Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bidatzi's commentslogin

Why would it have to be unsprung? They are not unsprung in the vehicle shown in the article.


UK contract is also on a “best effort” basis.


With a range over 1000km?


How do they know how far the drone flew? Could be just Lawrence of Arabia on a camel crossing the desert and launching from outside the compound wall for all anyone knows.


Could be just that, but it doesn’t seem that’s what happened https://twitter.com/tobiaschneider/status/117291970014739660...


The drone doesn't need 1000km rage, you just need a pickup and a few people to get somewhat close.


The attack was, per their claim, carried out with assistance from inside Saudi Arabia.

The required range is vastly smaller than 1000km.


It is owned by a union in a communist country https://www.baldingsworld.com/2019/04/26/making-sense-of-hua... How independent from CCP is that institution in practical terms?


Musk is a seller in this offering.


Sales went up 50% YoY. Loses went up 83% YoY.


They have the Bank of Musk, which is a massive advantage. Apple does have all of that cash on hand, though, so that's less of an advantage if they are truly working on a car.


Is GDP the relevant metric to assess this?

On credit/debit card transaction volume North America represents 40+% of global market.

https://www.capgemini.com/resource-file-access/resource/pdf/...


That figure (98%) is about electricity production, not total energy used by the country.


So do we have to tally Saudi oil pollution on the exporting country instead of those that actually use it?


I'm not sure which point you're responding to.

Regarding accounting re. renewables share in energy production, yes, I think their oil exports should be taken into account, and we should say that Saudis aren't model citizens of renewable energy production.

Regarding political responsibility, I think we should definitely hold producers responsible as well. We can't burn all the oil that's still in the ground without devastating climate effects, and it's in every nation's interest to reduce oil production and consumption in an orderly but swift fashion.

EDIT: responding here as I can't reply below anymore. This discussion was about energy PRODUCTION, you are below talking about energy CONSUMPTION. US oil imports should indeed count as energy production in the exporting country. Re electricty production - this subthread was about general energy production, not electricity!


About your edit: fair enough, if you are talking about primary energy production. I understood what the figure provided in the first comment was referring to (electricity production/consumption) and was addressing that.

In the end, I think the fact that they produce all of their electricity from hydro is a fantastic achievement. That you (and many others, including a lot of people in Norway) would like them to stop pumping oil from the North Sea is (for me) a different issue.

I don't think Norway producing less oil would reduce global oil consumption.

FWIW, they produce about half of what they did in the early '00s.


Let's see, the US imports 30-40% of the oil it consumes. Should that oil be accounted as used by the exporters?

Norway uses no fossil fuels for its electricity production. Norway happens to export a lot of oil. How does the second statement negate the first one?


Last year that was only 27 %, btw.

(If "oil" means "crude oil and petroleum products").


Not just a claim from the article. The description in the gold video itself is quite explicit.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: