Even Leaf batteries can be fine. A used Leaf might be the best deal going right now due to everyone being afraid of the battery, but if it hasn't been fast charged a ton its fine. Specifically the second gen "plus" models are great due to the larger battery meaning they have less wear.
Its also, by far, the easiest EV to swap a battery on yourself. It might be the only one you can reasonably do in your driveway. As its 8 bolts, 3 plugs, and a quick ECU flash to get a new one going. Its also cheaper ($8k last I looked, for the 62kw model) than any other EV to swap the battery due to the lack of cooling.
Not the perfect EV, but maybe the perfect shade tree mechanics EV.
Telluride/Palisade causing fires because they cheaped out on the current/torque sensors in the drive motors for the seats.
ICCU failures across their current EV platforms. No fix planned last I heard.
It hurts me to point this out because I really, REALLY like where their cars are going. Their new van is EXACTLY what we want, and I'd love an Ioniq 5N.
But those failures are critical and speak to a very deep engineering culture issue.
Will never buy Hyundai again(applies to Kia as well). The company management has caused systematic quality problems. They can hire famous designers to put lipstick on a pig but the soul underneath is still ugly. I don't care how good their warranty is. That only matters if time spent trying to get your car serviced for warranty is worthless to you. Most people only have X cars they will owbn in their lifetime (likely singular for most people). Spend a little more and get a Japanese brand that still has some resemblance of shame.
After watching this I totally understood why so many dumb issues occured:
Kia Boys issues: cheaped out on adding a immobilizer in the US only, Canada had laws in place.
Engine explosions: Poor manufacturing standards left junk in the engine causing oil starvation which caused spun bearings.
Oil consumption: GDI engine design caused excessive burning of oil and deposit layers of gunk if you keep topping up oil. If you don't(and most Hyundai owners expect their car to work like a normal car and not burn up to a qt/1000 mi) then the engine eventually runs dry and explodes(denied warranty as well).
Generally those who support the police in general (especially those with the thin blue line American flag displayed somewhere) espouse support for veterans. The clash of a veteran operating legally with police operating illegally helps foster cognitive dissonance and disentangle these two institutions in their mind.
In other words these types of articles are helpful for causing those individuals to confront the issues in their belief structure.
I use them this way all the time with my parents, as they continue to insist that I (a retired Navy vet) should mindlessly support the police. They are not interested in the LONG history of those two populations clashing.
As someone who spent over 20 years active duty, and spent a ton of my career in the IT, security, etc. side of the house:
Unlikely to be a hack, more likely to be a misconfiguration or update sent incorrectly.
That said, the timing of the disclosure and the issue are rather concerning.
Regarding the highest value targets to hit with an attack like this, you would want to target Guam, Hawai'i, and other isolated overseas locations where this would have ripple effects in the local economy. Guam specifically would cause catastrophic supply shortages, since DeCA probably supplies around 50% of the groceries on that island (that's a WAG based on my time there).
Generally agree with your assessment, but in the case of Guam or other more remote installations if there were catastrophic issues we'd just airlift food in. Costly but certainly manageable.
Hawaii I'm not sure why that would be an issue unless the whole island was attacked or shut down. Even if the on-base shops were hacked you could just go shop at Wal-Mart or Costco or any number of other locations on the islands. If there was an extended issue then the commander could authorize meal stipends as they do for some units today and then you would just go buy food off-base. Ideal? No. Manageable? Very much.
Aircraft carriers are not particularly well suited to be supplied by cargo aircraft.
The largest cargo aircraft with the strengthened landing gear, arresting hook, and catapult attachment used to be the C-2 Greyhound. It had a range of approximately 1,500 miles with a 10,000 pound cargo. It was retired on July 28th, 2026. The C-2 has been replaced by the CMV-22B Osprey. It has a range of only 1,150 miles and a more limited cargo capacity of only 6,000 pounds. 6,000 pounds isn't nothing, but it's not a lot either.
There's not a lot of stuff within 1,150mi of the Arabian Sea. Your two options are one of the US bases in the southern Persian Gulf (Kuwait is too far) and Diego Garcia. Neither are ideal. In both cases you're doing a transfer out in the field.
On the other hand, the C-5 Galaxy can carry 120,000 pounds to a range of 4,800 miles. You can fill it with food in the continental US, fly to Hickam AFB in Hawaii, refuel, and fly the rest of the way to Guam. On the return leg, an unladen C-5 can fly directly to the 22nd Airlift Squadron's home base California without a layover.
