3 ms·
> and you still get comments like this I said "fuel", not "batteries", so why are you giving a complaint that seems aimed at people who downplay next-ten-years
by Terr_ 24d ago
> and you still get comments like this
I said "fuel", not "batteries", so why are you giving a complaint that seems aimed at people who downplay next-ten-years electrification?
If you didn't misread my comment, then explain which "non-hydrocarbon fuel" you believe could become common in cars (and lawnmowers) within just ten years. (Hell, let's make that easier, just "non-petrochemical.")
- mbgerring 24d ago> although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade.
- Terr_ 24d agoYou're doubling-down on your mistake, by pretending the first clause of the sentence--which bounds the category--didn't exist. _______ Me: "Futuristic [thermonuclear power] doesn't necessarily mean [fission], although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade." You: "OMG, what about wind and solar!? Lots of things have already been replacing fission! So out of touch." Me: "I said types of thermonuclear power that aren't fission. Not power in general." You: "Yes you did if I just... delete the entire first half of your sentence..."