Yes, this actually works. In 2026, software engineering is going to change a great deal as a result, and if you're not at least experimenting with this stuff to learn what it's capable of, that's a red flag for your career prospects.
I don't mean this in a disparaging way. But we're at a car-meets-horse-and-buggy moment and it's happening really quickly. We all need to at least try driving a car and maybe park the horse in the stable for a few hours.
The FOMO nonsense is really uncalled for. If everything is going to be vibecoded in the future then either theres going to be a million code-unfucking jobs or no jobs at all.
Attitudes like that, where you believe that the richeous AI pushers will be saved from the coming rapture meanwhile everyone else will be out on the streets, really make people hate the AI crowd
The comment you’re replying to is actually very sensible and non-hypey. I wouldn’t even categorize it as particularly pro-AI, considering how ridiculous some of the frothing pro-AI stuff can get.
Uhuh, heard the same thing about IDEs, Machine Learning in your tools and others. Yet the most impressive people that I’ve met, actual wizards who could achieve what no one else could, were using EMacs or Vim.
I had ChatGPT spend a few kWh coming up with Algorithmostartupoventurecapitoopensourcolicensioprivacysecuritorustigogolokubernetocloudiosaasodistributedodatabasolatencyphoboshowhnaskhncommentopedantolongformoaillmopromptomancyethicoregulatiocontroversioburnoutikon, which apparently describes the vibe here on HN.
I tried talking to Claude today. What a nightmare. It constantly interrupts you. I don’t mind if Claude wants to spend ten seconds thinking about its reply, but at least let ME finish my thought. Without decent turn-taking, the AI seems impolite and it’s just an icky experience. I hope tech like this gets widely distributed soon because there are so many situations in which I would love to talk with a model. If only it worked.
Agreed. English is not my native language. And I do speak it well, it's just that sometimes I need a second to think mid-sentence. None of the live chat models out there handle this well. Claude just starts answering before I've even had the chance to finish a sentence.
Anthropic doesn't have any realtime multimodal audio models available, they just use STT and TTS models slapped on top of Claude. So they are currently the worst provider if you actually want to use voice communication.
I think Anthropic currently has a slight edge for coding, but this is changing constantly with every new model. For business applications, where tool calling and multi-modality matter a lot, OpenAI is and always has been superior. Only recently Google started to put some small dents in their moat. OpenAI also has the best platform, but less because it is good and more because Google and Anthropic are truly dismal in every regard when it comes to devx. I also feel like Google has accrued an edge in hard-core science, but that is just a personal feeling and I haven't seen any hard data on this yet.
I love Anthropic's models but their realtime voice is absolutely terrible. Every time I use it there is at least once that I curse at it for interrupting me.
My main use case for OpenAI/ChatGPT at this point is realtime voice chats.
OpenAI has done a pretty great job w/ realtime (their realtime API is pretty fantastic out of the box... not perfect, but pretty fantastic and dead simple setup). I can have what feels like a legitimate conversation with AI and it's downright magical feeling.
That said, the output is created by OpenAI models so it's... not my favorite.
I sometimes use ChatGPT realtime to think through/work through a problem/idea, have it create a detailed summary, then upload that summary to Claude to let 4.5 Opus rewrite/audit and come up with a better final output.
I use Claude Code for everything, and I love Anthropic's models. I don't know why, but it wasn't until reading this that I realized: I can use Sparrow-1 with Anthropic's models within CVI. Adding this to my todo list.
The one thing that really surprised me, the thing I learned that's affected my conversational abilities the most: turn taking in conversation is a negotiation: there are no set rules. There are protocols:
- bids
- holds / stays
- implications (semantic / prosodic)
But then the actual flow of the conversation is deeply semantic in the best conversations, and the rules are very much a "dance" or a negotiation between partners.
That's an interesting way to think about it, I like that.
It also implies that being the person who has something to say but is unable to get into the conversation due to following the conversational semantics is akin to going to a dance in your nice clothes but not being able to find a dance partner.
Yeah, I can relate to that. Maybe it's also because you are too shy to ask someone to dance. I think I learned that lesson: just ask, and be unafraid to fail. Things tend to work themselves out. Much of this is experimentation. I think our models need to be open to that: which is one cool thing about Sparrow-1: it's a meta-in-context learner. This means that when it try's and fails, or you try and fail, it learns at runtime to adapt.
My best guess after dipping my toe into semiconductor fabrication a decade ago is that there is a mysterious guru in a cave under a volcano who decides which customers get access to which nodes at which prices.