The C-17B Globemaster is smaller than the C-5, although it's nearly as capable. With a 160,000 pound cargo, it has a range of 3,200 miles, (the C-17A has a shorter range) which is just short of the 3,800 miles to get from Hawaii to Guam. I don't know how much cargo it's capable of carrying 3,800 miles, but on the order of 100,000 pounds is a reasonable guess. It is also capable of an empty flight back to the US without a layover.
Mostly tensioned cables carrying hoses (liquids especially fuel being the highest volume / limiting factor), some palletized transfer over cables, and some helicopter lift (because the flight pads/decks are already sitting next to each other while everyone is waiting for fuel to finish).
I've watched some videos showing UNREP and they're fascinating. It takes a lot of skill to keep the ships parallel. There was a collision earlier this year between the resupply ship and the recipient.
> Also, the Navy is using Ospreys to resupply submarines at sea because they have the range and helicopters don't.
Afaik, modern submarines handle terribly on the surface, so I imagine direct ship-to-ship UNREP is rare. Also, too much cost risk from a collision.
Per YouTube, it's mostly vertical replenishment. Helicopter for short range. Osprey for longer. Floating pallets pushed out of the back of a C-17 at max range.
I'm sure the packing is intricate for something that's going to be air dropped, then floating, then has to be broken down on an unstable floating platform and conveyed inside through small ports!
Spot-on and thanks for sharing that video too. Aircraft carriers aren't really designed to be replenished by large aircraft which would instead be used to replenish sites like Guam with large enough runways and, frankly, the need if something went wrong due to the population size, remoteness, and inability of everyday residents to do anything about the situation.
Another pending example is the 2035 retirement of the E-3 AWACS and its replacement by the much less capable E-2D. There are/were other more capable options on the table, including the E-7 and the E-10, both of which have been canceled.
The Osprey is air refuelable though, isn't it? Each flight is roughly one pound per person on board.
It's also roughly 2800 nautical miles from Kuwait to Diego Garcia, so regardless of where the carrier group is, it should be at most a ~6 day round trip at 20 knots for a supply ship from the closest of the two.
That assumes there is no way to airdrop watertight pallets of food (e.g. steel drums loaded with cans and MREs) into the water, then retrieve it with RHIBs or helicopters.
I can't speak to how much cargo was on board, but I did a Hawai'i to Guam leg on a C-17B that was carrying palletized cargo.
One of my better Space-A experiences. Crew was great, flight was smooth. I preferred it over the KC-135 leg, despite the more spartan conditions. The aircrew let us toss out sleeping bags and packs in the aisles between cargo and get some sleep.
I thought it was well-known that unmodified C-130s (Look ma, no hook!) can land and take off from US-sized carriers successfully. Ergo, in a pinch, everyone will be getting their chicken nuggets and canned corn.
No, in a pinch, you're just beclowning yourself with your utter ignorance of carrier air operations.
They're not striking the entire air wing below just so one C-130 can land and take off, and that's assuming a stunt pulled by one elite test pilot was replicable by a bog-standard junior C-130 pilot.
Giving how static bases (including airstrips) have become vulnerable, i think we may yet to see those flying boats coming back as a way to support Navy fleets which historically were relying on the static bases.
That could be a different navy concept if surface carriers go extinct. You could have submarines and (possibly submersible) seaplanes, and submarine-launched UAVs.
That explains why resupply doesn't work as well as in peace time
But at the same time, it's not like that came out of nowhere. If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist
> Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist
Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict.
> Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist.
Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it.
> Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it
Not only that, but it was already that way for ~40 years, where past presidencies all knew and documented why it was a stupid idea, didn't press the stupidity-button, and mostly worked towards better options.
Idk, current president and general staff seemed to be very against it as well. Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor.
All Trump needs is a little dangling of glory and publicity and he'd oink like a pig if he thought it'd earn it. Pathetic creature.
Netanyahu tried the same schtick he's done for 30 years of POTUS's, just now we have someone retarded enough to fall for it and a party that allowed him to be surrounded by sycophants.
You should just admit you voted for a retard and pay your penance to your countrymen and species.
> If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes.
Americans make war on other people, other people don't make war on Americans. It's one of the reasons why they are so eager to do so. 'The other guys might hit back' doesn't even register in the cultural psyche.
