A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
After reading the article it seems the order was placed without first checking to make sure they couldn’t be fulfilled in time, so the manufacturer did a rush job and that ended up being more costly than scaling up responsibly.
In other words, it wasn’t because they were electric. It was because the timeline of the requirement was unrealistic and incompatible with the capabilities of the manufacturer. All self-solving problems with continued adoption of electric buses.
So the idiotic rush to save the environment at all costs was wasteful.
Ohhh Jimbo. Always so far off base so confident you’re not.
The rush was idiotic in this case, yes. But the thing itself was not.
All things take time to scale. When scaled though, it’s a different story.
The problem with climate zealots is they don't care how they spend others money they just want to see "progress".
This just pro-conservative'd my socks right off