lawaaiig's comments

Hyundai offers an EV version of the Casper: it's 1335kg vs 985kg for the petrol variant. Surely that's a great deal heavier? The Aygo finds an all-electric competitor in the Renault Zoë whose battery pack alone weighs 300kg, a hefty increase compared to the 70kg engine of the aygo. Volkswagen's up! comes in at 929kg; the e-up! registers at 1229kg.

Regarding the I-pace vs the F-pace I was unable to find more than a single version with a greater weight than the I-pace, though I admit I haven't analyzed the specs of all 108 editions. That single example weighing more was, of course, a hybrid.

EV versions are, primarily due to the weight of their battery packs, significantly heavier than their ICE counterparts and that's fine.

Based on a cursory glance at google results, 10% is at the lower bound of weight increase, and in sudden stop scenarios I would assume tyre grip is the main factor in speed reduction potential, not engine/regenerative braking. I'm not aware of any convincing studies showing a clear advantage for EVs in these scenarios.

Wouldn't know about 'pretty much anywhere', but assuming you're from the Netherlands you might want to reconsider: https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...

EVs most definitely do not decelerate faster. Their increased weight leads to decreased braking capabilities, which, combined with their faster acceleration, makes them potentially harder to control and more deadly in collisions due to the greater force of impact.

The regenerative braking force is generally much stronger than engine braking in ICE vehicles, as long as the battery isn't full.

It's a bit more complicated than that even.

While not going into details: 1. This only concerns liability for damages. 2. It is not necessarily the case that the cyclist is exempt from (fully) compensating the motorized driver for their damages, even if the cyclist is reimbursed for (a portion of) their own damages.

Also note that most cyclists are insured!

That understanding is in line with using libresolv and the established behavior of the resolv.conf file, which accompanies the libresolv library. While it’s true that different implementations (e.g., some resolver stubs) might use various methods like round-robin, timing, or querying all servers simultaneously, this doesn’t invalidate the behavior outlined in resolv.conf.

Again, there can be other valid reasons for maintaining an order. Could be about latency, privacy etc.

I admit to not having read the full thread, and I apologize for any needless rehashing of arguments. It was just the first result confirming systemd-resolved breaking setups by its handling of what many (in that thread) consider expected behavior.

What I think you're primarily suggesting is that there are no formal standards prescribing glibc's behavior in terms of DNS resolution order. That is certainly true, and I don't disagree calling it an implementation detail.

Providing the same answers does not preclude an order (of preference). The man page clearly shows that such an order exists, though it does not explicitly label it as a preference. Whether you think it's right or wrong is irrelevant—the fact remains that the expectation of querying DNS servers in a specific order has been a common understanding for many. You're free to think systemd-resolved is the right way forward, but that's not an argument against the existence of the ordering in resolv.conf.

I recall systemd-resolved ignoring the resolv.conf order of preference of name servers. The native and thus relatively simple per-link DNS configuration is great though.

Addendum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 This approach clearly deviates from widely expected behavior, whether it is in conformance with applicable RFCs or not.

Regarding the intermittent power cutoffs during boot it should be noted the drives pull power from the 5V rail on startup: comparable drives typically draw up to 1.2A. Combined with the maximum load of 25A on the 5V rail (Seasonic Platinum 860W), it's likely you'll experience power failures during boot if staggered spinup is not used.