Featured Solid State Battery 10 Minute Charge Toyota - Lets Go Places

The claim was only about what the article he posted said, so on that only point made he was not correct.

Prototype was supposed to debut half a year ago, so was worse than being simply wrong.

As to what else you note here, not doubting that, but that is a separate issue than the point I made. He has a strong record of only posting click bait. Was encouraging him to actually read the data in the links he posts and have a discussion of that. There is encouraging new from Toyota, but he should present it factually.

 

I didn't post the original article, orenji did.

What I noticed was that the article he posted was based on a December 10th Nikkei Asia report that moved up the timeline to selling a car in the early 2020s, and it explicitly said this was accelerated compared the earlier reporting from July, and that you omitted all that from your comment and relied on the earlier reporting from July to say "old news".

So I pointed that out, and you did the same thing again, made a post containing only quotes from the now-superseded July report, and used that to argue that I was "100% wrong".

You still haven't explained why you think repeatedly quoting from older, superseded reporting establishes your claim that the newer, superseding report is "old news".

 

Right, I was initially responding to orenji only and the article he posted. Thereafter, you started talking about an imbedded link in his article which is irrelevant to my point with him.

No, you again missed the point. What you noticed was not relevant to my comment on his thread starter. Orenji did not read the article he posted nor the (irrelevant to my point) linked article (not his article) within his article. "Nikkei Asia report that moved up the timeline to selling a car in the early 2020s" is irrelevant as it was not in the article link title he posted nor the article itself which he did not read.

No, you butted in and had no idea what was going on. It was a challenge for him to pony up data for his clickbait title to show that it was new information. He found the title of the article on an internet search or news feed, then posted it without reading it nor especially the imbedded article you mention. He was entirely unaware of the article you mentioned because he did not read it. That is his long term pattern. Had he read it, he would have pointed that out.

If you have been following his posts/threads for the last few weeks/months, you would understand the clickbait stunts. He started this thread posting "Toyota EV with solid-state batteries: 10-minute full charge, prototype reportedly due in 2021". That title is entirely NOT new and the article it opens does not provide new information to contradict that. The prototype is old and late at that. The prototype, as the mid-year link I showed, was due half a year ago.

No claims of superseding, that is your attributed claim. The embedded article suggests that might be the case, but his does not. My point to him was only to challenge him that the information he provided was not news.

 

"Irrelevant"? Seriously? The Nikkei article that was the basis of the article he posted, found from the link in its very first sentence, and the source of the information that "his article" summarized? That's what you deem irrelevant?

It's not obvious to me whether Orenji read the article or not. I'd have to take your word for it that he didn't, even though the post that really kind of screams "I didn't read this!" was yours. That impression continues in your insistence that the substance of the article and the source it came from were "irrelevant" to your comment because they were "not in the article link title".

Where the data to be ponied up would be simply the substance of the article itself.

Ok, I think I get what you think you're doing. You're fighting the good fight, throwing a challenge question at another poster in a sort of Socratically-inspired effort to get him to supply more information.

But your way of doing that (in your post #2) was to go through the eight-paragraph article he supplied, and omit all of it except ten words and one link, which you took from the fifth paragraph, and you omitted the context that these ten words and link clearly referred to an earlier "interview with Automotive News in July".

That's about as glaring a case of misrepresenting something by selective quotation as you can get. If your motive is to keep other people honest, you might need to be more careful with the tactics.

 

Now you follow.

Supplied, which he did NOT read like everything else. You appear to mistake him as an honest participant interested in real discussion like most regular chatters here. Had you kept up with him, you would understand otherwise.

No, it was to counter-bait him to confirm that he was using his usual tactic of not reading what he posts which he confirmed later in the thread.

No, it was purposeful and proved my point.

Only issue with anyone on this thread recently is with him, but thanks boss.

 

Anybody could see it was purposeful; it would have been hard to write something that dishonest by mistake.

The trouble with that as a technique for proving your point is that it leaves you trying to argue how it shows somebody else's dishonesty, while shining a giant spotlight on your own. Not trying to be your boss, but you can probably find more effective ways to make the point you're trying to make.

Maybe the key is like Einstein's quip about God: to be "subtle, but not malicious."

