. DEF is clear and colorless, and looks exactly like water. It has a slight smell of ammonia, similar to some home cleaning agents. DEF is used in by Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology to remove harmful NOx emissions from diesel engines.

Here's a quote from your link on AdBlue

AdBlue® is a high purity, 32.5% urea solution directly injected into the exhaust gas where it serves as reducing agent.

The active ingredient is exactly the same.

Correct.
Adblue is to DEF what Kleenex is to tissues. It's a German brandname for DEF.

In the relevant period the US standards were generally stricter.

From a European Parliament study:

"In terms of the level of emission limits relating to air quality, EU emission limits are on

average less stringent than those in the US2. Within the US, however, two sets of emission

limits apply depending on the State concerned (under a system described below), with

stricter limits applying in California and a dozen US states which have chosen to follow

Californian standards rather than the less ambitious federal ones.3"

Specifically the NOx limits in the US were .04 and the EU levels were .06 for gas and .08 for diesel.

In addition the study says the testing regime in Europe is much weaker.

The study is available here:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/595363/IPOL_ATA(2017)595363_EN.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi78vXw6oX4AhWPZzABHXO0DE0QFnoECAcQBg&usg=AOvVaw3K9do_FM8Z-dCtg0qUDSNu

The study is available here:

Link missing.

I corrected the post to add the link

I corrected the post to add the link

Thanks. I took a look at it. It was interesting.

I've seen several reviews of concept cars recently where the car has been designed to run on a hydrogen cell (whatever one of those is) but the initial production version will be electric.

A fuel cell is a device which turns chemical energy into electricity through an electrochemical process, no moving parts.

https://www.fchea.org/fuelcells

The two most common types of fuel cells run on hydrogen or methane.

I don't see hydrogen cars any time soon. Just getting some LNG fueling stations has turned into a huge clusterfuck. Liquid hydrogen stations or compressed for that matter, will die on the vine, if for no other reason than the difficulty and danger of working with hydrogen.

I see that as manageable, needing only technological advances. By comparison, electric cars require scientific advances. Manufacturers can't keep doubling their range by doubling the number of batteries.

Hydrogen needs more than technical advances. Storage is a done deal, remember liquid Oxygen and liquid hydrogen combined is the preferred fuel for space launches.
No politician will be able to withstand the pressure after little Johnny and his mother go up in massive a ball of fire on the six O'clock news.
Safe handling of hydrogen by the masses needs several scientific breakthroughs itself.

I'm reasonably updated on the subject. I will not be shocked when one of those stations blow up.

it is clear they are both Ignorant and Indoctrinated

You'll get no argument about that from me.

I recently sat for a PE exam to get a measure of how it compares to what I took back in 79. It had been severely watered down by comparison.

The little darlings (recently graduated) were all upset about how hard it was for them.

In my personal opinion, a High School graduate from the mid seventies or earlier could pass the damn thing.

Mind you, these are the future engineers of our society. Take away their computer and safe spaces and they are totally fucked.

Humans do particularly well (compared to other animals and computers) at interpreting incomplete data. That gives them an edge that will be hard to catch up with.

On the other hand driverless cars could be made to constantly communicate with surrounding vehicles via telemetry giving them far more complete data than a human driver would ever have.

A human driver would still probably have a slight advantage, but not as much of an advantage as you are thinking.

Do you envisage remote computers receiving readings from every vehicle and transmitting instructions back?

It's not what I envisage. It's been explicitly proposed by some advocates of driverless cars.

Each car would constantly transmit changes in speed, steering and other factors to surrounding vehicles.

ETA:

A human driver would be better at handling unusual conditions.

The theory is that in an all(or mostly) driverless situation with coordinating telemetry, the driverless cars would be able to react to normal changes in traffic conditions far faster than any human driver.

I've seen it reported that Teslas have been programmed to run over an animal, such as a dog, rather than risking swerving towards other road users.

I would be skeptical of such reports unless they are confirmed by Tesla. But current Teslas aren't equipped with the kind of traffic coordination system that has been proposed and they aren't operating in an environment where a majority of vehicles are self driving cars equipped to coordinate responses.

Again, the theory of the proposals is that if an obstacle is identified whether an animal, person or an inanimate object, the lead cars could all swerve together at the same time while cars further back slow down or even stop.

I have to wonder whether a driverless car will be able to reliably distinguish between an animal and a young child.

Quite frankly in the kind of situation you describe a human driver could be left with the choice of hitting the child or causing a much larger accident that will cause even more harm to people.

It seems silly to think the Tesla driving system would be programmed to hit an obstacle rather than avoid id when traffic is light enough that there is room to swerve without risking hitting another vehicle. The kind of situation where the posited programming to hit an obstacle rather than avoid would come into play would be one where a human driver would likely have no "safe" choices.

If there's anywhere to swerve to.

If not, a human driver would be screwed because at that point you've defined a no win scenario.

The idea that a human driver in such a situation would do better than a Tesla with the posited programming is nonsense, because there are no good choices.

the "Trolley Problem"

The Brooklyn Dodgers used to be the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers, back when there were Trolleys for pedestrians to dodge.

