TheMcSame

Sure, but that 2.0L is drinking a lot more fuel too. That's the point where we seem to be losing each other. Any pure petrol with any sort of capability when it comes to performance is going to eat up far more fuel than the small petrols you were advocating for and diesels are a dying breed these days. Mentioning a 2.0L as a small engine and mentioning the 200t basically confirms that part of the issue here might be that we have different ideas of what is a 'small engine' due to market availability. That might be a big part of why we're disagreeing here, because it's seems like a pretty safe bet that you're from the states, or at least North America, where I'd imagine a 2.0L isn't seen as a big engine in the slightest. As opposed to in Europe, where 2.0L is verging on what we'd consider a big engine because we're so used to our sub 2L hatchbacks due to our much higher fuel prices. That may be a big source of why we disagree here in hindsight. More to the point, that 2.0T is running how much boost to get those figures? How is it going to stack up in 5-10 years time? Well, it's a Mercedes, so I can tell you right from the off, like most German engines, it's drinking oil at that point. And a good chunk of your electronics are duff as well, in typical German fashion. And sure, that is a fair point about the 300h. 180 I believe it is on engine power alone, 220 with the electric motor. Performance wise, it's not exactly stand-out great for what it's packing. But it's also not one of these 1.0L city cars doing 0-60 in 15+ seconds either. And, love it or loathe it, being a CVT it's going to pull at any speed. But then we're talking market differences again. It's performance might not be much special compared to what you might often come across over there. Over in Europe where people are more conscious about fuel usage and thus using smaller engines with less power? It performs well. But then it's not exactly as if I was spoilt for choice either... I wanted MPG and performance. That basically left me with just a hand full of older Ford STs (prior bad experience with their engine electronics, Ford has a history of recommending the wrong washers for the injectors too, causing them to seize in the block. Among other reliability issues and shitty practices (I.E Ecoboom and refusing to recall them) or German diesels (Unreliable, especially parts away from the engine. Tend to drink oil as they age too) No idea what you're trying to say with the last point. It's designed for it's own purpose, the hybrid system on it exists to make up for the downsides of running a variation of the Atkinson cycle as opposed to some bolt-on tax dodging ploy for a car that'll be no more efficient at speed than it's pure ICE counterpart, which is often the case with hybrids. It's properly designed for it's purpose. I wouldn't disagree if you said I'd have been better off with a PHEV mind you. But the design of Toyota hybrids in general is focusing on improving ICE efficiency and using the hybrid system to aid that as opposed to using the hybrid system alone to yield better efficiency as most other hybrids do. Speed and efficiency at a fine rate... You've lost me? I'll preemptively say it's fine at keeping it's speed... That's probably not what you're referring to, but I don't see what else that statement could mean? And efficiency, again, at a fine rate? No idea what you're trying to say. So another preemptive statement saying that on my commute, it's doing ~37-40 MPG, a bit below what my old diesel was doing but otherwise unnoticeable due to the cheaper fuel costs (diesel costs more here). If I bothered to try and achieve better MPG figures, I've little doubt I could push it higher than what my old diesel was doing given the results people have been getting for years in the Prius. Pretty much. Not surprised to hear of the BM drinking oil, it's very common amongst them as they age. Honestly, the cars are built for lease agreements these days, as opposed to long-term ownership.

Not saying everyone does. But you're only fooling yourself thinking the pure petrols that can pump out in the realm of 60 MPG are actually adequate for anything other than pottering about in city traffic. Okay. How does the Auris support your point at all? You were originally talking about pure petrols and the fact that some can return the same MPG leading to the question of 'what's the point?' Sure, there's plenty of smaller engines that have some bite to them... But that 1.4 isn't capable of returning those same MPG figures, so what relevance is it to the point you've made? None. In other words, your whole argument lacks consistency...

https://youtu.be/aqqQRuO_UK0?si=b4JCw0CR1lm1KLHL

Numbers are fine in the stated currency. A model 3 will cost you about £8.6K to replace a battery 530e is about £6.6K if you're replacing all 6 modules. IS is about £2.5K As for the second point,this entirely depends on your definition of ultra efficient. If we're talking those 60+ MPG petrols, then yes, they're all gutless with sod all torque on the low end. Even the 1.2Ts won't be great, you'll be working them a good deal to get moving and your MPG will suffer as a result and your engine's life will suffer too because of how much the turbo will be compensating. As for the comparison. It's the principle "you could have the same by doing this" being more complex than just 'these two things do the same thing', not the specific example. Please keep up.

