schizoidman

joined 5 months ago
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/50074474

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/49978298

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/49967612

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/49934843

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/49891367

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

What news reports did you read that lead you to believe that the EV market is dying?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It seems to be the same size as this?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Many other EV manufacturers sell their cars for twice what its priced in China because they can. BYD for instance has a huge profit margin in Europe.

https://fortune.com/europe/2024/04/29/eu-unwinnable-price-war-chinese-evs-byd-cars-11-times-more-profitable-in-europe-than-in-china/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

I think it just means google would stop selling it as the new google TV streamer is up for sale. My Chromecast from 2015 is still working till this day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Should be range extended cars.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Then we need umbrellas for all to solve climate change /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Isn't that what an umbrella is for?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nothing to see here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

https://electrek.co/2024/06/13/byd-bigger-ev-profits-eu-even-with-tariffs/

Quite the opposite is happening. EVs from the same make usually are sold at 50 to 100% markup outside of China. It seems more like the international market is subsidising Chinese EVs instead.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Although the Washington Times has an extreme right editorial bias, they report straight news with a much lower bias. Therefore, we rate them right-center biased overall. We also rate them Questionable and factually mixed due to poor sourcing, holding editorial positions contrary to scientific consensus, and numerous failed fact checks

view more: ‹ prev next ›