 

That dishonest, hum. You live in a convent, then?

That's not how the method works, and that contrivance argument therefore makes you dishonest, but thanks again boss.

 

First line of the article linked in the OP, and basis for its title, "Toyota hopes to be the first automaker to launch an electric car with solid-state batteries, aiming to unveil a prototype next year, ahead of a production launch relatively soon after that, Nikkei Asia reported Thursday."
Topic line of the paragraph you quoted in post #2, "The timetable discussed in the report is accelerated from what a top Toyota executive suggested just this summer."

Want to call him out on not reading what he posts. Go ahead, I done it myself, but it is best to do so without it looking like didn't read the article either.

 

I think you mean did not initially read the embedded articles. If that is the case, you are correct, but not relevant to my point with orenji. I did read the article he posted at the time of post #2.

He posted a link titled "Toyota EV with solid-state batteries: 10-minute full charge, prototype reportedly due in 2021". Let's start with that title. Do we not agree that this is old news as rapid charging speed of solid state batteries has been previously known and we already knew the prototype was supposed to debut half a year ago (see post #17)?

As for the article itself, the first sentence states "Toyota hopes to be the first automaker to launch an electric car with solid-state batteries, aiming to unveil a prototype next year, ahead of a production launch relatively soon after that, Nikkei Asia reported Thursday." Again, the prototype timeline is old news (later than prior reported, in fact). One could argue "relatively soon" for production perhaps meant sooner than 2025, but the article did not explicitly say so. Hence my first sentence response of "Old news."

Next, as a secondary point, since I knew he did not read the very article he posted, asked him "When will they have a vehicle out to market?" then indeed purposefully cherry picked out of context to reflect his method, "limited production of solid-state batteries would start in 2025." One might call that unfair, but that was the very idea - match style for style. I found no stated information in the linked article whether Toyota really changed their timetables or not as the article he posted did not mention a revised specific year.

This inquiry was confirmed when he responded "See Toyota likes to make sure it’s customers buy a vehicle that has been throughly tested before selling it."

Certainly this manner of challlenge is not as noble as doing research for him on his articles and clicking sublinks that he also did not read. Kudos for all who step up to do that and are more inclined to responding to him with continued subtleties. But if ones intent is to reform him to more rigorous methods, we have not seen much (?any?) success. SLoud vs. loud was worth a shot because his loud is not going away.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


The stakes and timetables are heating up, so Toyota may be feeling some pressure from ventures like this:

According to QuantumScape’s data, its cell can charge to 80 percent of capacity in 15 minutes, it retains more than 80 percent of its capacity after 800 charging cycles, it’s noncombustible, and it has a volumetric energy density of more than 1,000 watt-hours per liter at the cell level, which is nearly double the energy density of top-shelf commercial lithium-ion cells.​

Did QuantumScape Just Solve a 40-Year-Old Battery Problem? | WIRED

 

Yes, it is old news to those who have been following the topic. That doesn't make it old news to everyone, not even on Priuschat. If that had been the case, Green Car Reports had chosen the wrong headline.

The Olympics had been cancelled, and with it many such debuts and demonstrations. Toyota planning to hold one some time in the next year is a piece of news.

You're brushing off that second line I quoted from the article, "The timetable discussed in the report is accelerated from what a top Toyota executive suggested just this summer." The only report mentioned in the article was the one from Nikkei Asia. So the article did explicitly this production will start sooner than what the 2025 time frame the executive said in the summer interview.

The paragraph before that even discusses the construction of a production facility that, "will be able to produce "dozens of tons" of solid electrolyte starting next year." We didn't get a date spelled out, but next year is specific time frame

 

What you're describing here is a choice to post a deliberate mischaracterization of an article—justified by what you feel you "know" about a specific person's methods or style—not in a PM to one person you were trying to trip up, but in a public forum where your mischaracterization would be encountered by everyone.

If you take an article that reads "new report W says X, after older report Y that says Z" and you deliberately erase all but the "report Y that says Z" part, there's no question you've mischaracterized it. The part you erased was only, you know, the point of it. I don't buy that we're so far gone somehow we'd have to ask a nun whether that's dishonest.

"Not as noble" is certainly a ... delicate way of putting it. Even if your "intent is to reform him to more rigorous methods", in the end you don't have control over his choices, but you do have control over yours.

