Member Info for Stackhigher

For the 10th time, Red, our MCap has nothing to do with the metals in the ground, because investors can't invest in those. Instead they invest in an amateurish company that has tried to bluff its 'strategy' for years, and has been plagued by concerns about funding and delivery. Nobody is going to put big money into that company until something significant changes, hence the low MCap. FN/O have got the closest of anyone to bypassing Solg and investing in the metals in the ground, but sadly for them they still have to deal with out childish management... Hence the pocket money tranches to stop them spending it all on sweets... I mean PFSs

Jack is proof that you can huff and you can puff but you can't inflate a share price against the market's view, no matter how long you spend on LSE being a blowhard.

Glacial pace, as I've always said, with plenty more bumps in the road before anyone gets a payday (except management, who get paid every month).

I get the impression you're used to second hand stuff, so you'll be fine.

And you can't compare an Audi to a Porsche because they're completely different cars, who just happen to share a load of parts and R&D.

Your lack of logic is baffling sometimes

Did you look up fire deaths per million vehicles, or are you still keen not to let facts muddy your pathetic, oil-funded talking points?

So if we ignore the combustion engined cars, they're all EVs.

Got it 👍

Sorry, forgot an aspect of your chat: you must also talk about how fossil fuel powered cars appreciate faster than fine wine. I bet most days owning a large-engined German saloon are so profitable they require their own tax return...

Whilst your time spent discussing timing chains, spark plugs and catalytic converters during your super-speedy petrol stop sounds fascinating, most people would probably prefer charging overnight, for pennies, and not bothering to stop on 95% plus of journeys. You'd be able to hear them laughing, but instant torque tends to mean they've gone before you can bore them with a chat about how great oil companies are for the planet 🤣

I dunno... Looks pretty close to parliament to me 🤣

https://maps.app.goo.gl/M73iJ9HmM1CJrwwo9

Only difference is it's outside. So in the significantly less likely event that an EV catches fire, the necessary mitigation is easy. Not so in an underground carpark designed for more flammable ff cars.

Have you looked up risk assessment yet? Are you starting to understand?

This is glacial pace...

Last nail on your coffin, because you're such a fan of parliament... Why are they continuing to allow EVs to park and charge at speaker's gate?

Anyone who can understand stats would rather park an EV in their garage than a petrol car. Why is parliament different? You're so nearly there, hence my replies, but it your unwilling to make the connection I'm spelling out to you I'll go leave you to your basement. I feel rude being on my phone talking to a tool when there's better company here 👍

Https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/more-than-12-people-displaced-after-car-fire-spreads-to-two-apartment-buildings-in-beverly/ar-AA1xXZ4k

Think that merc is electric? Can do this all day.

A fire from an EV is significantly less likely. It's harder to put out. What bit don't you understand. Have you googled how a risk assessment works yet? Likelihood, impact, mitigation. The risk of dying in a fire caused by an EV is significantly lower than dying in a fire caused by a combination engined car. The risk of a fire destroying a famous listed building is higher for an EV because of thermal runaway. Did the fire and safety executive ban EVs on parliament property? No- they still have chargers just round the corner, in speakers gate, where a fire could be controlled much easier.

Did they decide to change the rules because an EV is likely to ignite? Absolutely not. Are people at home more likely to die in a fire caused by an EV or a combustion car? It's not an EV 🤣Hence anyone reading your tosh need not worry.

Because a serious fire from a combustion car will be easier to put out.

The likelihood is significantly higher. The mitigation is easier.

I suspect your fist might have a higher IQ that the bit of you that's controlling it. And we all know what your fist is good at beating 🤣

You have completely, almost willingly (but I suspect it's actually stupidity) misunderstood risk assessment. The risk of a serious fire is significantly lower with an EV (those are the stats I was encouraging you to read... Can you read?). Significantly lower. Like, multiple times lower.

Are you there yet? F*** me you're hard work. Do you have a carer I can talk to?

My obsession? Wow... I think you're the one who posts about it at least once a week 😬

You're beautifully demonstrating with each post just now little you understand about risk assessment: it's contextual, and it balances likelihood and potential impact.

Most people at home won't park their EV under a world famous listed building 🤣

You're delightfully easy to read, toy with and then destroy. Is this 15-0 now?

Maybe just keep your brain farts to yourself and I won't feel the need to show you up.

NB: slug now has 3 plays. He threatens violence like a 10 year old wimp, he tries to pretend he has, against the evidence below, somehow won the argument, or he'll change the subject. He has recently experimented with proposing sexual violence against non-consenting partners, but even he seems to have given up on that 🤣

The risk assessment is based on trying to contain thermal runaway in the basement of one of the most famous buildings in the world. It's a bit different from someone's driveway.

Do you know what a risk assessment considers? It's not just the odds of something happening, numbskull, otherwise it wouldn't be EV charging being moved.

I'm pretty sure any fire that kills is lethal, you plonker.

Rather than jumping in whilst completely ignorant, as you have suggested you've done, maybe do some research. You'll be surprised what you can learn if you read.

Because it's more difficult to contain and extinguish an EV fire. Now, you answer my question. Which type of car has more fires per 1000000 vehicles? How many times more likely is a combustion engined car to catch fire than an EV? When they do, the safety and fire team at parliamentary estates believe they have more chance of limiting damage: that's also part of the risk assessment.

I'm not surprised you don't understand risk assessment. You critical thinking abilities are non-existent, which is why you're taken in by every click bait headline going.

And you can't answer mine.

You two are so cute together 🥰

Easy way to answer this and stop cluttering the board: which has more fires per million vehicles, EV or combustion engines?