I have found significant frustration since the pandemic in the most unexpected place: the new expectation of punctuality for online meetings. In meatspace, in the before times, if a meeting was set for 2pm in the board room, everyone understood this to mean 2pm was the time to come through the door and chat for a bit while everyone got comfortable. The actual meeting would start at 2:05-2:10.
Online, there is no equivalent to walking in the door for a bit of a chit chat. Everyone just materializes instantly and then we’re supposed to be ready to go by 2:01. I miss meatspace for meetings and the more casual, human-matched pace.
This is cute. I think within 36 months AI will replace middle management in software companies. This will happen because, ironically, today’s middle managers will switch back to being individual contributors, using AI to contribute PRs once again (who doesn’t prefer this anyway?).
Sufficiently powerful AI can become the middle manager of everyone’s dreams. Wonderfully effective interpersonal skills, no personality defects. Fair and timely feedback.
Where is the AI going to get the information required to do the job?
How is the AI going to notice that Bob looks a bit burnt out, or understand which projects to work on/prioritise?
Who is going to set the AI managers objectives? Are they simple or are they multi-factorial and sometimes conflicting? Does the objective function stay static over time? If not how is it updated?
How are you going to download all the historic experience of the manager to the AI or are they just going to learn on the job.
What happens when your manager AI starts talking to another teams manager AI? Will you just re-invent office politics but in AI form? Will you learn how to game your AI manager as you understand and potentially control all it's inputs?
If we use outsourcing as proxy for what jobs will move to AI first, management jobs will be the last to be replaced.
Managing is about building relationships to coordinate and prioritize work and even though LLMs have excellent soft skills, they can't build relationships.
Spot on. AI might simulate the message perfectly, but it can't hold the social capital and trust required to actually move a team when things get tough.
> Sufficiently powerful AI can become the middle manager of everyone’s dreams. Wonderfully effective interpersonal skills, no personality defects. Fair and timely feedback.
> The girls liked it because Manna didn’t hit on them either. Manna simply asked you to do something, you did it, you said, “OK”, and Manna asked you to do the next step.
I actually ran this specific 'Backchannel VP' scenario through raw GPT-4 before building the hard-coded version, and the results were surprisingly 'meh.'
The missing piece wasn't intelligence, but statefulness and emotional memory.
A human manager (or VP) remembers that you embarrassed them in a meeting three weeks ago, and that hidden state dictates their reaction today. LLMs—currently—are too 'forgiving' and rational. They don't hold grudges or play power games naturally.
Until AI can simulate that messy, long-term 'political capital' (or lack thereof), I think we still need humans to navigate other humans. But I agree, for pure PR review and logical feedback, I'd take an AI manager any day!
I'm not sure you understand the job. Do you have management experience? It's mostly about discussion, agreeing on how to proceed, and building relationships. It's not clear to me at all that people will want to work for AI instead of a real human that cares. I certainly wouldn't.
Agreed. People work for people, not APIs. That human connection and the feeling that your manager actually cares ( hopefully :D ) is the one thing you can't automate away
I think most of these objections are valid against a “ChatGPT-in-a-box is your manager” framing. That’s not what I meant by “AI replaces middle management”.
What I did mean is: within ~36 months, a large chunk of the coordination + information-routing + prioritization plumbing that currently consumes a lot of EM/PM time gets automated, so orgs can run materially flatter.
A few specifics to the questions:
“Where does the AI get the information?”
Not from vibes. From the same places managers already get it, but with fewer blind spots and better recall: issue trackers, PRs, incident timelines, on-call load, review latency, meeting notes, customer tickets, delivery metrics, lightweight check-ins. The “AI manager” is really a system with tools + permissions + audit logs, not a standalone LLM.
“How does it notice burnout / team health?”
Two parts: (1) observable signals (sustained after-hours activity, chronic context switching, on-call spikes, growing review queues, missed 1:1s, reduced throughput variance), and (2) explicit human input (quick pulse check-ins, opt-in journaling, “I’m overloaded” flags). Humans are still in the loop for the “I’m not okay” stuff. The AI just catches it earlier and more consistently than a busy manager with 8 directs and 30 Slack threads.
“Who sets objectives / what about conflicting goals?”
Exactly: humans. Strategy is still human-owned. But translating “increase reliability without killing roadmap” into day-to-day sequencing, tradeoff visibility, and risk accounting is where software can help a lot. Think: continuous, explainable prioritization that shows its work (“we’re pushing this because it reduces SEV risk by X and unblocks Y; here are the assumptions”).