 

The response was directed only to him. He grabbed an article as usual without reading it from his pro-Toyota feed. He happened to have some encouraging news buried in the links within his link there, but he didn't care to know either way.

Absolutely, so that is why I wasn't trying to give Toyota a hard time for that, not their fault. But that was certainly not an advancement of their prototype timeline which the clickbait otherwise suggested.

Not at all brushing off. I was encouraging him to strike up a conversation based on the article by placing some easy bait and hoped he would pick-up on that. Indeed he didn't, confirming he had not read the article. Hey, isn't your handle here Trollbait and you're giving me a hard time for that?

You might be right, but I counted ~6 links in his article. Again, not the point. His article alone was the point and I was trying to draw him into a discussion about that by feigning counter partisanship. That would have been extra fantastic if he got so far to click on a link inside his own posted article. Not my job.

Agree.

Only as discussed above. You make this out to be some abominable sin. Far less a sin as a logic exercise than what the thread generator routinely fabricates. It was an attempt to trigger constructive discussion until you butted in. He doesn't reserve his antics to PMs and routinely blasts this forum with partisan nonsense, so there is no hope in fighting on that front.

But thanks again oh ye virtuous boss. Please chime in more regularly when orenji posts the usual dribble and tell him how much he falls short.

 

I'm pretty sure you could have found an honest way to do the same thing.

But I butted in. Maybe what we really need is a special label to identify the public forum threads that aren't public.

Well, that's kind of the point. I don't know you or orenji, or have any pre-existing feeling for or against either of you. I was reading this public thread on PriusChat, and you know what? I did not see anything dishonest in it from orenji, and I did from you. Maybe there's 50 threads I didn't see where orenji lied like a rug. But I didn't see those. And in this thread, you made your post stick out for its dishonesty. That was kind of a predictable result of your choice.

 

Let's see, as of this moment it says you have posted 10,414 messages and you saw nothing from orenji. And he posts incessantly in this public forum. Seems by that measure you are the one whose dishonesty stands out.

 

There's also this statistic: Messages: 3,024,584

I've been a PriusChatter for twelve years. Perhaps you are thinking I've been keeping up a steady diet of reading 690 PriusChat messages per day to make sure I haven't missed any that you think I should have seen.

I certainly have seen posts from orenji; the name is familiar. I don't happen to remember whether I've ever replied to one. I'm not sure PriusChat offers an easy search that could answer that; maybe through the API there is.

On a given day, the threads I see will be the ones that show up in Recent Posts and have titles that look interesting enough for me to click. Oddly enough, that doesn't end up being all of them. If I have seen earlier posts by orenji, it's possible they were like this one, which contains (so far) no dishonest posts from orenji, alongside a growing number of them from you.

This last one is rather clever: a statistical suggestion that maybe I must have seen orenji dishonest at some time in the past and I could be dishonestly keeping mum about it (for whatever odd reason I would do that), to distract from the simple on-its-face fact that you posted a dishonestly edited version of an article in post #2 of this thread.

 

Cool story. Please continue on in your partisan dishonesty.

 

many of the posts that over-tout fuel cell cars (despite many authors contradicting ... such as; "The Hydrogen Hoax") come from the orenj ... and when the hype gets too thick, many here counter ... and point out the comparative success of EV's over hydrogen, much less the faster growth of plugins over regular hybrids ... especially Tesla. So ... the orenj continually posts any vaguely negative story & often they're skewed renditions via stock short'ers.
Point being ... if you DO read back ... it won't be long before you DO have pre-existing feelings. Most here do their best to refute lame stats ... but sometimes yea ... the blunt truth could be softened a bit. I'm working on that technique my self.

and yes . . . . members CAN select another's prior posts to get a decent understanding of where e/ of us is coming from.
.

 

Except, this this was one of the rare, non-negative posts. Toyota pushing up their schedule for solid state batteries is good news for plug ins, regardless of why they did so.

 

The thing is, some manufacturers keep pushing up hydrogen too .... it tends to make one wear jade colored glases. So ... in 5yrs? we'll see. Here's to hoping this is real.
.

 

So you're against pre-announcement of anything, ever?