The Peckish Synapse

Grumpy Bear · September 19, 2022

How long will it last? What does the data tell us?

Percent vehicles making it to 100,000 miles?

95-98%

https://www.iseecars.com/longest-lasting-cars-study#v=2022

Percent of vehicles making past 200,000 miles:

Best? Toyota Land Cruiser 18.2%

All vehicles 1.2%

Silverado 2.3%

GMC Sierra 2.0%

https://www.autoblog.com/photos/photos-vehicles-most-likely-to-hit-300000-miles/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF1bk1EMzZdtXmvcdh2oisVOWw9fWG-b8tDZENG-qwS544FWWk8FIvjEl0PvNEQ9wacdIRc4roiOk4V8eQVbVk77o9xsJh2j11-ulpR637qgBmHOKAe0YuSjZ1cnhVeLQFZy-1Os9Hrfq3OwFWjGU_UXAoGAY7mTgHm8NZeyrur5

Past 300,000 miles?

0.3%

Beyond?

https://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/03/million-mile-cars/

KARNUT · September 19, 2022

My brother in law drives only GM trucks and GM large SUV. His daughters first vehicles were used GMs of the same. Both through college same vehicles. 200K plus is the rule. At 64 years old he hasn’t had many. He traded in the family’s first p/u with 250K plus miles for his daughters second car for her graduation present. She picked a VW. His second full size reg cab truck has 200K plus miles he drives to work. The second daughter drives the ex family Tahoe with close to 300K miles. She’s waiting for her graduation present from college a new bronco to come in. Then my brother in law is going to drive her Tahoe park the truck. He wants to refresh the reg cab truck after restoring his firebird. His first car. Retirement is approaching. The wife’s Tahoe, the newest 2013 just passed 100K. The only problem he ever had with any was a blown rear end in a earlier suburban. It was a common problem in the model. That one went over 300K. He donated that one. He’s the reason I went back to GM trucks after our problems with GM trucks in the 90s. He latest is the first cylinder deactivation model. Thanks to the OP I recommend frequent oil changes on his newest Tahoe. He usually went by the maintenance manual. Shockingly he leaning Explorer for his next SUV. After I recovered from fainting I asked why. He wife wants smaller. He’s not doing front wheel drive. So the Traverse is out.

Grumpy Bear · September 19, 2022

My personal experience is that the one and only I've owned that didn't make it 200K I totaled.

I believe the data from ISEECARS tells more about the mind set of the American driver and less about the vehicles ability. Even this pig I've been nursing is going to go past 200K without 'opening the can'.

If getting just past 100K is the AMERICAN DREAM then I waste my time on oil threads. You can not change oil and get that far. :crackup:

Edited September 19, 2022 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · December 15, 2022

When eating an elephant, it is best to do so one forkful at a time.

And slowly. Keeps one from choking in it. Then again feeding one an elephant whole is meant to choke them and is a basic tool of debate and sometimes law. Consider for a moment the 'Rules of Discovery'. When a prosecutor brings a charge all exculpatory evidence MUST be provided to the defense team. It's the Law.

So, when the prosecution wants to bury a piece of evidence it delivers that document in a truckload of files choking the defense on the sheer size of the task.

Why?

Because that piece of evidence is something they do not wish the defense to have knowing it works against them!

The 'bury it' defense is often delivered in seemingly endless fusillade.

Grumpy Bear · December 15, 2022

No Historical Evidence?

My Great Grandmother on my father's father's side is unknown by name or memory to anyone in the family. Grandfather came to the US in 1914, alone, with nothing but the cloths on his back and a few Deutschmarks. Grandpa never mention her, ever. No family Bible. She has no birth certificate. No death document. No marriage license. Nothing is any censes says she lived. How do I know she did?

Grumpy Bear · December 22, 2022

Nature of Evidence

Curious. What is with people that walk into a hen house; find a fox with feathers on his face and a leg sticking out of his mouth, blood running down his chest insisting the fox isn't eating the hen?

:dunno:

customboss · December 22, 2022

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Nature of Evidence

Curious. What is with people that walk into a hen house; find a fox with feathers on his face and a leg sticking out of his mouth, blood running down his chest insisting the fox isn't eating the hen?

I'll bite, what dimwit would do that?

Grumpy Bear · December 23, 2022

13 hours ago, customboss said:

I'll bite, what dimwit would do that?

Ask a serious question. You been asleep the last 3 or 4 years?

customboss · December 23, 2022

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Ask a serious question. You been asleep the last 3 or 4 years?

You have a henhouse? What are you trying to say? Seriously.

KARNUT · December 23, 2022

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Ask a serious question. You been asleep the last 3 or 4 years?

You say that about anything that’s going on in that timeline. Covering any topic.

Grumpy Bear · December 23, 2022

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

You say that about anything that’s going on in that timeline. Covering any topic.

I do. I do?

Grumpy Bear · January 10, 2023

Two people can argue over what color to paint a wall.