“What about historic experience?”
You don’t “download” a manager’s career. You encode the org’s policies, past decisions, and constraints into an accessible memory: postmortems, decision records, architecture notes, norms. The AI won’t have wisdom-by-osmosis, but it will have perfect retrieval of “what happened last time we tried this” and it won’t forget the quiet lessons buried in docs.
“Will we reinvent office politics / will people game it?”
We already do. The difference is: an AI system can be designed to be harder to game because inputs can be cross-validated (tickets vs PRs vs customer impact vs peer feedback) and the rules can be transparent and audited. Also: if you try to game an AI that logs its reasoning, you leave a paper trail. That alone changes incentives.
“Relationships and trust can’t be automated.”
Agree. And that’s why I don’t think “management disappears.” I think it unbundles the human part (trust, coaching, hard conversations, hiring/firing accountability, culture) - that part stays human.
The mechanical part (status synthesis, dependency chasing, agenda generation, follow-up enforcement, draft feedback, metric hygiene, “what should we do next and why”) becomes mostly automated. But did everyone love that part anyway? I don't.
So the likely outcome isn’t “everyone reports to an API”. It’s: fewer layers, more player-coaches, and AI doing the boring middle-management work that currently eats the calendar.
In other words: I’m not claiming AI becomes the perfect human manager. I’m claiming it makes the org need less middle management by automating the parts that are fundamentally information processing.
I’m actually neurodivergent. It’s not much of a gift, let me tell you. I fully count on my neurotypical teammates to ensure the company doesn’t go off the rails. If it were just me, cool stuff would definitely happen - randomly. And we would run out of money and fail.
> If it were just me, cool stuff would definitely happen - randomly. And we would run out of money and fail.
I like to think there needs to be some distribution. Just like how there should be an adversarial process where the business people are only concerned about the money and the programmers are only concerned about the product [0]. You need code monkeys to build a product and make it something people want to use. But you need business monkeys to make it profitable and to get the money to build better stuff. If the code monkeys dominate then user interfaces suck, building takes forever, and is vastly outsold by products with worse features[1]. If the business monkeys dominate too much you just get enshitification because they only care about the product so far as people will buy it (even if they turn down future sales).
Turtles all the way down. Even on just the code monkey side you need some of those people that swing for the fences and miss a lot to get those big leaps but most people should no be doing this and instead keep things marching forward. Both groups are useful, just in different ways. An adversarial process can also be useful here. But everyone also needs to recognize they're on the same team.
[0] more accurately: the business people optimize for the money, conditioned on the product; the engineers optimize the product, conditioned on the money.
[1] throughout history the products that are technically better frequently lose to inferior ones. Because success isn't purely reliant upon features
We don’t see BYD cars in the US or Canada very much yet because of tariffs. But head down to Mexico and they’re everywhere. The Chinese EV automakers are crushing it.
This is just going to hurt US car manufacturers. Tarriffs are rent seeking. Rent seeking in the long run is brittle. You get a little security now for loss of competitiveness in the future - once the rent seeking goes away, you’re screwed. You haven’t had to compete, so you haven’t adapted. Consumers flee because they’ve just tolerated you - they actively dislike being forced into fewer choices
Rent seeking is industry suicide. It feels like it helps, but it’s not solving the real problem.
At a certain level it can lead otherwise competitive companies to rest on their laurels.
On another level, it would be game over without them. For example, US shipyards would simply stop existing without protection. There is no management strategy or measure they could implement that could compete with Asian shipyards.
The theory is that in both cases (ie. with and without tariffs) shipyards are going to die sooner or later. It is better for the society to let them die as soon as possible and direct efforts to things we are better at while taking advantage of cheaper ships produced elsewhere.
Some industries are of national security or other strategic value, so protecting them even if that means some stagnation is desirable over the offshoring of said industry.
The question is: how do you define "national security" and "other strategic value"? At the end of the day both really mean economic interest. Especially in case of US.
So if someone says "national security" is above economic interest of US, I would say these people mean _their_ economic interest is above economic interest of US and use both terms as a cover.
> Insofar as the country being conquered and Americans being slaughtered wholesale would be against our economic interests lol
> There are clear national security reasons for the government to prop up shipbuilding and semiconductors.
Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?
I'd say that is fear mongering done by the people doing business on "national security".
> Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?
