Google will delete OAuth clients falsely flagged as unused
8 points by panstromek 23h ago 7 comments
Ask HN: How do I start my own cybersecurity related company?
4 points by babuloseo 1d ago 4 comments
Another way electric cars clean the air: study says brake dust reduced by 83%
101 xbmcuser 177 5/28/2025, 6:40:47 AM electrek.co ↗
"Despite the slightly higher levels of tire wear from EVs, brake dust was found to be more unhealthy, as brake dust is much more likely to become airborne (>40%) than tire wear is (1-5%). So EVs create a lot less of the worse thing, and a little more of the less-bad thing."
Some comments here are looking for a 100% perfect solution, which doesn't exist. Transportation is polluting. Sorry but even public transportation is polluting, even if it is more efficient when its above a certain utilization. Where I live, some buses are EV and it is a joy to ride them compared to diesel ones.
With an EV there is less local pollution, less noise pollution, more dynamic response when needed and no need for wasteful oil "changes" where the old, dirty, useless oil doesn't just magically disappear.
Presumably there's work ongoing to find an less damaging replacement, but I haven't heard of any.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
The work is underway to standardize on a replacement. This time with even more tests.
Either way, like always, time will tell. We (humans) almost never 'get it right the first time'. And perhaps EVs have been around for quite a while now, it's still 'a while'. So I wouldn't be surprised if the lobby for "7PPD" (or whatever replacement) convinces us that "7PDD" is the best and even makes fish taste better, only to find out that it causes terminal cancer (see smoking, sugar, etc.)
https://ecology.wa.gov/blog/january-2023/saving-washington-s...
The elephant in the room for road wear are trucks [1]. Cars are almost negligible.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
I'm a huge proponent of biking and electric bikes but there is too bad infrastructure, storage, safety concerns etc that are not being addressed properly. For instance I wish I could buy a Cargo bike and use that for grocery shopping and most other transportation of my kids but I don't have room in our bike storage (where I've had two bikes stolen) and I don't have room in our storage room and live in an apartment. The cars parking take up more square meters than the squaremeters of the building or close to it while the bike storage is a fraction of that.
Are they actually being worn out at a much faster rate because of more EVs? Do we have any data?
Still you have a good point, one should be skeptical of what is written by bots.
This nearly always means "mentioned" rather than any kind of coercion. The ICE phaseout is still something like a decade away at the most optimistic in Europe and much, much further away in the US.
https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/audi-urba...
ICE cars already do that in a way, as they suck a significant amount of air through their intake filters (CADR = displacement x RPM).
Audi's filter was supposed to have been more fine-grained to catch brake dust and tire particles, but sufficient legislation never materialized, so the project was shelved.
Air cleaning scene: https://youtu.be/lpmxrgrbKDc (French)
(He was responsible for first poisoning the air by burning tires, so that he could demonstrate his machine to the potential Japanese investors)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Zizanie_(film)
This Audi proposal is somewhat similar in my mind. They want to profit from both parts, providing both the problem and the solution. I'm not against it per se.
I've known Louis de Funès from Les Gendarmes and such classics as La Soupe aux choux or L'aile ou la cuisse.
I didn't know the movie you linked, but now I'm thinking I'll pick up French again - if only to hear the whole body if his work in its original language.
Meanwhile a car with a 1.5l engine turning at an average of 1500RPM will suck through 135m3/h.
There's no data available for Audi's system, but at this size they could easily go way beyond 300m3/h.
> The primary reason for this is the use of regenerative braking, meaning that electric vehicles can slow down without rubbing friction brakes. Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
Technically not cleaning the air as the title says, but still a major improvement.
[0] (2012, french) https://www.ors-idf.org/nos-travaux/publications/les-benefic...
It's frustrating, because cycling during the heating season is not only unpleasant, but also unhealthy.
It's really not even complicated to do the bare minimum: whenever there are 2 or more lanes, fence one off with concrete dividers to make a bike lane. Whenever there's just 1, pave it with stones and add bumps, and cars and bikes can co-exist.
Bang, I just made your city safer, healthier, and the car traffic quicker. You're welcome.
I don't advocate for the extinction of cars, you can have it, just don't expect whole cities to be catered for your individualistic choice of mode of transportation and we are fine.
So then that kind of development can't get built, and the bulk of the housing consists of low density suburbs where you need a car, and then everybody drives everywhere. But instead of solving the actual problem, people start trying to come up with ways to make driving worse because they don't like all the cars. Then it's actually the drivers who object, because you're trying to suppress the thing they're forced to do without letting them do the thing that allows them to avoid it.
You can't win if you're fighting the wrong fight.
