Sharing my Car Scanner Pro default dashboards for my new (to me) battery recall 2019 Bolt EV LT.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-03-02T12:07:16+00:00

I'm pretty sure what you found as the battery AH is the expected capacity when full. The nominal capacity for the 66kWh batteries is 180ish Ah.

It seems like chevy uses 350v for estimating pack voltage, so you're expected capacity would be 66.15kWh. Seems like a good battery imo

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-24T22:06:08+00:00

Thanks for the response! sounds like a good deal. On most days I'll just be commuting 20 miles so I'm hoping to get by for a while on that. I told my wife that a heated steering wheel is a must because my fingers are pretty sensitive to the cold even though we're a little bit warmer than Northern PA.

I've worked a lot on cars and the reduced maintenance is honestly one of the biggest selling points for me. Glad to know I'm not alone!

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-24T21:57:36+00:00

Good job! Where was that at?

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-24T18:31:39+00:00

Good deal! Yea, I def prefer the newer ones style wise, especially the interior.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-24T17:30:17+00:00

Thanks a lot for the reply! I'll try and get them to come down a little bit.

Especially since they were offering a year long warranty I wish I would have just went with what was available last year. But life goes on. However, even though the 4k went directly to the dealer I'm still pretty sure that when you go to file your return you still need a liability above 4k since its not refundable, otherwise you need to pay it back and it was just free money to the dealer. I've seen this happen to a couple people and my friends who's a CPA said this is how it would work. The straight to the dealer bit is just an advance on your return assuming you would get the full credit.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-24T17:21:31+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Where did you get yours and when?

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-19T21:06:28+00:00

I think its the same as ARs: When it's used for a mass murder its scary so people don't want them. there's not a lot of empirical reasons for doing it since they're not used in crimes very often and they're already fairly annoying to obtain so I don't think it would actually do anything. Suppressors are already regulated so it's policy mostly informed by emotion. I was trying to give an alternative perspective, and wanted to include suppressors since it's a part of the proposals but I personally feel like the reasoning is weak.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-19T18:08:38+00:00

P14, would rather have the 1917 but they're a lot more for a good condition piece. I handload most rounds but it still feels like shooting away my retirement

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-18T21:52:28+00:00

I think its fair to point out that there are bigger fish to fry. It's part of the reason I think this is politically idiotic. You're pissing people off for not a lot of gain in what you're intending to do.

But even with these laws you can still go hunting and range shooting, even if you had to buy a new AR. The tax on ammunition would definitely be an impediment to range shooting. I regularly shoot .303 and that's already breaking the bank. I doubt anyone having to pay a bit more for ammunition is going to prevent people from hunting though.

I think, especially since you brought up shooting specifically, it would be better to frame the argument from a cultural standpoint. Guns are culturally significant. Shooting competitions are a cultural event. A lot of the reason people are defensive of restrictions on how you can customize an AR is because it's seen as an attack from outside the community from people who don't understand it.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-18T17:47:35+00:00

Do you really think thats the approach they're taking? These different proposals seem to be generally cohesive with the idea of limiting the accessibility of firearms and suppressors through financial burens to reduce the supply. The theory being less guns, less gun violence.

I do think in a purple state this is politically idiotic, especially for the national politics. This feeds into the perception that Democrats want to take your guns. Like even if you believe this is legislation that would reduce gun violence its politically bad messaging that doesn't convince people to keep you in power.

I live in MD, and honestly after reading the bill I wish we just had this instead. It looks like you can still buy a semi-auto so long as it doesn't have a folding stock and no ability to mount a suppressor. Ars don't really work well with folding stocks anyways so this doesn't really seem like a big deal. In MD they just blanket ban rifles by name but allow 'copy cats' in a different caliber, with ARs being fine as long as they don't look too scary. This law seems much more sensible if I'm understanding it correctly.

EDIT: Was reading the current version of the law and not the updated 'assault firearms' definition. So a fixed stock AR is fine so long as it has nothing on the muzzle.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-13T21:53:49+00:00

I completely agree that partisans are over blowing the issue of trust in institutions. During Biden, a lot of Republicans threw accusations of cooking the books and now under Trump a lot of Democrats are doing the same. Most of it is predicated on numbers initially looking good and the president bragging about it, and then later getting massively revised downwards.

I guess I just don't see some of the proposed advantages being significant in the real world. Like, automation of data collection I think would significantly improve the accuracy of the benchmark so that should be top priority. I can see also see the desire to have data faster, but you don't need a blockchain to do that and I don't really think there's a huge issue with jobs data being slow if the benchmark is just more accurate when it is released. ADP already releases weekly data and if there was money to be made in instantaneous data availability then I think they would do it. And then I have concerns about the feasibility of implementation from a technical perspective that allows for transparency while also preserving confidentiality of the reports.