Yes that is a clear risk. For most of human history, powerful leaders have unleashed violence on their neighbors to increase their wealth and prestige. For about 70 years, the cold war balance prevented very catastrophic wars between powerful nations but we now seem to be having an atavistic throw back of powerful nations being led by expansionist leaders. You either need to create your own manufacturing capacity or be at the mercy of others.
You can call it fearmongering but I can point to the whole of human history and tell you that not only has it happened, at a certain point it is inevitable. I can point at Ukraine, right now, as an example of what happens when one country appears much weaker than an aggressive neighbor.
The United States is the greatest power the world has ever seen. While the oceans protect us, the truth is that even the White House was once burned down in a war.
The economic interest is the US ability to as rapidly as possible convert those shipyards to military shipyards during a large scale prolonged war. The US did not make (relatively) many ships before WW2 and then during WW2 was briefly the largest ship builder in the world.
> The economic interest is the US ability to as rapidly as possible convert those shipyards to military shipyards during a large scale prolonged war.
Nah, that doesn't add up. US needs _ships_ and SOTA military equipment to make sure that any military conflict is as short as possible (ie. US wins). Losing money on unused production capability does not make sense because in case of prolonged conflict there is time to build the capability (as it happened during WWII).
In reality, what you call "prolonged military conflict", is nothing more than normal international competition. One could even argue US is in prolonged military conflict since WWII.
In which case making rational decisions based on hard economic criteria (ie. not losing money) is the key to success.
Sure I can see the argument for national security. And to balance out Chinese companies own rent seeking.
OTOH still strategically it’s not great. As the Asian companies have an actual market, this will lead Asian manufacturers to have better ships than comparable US ones.
The way China approached their internal market for EVs is very different.
They didn't just put tariffs on foreign EVs, they poured a lot of money into their own industry to produce a lot of different companies that became fiercely competitive in their own local market.
Once they got a few big players they stop a lot of the subsidies which led to a lot of companies falling under but at the same time the process produced some really good, competitive and profitable companies like BYD which then were ready to take on the international market.
America, on the other hand, hasn't done much to increase the competitiveness of their own internal market for EVs. Hence, the protectionist measures will have the consequences the poster above described.
Tariffs are not "good" or "bad" they're an economic tool countries can use. It's how you use the tool and in conjunction with which other tools that can have negative or positive consequences for the industry they're applying it to.
It's like "america uses a scalpel to peel oranges" versus "China uses a scalpel in open heart surgeries". The scalpel can cut, but context matters to say if it was used properly or not.
Ok but this thread is about “all tariffs being rent seeking”. Now tariffs are sometimes ok - gotcha.
What has china actually don’t different than America? Was a 10-15 percent subsidy not enough? Were the carbon credits not enough? We’re the limitations on gas cars dependent on ev sales not enough?
As far as I’m aware both china and the us have heavily subsidized ev sales. What’s different?
It's an easy way to make money. There will always be people with too much money who for some reason want a Dodge Ram. Does that mean that US made cars are a serious competition? No. But they are like luxury Swiss watches- nobody minds if the government taxes it.
I'm trying really hard to think of a US car maker that's actually super relevant outside of the US.
Ford in Europe is Ford Germany, a fully owned but separate entity (which is probably why Ford sales in Europe are decent). I think they have presence in other markets but most of their money comes from the US.
GM used to have Opel/Vauxhall, but it sold it to Stellantis.
Chrysler is now owned by Stellantis, which is a mostly European car maker.
Tesla is the obvious new kid on the block but unless they're the only ones with self driving cars globally, I don't really see them hanging on to their global market share 20 years from now in front of Chinese, South Korean, Japanese and European car makers.
>> This is just going to hurt US car manufacturers.
still don't understand why this is going to hurt US car manufacturers. Have the Japanese auto imports improved the US auto industry past 40+ years? Is Ford or GM more competitive? The US automakers are highly competitive in large vehicle/truck segments, protected under the Chicken Tax past 60+ years, but they barely have any presence left in small, cheaper segments dominated by the Japanese and Koreans. Farley recently said Ford has shifted its focus from affordable, mass-market cars because it couldn't compete against the Japanese/Koreans.
Just not convinced that allowing autos from another auto industry built on forced joint venture/tech transfer, illegal (export/local content) subsidies, or otherwise benefited tremendously from the very same rent-seeking policies themselves past 15 years is solving the real problem.
Japanese competition has absolutely improved US car manufacturers.