You'll notice that the aircraft carrier continues sortie generation. What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed not the enemy constraining our freedom of action through force. Not to say it's great: it sucks to be on the ship for this, but if Hezbollah murdered 3,000 Americans the shortage wouldn't make the news amid our invading Iran.
In the Vietnam war the US didn't win because it couldn't, no matter how much force was employed. Here same thing: we can't depose the Iranian government without a land invasion (which is too costly) and nothing else keeps them from having control of the strait.
Exactly, which makes this a stupid war to start in the first place.
Also, to be clear, a land invasion isn't "too costly". It's suicidal because we're talking about a massive country that has been preparing for decades, has a terrain advantage and literally more than a million fanatics ready to die for the regime. You'd need millions of soldiers deployed, and are looking at some Operation Downfall level expected losses.
I'm not suggesting we should even consider invading Iran - mostly because we don't need to, but these numbers you are throwing around seem a bit off the mark without either a time horizon or some other qualifier.
Also... a million fanatics ready to die for the regime? Maybe. Maybe some of them value their lives.
We've dealt with fanatics multiple times whether that's Japanese willing to die for the emperor or Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East trying to get their 72 virgins. Nobody in the US is scared of dealing with fanatics. Been there, done that. Iran is more mountainous and the terrain is a challenge but the major population centers aren't hidden in bunkers in the hills. Iran is also not landlocked, and unlike, for example, Afghanistan, we would be dealing with a population that has familiarity with the modern world and has at times even protested en masse against the current government of Iran.
Again, none of that is to suggest we should or politically could "invade Iran", and of course I don't think it's necessary to achieve any of our goals, but let's not put Iran on a pedestal either.
> Also... a million fanatics ready to die for the regime? Maybe. Maybe some of them value their lives
The Basij militia has more than a million men in it alone (officially it has 20+ million but more neutral sources pin the number around a million), and this is the organisation that was doing unarmed human wave attacks against Iraq to defend the Iranian revolution. It's also a theocracy with a religion that has martyrdom as a thing.
If anything, a million fanatics ready to die for the regime is probably an understatement.
> We've dealt with fanatics multiple times whether that's Japanese willing to die for the emperor or Muslim extremists throughout the Middle East trying to get their 72 virgins. Nobody in the US is scared of dealing with fanatics
And Japan surrendered because the Emperor said so. If Operation Downfall had to be done instead, you'd have millions of American and Allied casualties.
If you're not scared of this, you aren't paying attention.
> Iran is more mountainous and the terrain is a challenge but the major population centers aren't hidden in bunkers in the hills
Bombing population centres has never resulted in military victory. It has occasionally, alongside military reversals, contributed to political leaders deciding they can't continue (Hirohito, Milosevic), but it would be delusional to hope that Iran's Supreme Leader, sone of the previous one who got bombed out of existence, and again, is a religious leader part of a religion with martyrdom, would be impressed by the US bombing "his" people.
The US was fighting the wrong war in Vietnam. The Vietnamese wanted independence since the 1920s. The US didn't. The French didn't (the second time). The Japanese didn't. The French didn't (the first time).
It's not really the same thing. I really do not at all understand why folks see any sort of military intervention that isn't over in 5 minutes as "the next Vietnam". Venezuela was going to be the next Vietnam too. It's like "the next 2008" all over again espoused as a traumatic, quasi-religious point of view. Rather interesting from a cultural evolution standpoint - seems to be that some folks can't shake a trauma so they just keep going back to it even when it's no longer important or relevant for current decision making or situations.
The public being against the war is just about where the comparison between the war in Iran and Vietnam loses meaning.
The United States doesn't need to depose the current Iranian government on its own. An economic blockade could do that, or at worst simply deprive the Iranian government of the means to financially carry out war. As Iran is now finding out, the Strait wasn't quite the leverage that they, and pundits and internet commentators thought it was, and now the US isn't even interested in negotiating which is causing Iran to lash out. It'll be a slow, but certain death to the economy and such an event and blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those in charge of Iran and their idiotic and undemocratic beliefs. The world can't be held hostage and won't be. Though of course the fact that the United States yet again has to go police the world is a bit like a reservoir that slowly refills. There's only so much we're going to be able to do and we're seeing ongoing populist MAGA and DSA backlash against the war. The next crises the US may not be able to respond to politically and then we're in relationship trouble.