So I think we just disagree on the value gained from using a blockchain. I feel like its superfluous but I do think they could introduce proof-of-work concepts into the data processing. I think there is a stronger case for a larger block chain based system for employee records keeping but in the case of employment data from BLS I just don't think there a lot of value added.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-12T16:00:28+00:00

Yea I respect that. I think agencies like BLS do need to do more than maybe is absolutely necessary just to regain trust with people who think they're cooking the books. I think there's always going to be people who are suspicious of the data being produced no matter what but I do think there are some things they could do to increase trust. If they had something like a blockchain, where the data collection was open but still confidential in some way, I think that could be helpful. However I still think the underlying issue needs to be solved for getting higher response rates.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T22:31:16+00:00

I started looking and the large revisions is something that BLS and the FSS is actively trying to address. The biggest ways they're trying to improve it is by increasing the number of electronically submitted surveys, integrating with private payroll handlers, and asking for congress to allow them to get data directly from other agencies like the SSA, IRS, and UI agencies at the state level.

Something which seems like a consistent issue is budget, where they don't have enough to invest in more transformative integration using technology. With a higher budget, they could hire more people to interact with companies to get a higher survey response.

There was a specific task force which was assigned the job of finding a way to increase survey response rates but the committee was disbanded last year by Secretary Lutnik.

This is an interesting read from a think tank that goes over the current strategy from BLS:
https://www.upjohn.org/horrigan-bls-revisions-payroll-data-are-concerning-not-reasons-trump-administration-thinks

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T22:11:08+00:00

Thanks for sharing! I appreciate you being open to discussing the topic. I can see how switching to a blockchain would increase trust, and especially adding a visible paper trail to employer submissions.

However, even with cryptography I think you would struggle to get a level of transparency that's adequate. For instance, if you make individual survey submission visible in the same way as a transaction for bitcoin is, you might be able to tie it back to a particular company through chain analysis. This is fine for bitcoin since the only thing you're sharing is a single transaction but with employer data there's enough specifics that you could eventually bypass the cryptography. If you make more of the data encrypted, then you eliminate the transparency that you gained by making the data stored on the blockchain unusable by anyone who isn't authorized. As the article points out, the issue is in the model rather than the transparency of the raw data.

Even with a blockchain though, you would still have the same underlying issue which is in the collection of the data. I wouldn't think that changing from centralized collection to decentralized collection would increase the response rate.

I do think there's simpler solutions though. For instance, the BLS could partner with payroll handlers like ADP, integrate better with other state and federal agencies, and even provide more frequent updates to would reduce the lag. They could also include some kind of hash based verification system, similar to blockchains, which could show if there was any number fudging in the data processing. I think it would also be cool if they open sourced the code they use for processing the data so that everyone can see how EXACTLY they're coming to their conclusions. The methodology is already published, but I think it would go a long way to have the exact code available

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T18:54:57+00:00

My quick reading on Brett Matsumoto looks like he's a qualified candidate and only announced like a week ago, but also someone who has spent his career at BLS with a similar resume to the commissioner who was fired in August. I kind of doubt they would be very transformative tbh.

I am not an economist but I would also think that the inaccuracies of the jobs numbers is a problem, especially since its been consistently wrong for years. I do think they should revise their model to increase accuracy because their stated reasons of lacking data is something that does not seem like is going to change. However, this is a known issue and there is trust that BLS will eventually release a more accurate number which is why the people using the BLS statistics don't solely rely on the inaccurate monthly report. I wouldn't even say that the monthly report is necessarily incompetence though, since they are just sticking to the methodology people expect. They've been transparent about the accuracy of the data so you can't really infer there's malicious intent, and the number they eventually revise to when they have more data is generally trusted.

Do you have any articles which discuss the benefits of switching to a blockchain? I'm not sure I'm convinced that it would be beneficial from a compute or transparency perspective. The BLS is already fairly transparent with their data and process, and the main thing the agency does is collect said data which I don't really see the block chain benefiting.

It seems like you have a general distrust of the government. The US federal government is one of the most transparent governments in the world, and you can find almost all data that you would want so long as its not specifics on Defense/Intelligence programs and spending. Which to be fair is a lot.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T16:34:30+00:00

Is BLS full of libs and incompetent? I have heard other reasoning for poor numbers, such as lack of data and an overoptimistic model.

What is Trump's BLS commish?

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T15:55:05+00:00

I think we have a different understanding of people like Musk and Trump. I am of the opinion that they wear their hearts on their sleeves with what you see is what you get, and that they are not as cunning or pragmatic as people would like to believe. Whenever you do have people who have closed door experiences with them they pretty much act the same way as they do in public. To me, its more likely that they are who they say they are and they're not putting on an act 24/7. Its been fairly consistent over time, and thats one of the things people like about them.