They have leaner assembly lines. More sophisticated supply chain. They now make a product that it turns out people want (reliable/economy)
One big one to consumers is the focus on long term reliability. This was a complete joke in the 1980s-1990s for US cars. Everyone knew Toyota and Honda would last 300k miles and an American car would crap out at 80k miles. We are in a completely new world of more consistent reliability with cars. Even if Ford is 90% Toyota - that’s a much better place to be.
Everyone wanted trade barriers in the 80s and 90s but without the pain of competition our cars would feel like the modern equivalent of a bad Eastern European shitbox - only optimized for power and not economy.
>> They now make a product that it turns out people want (reliable/economy)
Sure, Ford has always made cars that their customers want, F-150 for instance, the best selling vehicle in the US for an unbroken streak of nearly 50 years, during which it continued to improve and maintain its popularity. The Chicken law has done wonders for the American automakers.
>> ... the focus on long term reliability.
Sure, I don't question the Japanese automakers' reliability, but, in the cheap, small vehicle segments they compete with the Japanese import, the American automakers are now more or less wiped out. Most small, affordable vehicles from GM and Ford are now made in either Mexico or South Korea. So where is their "competitiveness" that otherwise wouldn't exist without the Japanese imports? In other word, the Japanese imports clearly did not prevent the "loss of competitiveness in the future."
>> Rent seeking is industry suicide.
If it's as bad as you say it is, why turn a blind to China's rent seeking past 15 years and promote their industry, which again benefited tremendously from forced JV, forced tech transfer, restrictive market access/licensing, local content/sourcing/production, high-tariffs, shadow-banning foreign competitors, arbitrary regulatory/safety barriers, etc?
I think we can glean a lot of lesson from the Chicken Tax past 60+ years and China's rent-seeking policies in the EV business past 15 years. We know what works and what doesn't -- and BYD is not it.
I agree, and it's also worth pointing out the EV market has been artificially buoyed by the use of state-funded incentives to buy electric cars, and we know this because now that those incentives are ending, EV sales are cratering.
In a vacuum, I don't hate the idea of paying people to switch to EV's who can do it, but the problem is especially in America, those benefits are going not to working class people who really need new cars (and who's cars are the most environmentally problematic) but to solidly upper-middle class buyers of incredibly large and impractical EV's which are either sports cars or suburban panzers, that rip through tires and consume vast amounts of lithium for their enormous battery packs, and beat the shit out of our already deteriorating roads.
Additionally we're finding that EV's have a major, probably unsolvable issue: they age much, much faster than ICE vehicles in one particular area: the battery. EV's have the same problem as cellphones effectively; their cells deteriorate with use, and unlike used ICE vehicles for which parts are widely available and usually cheap, it's not even remotely economically feasible to repair this issue. Replacing a battery costs so much you might as well just replace the entire car.
you're just repeating a list of tired anti-ev propoganda points, that have been debunked over and over.
- they're not much that much heavier, class-for-class. Substantially lighter than the ridiculous
ly oversized trucks that people buy for suburban use.
- Theres nearly infinite lithium in the world, depending on economics of extraction. new battery chemistries dont even use lithium.
- battery degradation hasnt turned out to be a big issue. Real world tesla data shows ~80% capacity at ~300k miles, which is approaching EOL for a car.
working class people cant buy cheap EVs because the US keeps cheap EVs out of the market with import restrictions, tarriffs and legacy manufacturers that refuse to adapt and offer a product people want. EV sales "cratered" for the same reason. Meanwhile, EV sales in the rest of the world are accelerating fast.
You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying "EVs are bad, stick with ICE." I'm saying EVs are not solving the broader issues of why car dependency is a bad idea for transporting people at scale, which is what they were proposed to do. Having everyone own their own car and drive themselves everywhere does not nor has it ever scaled properly, which is why we continue struggling with urban sprawl, lack of parking, smog and particulates, and all the rest.
EV's just shift the energy burden from the fossil fuel industry to the power grid. It's not a fix, it barely qualifies as a band-aid.
oh. im not really sure how i was supposed to get that point from a post that was seemingly just criticizing EVs vs ICE. But sure yeah, EVs wont make the world less car centric. I dont think thats ever going to happen, sadly.
> EV's just shift the energy burden from the fossil fuel industry to the power grid
Thats actually great! even if the electricity comes from 100% fossil fuels we would still reduce vehicle emissions by ~60% (ICE are only 20-30% efficient). And then of course grids are getting clean fast with the scaleout of renewables, which is accelerating rapidly worldwide. We will see 100% emission free personal car transit in my lifetime (somewhere, in whichever country gets to a net zero grid first). Thats exciting!
