I know that there is a lot of art behind these type of patterns and getting people to sign up, etc. However whenever I see them discussing techniques, they seem to ignore the fact that people quickly learn to work around them.
If I go to a new company's site, I'll quickly try and figure out whether I can get the info I need without signing up to anything I don't want. I'm used to weighing up giving my personal details, signing up for emails etc. If your site seems too spammy, intentionally opaque, or just yechy, I'll just forget about it and move on.
Change the patterns or the KPIs, and I'm sure that many of your page visitors will change up too, especially the more savvy ones.
Yep, this is exactly why infobiz one-pagers with extra long text blocks that never ended started having the opposite effect. It's like writing THIS IS A SCAM in bold letters. 'Customer isn't a fool. She's your mother'(C)
Yes. A lot of 'innovation' in marketing is just changing things to eliminate design decisions which are associated with scamminess and coming up with new ones which aren't yet overused by the worst bottom-feeders and so seem 'fresh'.
One of the major groups supporting the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination is 'Jewish lefties'. Alongside Palestinian voices, those who feel
solidarity because of Arab or Muslim identities, and those who work in general against colonialism, Jewish lefties who make a specific point of rejecting the 'community mainstream' of generally supporting Israel are and have always been involved in opposing the excesses of Zionism.
I know some of them and they are very brave people. They are constantly accused of being 'self-hating' and even Nazi sympathizers by more right-wing Jews. It's a pretty big deal if you are Jewish and get accused of being a 'Kapo' by other Jews. And they are often treated with suspicion or worse by other pro-Palestinian activists. Many people expect them to constantly condemn, apologize for or disassociate themselves from Israel's actions, simply because they are Jewish. They also have to contend with the fact that a proportion of their 'allies' are either actual antisemites using Palestine as a pretext, or well-meaning idiots who get caught up in conspiracy theories and racist tropes without understanding how they are connected to antisemitism.
I would say that being leftwing and opposed to the status quo in Israel is one of the major reasons that Jewish people become disillusioned with their community and end up completely rejecting the religious identity. And having to deal with accusations like yours is one of the main things stopping Jewish people who oppose the Israeli occupation from being more involved in activism.
the "caught up in racist tropes" thing reminds me of an incident that occurred at my university. there was a speech by someone involved w/ the Israeli govt & during the Q&A a Palestine activist asked them a question about organ harvesting by Israeli doctors. immediately she was accused of perpetuating the blood libel & a lot of Jewish students got understandably pissed off. but it turned out that her question was in reference to a specific incident where Israeli doctors actually did harvest organs w/o permission from relatives from dead Palestinians as well as Israelis: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathol.... I spoke to her afterwards & she hadn't even heard of the blood libel. so there's definitely a need to both educate activists & recognize that innocent misunderstandings occur
That sounds like a good news story for EVs. So many people bought them that the installation of charging stations is lagging behind. There is no strong constraint on building new charging stations though. Soon they will catch up, and no one will have to wait more than 20-30 minutes.
The other difference between trucks and cars is that power/weight isn't really important for the latter, and hugely important for the former. If there's an improvement that allows you to carry 5% more weight in your car, that doesn't matter much. Most of the engine's energy is being used transporting the engine around, and the weight of passengers and luggage is not an operative constraint. For trucks it matters a lot, because they just became 5% more efficient.
The trailer tail aerodynamic devices are supposed to save 5% on fuel. They remain rare and 99% of those are left undeployed. The trucking companies don't seem to care much about easy cost savings.
I was a semi-truck driver for a while. A lot of "fuel savings" gimmicks amount to sticking a card on your bicycle frame so the spokes hit it a lot and make it sound like you're going fast. It's bullshit. Why do some companies do it? Tax breaks and grants. Do they work. No. Why don't all the companies do it? There's actually a limited amount of companies who can apply for the breaks because the laws are incredibly fucking stupid when it comes to commercial trucks (and to drivers). Similar how there are limited amount of carbon tax credits you can apply for. Some companies just don't waste their time. I have nothing against protecting the environment. But bullshit gimmicks won't do a thing.
From looking at it on Google images, could it be that this device has other downsides? Making doors more awkward to open, increasing turning radius etc?
The marginal cost of dragging 40ft of air is so small compared to the hassle of trying to determine which truck is the correct one for today’s deliveries and pickups, so the companies tend toward having all trucks the same size.
That's odd. Airlines would kill to install a cheap device on their fleet and save 5% on fuel. If diesel is $3/gal and the semi holds 200gal, that's about $30 savings per fillup and would pay for itself quickly.
