As someone who drives a Chevy Bolt, an amazing vehicle that GM has killed off TWICE now:
You fucking sure about that bud?
Seriously. Makes the suspension less aggressive and you have a win right fucking there
The U.S. doesn’t need more hybrids, it needs electric cars that cut out oil dependency and a corresponding increase in renewable energy production.
Not tone deaf. Just greedy and don’t actually give a fuck about their customers. Which is why they tried to kill the Chevy bolt, got rid of car play in the EVs and possibly other vehicles, have prioritized large trucks and SUVs because they get better profit margins. And that is just off the top of my head. I’m surr I could come up with more.
“We know what our customers want: huge, expensive, highly profitable hybrids that will line our pockets forever.”
“GM - Electric Vehicle Pioneers - We’d Rather Sell Highly Polluting Combustion Trucks but We’re Not Tone Deaf”
M’eh … I’ve seen better slogans.
WE’RE NOT TONE DEAF…
We need electric trains. That’s what we need. Fuck cars.
The main reason public transit is what it is in Europe is because of how WW2 ravaged the continent. Maybe WW3 will do the same.
We better get flying trains after this one
Never heard that theory but it makes sense. I just assumed they were denser and liked digging tunnels more.
That’s a contributing factor. Their land mass, topography and general population density benefitted it highly as well, but the need to reconstruct their cities provided two problems that needed solving - fix the previous infrastructure and get the workers from outside the demolished zones into them. Trains existed for a lot of things already so it made sense to keep pushing them into the city centers. It was an inexpensive and reliable solution.
And that means what?
I’m not familiar with that theory, but Europe has been building a robust public transit network since the early 20th century. The wars only slowed progress. Most Subway systems, rail networks, city buses, etc were quite strong already in the 30’s.
They had it, but WW2 did so much damage (WW1 contributed to this too) and the need to move workers around cheaply and reliably to rebuild gave them an opportunity to improve public transit and make it the primary focus for transportation infrastructure. Build the transit route into the communities or commercial areas, then rebuild those zones around it. By the 70’s it was fully modernized and a primary focus from governments. Without that destruction it may have just been city centers like North America does.
ww3 involves nukes, i doubt very much infrastructure was left by the time it ends.
Perfect opportunity to build from scratch.
Too bad American car companies. I already learned my lesson buying your cheap junk. Never again.
Cheap junk?? American cars are very expensive junk.
Say what you want about GM, they didn’t have to put the same V8 into pretty much everything, and now that they don’t, how are teenagers going to get their hands on a 4L V8 so detuned it makes the same power as an engine 1/3 the size for like $4000 that was only ever driven by grandma?
I take cheap to mean poor quality and/or cheap for them to buy or produce (versus the customer).
Assuming you’re esl:
Cheap doesn’t mean low quality, it means low price, which can imply low quality, but it doesn’t work if the thing’s not also cheap.
You could call US cars cheaply-made junk.
I’m a native US English speaker and use both definitions. I’m on a Swiss instance because I don’t like hosting my data in 14 Eyes countries.
If I think your product is shit, I’ll oftentimes call it cheap — especially if it looks like you manufactured it cheaply and then sold it for a high price for a huge profit.
An expensive product can’t be cheap. It can be cheaply made, but a cheap expensive thing is an oxymoron.
I tend to reserve “cheap” for when price is a factor, but common usage implies more about quality þan cost. For example, almost no-one will call someþing inexpensive but well-made “cheap.” Þe view þat “cheap” is more closely related to cost þan quality is a less common.
Þe
Shouldn’t this be an eth (ð) and not a thorn? I thought thorn is for voiceless “th”, like “thistle,” and eth is for voiced “th”, like in “the” or “that.”
