Posted on 09/20/2022 10:48:32 AM PDT by rktman
Actually, since popular usage is the determining factor in linguistics, both are perfectly proper.
But sarcasm doesn’t always show up on the page, so you should always stick to the correct expression: couldn’t care less. The sentences below don’t make sense, because without the negating word not, these sentences literally state that their subjects could care less — and if their level of concern could drop to a lower level, then they must care at least a little:
And he could care less if you like him or hate him. (Fox News)
The fact is, salmon could care less about arbitrary political boundaries. (Seattle Times)
Remember, unless you’re speaking in a voice dripping with sarcasm, always use couldn’t care less to express how little you care.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/i-couldnt-care-less-vs-i-could-care-less/
I could care less
Let’s start with the phrase mentioned in the title. When you say ‘I could care less’, what you’re saying is that you do care a little bit, but you could care less than that… Most likely the phrase that you actually mean is ‘I couldn’t care less’, which means that you absolutely do not care:
“Hey David. So did you hear that Aisha from marketing is leaving?”
“I heard and I couldn’t care less.”
We can probably assume David doesn’t think too highly of Aisha from marketing.
People tell me all the time that skating is dangerous but I couldn’t care less: I love the thrill of it.
So, is ‘I could care less’ wrong? Well, not really. But just know that it means that you do care, but not very much. On the scale of caring a lot and not caring at all, ‘I could care less’ is somewhere in the middle, whereas ‘I couldn’t care less’ is all the way at the not caring at all side.
https://letseatgrammar.com/i-could-care-less-phrases-gone-wrong/
Some random grammar blog doesn’t define the English language, popular usage does.
“But sarcasm doesn’t always show up on the page, so you should always stick to the correct expression: couldn’t care less.”
I’ll stick to whatever usage I choose to use, thanks very much.
#28 There is no perpetual motion machine !
There is always loss and batteries run down.
Add a small gas motor as a hybrid and it still runs down.
The current gas car with a small 12v battery needs a battery replacement in less then 4 years and most in 3 years and that has been a problem since cars had batteries.
Your gas car is a hybrid but with a big gas engine and the 12v battery is mainly just to start it up and the battery still fails but at least the cost is cheap to replace.
Explanation of what a car battery does:
https://www.lesschwab.com/article/how-your-auto-battery-works.html
How Long Can a Car Sit Before the Battery Dies, Explained
https://www.metromile.com/blog/how-long-can-a-car-sit-before-the-battery-dies/
The gas powered F-150 with 4 gallons of gas has the energy equivalent of the entire battery of the electric version of the F-150 and does not have any issue with range and takes 5 minutes to refuel.
The complexity of the electric motor in a hybrid is a bit more than just a starter. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that seems like it's adding to the potential for maintenance.
And if you don't believe in perpetual motion machines then you don't know how hard it is to stop government overreach. LOL
I also took chemistry classes when young. But the point is that the hydrogen and oxygen stored in fuel cell vehicles has to come from somewhere. Plants that generate hydrogen use various methods, and they release various chemicals as a by-product. A great deal of CO2 is released in the manufacture of hydrogen - this offsets the goals of greenies that say fuel cells are non-polluting, because they are worse than gasoline in releasing CO2 and other no-no's into the atmosphere.
Other chemicals can be consumed and altered during the process, including aluminum, which consumes a lot of energy to create from ores. Fuel cells are exotic devices that are better relegated to space-craft and other tightly controlled environments. There is no free lunch with fuel cells.
You mean we can't just use electricity to disassociate the water into H & O to use in fuel cells?
You can, but it's a losing procedure as compared to using lithium-ion batteries.
I have a fuel-cell model car. Energy in the form of electricity splits water into H & O which are stored in separate tanks on the car. The H & O are then used by the fuel cell on the car to create electricity for the electric motor which propels the car forward. Water is created as a by-product. The electricity is created by a solar panel which stores the electricity into a battery, which is then used to split water into H & O.
However, the stored electricity in the battery can be used to directly power the electric motor to propel the car forward, resulting in more power and a longer run time. There is a huge loss of energy in using the fuel-cell conversion.
I was just chain-yankin’.
Every link in the input power source to moving part output has some kind of loss associated with it.
The more links we put in the chain, the less efficient (more expensive) it will be to use it.
Sort of a statement about our society at large. Very inefficient (and expensive for tax-payers). Thanks for yanking the chain, pulls back this old dog from nipping at others. As for my fuel-cell model car, I bought it at great discount years ago. Normally cost hundreds of dollars, sold to promote fuel-cell technology, and I got it for about $10. Using the model car had the opposite effect, showing the negative features of fuel-cell tech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.