Anonymous wrote:New Jaguar Registrations Were Hilariously Low Last Month
With the company in the middle of a rebrand, only 49 new Jaguars were registered in Europe in April.

"Jaguar has been culling its lineup as the brand prepares to reinvent itself for a new era. That has forced the company to discontinue several models, and the lack of product is starkly visible in new registration data from Europe. According to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, only 49 Jaguars were registered on the continent in April.

That’s down a whopping 97.5 percent from April 2024, when there were 1,961 Jaguar registrations in Europe and the United Kingdom. So far this year, there have been only 2,665 Jaguars registered, which is significantly lower than the 10,641 registered in the first four months of 2024, a 75.1 percent decrease."

https://www.motor1.com/news/760854/jaguar-terrible-registration-numbers/?


We're here to delete ordinary. To go bold. To copy nothing......

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.E.I. is a lot like solar and wind generated energy. Works some of the time but not dependable in the long run. Countries with strong engineering capabilities like Germany have tried and failed. Unfortunately, turning to coal instead of nuclear.

US trying the same approach with D.E.I. and the green new deal. Fortunately, D.E.I. will collapse given wonderful choices like the Harvard and Penn presidents. Texas will lead the way on molten salt reactors and the US and world will benefit from safe reliable energy solutions that compliment existing energy solutions such as natural gas and eventually hydrogen power for vehicles.

If you think Europe has failed with renewable energy, you don't know anything about the industry. They are leaders in renewables. Why do you think Texas didn't fail this year, it's called solar who saved their azz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was sitting in a diversity training class at Ford in the late 1990’s when the presenters aired this same statement. Our manager, who was a Brit on loan from Jaguar, offered the following statement:

“So you’re saying that if I was looking for the best and most popular four door family sedan, I should look at a picture of the design teams from the Big Three, and the one that was most diverse would be the number one car?”

He was told that was correct.

He then said that it was a bit of a trick question, since the best selling sedan in America was the Toyota Camry, and the design team for that car was the least diverse group you could possibly imagine, consisting of Japanese males between 30 and 60.

After a long silence, the presenters finished their PowerPoint and left.

This is what happens when you have people who are not from your culture. Maybe your friend should go back to the UK?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was sitting in a diversity training class at Ford in the late 1990’s when the presenters aired this same statement. Our manager, who was a Brit on loan from Jaguar, offered the following statement:

“So you’re saying that if I was looking for the best and most popular four door family sedan, I should look at a picture of the design teams from the Big Three, and the one that was most diverse would be the number one car?”

He was told that was correct.

He then said that it was a bit of a trick question, since the best selling sedan in America was the Toyota Camry, and the design team for that car was the least diverse group you could possibly imagine, consisting of Japanese males between 30 and 60.

After a long silence, the presenters finished their PowerPoint and left.

Anonymous wrote:D.E.I. is a lot like solar and wind generated energy. Works some of the time but not dependable in the long run. Countries with strong engineering capabilities like Germany have tried and failed. Unfortunately, turning to coal instead of nuclear.

US trying the same approach with D.E.I. and the green new deal. Fortunately, D.E.I. will collapse given wonderful choices like the Harvard and Penn presidents. Texas will lead the way on molten salt reactors and the US and world will benefit from safe reliable energy solutions that compliment existing energy solutions such as natural gas and eventually hydrogen power for vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:D.E.I. is a lot like solar and wind generated energy. Works some of the time but not dependable in the long run. Countries with strong engineering capabilities like Germany have tried and failed. Unfortunately, turning to coal instead of nuclear.

US trying the same approach with D.E.I. and the green new deal. Fortunately, D.E.I. will collapse given wonderful choices like the Harvard and Penn presidents. Texas will lead the way on molten salt reactors and the US and world will benefit from safe reliable energy solutions that compliment existing energy solutions such as natural gas and eventually hydrogen power for vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. I'm opposed to climate fear mongering because I'm concerned that it will, at a very minimum, make the US a poorer, more dangerous nation. So I'm not opposed to it because I hate the earth, or because I don't think we should make reasonable efforts to protect the environment. My concern is that I think climate change activists are proposing solutions that are doomed, and when you pursue doomed efforts in lieu of realistic ones, you end up further behind. Look at Germany. It undertook the world's most ambitious climate agenda, and like 15 years later, they are actually *dirtier* than when they began.

