>> an alternative fuel source for personal vehicles that are viewed as inferior compared to electric vehicles.

Well, that’s better than someone being quoted $2B to make a change:

This isn’t a proofreading issue. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the NASA statement.

I suspect that the original meaning was that there is a 1 in 2,467 chance that SOMEONE on the planet will be hurt, not that any specific person will be hurt.

This actually happened to me once, on a flight from the UK to Italy. I was flying weekly and typically there were only about 4 passengers on the outbound flights, but one Monday, I was the only person. Unfortunately before the existence of cellphone cameras, so I have no proof.

You have fallen into a false narrative. There has been no surge in derailments. There has been a surge of reporting of derailments.

Endeavour. Not only for the JAAAAG, but also the ordinary cars from the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Last year, when I flew out of Heathrow, the line for security extended out of the building and they had to have people controlling the line to allow people to cross it to get t some of the check-in desks.

The 500 mile range is just a convenient excuse for people that don’t want to buy an EV for “reasons”, but don’t want to admit it.

>>>Those trucks tip over pretty easily.

>And if someone is in such financial trouble, why trade those vehicles in instead of selling them private party?

> Then I run another extension cord to it while at work! My plan is flawless!

This again?

Is that a charging cable across the road in the first video?

>>It is all about charging time, while on the go.

Did you only just discover this? I have known this for decades.

Thank you. I was wondering if anyone would recognize the correct split.

>> Or use a big drone, but privacy issues I guess.

He or his spokespeople have also claimed that:

You call those weird? Go round the LeMay family collection in Tacoma and you will see far weirder.