A few will argue it isn't a wall.

My brain goes into a short circuit every time i see or hear such an argument. There is no proof, record, that my great grand exist therefore he does not exist?

500 plus people watch an event and witness to it but one person that was not there cannot be convinced that the event happened because THEY didn't see it AND they will call into question the validity of each and every witness to that fact. Example can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8

I wonder. The history books you were taught from never contain the source of the information, misinformation, and outright lies being taught and yet..........................you believed.

I'm not the first to baffled by such thinking.

Stuart Chase — “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” If this is the case, why do we try?

Even this statement is odd. Its premise is that belief hinges on nothing at all. One extreme to another. :idiot:

I'm in the evident demonstration camp. Romans 1:20 reads:

For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

I know my grand exist because I do. And yet...

My head spins when the simplest truths of life are controverted with the unreasonable by those who are inconvenienced by those self-evident truths.

Open lines of the Declaration of Independance reads:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This kids, is a religious argument. Not an intellectual one. The premise being creation itself makes a creator 'self-evident'. I don't look at a house and wonder if it has a builder :idiot:

I offer this to illustrate the nature of argument in the world today (and my recent quiet). It, belief, needs roots in nothing more than a willingness to bend your belief to your need. This is our world. This makes intelligent discourse impossible. It is not rooted in reality, observable or otherwise.

This stuff is OBVIOUS.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Grumpy Bear

Donstar · January 10, 2023

I was on an interview committee looking for a supervisor for one of our large departments. One candidate was great on paper but his spoken English required some effort to be understood. In response to a question about teamwork he said that there is more in two heads than one. Thinking that he was saying that two heads are better than one, I asked him to elaborate on his response. What he was saying explains why I find our respective political operations a huge waste of brain power. The structures are good but the participation is flawed. When you have a two or three party system and decisions and planning are done "along party lines", why do we fund hundreds of people to sit through the process? I've worked on staffs that have operated successfully on truly shared decision making "consensus" (not to be confused with compromise) and staffs that voted on everything. Painting your wall is an example of the effectiveness of more in two heads. We were planning a new building and the later stages involved colour schemes. I was chair of the building committee and knew my ideas would be opposed by some because they were my ideas. I knew there were others who still questioned the need for the project. Giving the committee choices of ideas to vote on would result in a decision with minimal ownership. Ideas, not choices, from our committee along with all of the people they represent resulted in a colour scheme that no individual chose but one better and we all owned the result.

customboss · January 11, 2023

8 hours ago, Donstar said:

I was on an interview committee looking for a supervisor for one of our large departments. One candidate was great on paper but his spoken English required some effort to be understood. In response to a question about teamwork he said that there is more in two heads than one. Thinking that he was saying that two heads are better than one, I asked him to elaborate on his response. What he was saying explains why I find our respective political operations a huge waste of brain power. The structures are good but the participation is flawed. When you have a two or three party system and decisions and planning are done "along party lines", why do we fund hundreds of people to sit through the process? I've worked on staffs that have operated successfully on truly shared decision making "consensus" (not to be confused with compromise) and staffs that voted on everything. Painting your wall is an example of the effectiveness of more in two heads. We were planning a new building and the later stages involved colour schemes. I was chair of the building committee and knew my ideas would be opposed by some because they were my ideas. I knew there were others who still questioned the need for the project. Giving the committee choices of ideas to vote on would result in a decision with minimal ownership. Ideas, not choices, from our committee along with all of the people they represent resulted in a colour scheme that no individual chose but one better and we all owned the result.

Canada and US have subsidized big business vs the old way of regulating business. Thats added a frustrating bent of US tax dollars being used to prop up big business instead of regulating for the common good.

Democracy and democratic republics are hard and ugly but add this $$$ into the mix and you and I Canadian and United States are funding big business and they have too much power over our elected representatives. I agree with almost NOTHING Robert Reich has said for years. However post last presidential cavalcade of clownish stupidity this video makes sense. It's not political ideology that divides us its big business being funded by our tax dollars. In the early 20th century the US finally started regulating corporations that operate under our constitutional patent and incorporation laws. By the end of the 20th century we were SUBSIDIZING these same businesses? Why? Because the businesses got into government in a way neither major party stopped. Wake up to reality and stop getting used. REREGULATE to stop our tax $$ funding companies NOT common good.

Grumpy Bear · February 28, 2023

When the news isn't.

Saw David Muir's news spot tonight. "Origins of Covid-19". Here's the thing. After all the drama it concluded that these findings were made from evidence that was of "Low Confidence". :idiot:

Actually, the news from all major sources is flooded with 'non-news'. :sigh:

I see FOX is also getting raked over the coals for misinformation and supporting outright lies. There's a surprise.

:dunno:

Ever notice that the companies that don't know you when you have a complaint have no trouble finding you if they think you own them money? Hello GM, are you listening? :crackup: GM Customer Service is a one-way street. They post here but you cannot PM them here. :wtf: