Look, I know who you are and your role for defending the existing energy infrastructure. I don't agree with you.. The electronics on vehicles are far more of a ruse.... a deception for tracking, control, hacking, and sabotage. I can get a near 100% burn from gasoline compared to the 15 to 20% today.
Is it an AI bot? My original comment above was actually bait for this "boilerplate one" you mentioned and presto! There it is like all the other times.
Based on what you know of me, you know nothing. Some current electronics may be susceptible to wireless manipulation, but that is not why computers have come into vogue in automobiles. I would love to understand what you mean by your percentages, when they do not at all correspond to the direction of technical development. You are implying that past automobiles had better gas mileage than current ones (for equivalent emissions reduction and vehicle size). Not true.
Many of us know who you are, You wear your putative credentials on your sleeves. Every response provided over the a year or so always is protective of the infrastructure status quo. While these subjects have interest to others, your response is a blatherskitic stump. So be it.
What you call "protection of the infrastructure status quo" I call "debunking wild fantasies." I find discussion of ghosts and Bigfoot also interesting, but I don't confuse it with provable matters. Considering I have worked on photon radiation weapons and space weapons, I am a poor candidate for being considered a stick-in-the-mud.
Your problem is that you have all gotten used to sloppy epistemology and logic, topped with wishful thinking, and when someone (like me) calls you to account for it, you have no good answers. Just feelings.
Look, I know who you are and your role for defending the existing energy infrastructure. I don't agree with you.. The electronics on vehicles are far more of a ruse.... a deception for tracking, control, hacking, and sabotage. I can get a near 100% burn from gasoline compared to the 15 to 20% today.
Every comment from him is a boilerplate one. Nothing new at all.
Is it an AI bot? My original comment above was actually bait for this "boilerplate one" you mentioned and presto! There it is like all the other times.
Based on what you know of me, you know nothing. Some current electronics may be susceptible to wireless manipulation, but that is not why computers have come into vogue in automobiles. I would love to understand what you mean by your percentages, when they do not at all correspond to the direction of technical development. You are implying that past automobiles had better gas mileage than current ones (for equivalent emissions reduction and vehicle size). Not true.
Many of us know who you are, You wear your putative credentials on your sleeves. Every response provided over the a year or so always is protective of the infrastructure status quo. While these subjects have interest to others, your response is a blatherskitic stump. So be it.
What you call "protection of the infrastructure status quo" I call "debunking wild fantasies." I find discussion of ghosts and Bigfoot also interesting, but I don't confuse it with provable matters. Considering I have worked on photon radiation weapons and space weapons, I am a poor candidate for being considered a stick-in-the-mud.
Your problem is that you have all gotten used to sloppy epistemology and logic, topped with wishful thinking, and when someone (like me) calls you to account for it, you have no good answers. Just feelings.
Spoken like a 'man-in-black'. Do people ever see your eyes under those dark sunglasses when you appear at their door?
An excellent example of a blatherskitic stump. Calling captain Kirk... Scotty is that you?