The fuel tanks on an aircraft are a major portion of the weight of the whole craft. So make engines more efficient, and you can take less fuel, which means the plane is lighter, so you use even less fuel and can take even less, etc. As you reduce the amount of fuel needed to go a certain distance you can go further and convert two-leg flights to single hops, which saves all sorts of other costs.
The fuel tank of a semi truck is not an important proportion of the weight of the whole vehicle, so it does matter, but not so much.
Crazy idea: don't store hydrogen as a liquid but as a gas. Hydrogen is lighter than air, so you've just reduced the fuel requirements by making the semi lighter than it otherwise would be.
Or just go to the logical conclusion: make semis blimps that use hydrogen to both float and as a fuel source.
You haven't made them lighter, you've made them more bouyant. A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of rocks, but a ton of rocks is far more aerodynamic.
And if you have 20% less weight on the wheels, you now have 20% less traction and thus 20% (or more?) longer braking distance.
You still need the same engine output to accelerate 100 tons, but you only have the traction you would get from an 80 ton load. That's a bad thing. Meanwhile, you save a miniscule amount of energy by having less-loaded tires.
Anyway, you need to compress hydrogen to store any meaningful amount, which increases the density and makes it like a normal gas/liquid instead of making you more buoyant. So it's not even possible.
No, under ideal friction the reduced traction is cancelled out by the reduced mass that needs decelerating, so that braking distance remains constant.
But actually, braking distance vs mass is more like a bathtub curve. With very little weight (talking toy cars here) it's hard to grip a surface, meanwhile very large masses like trucks have huge amounts of kinetic energy to disperse through their contact patches, leading rubber to melt, which reduces its stickiness beyond a certain point. Trucks end up with longer braking distances in practice.
It becomes a bit of a transport density problem. A semi does not take up much more room than the cargo it's transporting (if fully packed) but a blimp needs to be significantly larger to carry the same amount. They're big, slow, and require a large amount of space to land on the ground. It just seems like more issues to overcome than hydrogen fuel cell trucks.
In every flight you take, the wings are filled with highly combustable materials, and yet we find ways to keep them from exploding. The same is true for all those batteries in electric cars, and of course gasoline.
Jet A is really not that combustible; it's very close to diesel/kerosene. If you take a lit match and drop it in a bucket of Jet A, nothing would happen, it'd just burn out. It's way safer than gasoline. It's combustible only when turned into a fine mist.
On the other hand, H2 would have exploded just from the spark of lighting the match.
You'd likely get by with dropping the match into gasoline most of the time too. Its not definite that there will be vapor from it in the right mix for it to catch fire before hitting the surface.
Gasoline also isn't quite as combustible as people imagine.
It's worth noting that hydrogen fires burn bright and quickly, but tend to not be very dangerous to people.
Gasoline and batteries are heavy and tend to stick to surfaces (including people) when they burn, almost like napalm. Hydrogen rushes upwards, away from people and surfaces, as it burns, and is generally quickly exhausted.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. Fire around gasoline is dangerous for a number of reasons, but liquid gasoline pooled just isn't as volatile as people imagine.
In my experience the combustibility of det fuel and similar petroleum products depends primarily on whether the context of the conversation is praising modern safety engineering or heckling someone for using diesel as a cleaning solvent.
Right, but that's not the whole story. Some documents can be permanently offline and still do their job. The list of police informants might be an example. The officer controlling the information writes it down, but he also remembers it. No one else looks at it except, in rare situations like a police corruption investigation, that officer's commander, or an internal investigation unit.
Other documents, will need a whole process of retrieving information, copying it, adding info, sending it, checking it, sharing it with other people. Police officers' own personnel records might be an example. If you only store these on paper, informal access procedures might be developed. For example, the civilian secretary is used to certain people requesting copies of 6 or 7 files at a time, so they don't always keep track of what was asked for. Unofficial copies get made and kept in someone's desk drawer so they don't have to spend a morning going over to the main HQ. And so on.
Now you have the worst of both worlds - lax security, but also no hope of the traceability and fine-grained access control of an electronic system.
If I go to a new company's site, I'll quickly try and figure out whether I can get the info I need without signing up to anything I don't want. I'm used to weighing up giving my personal details, signing up for emails etc. If your site seems too spammy, intentionally opaque, or just yechy, I'll just forget about it and move on.
Change the patterns or the KPIs, and I'm sure that many of your page visitors will change up too, especially the more savvy ones.