And I absolutely think that paths for walkers and paths for cars should not intersect; either cars should be underground or walking paths should be raised (which, if built densely enough, is roughly equivalent).
Let's make things better, rather than convince people they should settle for worse.
Meanwhile in the real world, you need to make compromises. Having everyone use a 3000kg vehicle to carry their 70kg selves, spends 95% of its time parked, and is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the developed world, is a terrible compromise, so instead: Bikes for moving in dense cities, trains for intercity travel, cars for rural areas, and bridges between these modes: transport bikes in trains or rent them at station, park+ride at the edges of cities, etc.
Transportation is complicated.
Might have something to do with that, no? Americans usually bring up these obstacles that don't materialise in the reality lived by the Dutch, Danes, Belgians, etc., while not even having the means to try it out in reality to verify if those obstacles are actually real. It's a fantasy of fear.
And EVs are from the 21-st century. They are here to fix the utter inhumanity of dense cities, and eventually throw them into a dustbin of history.
Dense cities exist because there's value in living close by to other amenities provided by dense cities.
There's no way out of denser cities, amenities will pool around where more people live just by sheer economies of scale (serving more people with less infrastructure). You still have the choice to opt out of that, live far away and have more space, the trade-offs with or without EVs will be the exact same.
> There's no way out of denser cities
There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
> There is: tax dense office space. There are no magically unique "amenities" in dense cities that make life worth living there, for the vast majority of people. Theaters and museum visits are at most a monthly occurrence (if that). And specialty ethnic restaurants are usually not a deal-breaker.
> Everything else is now available online: specialty stores, interesting classes, art-house movie clubs, etc.
You live online, that's fine if you are happy, many other people actually prefer social interactions, meeting for shared activities, and cities provide these amenities and the population to find your groups around. There's no way around that, living like a hermit in the woods with your own workshops, watching films by yourself (or with your family), etc. is a lifestyle choice and you can do it either way if dense cities exist or not. People will still congregate around the same spots that provide access to the activities they want, they will live in cities that have cultural events (theatres, concerts, museums, art, clubs), that provide gathering places for like-minded individuals: sports, ceramic classes, painting workshops, musicians gathering for jams.
You are wishful thinking that technology will somehow replace a deep social need for many, self-driving is bollocks, distance to activities is what matters, trains already exist in many developed countries and they bring people from far away into cities and still there's a big demand for people to live closer to the cities. I'm not judging you for wanting to live like that but you are extrapolating a very narrow view of how people live into the broader picture which simply doesn't work.
And you think anything has changed about that? A lot of factory companies hire buses specifically to shuttle their workers back-and-forth.
Early 19th century thing.
The existing model is already that everybody is driving everywhere, and then you need a parking space at every place for the number of people patronizing it during its peak hours. Building more housing doesn't inherently increase or decrease the number of parking spaces you need. You still need one for each car.
What it does is reduce the distance you have to drive, because then you don't have to drive through miles of low density suburbs to get anywhere. Moreover, with mixed use zoning, it puts more of the places you might want to go within walking distance, which does reduce the number of parking spaces you need at the destination.
> The inevitable conclusion to such a model is cities like Houston, TX where everything is twice as far away because 50% of the city is just parking lot and another 25% just roads/intersections.
The "problem" in Houston is that it's in Texas, which is big and susceptible to sprawl. Houston Metro has a population density of ~700/sq mi, compared to ~3200/sq mi for New York Metro. Then land is cheaper and therefore parking is cheaper and taller buildings are less economical. That's what causes everything to be more spread out.
But the problem in higher population density areas isn't parking -- when land is more expensive then you can justify building taller buildings and parking beneath the building or even multi-level parking garages to conserve space. The problem in higher population density areas is that building more of those things is now prohibited. You have a plot of land and you want to put a parking garage with 50 spaces on the ground floor, two shops on the second floor and eight condos on the third floor. You can't, because it's only zoned for a single-family home.
Once cities are 100% road, cars can drive unimpeded.
The worst thing was the noise. When I lived there I tuned it out, but when I slept for the first night in my new flat it felt like someone lifted a huge rock from my chest.
Cars in cities are a really thing to tolerate from the standpoint of people who bear the cost of them being there, EVs help reducing two of the main issues with cars. Issues like space use remain (housing prices skyrocket while there is a ton of empty space used for storing cars while nobody drives). Who knows, maybe EVs can solve this one too one day.
EVs barely use frictional brakes, with regen performing most of the braking action. Frictional brakes only really come into play to slow down from around ~5 mph to a complete stop.