Usually leased. Battery wear isn't as big of an issue as it seems, there's usually a bunch of software control to keep things in a nice, optimal zone for the battery. One need only look at Toyota who warranty the batteries for up to 10 years/100k Miles, and they tend to use NiMH batteries, which wear down quicker than LiON, which is what the 530e uses. Cost depends on the car and size of battery of course. Also depends on who you're buying from... I'd probably put price around: BEV: 10k+ PHEV: 5K+ HEV: 2k+ (For reference, GBP. General gist will be the same in other currencies, but different numbers) Because one is going to offer a superior experience and be more likely to return those figures. The problem with these 'ultra-efficient' pure ICE cars is that they're using small, gutless engines. Great for test purposes, in the real world though, you need to rag the life out of them to keep up and make progress in traffic and your MPG will absolutely suffer as a result. I mean, I could've kept my Diesel Fiesta. It was slightly more efficient than my IS, and cost about the same at the fuel pump by virtue of the price difference between diesel and petrol (gasoline). By the logic of 'I can get it with this' it was a pointless purchase, worse off in fact because I could get about 70MPG out of it on the motorway, while the IS is sitting mid-high 50's. But the IS is better in just about every way. Acceleration (I'd normally write it off as a so-what improvement for day to day use, but when you're going from 68HP, 0-60 in 15+ seconds to 220 in ~8 with a wallop of torque, it makes a big difference, especially on busy urban roads), handling, quality, interior, features, etc...

If they don't hold a charge, don't power anything or if they're damaged is pretty much my rule. I'd check them in another device if not visibly damaged. If they work, it might be your controller that's the issue. If it works in another device with reasonable life, it could be the controller, either, as another user mentioned, the voltages just aren't sitting right for the controller, or the controller is kaput.

Idk... I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't say it's the opposite. Instead big and flashy is moving from the tower to the rest of the setup. As you said, bigger monitors, more monitors, RGB peripherals. But there seems to have been a bit of a move to smaller form factor cases (I could be talking complete BS, I've not exactly been keeping in the loop). So I wouldn't say it's dying, just that the flashiness is moving.

A new christmas song that isn't terrible? I'll take it. Then again, it should be no surprise really. Drop Elton John onto a song and you've got a guaranteed solid song already

Old KB suffered from some uh.... Liquid related damage... Only knocked out the num pad, but any excuse for something new. I was going to get something regardless when I finally upgrade my PC. Also, the RGB craze... I get it now

Yep... Also the fact that 'Youtube support' is using a Google logo for their picture rather than the Youtube logo is a bit of a flag in my eyes. Like, sure, Google owns Youtube. But if you were talking to Chevy customer support, would you expect the GM logo or the Chevy one?

Heavy handed but I'm not surprised at all. The consumer gets shafted again because of 'MuH cLiMaTe ChAnGe' when the fact of the matter is that big business, shipping, foreign manufacturing, etc are the ones that need to be chased up and hit with much harsher regs. Of course, California only has so much sway. They can't hit some company over in China with their regs. But global problems require global solutions. But it seems like the only solution going is to shaft the consumer at every opportunity and tell them to throw out their old stuff for these new 'green' products. Regardless of whether they're actually better or even ready to serve the market the same way their 'dirty' counterparts did. There's no way in hell all us John Does and Jane Smiths are making a dent in global emissions in comparison to all the big industries. Hell, is it still true that just a handful of the largest container ships pollute just as much as every single car in the world combined?

I'm not entirely sure that comparison works though? Like, sure, the increase has gone from 512x (RAM isn't sold using base 10 numbers like storage is) to 8x.. The problem is that you're working on X increase alone, which just doesn't offer any information of value. Sure, the first jump might be 512x... But it's only an increase of 1022MB, whereas the 8x jump is an increase of 7GB, just over 7x more space. Yes, the actual multiplication might be smaller, but the amount of space yielded from that smaller jump is significantly more than the first jump. Same applies here. 0.5GB to 100GB is a gain of 99.5GB. 100 to 256 is a gain of 156. The multiplication is smaller, but the jump in actual space is bigger. 100GB x10 is a significantly smaller jump than 1TB x10, despite both figures being multiplied by the same number If you only need an extra 100GB every year, that difference is going to get smaller and smaller, despite the actual increase being exactly the same. That's why comparing things with percentage/times difference with each other doesn't work. A 100x increase sounds bigger than an 11x increase, but in reality the 100x increase could be going from 1 to 100, while the 11x increase could be 10 to 110 The actual increase is exactly the same, despite the wildly different x increase Can CPUs even work in this comparison considering there's so much more to the performance of a CPU than just cores and clocks? I'm not going to argue with the rest because it seems pretty sound. It's just these above examples were a bit silly.