We haven't ever tried this level of economic isolation with Iran. The closest would be North Korea. If you wanted to attempt to make it sound as though I was parroting a quasi-religious point of view, you would want to argue (which I haven't because it's incorrect) that I'm looking at what happened with North Korea (a regime that exists to terrorize the world thanks to communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union) and that I'm saying all blockades or economic sanctions will work just like that, which is, of course, nonsense, just as comparing Iran to Vietnam today is.
No that's incorrect - what would be quasi religious and similar to this obsession with Vietnam would be for me or someone else to use North Korea's economic isolation as an example in the same strong fashion.
I'd encourage you to re-read my comment to see how I drew that distinction.
Pretty well I think? Are you up to date with the Russian economic situation? Or are you suggesting the EU and US stop sanctions since they aren't effective?
You're just revealing your ignorance of Navy supply chains with this comment, and I say that as a veteran who has no support for the ongoing shitshow, only sympathy for my former colleagues trapped underway.
Carrier resupply while underway is primarily by a sort of temporary cable tramway erected between the carrier and the resupply ship.
Supercarriers came into existence at ~70,000t and transitioned to ~100,000t. You'd need to scale another step up or three, to 140,000t, 200,000t, or 280,000t, in order to see something capable of landing and taking off a cargo-laden C-130 in regular operations.
For this to be true it would also mean that assumptions about capabilities in a negative light are also wrong. If one were to say the US is extremely weak, that would be an assumption about a capability that is now by your decree also just wrong.
In other words, this comment is rather meaningless when read plainly - I mean that factually, not as an insult.
More to the point for Guam and similar locations, canned and non-perishable food can are probably around and more can be airlifted in to get people through it. It was pretty much the standard back in the day.
The diet in Guam is already heavily dependent on shelf stable foods. I know this from personal experience but theres a surprising (to me) amount of research on it as well (c.v., https://www.guampedia.com/health-consequences-of-modern-diet...). However, it is worth noting that food on a military installation =/= food nearby, for many obvious and non obsvious reasons.
Sure but that won't happen in Guam or Hawaii. Guam would be evacuated first.
Also these same things apply to any other major power (perhaps more so) who would also see their resources stretched then and their bases deprived of food to reduce combat effectiveness.
I didn't mean to imply that this would hit Hawai'i as hard as Guam, just that it would be one of the more effective places to hit with a DeCA supply chain attack.
Guam freezers and chillers were offline several times the years when I was there. You just didn't get milk, butter, eggs, ice cream, meat, etc those weeks.
Can't recall them going offline island wide when I was there (given there are two on not quite opposite sides of the island). I do recall one having downtime when the other was up and having to deal with that.
I'm also reminded of the HPE SSD time-bomb bug which would cause catastrophic failure after exactly 32,768 hours of use[1]. Could there be a common denominator in when these refrigerators went online?
That makes no sense. If you are russian, iranian, or chinese; you have an incentive for damage and chaos. If they had the chance to push any number of freezers into defrost, there is no reason not to do it.
Pretending that hacks and damage are all preplanned in advance with a room of military scientist programmers as a way to dismiss the notion is silly. These will be attacks based on in-the-moment opportunity, not specifc preplanning for each attack.
In any cases, it is a strong evidence that the freezer can be remotely controlled globally, and this is in itself a source of concerns (what other electrical equipment can be controlled remotely, especially on such critical features?)
No expert but mechanical parts all built to the same specification and used in more or less the same manner can fail around the same time.
We see that in commercial aviation a lot which is why when there’s so much as 2 instances of a similar failure within a short timespan investigators start looking more closely at maintenance and manufacturing.
This points to either an inside job (a US gov agency that feels it needs to create urgency) or Iran (that has an urgent need to do something), since no serious adversary would use this capability in the absence of a theater.
Or criminals (perhaps ransom not paid etc) or Kiddies for the lolz or US teen lashing out or any of the gazillion nationalist-aligned hackers who don’t like USA.
But a misconfiguration is even more likely.
Can’t think _why_ freezers need to be web connected and remotely managed in the first place. What benefits does that bring the commissary in normal operation?
To try to guess at a plausible answer, any monitoring / remote management stemmed from wanting to keep an eye on temps over time. Freezers can go out of temp for only so long before its all bad.
Tada. It saves someone from making the rounds with a clipboard and writing down temps every X hours.
I agree its unneeded, just I can see the thought process.
Remote monitoring doesn’t imply remote management- one is sensible, one is a power trip. We are required to monitor our refrigeration and we did it with a distributed system of wireless sensor that upload to a cloud service. It’s independent and there’s no risk of loss from it.
