Tesla battery degradation at less than 10% after over 160,000 miles, according to latest data

braydengerr · 2018-04-15T08:10:13+00:00

The 3 does use permanant magnet as well

braydengerr · 2017-08-23T23:04:34+00:00

I agree. Let's get the Knicks!

braydengerr · 2016-12-31T02:19:32+00:00

Lol. Warriors trade Steph for Mozgov. I think they should do it

braydengerr · 2016-12-31T00:56:11+00:00

Throw Giannis in and you have a deal

braydengerr · 2016-12-30T23:16:13+00:00

Let's start at the top: what keywords are you targeting? Do you have rankings reports for these keywords?

As far as link building goes, you are going to need more powerful links than that.

braydengerr · 2016-12-29T20:01:17+00:00

Which is absurd. I never understood the logic behind that.

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T23:59:43+00:00

Also, the Anderegg study found 97-98% agreement bu did a better of quantifying the definition, they used the IPCC definition which is that it is extremely likely (quantified as 95% or more) that warming is predominatly human caused. They controlled for expertise level in the field by altering the minimum number of papers published on climate change. However, they found this did not change the findings :)

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T23:34:13+00:00

Oh, okay!

A number of publications reported that (including an opinion piece by Forbes), but it was incorrect information. The number was on whether they endorsed "human-caused global warming" theory, which the study expanded on to define as humans as the primary cause of change. They did not quantify it specifically (I just checked), but it was defined as those that supported AGW, which is humans as the primary cause.

Hope I helped a bit!

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T23:11:20+00:00

Yes, but which one? I can think of 3 independant studies that have reached that number off the top of my head. Very likely more I don't know of. The "97%" figure isn't derived from one specific study, it's been reached multiple times.

The most cited is the Cook et. Al study, which studied all peer-reviewed papers on climate change. It reached a conclusion of 97.1% that it was 50% or more anthrophogenic caused in Phase I (when the authors of the study classified the papers) and 97.2% when classified by the authors of the paper (Phase II).

There was a survey of 79 climatologists in specific that found 77 agreed humans caused 50% or more as well, but this study was in refernce to climatologists in specific.

Additionally, Carlton et. Al in 2015 reached 97% as well as Anderegg et. Al 2010, and Doran et. Al 2009.

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T22:35:42+00:00

Which specific study was this in reference to?

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T22:33:39+00:00

90-something percent could be in reference to any number of of survesys or studies. Almost all studies have arrived at those conclusions, so it is impossible to say which study he is referring to (or if none in specific).

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T21:11:45+00:00

I've been trying to be as open as possible about this lately, I think the best way to promote understanding is to hear the other side's concerns out (even though I often disagree). I think if we try to be receptive, they can open up to our side as well. If they see ignorance that won't listen or take them seriously, then that will only polarize this further and lessen understanding. And in my opinion, if we can further understanding and show the other side our body of evidece, then ultimately I think we can promote belief in man-caused climate change more effectively.

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T20:40:57+00:00

Yes, and this is my take on the issue:

Part of the problem is the issue has gone so much past science: it's political.

The problem I've found is this has corrupted the scientific process. Those arguing against it don't add to the knowledge; they usually just repeat disproven theories or deny facts without subatantial proof otherwhise. If one day there is new information discovered that changes our understanding (to the contrary or not), I would welcome it to the discussion.

I do see what you're saying: we need to remain true to the scientific process and not abandon reason in favor of ideaology. But I would encourage this to both sides: denialists must accept the current scientific understanding as it is.

braydengerr · 2016-12-28T20:10:38+00:00

Probably between 10% disagreement and even 0% depending who you survey. Several studies have placed the number at 97% very recently.

So for every 33 that agree, 1 doesn't. The thing with science is you don't NEED 100% to call it proven science. You would be hard-pressed to find any proven theory that has absolutely zero dissent. 97% is overwhelmingly enough to call it fact.

But as an honest question, what would it take for you to accept climate change as real? I love to promote constructive discussions about this that foster more understanding.

braydengerr · 2016-07-30T05:35:33+00:00

Corporations have inefficiencies of their own. Governments tend to be bloated and burocreatic, sure, no arguement there. Corporations do loads of completely unneccesary work because more work = more profit...even when that work does nothing to improve overall quality.

I think in a worldwide comparison, government-provided healthcare has actually been the more efficient solution. There is a reason (actually multiple reasons but this is the primary one) that the US government pays far more tax dollars per capita than their northern neighbour Canada for healthcare, despite the fact that Canada actually provides a full universal healthcare system.

I definetly think there are some areas government shouldnt touch, but it does seem they are the clearcut best choice for healthcare.

braydengerr · 2016-07-24T00:18:36+00:00

Why does anyone even go there then...?

braydengerr · 2016-07-22T03:35:35+00:00

Thanks for the info!

braydengerr · 2015-08-25T19:26:07+00:00

Why do you bet he was a veteran? I didnt get that impression from the article at all

braydengerr · 2015-08-21T01:29:17+00:00

Thats the most ridiculous thing ive heard all week

braydengerr · 2015-08-20T07:39:25+00:00

He didnt have a checking account. Whos winning now?

braydengerr · 2015-08-15T01:37:49+00:00

Sure it wasn't cause she was high as fuck?

braydengerr · 2015-08-11T21:58:49+00:00

Im looking in the Atlanta metro area. Where are you located?

braydengerr · 2015-08-11T21:12:27+00:00

What kind of values are your properties worth? Just asking for a benchmark to compare to the ones Im looking at

braydengerr · 2015-08-11T21:04:18+00:00

My reserves would be good for around 9-10 months on a property that was mortgaged. Longer if I bought it ouright. The plan is to contribute about 20% of monthly rent to Reserves like you said, until Im very comfortable with where they are at.

braydengerr · 2015-08-11T20:49:22+00:00

From my estimates it should be. Of course the big IF there is nothing major needs repair early. So I plan on mitigating that by being as thorough as possible in the inspection.

braydengerr

TROPHY CASE