4 ms·
it doesn't meet the requirements to function as a truck for me. obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.
by theultdev 3y ago
it doesn't meet the requirements to function as a truck for me.
obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.
- uoaei 3y agoYou need to understand that you are not the arbiter of definitions. You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.
- theultdev 3y agowould you like to reply to my points or continue to attack the phrasing of one sentence? don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.
- mort96 3y agoMaybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.
- theultdev 3y agothat sentiment was in my main post. I even said "nor do I consider" you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.
- mort96 3y agoYou know what? I think I kind of agree with you. At least the cybertruck is a stupid vehicle which I'd be comfortable saying pretends to be a truck without doing any of the things a person who needs a truck needs their truck to do. I think gating the definition of "truck" behind "not electric" is stupid, which is what I thought you were doing (and to be honest, your comment is worded to make that a reasonable interpretation); but if you just meant "these trucks are stupid and don't do what I need a truck to do" then I can't disagree.
- theultdev 3y agothank you, that's pretty much my reasoning. I one day hope that EV trucks will be useful to me to replace my ICE truck, but for me none of them hit the boxes. some of them are logistical in relation to charging vs having an extra can of gas though, so it's hard to say.