I'm not so sure I'd call myself a "tankie", but I'd like a $12k new car and if it were an EV, even better. I recently paid more for a used car! Cars, like everything else, have gotten so stupidly expensive. It would have been nice to see one thing actually become more affordable because I know wages ain't gonna increase accordingly for a long time.
Kneecapping decarbonization efforts in the name of "jobs" and "the economy" is just straight up Republican policy. I do not care how many jobs are preserved on my rapidly warming planet.
How does everyone buying a brand new car result in decarbonization versus keeping the ones we've already expended carbon building and upgrading them when they break? There are 283 million cars on the road in the US and replacing them all is going to generate a metric fuckton of carbon.
Yeah China has been doing the same with solar panels. Funny you bring it up since my wife used to work at a facility that made the ingots and sliced them up. They shut down several years ago since it was impossible to compete with Chinese prices. Hurray for cheap prices right?
Cool you can act dramatically. Now that the theatrical portion is out of the way, maybe you can defend your position by responding to the topic of my comments.
Is it really a drop in the bucket b when we take the value per vehicle ?
If we compare Ford to BYD for example.
In 2023 Ford sold around 2 millions cars and BYD around 3 millions.
For Ford only 72 608 cars out of these 2 millions were EV (3.6%) For BYD it's was almost 1.6 million EV (53.3%)
In 2023 Ford got $9.2 billions from the US government to produce EV, so around $126 000 per EV sold in 2023.
$126 000*1 600 000 = $2 trillions ! So unless BYD received more than $2 trillions dollars from the Chinese government in 2023 it means that each EV sold by Ford is more subsidized than an EV sold by BYD.
This is not an analysis, I took huge shortcuts in this comment and might have done mistakes in the calculations.
Wages not keeping in step with inflation is exactly why everything seems so expensive. $30k of today's money is the equivalent of less than $10k in the 80's, and cars were more than $10K then except for a few that ended up being examples of "you get what you pay for".
I should probably state that as "wage increases being suppressed".
That's horrifying. Why would a potential life-threatening device be controlled by a smartphone app? What functions could possibly not be handled on the pump itself and need to be offloaded? What FDA crook was paid off to allow such a stupid thing to hit the market?
The problem with this logic is the manufactures have no control over the iPhone update. The article didn't go into exactly what happened, but it could have been that the device worked fine at launch, but then Apple released an update which caused an issue in the app. Even if it didn't happen this way I could definitely see it happening. Using an app for critical life sustaining medical devices is like playing Russian Roulette, an update from Google or Apple can put you in the hospital, or worse.
You need an incredibly robust quality management system to even achieve certification (allowing you to place on the market) when creating systems which include life support function, or functions which potentially could kill a user. All potential changes both within and outside of the manufacturers' control MUST be assessed and constantly monitored so such issues CANNOT arise.
No one should be able to legally place an unsafe app on the market, or legally perform changes to the app without the necessary checks and balances.
Medical device approvals in most countries are definitely not the wild west. Although they are not perfect.
Why does it need a connection to another device in the first place though? Silicon is tiny and cheap; all the logic, sensing, and scheduling could be done inside the pump.
I can see the utility, but there should be at least some critical operability in case the phone or app doesn't work for whatever reason, to help avoid injuries like these
The same reason you don’t carry a camera, a music player, a phone, etc as separate devices in your pocket. Because it’s wildly inconvenient and super frustrating to swap between them. For diabetics in this case, you generally have two separate companies making the pump and the glucose monitor. So at that point you are carrying a phone around, a monitor for your glucose levels, and a controller for your pump. That’s three devices that you need to keep charged and on your person at all times. Not to mention they are generally not slim and sleek and easy to pocket.
The ability to swap between these from a single device and the mental offload that brings can’t be overstated.
That being said, people that use medical services on their phones should not do OS upgrades until they are notified by their makers to be verified and working and should be heavily tested before any updates go out.
Our nearest Pizza Hut delivers via Doordash whether you order direct or through DD, but if you order direct its 30% cheaper. I'm not sure who's eating the markup.
In my case, since I get DashPass through my CC (not directly paying for it), I've seen it discounted to below the price some restaurants list on their websites. I pick up all my orders myself though.
I wouldn't pay for DashPass directly, personally speaking at least. I don't use DD nearly enough to justify investing more into it vs. just ordering on the restaurant's website or calling in the order. The only reason I even use DD is because I get that as a benefit through my CC and it usually pushes the prices to same or lower as ordering directly.
Doordash charges restaurants a percentage of the gross from the sale. Rather than eat this cost, restaurants are encouraged but not forced to add a markup on the prices they give Doordash (or insert your favorite third party delivery app here). They all do it.
If you order from a store's own website though, Doordash (I don't know if other third parties do this) did not "find" or create the business/order... they are really only handling the delivery portion.
In this instance, they still have some fees but do not take the large percentage, as that is a finder or broker fee. They aren't bringing the restaurant the business, it's the other way around.
Thus, restaurants can use their normal pricing. If you can find the places near you doing this, it's a much better deal than using Doordash normally.
Musk is also a guy who's gotten zero starships into orbit. The engineers at Space X have, and to a certain extent Gwynne Shotwell is a part of that, but that is despite Musk, not because of him.