"Brooklyn Dodgers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brooklyn Dodgers

League National League (1890–1957)

Ballpark Ebbets Field (1913–1957)

Year established 1883

Year folded 1957 (moved to Los Angeles, California in 1958)

Nickname(s) Dem Bums

National League pennant 12 (1890, 1899, 1900, 1916, 1920, 1941, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955,1956)

World Series championships 1 (1955)

Former name(s)

Brooklyn Robins (1914–1931)

Brooklyn Dodgers (1913)

Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers (1911–1912)

Brooklyn Superbas (1899–1910)

Brooklyn Bridegrooms (1896–1898)

Brooklyn Grooms (1891–1895)

Brooklyn Bridegrooms (1888–1890)

Brooklyn Grays (1885–1887)

Brooklyn Atlantics (1884)

Brooklyn Grays (1883)

Former league(s) American Association (1884–1889)

Former ballparks

Washington Park (II) (1898–1912)

Eastern Park (1891–1897)

Ridgewood Park (1886–1889)[a]

Washington Park (I) (1884–1890)

Colors Dodger blue, white, red

Mascot None

Manager See list

Brooklyn Dodgers Team Photograph, 1913

Brooklyn Dodgers Team Photograph, 1913

The Brooklyn Dodgers were a Major League Baseball team, active primarily in the National League (founded 1876) from 1884 until 1957, after which the club moved to Los Angeles, California, where it continues its history as the Los Angeles Dodgers. The team moved west at the same time as its longtime rival, the New York Giants, also in the National League, relocated to San Francisco in northern California as the San Francisco Giants. The team's name derived from the reputed skill of Brooklyn residents at evading the city's trolley streetcars; the name is a shortened form of their old name, the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers. The Dodgers played in two stadiums in South Brooklyn, each named Washington Park, and at Eastern Park in the neighborhood of Brownsville before moving to Ebbets Field in the neighborhood of Crown Heights in 1912."

For a short period the University of Washington Athletic teams were called Sun Dodgers. https://www.dailyuw.com/sports/the-short-troubled-history-of-the-washington-sun-dodgers/article_116989b6-7521-11e9-8bf8-eb10b8c3033f.html#:~:text=The%20short%2C%20troubled,going%20to%20stick.

I saw that clip already.

People used to ridicule the "One world order" as a conspiracy.

Many of the claims made according to that "conspiracy" were voiced by that asshat. All he needed was a cheesy mustache and an SS uniform.

Sounds like something waiting to be turned into a book.

All he needs is a Hairless Cat to complete the image of a Bond Villian!

The only bond villain I can think of with a cat, had a fluffy white cat, not a hairless cat.

Astoundingly, some people are "CosPlaying" while in Combat! Africa in particular has a shocking amount of people wearing "costume versions" of Body Armor and "Tac-ta-Cool" Gear. It would be funny, except such "gear" does nothing to protect the people wearing them.

Some of those idiots think simply lining that gear with Kevlar makes them bullet proof.

I can't speak for Africa but I have seen that crap in South America. They would have been better served painting red circles on their backs above the word "dispárame" (shoot me).

Do you DS, or DBT, actually believe a better more efficient product would be allowed to be imported if the home grown companies could not compete?
Further, would the government allow anything that would significantly reduce tax revenue to be imported?

Yes, to both questions. It's done all the time.
And the original claim that bluemotion was stopped because of collusion is false.
As to tax revenue, most of those cars were built here.

It is not false, that is a baseless claim. Do you have a link that claims otherwise.

Do you have a link that claims otherwise.

Do you have a link to back up your claim that BlueMotion was blocked due to collusion? Why is it everyone else but you has to provide cites.

So you have no problem with someone throwing out bullshit with no backing?
Edited to add:
Call your local VW dealer, and be sure to put on your bullshit detector before you do. They'll dance around the subject and never give you a straight answer.
I got past that by calling the service department and asking for a replacement part. That got their attention as they know full well its banned from import and why.

So you have no problem with someone throwing out bullshit with no backing?

I have a bigger problem with someone complaining about others throwing out bullshit with no backing while doing exactly the same thing themselves.

For shits and giggles, let's assume adblue and DEF are the same, though I maintain they are not.

Per the cites I provided and the AdBlue link you provided, the only possible difference is that DEF uses de-ionized water for the solution base and the AdBlue link you provided doesn't provide any information on the solution base.

Both are urea at exactly the same concentration.

It's time for you to stop simply asserting they are different and back it up with real info if you can find it.

It's time for you to stop simply asserting they are different and back it up with real info if you can find it.

Back when I initially researched this, they were not the same.

However, I retraced the research and find they are now effectively the same. I found that the formula changed for American DEF when adblue was mandated in Europe.

That doesn't change the fact that one is mandated, while the other, not so much.

Back when I initially researched this, they were not the same.

And yet you offer nothing but bare assertion to back that up.

That doesn't change the fact that one is mandated, while the other, not so much.

From what I've read, the US does not mandate that DEF systems be retrofitted to older vehicles (of which there are a lot on the road), but it is mandated for new diesel vehicles.