Would a hostile state actor with access to basically a command and control network inside military bases ruin the food or stay quiet and try to use it to gain access to more interesting systems?
That is also likely true, i.e., misconfiguration, but this is not a "military freezers hacked" story, it is a story of many different controllers of many different refrigeration company products being "hacked" through the humongous barn doors they all have wide open.
Nothing I shared is, in any way, even close to something I am concerned with sharing.
This type of wargaming scenario is literally stuff they give to brand new kids out of high school to get them thinking. It's not anything close to "loose lips sink ships."
>Unlikely to be a hack, more likely to be a misconfiguration or update sent incorrectly.
Are these materially different? Assuming that there wasn't a literal command to turn off all freezers, from an organizational, non criminal perspective, to the organization the damage will be the same, the root cause will be a bug (whether exploited by chance or malice), and the fix will be the same(fixing the bug).
But is it materially different? Or is it a difference in quantitative increase of likelihood of the exploit?
The thesis "everything hackable" will be hacked, and with the advent of hacking LLMs, the boundary between criminal hacking and civil hacking is being blurred, it's no longer attributable to a criminal intent, hacking commands are just something that happens through no criminal intent.
Practically, the hackers, whether human or syntehtic, are a catalyst, they accelerate the rate at which a bug that causes damage will manifest, and perhaps the magnitude of the manifestation, but the essence of the negative manifestation of that bug is the same. Whether it was triggered by a solar ray flipbit or by a rogue LLM or by a russian hacker, the essence of the issue is the same.
That's not what logically follows from my statement. It's a conclusion you can make if you believe my premises are false though. It could also be a third possibility of a bug/issue affecting many of these specific batches.
The Dell XPS 13 with the intel 5 320 (Wildcat Lake) is getting really good reviews.
Looking at benchmarks for the 320 vs the 322 is enlightening, as the 322 is essentially the same chip but as a full Panther Lake. So the same 2P+4E+2Xe3 setup, but without all of these optimizations. You get twice the memory bandwidth and TB4 as the main consumer facing factors.
I'm actually in the situation of looking to exit the Apple ecosystem to an entirely Linux one.
If you look at my post history here I lost my entire Apple account due to them assuming my purchase of a 128GB Studio was fraud, and was fortunate enough to escalate to the right office to fix it.
Couple that with the age attestations coming down the pipe and I'm thinking that it's time to go ahead and complete my transition. I love the hardware, I am productive with the OS, but enough things are pushing me away that I think it's time to go Linux for the computers and GrapheneOS for the phone.
I'll have to unload the Studio, which is annoying. I have no idea what to replace it with in the Linux space. I love that machine.
I'm not sure I believe in this, but I certainly want to.
There is a certain logic to this, and it's not certain it won't go this direction. But creating a solid society for the masses so they don't revolt isn't what most of the out of touch tech billionaires aspire to, from their own public comments.
Naval Nuclear Power School had (maybe still does) this model 20 years ago as well. Pass rate for my class cohort was 28% over the entire 2 year pipeline.
We didn't call them retch sessions, and they were taught by the instructors though. We also were encouraged to peer tutor and since we were all restricted to one building the homework was always group work allowed.
Also had badges to track time spent in the building for required study hours, though some people gave up and just slept at their desks when they started sliding down the grade scale and the hours racked up.
Generally I think I did 30 hours of studying/homework (went up and down depending on what was being taught, but was around that) a week (for 12-15 hours of actual lecturing), with some of my friends putting in 50% more. Generally the only day we weren't there was Saturdays. Most of the day Sunday was usually spent in class preparing for the next week.
I think only a third or so of my class wound up graduating. Caltech doesn't flunk people out. What happens is students will transfer to easier schools, or drop out, or decide driving a truck is more to their liking.
How do these options deal with translation of other languages?
I can do it manually, but was curious if any send it through any of the translation engines.
Specifically my wife has a TON of Japanese recipes that I want/need to translate so I can use them. I can do it manually but doing it automatically would be awesome.
Its also, by far, the easiest EV to swap a battery on yourself. It might be the only one you can reasonably do in your driveway. As its 8 bolts, 3 plugs, and a quick ECU flash to get a new one going. Its also cheaper ($8k last I looked, for the 62kw model) than any other EV to swap the battery due to the lack of cooling.
Not the perfect EV, but maybe the perfect shade tree mechanics EV.
reply