I mean, presumably Intel 7 will be 7nm, 4 4nm, 3 3nm, 20A 2nm, etc, and they're just dropping 10nm ESF or something like that. Then again it's not as if these naming schemes are forced to follow any logic anyway so

I mean, I don't disagree. I think we do have to cut down on this 'high and mighty' "YOU CAN'T FUTURE PROOF STUFF END OF" mindset when it's pretty clear people are simply asking whether it'll last for however many years. But once a product becomes obsolete it can't be future-proof, even if it is still of value. Like, I'm trying to play a devil's advocate sort of thing with this saying "It means this, but realistically, we all know what people mean is this". If someone is asking about future proof, it's fine to say it as long as it's not just what you're saying if you get what I mean. But yeah, I do agree that the two are very much different things. It might be harder to see that for gaming PCs where you'll see performance dip from amazing to acceptable, but if we were to look at cars rather than PCs, it becomes a lot easier to visualise because it's a lot more common for people to keep cars into the upper singles and double digit years. Granted, that's mostly going to be financial reasons. But the cars still fit the needs, if they really NEEDED something else they'd sell up and get something that fits. Granted, I get the same feeling with my car... It's a 2008 Fiesta, 1.4 diesel. I've seen it go from a half decent choice to just barely acceptable as budget cars have gotten quicker and horses have escaped the engine meaning it struggles to keep up initially with the flow of traffic and people look at you on slip roads like 'wtf are you doing? You're supposed to be getting up to speed' when in reality my foot is planted to to floor. But ultimately, Though my sort of ideal car is something that'll fly when you need it to. But it's the same idea. Much like my PC. it might not run as fast as I'd like it to. But it runs and that's what matters And I think the most important takeaway should be that we, as an entire species, need to stop thinking that obsolete products are bad and that we MUST upgrade and have the latest and newest shiny thing. Thus we need to see future proof as more a thing about fitting our uses rather than whether it'll be relevant/obsolete down the line. Yep, sort of what I was touching on with future proofing really. By definition, it is, but in reality that doesn't really change anything. Like, it's not produced any more so it is obsolete, but if it still performs and is still supported, does it really matter 100% and I think that's what a lot of people seem to forget when they want these 'future-proof' rigs, thought it applies to just about all products. If you want longevity, you have to manage your expectations with the times and your situation. These days my rig is definitely showing it's age. Though I've been shying away from upgrading due to priorities. Like, clearing some debt then saving up for a car is a higher priority to me than everything working blazingly quick. Though I don't help myself by going for something close to my ideal... I'm now currently eyeing up G20 M3s, specifically the 340d because a sports diesel it what ticks my boxes. Quick, good on fuel, it'll pull at just about any speed. Anyway, I'm rambling now

I'm just waiting for the day current gen BEVs are the new diesels... First we were told PETROL BAD DIESEL GOOD, EVERYONE BUY A DIESEL NOW Then we found out diesels weren't actually better Then we found diesels were actually a lot worse (VW scandal) Mark my words... It might not be for another decade or two, but there will come a point we're told these BEVs aren't the climate saviours we touted them as and we'll then be told to buy whatever new alternative is knocking about then like... Let's say BEVs that use man-made lithium for the li-ion batteries or something or some other material that's less destructive to obtain. After all, lithium is a rare Earth metal, though only rare by name (about as common as lead IIRC), so usually only found in smaller deposits. Probably the same reason some people are still afraid of planes and helicopters. Think, nuclear power plants and planes/helicopters are quite similar in some ways. They're incredibly safe as long as they're operated properly and not pushed into conditions they're not built for. Often times, failures are the result of human error or suddenly, uncontrollable events. Now, if you have an equipment failure with a dash of human error on top? You have a major issue. The problem stems from those rare incidents where a serious problem occurs and is met with human error/poorly trained staff. When it comes to nuclear power plants and aircraft, scenarios like these often end up with very catastrophic failures, so when these do happen, the numbers can look very scary and it'll get a lot of news coverage purely because it's rare. Look at it like this, about 5 people die every day on UK roads. No one bats an eye. If a plane goes down killing 100 people, it's all over the news, it's a massive tragedy. Another 20 days goes by... Another 100 deaths on UK roads and another plane goes down, killing 100. The former? Nothing. The latter? 24 hour news coverage. That's what it's about. It's all about association. It's all about those one off rare events. Those events that happen rarely but are catastrophic. That's why people are afraid.