Of course, how could a writer writing have writing chops and use writing techniques? It boggles the mind that anyone thinks that would ever happens. Must have been aliens.
> Kuda on the UK allowing higher loads, and therefore benefiting from extra wedge devices on the top of the cab.
Cab-top deflectors are extremely common on every truck where the cab is not tall enough to cover a standard trailer (which is common, usually only the highest end sleepers are that tall e.g. Scania's highline cab on the R and S, Volvo's globetrotter xl and xxl, ...)
To clarify, the air bags isolate the cab from the chassis.
There is also suspension between the axles and the chassis which is 99% of the time air on the rear, leaf spring front.
I haven't come across a cab that is suspension isolated from the frame of a conventional, even though the axles are on air. Theoretically as the driver is in the sweet spot of a much longer wheelbase, rather than sitting directly over an axle.
> important regulation is truck speed limits, because drag grows
No I just meant that drag was a second thought when the regulation was conceived on either side of the ocean. The regulation was not created "because of drag". The main driver was road safety. Efficiency and pollution were secondary. There are other ways to achieve them like improving aerodynamics or power trains, and much of this cost is paid by the freighter alone. This is why speed limits didn't increase as trucks got more efficient and drag went down. Because there's no way to reduce the potential energy of a 40-50t vehicle (or up to almost 90t Finland) travelling at 130km/h.
Europe has length limits on the entire thing, so US trucks would require shorter trailers, which nobody really wants. Euro trucks also have significantly smaller turning radii, which makes navigating european cities and country roads… feasible.
Furthermore Europe has relatively strict speed limits on trucks, which makes aero something of a lesser factor since drag grows to the square of speed: european trucks at european speeds have a pretty significantly higher efficiency than US trucks at US speeds.
I could be wrong, but I thought the US had a mostly-national speed limit of 55mph, while the UK truck speed limit is 60mph, and the French truck speed limit appears to be 90kmh (56mph)
US speed limits are highly variables, they’re generally 55 in the north-east but on the western half they’re 65 to 70, and 75 in TX.
And that assumes the speed limits are respected at all, but the EU has required a hard 90kph limiter since 2005, tampering with the limiter is a criminal offense, so is tampering with the (also mandatory) tachograph which would reveal the first.
So while nothing prevents speeding up to that (and it very much happens) going higher becomes extremely dicey.
> US speed limits are highly variables, they’re generally 55 in the north-east but on the western half they’re 65 to 70, and 75 in TX.
I fear even that is misleading. Yes, the speed limits on undivided highways are often 55 in the north-east (or even 50 in a couple), but the speed limits on divided highways are all higher, ranging from 65-75 mph. See the two maps on the top right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta.... I suspect that the majority of truck miles are on divided highways.
A number of the major freeways immediately around Boston are 55. Almost nobody actually drives slower than +10 mph. If you go 55 in the slow lane you'll get passed by other people in the slow lane!
I've seen truck speed limits of 55 pretty much everywhere I've been except Texas, though.
> Synthetic fuels (including hydrogen) do still make a lot of sense for heavy stuff like trucks, buses or trains
Synthetic fuels don't "make a lot of sense" for "heavy stuff", rail electrification has been the norm everywhere the capital costs were justified (it's at about 30% worldwide, 57% in europe, some countries like Switzerland are nearly 100% electric).
Synthetic fuels make sense for autonomy reasons when you can't tether the "heavy stuff", but fuel engines absolutely suck for heavy work loads, electric transmissions started being a thing before railway electrification even was.
And of course those are situations where hydrogen sucks, fuel is useful there because it's a stable and dense form of energy storage which is reasonably easy to move about without infrastructure, you can bring a bunch of barrels on a trailer, or tank trailers, to an off-grid site and fuel all your stuff (including electric generators). With hydrogen you're now wasting a significant portion of the energy you brought in trying to keep the hydrogen from going wild.
> However I concede that it might be advantageous for certain plants
Plants are highly dependent on their climactic settings, upending a climate equilibrium is awful to the average plant. And looking at past climactic change events, "another climate equilibrium" is something that happens on kiloyear scales (ages, in geochronologic units).
Not just squash merges, rebase-merges also don't work.
> What tools are the best to do the equivalent but for squash-merged branches detections?
Hooking on remote branch deletion is what most people do, under the assumption that you tend to clean out the branches of your PRs after a while. But of course if you don't do that it doesn't work.
> Not just squash merges, rebase-merges also don't work.
Are you sure? I almost exclusively rebase-merge, and I use ‘git branch --merged‘ all the time. It works perfectly fine for me.
Also conceptually it seems to make sense to me: you rebase your commits onto the tip of the target branch, so you can trivially follow the link from the tip of your source branch to the tip of your target branch, which as I understand it is what the command checks for.
Sounds like you update the source after rebasing? Because if you rebase then push on the target git sees no more relation between the two than if you squash.
reply