In fact, there are details the wikipedia article was more accurate on. (in part, cause parts of it I’m certain were written by someone whose seen it up close, cause it reads like it)

Uh, having just come from 4th RTBn as a medic, Benning phase is actually 2 (MRE) meals a day during the 2 weeks of field exercise, not 1.

These are awesome, but your ability to see them will vary wildly by intersection and your position in a line of cars at that light.

This was 7 years ago.

Not enough of these considering a lot of the Upper-Right hand column have had 30+ years of high-G stress on their airframes, and are sliding ever-more into obsolescence.

Kuwaiti? Insha’Allah I guess.

For all the hate modern, high-beltline cars garner around here, they are notoriously survivable in a crash.

Those dirty, screen-watching USAF scoundrels.

I don’t see the point for the disdainful tone of the author, IMO.

The Camaro C4 is (criminally) blander and the Foxbody Mustang is uglier.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.22752…

That’s a lot of words for the fact I was pointing out the difference in responding to the spirit and intent of the author’s penultimate paragraph.

Cause a $15M racing-only venture is probably exactly what the author was thinking when she said “high performance diesel” in an article which only brought up daily driving vehicles, as examples.

You’re a hero; never change.

Almost no amount of economies of scale will make (current) battery-technology anything have the power density of current petrol-tank’d cars.

Magnesium and aluminum are amazing metals.

So, what happens when these things start getting malfunctions, and start falling out of the sky?

I don’t think anyone really appreciates Russian tanks are made for Russian / European theater operating conditions.