The problem with EREVs is they are more complex than a BEV. More parts to go wrong, to purchase, and ultimately a (potentially) higher price.
The reason to do EREVs for a manufacture is, IMO, primarily because they can't get a hold of batteries for a cheap enough price. And I think that's the weakness of the way Ford has attacked EVs. They haven't (AFAIK) really built out battery plants. As a result, they are at the whims of their supplier for their battery packs.
For a truck like the F150, that's a large pack requirement that probably ultimately likely killed their margins.
Edit OK, they've been working on a plant for the last 5 years, but it looks like they've done almost nothing. Like, literally just have some support structs up.
Are they really much more complicated than a hybrid? Think RAV4 Hybrid. I’d much prefer a fully electric drivetrain with an electric generator to the joyless CVT.
Not sold (really) in the US. There's the VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else.
In the US, there's also just a pretty big infrastructure around tooling trucks for professional work. Not that that doesn't exist for vans in the US, it's just somewhat more common to see trucks having full toolsets on the side for quick access with a decent sized bed. The F350 is a major workhorse for that sort of thing.
>> "VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else."
Really? ... I'm seeing them adopted more widely in Europe now by businesses. Perhaps as second hand or lease prices are coming down. Maybe that doesn't translate to the US ...
Quite nostalgic seeing them run around Central London with business signs on their side... much like the originals. My point: not a gimmick in my experience.
Yeah, there's really no reason why something like the Isuzu Elf couldn't be electrified for cheap.
Car manufacturers wanting to make EVs premium products is what I think hurts them the most. That along with tariffs keeping the price of Chinese batteries much higher then they should be.
I am reading this article and thinking, darn there's going to be too many people like me trying to find these on the used market, and the prices will stay high.
Big fancy expensive powerstroke mega trucks with a person-high wall in the front look cool, and occasionally haul heavy things, but little white trucks that are busted up and 20 years old do all the duty. And those trucks drive way less than the range on the lightning each day. Once these lightnings price down to work truck level, I expect to see them on the road a long time.
I thought the same thing too, when it was announced. But I suspect, in addition to the price, that not being able to buy a medium or long bed version also harmed fleet sales. The short bed being the only option is probably a pretty big limitation for groups who are buying them as fleet vehicles.
Just speculation but maybe the fact the world is in an oil glut right now and with the prospect that Russian oil could re-enter global market causing even more glut caused Ford to believe that gasoline will remain fairly cheap compared to 2008 era for the next decade.
it seems gas in vancouver (canada) is $4.50usd/gal ($1.18usd/liter)
that said, I'll bet the new one will be interesting for them, as I'll bet the gas motor can be used as an on-site generator which they might buy anyway.
Yup, for both Matlab and Maple the big feature was the Jupyter notebook experience right out the box. On top of that, at the time it had a pretty high number of math functions implemented.
It's absolutely defamation if they have no or unreliable sources and something Reiner's son could sue over. They are a big enough publication to know the risks here.
They'll reveal those sources to a judge if it comes to it. They won't reveal them to the public because nobody wants to have their name attached to something like this.
It could still be false, but I somewhat doubt it is.
Meh. Information is often jumbled and wrong in the immediate aftermath of a newsworthy event, and it is tempting to accept tenuous claims which reinforce one's biases. Take the murder of Bob Lee, in which early reports were a bit off and convinced maaaaany people it was a street crime (confirming their biases about San Francsisco).
There's no real advantage to accepting PEOPLE's claim at this point. It's possibly wrong, and we'll probably know the truth in good time.
The Bob Lee comparison doesn't really hold up. The "random street crime" narrative there was driven primarily by right-wing tech executives on social media - Musk, Sacks, etc. - not by news outlets making factual claims. Fox amplified the SF crime angle but wasn't naming suspects (and I put Fox in it own category anyway, based on its track record).
Meanwhile, actual newsrooms did reasonable work: the SF Standard put nine reporters on it and ultimately broke the real story. Other local outlets pushed back on whether SF crime was as "horrific" as tech execs claimed.
Most importantly: speculating about the type of crime (random vs. targeted) isn't defamation. Naming a specific living person as a killer is. That's a categorically different level of legal exposure, which is why outlets don't do it unless they're confident in their sourcing. If this kind of reckless misattribution happened as often as people here seem to imply, defamation lawyers would be a lot busier and these outlets would be out of business.
That's still a terrible way of evaluating credibility, especially when a determination of defamation is not the same thing as a determination of truth.
> It could still be false, but I somewhat doubt it is.
I wouldn't have felt bad if it did turn out to be wrong, I certainly left room open for doubt. But what I know about media outlets is they aren't often willing to put themselves in positions where they could get sued into oblivion.
There are obvious exceptions, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Candice Owens, but I think those exceptions have a level of insanity that powers their ability to make wild accusations without evidence.
The question is going to be how much of that unknown/untested percentage actually matters. I mean, there's even a question of how much the 12.25% of known test regressions actually matter.
> Also, I have major issues with dumping GPL userspace utilities, for an MIT license suite, that is known to not be feature complete, only, and literally only because it was written in Rust. This does not make sense, and this is not good for users.
Thinking about it, I guess I have to agree. This allows ubuntu to avoid releasing security fixing patches if they so choose. You can't do that with GPLed code. It means they can send out binary security fixes and delay the source code release for as long as they like or indefinitely. Which is pretty convenient for a company that sells extended security support packages.
> This allows ubuntu to avoid releasing security fixing patches if they so choose. You can't do that with GPLed code. It means they can send out binary security fixes and delay the source code release for as long as they like or indefinitely
The GPL does not state that the source code for any modification must be released immediately, it doesn't even set some kind of time limit so it technically doesn't prevent indefinite delays either.
there's even a question of how much the 12.25% of known test regressions actually matter.
I would think that the regression tests are actually the most worthwhile targets for the new project to validate against: they represent real-world usage and logic corner cases that are evidently easy to get wrong. These are not the kind of bugs that Rust is designed to eliminate.
I agree. But I don't know that the 12.25% of test regressions are regression tests or unit tests from the gnu core utils.
I believe Ubuntu simply copied and transposed a bunch of tests from gnu core utils and that's where these ultimately came from. That doesn't really mean that all these tests arose due to regressions. (for sure some probably did).
The reason to do EREVs for a manufacture is, IMO, primarily because they can't get a hold of batteries for a cheap enough price. And I think that's the weakness of the way Ford has attacked EVs. They haven't (AFAIK) really built out battery plants. As a result, they are at the whims of their supplier for their battery packs.
For a truck like the F150, that's a large pack requirement that probably ultimately likely killed their margins.
Edit OK, they've been working on a plant for the last 5 years, but it looks like they've done almost nothing. Like, literally just have some support structs up.
reply