The reason is, the let's solution lies on a false premise that "clean" technology can be scaled up to replace the existing fleet of carbon based utilities. This was always doomed, because while you can convince humans to go along with quixotic ventures, you do not have the power to bend physics to your will. If we could scale up green energy fast enough to replace the existing utilities, you'd see much more progress than we have now. But we haven't overcome issues related to storage and the baseload. This is probably why the left embraced nuclear after decades of protesting it-- it is carbon neutral and the only way to that current technology would allow us to meet those energy goals.

But even so, who is building reactors? Very few companies. They are waiting to see if DOE will give subsidies. But the DOE is coming off a 2 decades long streak of pretending we can sustain our nation's energy needs with wind and water and pixie dust. It takes time to get everyone on the same page and move forward. Time. Time we lost when everyone embraced climate ideology as a new religion, rather than correctly looking at it as a theory about a problem and a theory about a solution that didn't actually exist (green energy).

You may recall that part of the theory was that we could reduce energy needs. Everyone needed to do laundry and run the dishwasher at 2am (I still do this), and if we all just change our habits, we will change our needs. Remember that? No one talks about it anymore because, as tends to happen, circumstances changed. AI was born.

Now, we need more energy. Like a crapton more energy. We need double what we have. And yet, the left is clamoring to shutter natural gas. Nuke plants have closed across the US. We have planned for a *decline* when we require a massive increase due to the demands of AI. Sure, we can just not do it. But India will, China will, etc. And then what will US citizens have to show for it? The climate will not be improved, but, we will be significantly poorer and more vulnerable.

If you want to think that people like me are just too dumb to understand climate change, too controlled by Tucker Carlson, too numbed and obese from non organic food to be able to understand the dire situation we are in. Ok. That's fine. But the future is coming for you too.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-Needs-To-Double-The-Size-Of-Its-Energy-Grid.amp.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/

DP. I partially agree with this. However, green energy has recently really scaled up. Is it at maximum now? Possible but unlikely.

But ultimately, we all know that our current lifestyle is just unsustainable. We cannot reduce, reuse our way to a sustainable life. Our children are simply going to have to very different standard of living. A much reduced standard of living. Will it be worse? Or will their lives be better in other ways than ours?

And the time when this change will happen is not when someone wants it to happen - but when it is required by external forces.

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. I'm opposed to climate fear mongering because I'm concerned that it will, at a very minimum, make the US a poorer, more dangerous nation. So I'm not opposed to it because I hate the earth, or because I don't think we should make reasonable efforts to protect the environment. My concern is that I think climate change activists are proposing solutions that are doomed, and when you pursue doomed efforts in lieu of realistic ones, you end up further behind. Look at Germany. It undertook the world's most ambitious climate agenda, and like 15 years later, they are actually *dirtier* than when they began.

The reason is, the let's solution lies on a false premise that "clean" technology can be scaled up to replace the existing fleet of carbon based utilities. This was always doomed, because while you can convince humans to go along with quixotic ventures, you do not have the power to bend physics to your will. If we could scale up green energy fast enough to replace the existing utilities, you'd see much more progress than we have now. But we haven't overcome issues related to storage and the baseload. This is probably why the left embraced nuclear after decades of protesting it-- it is carbon neutral and the only way to that current technology would allow us to meet those energy goals.

But even so, who is building reactors? Very few companies. They are waiting to see if DOE will give subsidies. But the DOE is coming off a 2 decades long streak of pretending we can sustain our nation's energy needs with wind and water and pixie dust. It takes time to get everyone on the same page and move forward. Time. Time we lost when everyone embraced climate ideology as a new religion, rather than correctly looking at it as a theory about a problem and a theory about a solution that didn't actually exist (green energy).

You may recall that part of the theory was that we could reduce energy needs. Everyone needed to do laundry and run the dishwasher at 2am (I still do this), and if we all just change our habits, we will change our needs. Remember that? No one talks about it anymore because, as tends to happen, circumstances changed. AI was born.

Now, we need more energy. Like a crapton more energy. We need double what we have. And yet, the left is clamoring to shutter natural gas. Nuke plants have closed across the US. We have planned for a *decline* when we require a massive increase due to the demands of AI. Sure, we can just not do it. But India will, China will, etc. And then what will US citizens have to show for it? The climate will not be improved, but, we will be significantly poorer and more vulnerable.

If you want to think that people like me are just too dumb to understand climate change, too controlled by Tucker Carlson, too numbed and obese from non organic food to be able to understand the dire situation we are in. Ok. That's fine. But the future is coming for you too.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-Needs-To-Double-The-Size-Of-Its-Energy-Grid.amp.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/