IrateAnteater

And this is why no one should ever buy any smart devices that require internet connections.

This is equipment that uses all statically addressed devices. And ignoring the fact that IPv6 is simply unsupported on most of them, there are duplicate machines that share programs. Regardless of IP version you need NAT anyway if you want to be able to reach each of the duplicates from the plant network.

We use NAT all the time in industrial settings. Makes it so you can have select devices communicate with the plant level network, while keeping everything else common so that downtime is reduced when equipment inevitably fails.

You do realize that no-one gives a flying fuck about who you block, right?

The grid could be powered by 100% coal and an EV would still be better than an ICE car. The efficiency difference between car motors and power plants is staggering.

The flatter torque curve (peak torque on electric cars is usually very comparable to ICE) is irrelevant, unless you are a shitty driver who treats the gas pedal like a two position switch.

Which is good, but still has nothing to do with what the remaining cars are powered by. There's no reason why it has to be "transit+ICE" instead of "transit+EV".

Doing what? As far as road surfaces go, asphalt is the most environmentally friendly (other than just having only dirt roads). Concrete emits CO2 as an inherent part of the process, and a brick road would be hilariously expensive, and non-durable. Asphalt also has the distinction of being the most recycled material on the planet. And not just in a "10% get recycled and everything is less" sense. Almost all asphalt ends up being recycled into more asphalt.

Building electrified transit and keeping ICE cars would as a whole be more beneficial than just converting all cars to EVs.

This choice you've presented is extremely misleading. The build out of electrified public transportation and the shift from ICE to EV cars are not in any way related choices. If the government chooses to build more public transportation, that has no effect on whether or not EVs replace ICE cars.

It's because on the modern internet, everyone is all-or-nothing when it comes to their chosen issue. Nuance has become unacceptable.

This community in particular can get a little out of touch at times. In North America in particular, even if every level of government agreed to begin working towards a car free society immediately, we'd still be facing a decades long construction campaign as entire towns and cities would have to be restructured. In the meantime, a shift to electric vehicles is something that can drastically help the global warming issue, and can be implemented in less than a decade.

In reality, we should be shifting to electric cars in the sort term, while we work towards eliminating the need for them in the long term.

Also, I'm convinced that the brake dust/tire wear particulates talking point is the result of oil industry astroturfing. The brake dust thing especially is actually better on electric cars, since regenerative braking reduces the amount of brake wear.

Which "solar isn't good enough" crowd are you talking about? I have never heard of anyone saying that we should build less solar capacity just because a 100% solar powered grid may not work best in all areas. Rooftop solar especially is a non-issue for anyone who wants to move off fossil fuels.

The only time I've seen people arguing against solar is in locations where winter drops the solar energy production for half the year. Even then, people are talking about grid scale installs and alternatives, not rooftop.

That's much harder to do, both technically and (more importantly) politically. A lot of big businesses rely on VPNs.