And even that can be eliminated by essentially running the motor backwards, at low torque. This mode of braking is sometimes used on train engines as an emergency braking method.
Also, on EVs with LFP batteries the brakes do get used a bit more, because a full and/or cold pack usually can only take very limited power from regenerative braking. Depending on the implementation in the vehicle, brakes are either applied automatically to still allow for one-pedal-driving (aka. "brake blending", making the difference unnoticeable to the driver), or throttle-pedal regen is simply capped and the driver has to use the brake pedal when they notice that regen power is not sufficient.
Now I have a RWD Model 3 with an LFP pack (SR+/"base model"), and have to use the brakes much more than with the old car (that had an NMC pack and almost never limited regen). Over two years in, brakes seem good as new, hopefully they stay this way.
Never had any issue with rust.
They fixed it by having the software to apply frictional brakes once in a while to keep the rotors clean.
I have an EV with 150k miles, and the brake pads are barely worn. They are going to outlast it.
The article gives no clues, only these results:
> It turns out that BEVs reduce the amount of brake dust by 83% [...] Other vehicles that use regenerative braking reduced brake emissions too, with Hybrids reducing them by 10-48%, and PHEVs by 66%.
With electric cars, your "engine" (motor) brakes for you. This is something that already happens in ICEs though: you can just let the car roll, don't drive in a rush etc.
However, everyone is in a rush: illegally overtaking, tailgating, honking... The conditions and social behavior on the road push for inefficiencies.
The main difference is as you say: EVs brake way more when you are not pressing the throttle, before even needing to touch the brakes. It also helps with mileage.
Also, regenerative braking isn't an intrinsic aspect of an EV, it is a feature.
I would say something as well. The less noise from an EV changes people. They'll not look both ways when crossing a road and just walk out right in front of you.
What is this website? Tell me about the story, don't argue with imaginary haters and trolls. The writing is so poor there.
Used to see a bit of it on Twitter before it went downhill under Musk and I abandoned it, but its algorithm used to be better at keeping that kind of stuff mostly siloed so mostly people who wanted to see it would.
(Also great that the report mentions the importance of walking/cycling for city transport)
This being said, I’ve noticed that many a “big EV” driver will take off from red lights like they’re driving a dragster.
That would be my guess. Occasionally looking at specs from EV's coming on market, they seem to have very powerful engines, and of course the torque curve of electric motors is fantastic. So if you have such a car, and a heavy foot, I can well imagine you going through tires at a decent clip.
That's equivalent to those high school physics exercises that say "assume zero friction and no gravity". Everything else isn't equal with EVs because they make accelerating from standstill so effortless without any obvious downside that people do it back to back like it's nothing, while in an ICE you'd have to drive like a madman dumping the clutch every time just to get the same torque at the start. If you had two cars accelerating at the same rate then sure, the heavier one would wear out its tyres faster - but that's just not how people drive EVs(broadly speaking).
Also, if you compare two gasoline cars of different weights, the heavier one burns through tires quicker.
Though the additional acceleration probably does also make a difference.
Hybrid vehicles generally have less torque so they have less this type of wear. Unless driven purposefully aggressively.
Clear solution would be to limit acceleration of vehicles and mandate traction control that limits this type of wear.
Case in point - we have a Volkswagen e-Up, it barely weighs 1000kg, it's pretty much one of the lightest cars on the road. And yet it goes through its front tyres like nothing, and that's despite very modest power output of only 80bhp. But I do accelerate hard as it's so easy to do - so it's reflected in the tyre wear.
On many roads you accelerate and brake less often than you go around corners.
These two things are equivalent on tire wear given the forces involved:
1 corner at 50kmh with 50m radius.
Accelerating linearly at 0.39g (7 second 0-100kmh) to 77kmh from 0.
The world is burning. Hundreds of millions people are going to die. We have a solution… and you won’t let us use it because it increases the rubber levels in people who lick tyres. As if that matters. So what if there are more rubber particles in their mouths? We can eliminate vehicle pollution!
On the other hand, carbon emissions are known to cause global warming which will literally be the end of the world if we don't fix it fast. From what I've read it may already be too late, we may already be on course for runaway climate change that we may not be able to fix.
To me that's a much more pressing matter.
Poisoning the oceans does not seem like a good strategy for the human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6PPD
It's definitely an issue with ICE and EVs, but is often brought up in EV discussions as people get the impression that EVs are "pollution free" due to their lack of exhaust emissions. Also, EVs tend to produce more tyre dust due to their slightly heavier weight and increased torque.
Incidentally, a small Chinese study found 6PPD and 6PPDQ in human urine in low concentrations. We don't currently know what health effects, if any that may have.