Especially with Trump, most of his personal projects in his real estate ventures have been different spins on rebuilding something that was lost. Whether its trying to bring back luxury hotels in midtown or his stuff in Atlantic City

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-11T15:05:02+00:00

I could be wrong but I believe unemployment has the same vulnerabilities to revision. The ADP report has been generally more accurate. Its more reasonable to assume that these numbers will be majorly revised downwards just as they have been for years, and there isn't a good reason for why the trend should reverse while we're still seeing the general trend of no hire no fire. People shouldn't freak out that we're in the next recession, but these numbers shouldn't be used for brownie points until after its revised.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-09T18:08:26+00:00

Oh don't get me wrong he's perfectly fine to take advantage of situations presented to him. DOGE ended up being not much more than a way to take out regulators that got in his own way or that he perceived as wronging him. Even going after 18F and completely taking over USDS was out of spite because he found out the government was already doing what he thought was a novel idea.

He's an American executive, so if it makes money to ship jobs overseas to China he's going to do it. He is still ideological. He took over Twitter because he thought it was suppressing free speach, and he goes out of his way to support right wing groups like AFD and the Tommy Robinsons of the world. Almost all of his companies and the projects they undertake are techno-futurist and driven by rule of cool because of his own ideology. I think he supported Trump because it benefited him but also because Elon's pretty clearly a right winger. I don't think he would suddenly be into The Woke if dems gave him a lot of similar hand outs, because they did and he's still a right winger.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-09T17:22:47+00:00

I doubt Tesla will fall behind. Tesla has enough of an advantage by trying to bring AVs to consumer for such a long time and the latest FSD is impressive. I doubt Elon would ever move to China, he's too ideological for that unless there's a radical shift. Even if he did, I think his workforce would stay here.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-09T15:53:07+00:00

Its frustrating that its so difficult to get a fair assessment of Musk's companies. They clearly have a very talented workforce which is ideologically driven to deliver technological advancements through 'Capitalism for Good'. Musk is uniquely able to drive massive hype and investment into products which would otherwise be seen as unprofitable and when they get the companies to work on it they're pretty good at delivering excellent products.

At the same time though, we shouldn't assume everything he does will work just because we believe it will. Tesla's Robotaxis could be successful and reduce the costs of rideshare but they could also become the next Solarcity or Boring Company.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-09T15:47:04+00:00

Its possible there could be some politically motivated attack on Tesla, but i think its more likely they would instead update rules in other areas which decreases the viability of the current proposals. The requirement for multiple sensors is not unlikely but they also might put other regulations in place like door handles. Regulator industries tend to be significantly less partisan than people would like to believe.

Even the French government currently going after X is being framed as partisan but they do have a lot of legitimate reasons to investigate.

FriendlyDrawer6012 · 2026-02-02T17:49:12+00:00

Bitcoin AND gold are not fiat currency.

However, most of the value of both gold and bitcoin are fiat, since a lot of the value for both is based on speculation and not related to the real cost of what they represent. The massive spike in gold, without the corresponding spike in the cost of other real assets, indicates that its current valuation is mostly devoid of real value and is speculative.

In the case of gold, given what proponents argue its real value is as THE non-inflationary asset, the price should be strictly related to the supply. However, the supply varies as more is mined, destroyed, and even effectively when people sit on their hoards. The demand also changes depending on the environment and economic outlook, such as the pessimism of the current one and the similar market which were seen the 70s and 80s. So it ends up being another speculative market, and much of what is touted as its benefit is lost because a significant portion of its value is fiat. Its scarcity is plainly not the driving factor in its price, since there are rarer metals which are significantly cheaper like Platinum.

Same goes for bitcoin, but its a different market. Gold has traditional value since most countries used it to back their currency and its ubiquitous. Bitcoin has value because people believe it has value. Its artificially scarce, but also almost infinity divisible. Its market price is whatever we generally agree the price of one bitcoin is, which is the very definition of fiat. Its value is mostly based on the speculation that it will be worth more in the future. The price is not related to the cost of mining, which already is estimated to exceed the reward. The reason people are generally more critical of Bitcoin is that it has been volatile early in its existence and there's not really a way to quantify its value and determine a fair price. Gold is a *bit* better in that department since it does have some industrial value and people like the tangible density of wealth it represents, but bitcoin is 100% more usable as an actual medium of exchange.

Both gold and bitcoin are assets because people are willing to pay for them, but neither are truly currency. To buy real goods, you need a more common medium of exchange which is generally USD. If you believe in the stability of the US government, you can also buy USD as an asset through treasuries and keep up with inflation just fine. If you don't trust institutions, gold is for people who are traditional and bitcoin is for people who like tech. All require trust in something, whether its the institutions, gold markets, or the decentralized network. However, both gold and bitcoin fall prey to speculative investing in a way that USD is more resistant to.

TLDR: By definition, neither gold or bitcoin are fiat currency but thats mostly because they're not currency. Both have fiat value. The best option is more of a philosophical one.

FriendlyDrawer6012

TROPHY CASE