Edit: Also none have made it to orbit or even near orbit. They initially claimed that the third one made it to the non-circularized suborbit they had planned, but later analysis was that it did not actually reach the planned velocity:
Which part of the video is wrong? The fact is that it failed to reach planned velocity. This is public record. If it did not reach planned velocity then it did not reach the non-circualized suborbit that they intended. They were not "just a circulization away from orbit."
The CSS channel was created when Musk and Shotwell were making bonkers claims about their Mars plans, as well as other crazy bullshit like the suborbital rocket airline stuff. The point of CSS is that none of their claims pencil out if you do even basic math, and they proved that by doing the math. They've also gone after other space grifters like orbital assembly.
Haven't watched the video, but what do you think circularization is? If you're “just a circulization away from orbit”, you are indeed going a bit slower than orbital velocity. There's no point to going orbital velocity if your trajectory still brings you back inside the atmosphere. To get to orbit you want to raise your periapsis outside the atmosphere, and you do that by doing a burn at the apoapsis, which is what we commonly call "circularization".
The planned goal of the mission was to achieve orbital velocity but not orbital trajectory. This was because they had not yet demonstrated the ability of their vac engines to relight in space. If they go into a stable orbit but can't relight they can not deorbit and they become space junk.
They initially claimed that this was a success (they achieved target velocity) but subsequent analysis was they were quite a bit off. Also because their engine relight test was failed/cancelled they will also not be allowed to attempt a stable orbit in IFT4. They have to demonstrate relight/deorbit capability before they will be allowed to attempt stable orbit.
He clearly misses that removing key people and staff, destroys tons of progress and tribal knowledge at the company. It takes a lot of money and effort to regain the momentum.
However he does remind me of an old company owner I worked for that went from a start up in a saturated market to industry leader by being totally uncompromising in his decisions. He also left a wake of destruction, but the innovation was there because he would no stand for a no from somebody
The interviewer lost me at "while Elon does appear committed to openness and freedom of speech". Especially when they proceed later to talk about Elon taking down posts when asked by the Indian and Australian governments, locally to those territories and the world.
In the eighties "turbo" was all the rage and I kid you not, everything had the label "turbo" on it. Now it will be "AI" all over things.
Hold on to your hats boys and girls who were not alive in the eighties, it's gonna be wild...
Some games/software expected/relied on a certain CPU speed to run correctly. If your computer was faster than that, the software would run too fast. The turbo button let you toggle between the maximum speed your computer could go, and the speed that the software needed/expected in order to run normally.
Basically, there was an actual reason for the turbo button, it wasn't just marketing on computers.
Indeed. As a silly example, I had a Pacman clone game that ran based on CPU cycle speed. I needed to turn the in-game speed setting way down and toggle turbo off to make it slow enough to be playable.
So, car factories have used custom built robots on assembly lines for decades, I want to say close to a half century? Why on earth would anybody want to replace those with humanoid robots other than, I dunno, having severed ties with reality to live out his days in a deluded fantasy?
This is as great example of Musk's """genius""" as that time he decided to move a Twitter data centre with the help of his own incapable hands, a cousin and some homeless people.
Just like the "tesla hyperloop" or whatever they're calling it, it's not about innovation. It's about keeping his brands in the public eye as a form of marketing. Even if on a logical level we all know it's horseshit, it still keeps himself and Tesla salient.
He can afford to burn an incomprehensible amount of money on stunts for outcomes most people would consider inconsequential.
I'm not saying it's 4D chess, it definitely isn't. He's not particularly intelligent in that way. That said, I do think there are some very simple reasons for him to do this that go beyond his absolutely insane delusional ego.
He has enough money that he can continue funding whatever he wants regardless of public opinion. He literally exists at a level where any press is good press as it keeps him fresh in peoples' minds.
I hear your scepticism, but unfortunately your thinking is exactly what's enabled Tesla to grow as they have. There was a documentary that looked at it impartially and unfortunately there's a lot of legacy debt in making cars and things that are more efficient aren't used because of that legacy debt. When MKBHD did a tour, he looked at the fact that humans are needed for certain things, so I can see them wanting to replace them humans ASAP. Especially as the humans are trying to unionize.
I don't know the source, so it's hard for me to comment but logically the problem as stated is plausible. i.e. legacy debt preventing the move to more efficient methods.
However, the conclusion i.e. therefore replace humans with humanoid robots does not. And then tacking on unionization is just a different subject altogether. You can staff some aspects of a factory with robots and the human's work shifts from production to maintenance. I've talked to automation people and robots can be very problematic and something "advanced" I would imagine much more so.
Although not recent, some referred to the robots as "Bob" blind one-arm builders. If very well calibrated and designed for a specific task, they can be ok, except when they go wrong. To think some "AI" driven general purpose robot is going to substantially replace human labor any time soon... I very seriously doubt that. Especially with that kook as leadership.
Ask Amazon why they picked a name that was the same as a small publishing company that had been around for years and sued them into a smoking crater in the ground.
Same goes for words in foreign languages. it just causes confusion. I like how eclipse went for “temurin” (anagram for runtime) for their OpenJDK distribution. no way to cause confusion.
Maven is a yiddish word for understanding, or something similar. There's a few things that have been named after it, but as it's in the tech space for this social non-network, it definitely has the potential to be confusing.
They were exceptionally difficult to find to install the app. That alone will keep them from being successful. Add to that that the app is not particularly impressive... I'm not sure if their chances.
Technology
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).