The broad push of EV's was to make consumer cars "green." It's classic greenwashing nonsense. They are broadly better...? than ICE, with so many caveats and variables that even that statement feels like it's giving too much credit, but yes, for standard consumer use, they are an improvement.
> even if the electricity comes from 100% fossil fuels we would still reduce vehicle emissions by ~60%
That emissions number is only looking at what comes out of the tailpipe, which isn't the full story. You have dust coming off the brake rotors, plus and much worse, the particulate from the tires as they wear down, and on that front, EV's are actually notably worse because a dead battery weighs as much as a full battery, a condition not shared by an ICE vehicle, and EVs do trend heavier on curb weight which means they go through tires faster and roads too for that matter.
Additionally, in cold climate areas, EVs end up spending a decent portion of their stored energy heating both the passenger cabin and the battery itself, and by constrast, heat is basically free from an ICE thanks to how it operates.
Like, if you live in an area with charging infrastructure, and the limitations/challenges of an EV aren't an issue for you (which to be clear, a LOT of people fit that description!) then by all means, get an EV. They are better, broadly. However if you have an ICE vehicle that is largely doing fine, is reasonably modern and well maintained... then it's arguably much greener to not buy a new car at all and just keep running the one you've already got. Better for the wallet, too.
> We will see 100% emission free personal car transit in my lifetime (somewhere, in whichever country gets to a net zero grid first). Thats exciting!
I have a lot of doubts, but hey, that will be some delicious crow to eat if it turns out true. I love cars, both electric and ICE, all their issues aside.
On a clean grid they are ~100% better on tailpipe emissions. They create less brake dust, not more, due to regen. Yes, more tire particles due to being 10-20% heavier, but way less particulate overall because of no PM2.5 from combustion.
Massive massive improvement, that’s not greenwashing imho.
(Something that is greenwashing is PHEVs, they have proven to be mostly a lie in practice)
> heat is basically free from an ICE thanks to how it operates.
Does it not bother you that over 60% of the energy in gasoline is wasted as heat into the atmosphere? Of which a small amount is captured to heat the cabin in cold weather?
> buoyed by the use of state-funded incentives to buy electric cars, and we know this because now that those incentives are ending, EV sales are cratering.
Oil subsidies are so interwoven with the way the US works that this is easy to miss in these discussions, but if not for these subsidies ICE vehicles would be much more expensive:
BYD, Geely, ZeekR, Kia, Hyundai, Mini, MG see them all around, more than Teslas (inner city Melbourne).
Also noticing that a lot of the rideshare/taxis are going EV quickly. I'm guessing the much lower maintenance and service requirements are outweighing any "range" issues, plus the trade-in value is irrelevant with warranties covering the batteries etc.
Opinionated in this context usually means “doing their own thing” or “trying again from basics” instead of following the herd and being like everyone else.
The standard new house isn’t opinionated - a custom build with features not normally seen could be.
Opinionated usually results in love it or hate it style design - unless they happen on something that just becomes standard.
The original Jobs iPhone was opinionated - an all touchscreen design went against the common “knowledge” that a physical keyboard was the way to go.
I was always stuck by how different all the cars in the BYD line are. There are some pretty bold styling and fitout choices between the models.
I have mostly driven BMW and Toyota sedan and fwd's. And as you progress in car price and size its a matter of getting more features, and a better version over the cheaper model.
Isn't that the opposite of being opinionated? In software I've heard "opinionated" about programs that limit configurability in favor of one fits all default. I believe it was Ruby on Rails which popularized the term.
For cars, I guess Henry Ford's anecdotal comment that "you can have any color you like as long as it's black" was a form of opinionated design. If BYDs cars are all different, surely they're less opinionated?
Instead of having a bland, don’t-take-any-strong-decision, please-every-one design ("un opinionated"), each car has its own very distinct design ("opinionated").
You could say that at a brand level, they are equally "opinionated" because the average car of each brand is average, but the OP argues that BYD does it by sampling N very distinct points from the car distribution, and other by sampling N times the same average point.
> In software I've heard "opinionated" about programs that limit configurability in favor of one fits all default
While this is one form of opinionated, it really just means that they are doing their own thing different from the other established players. This could mean MORE configurability in some cases. Another poster also said it, but opinionated just means that they have taken a stand in product design (features, looks, usability, etc) that they think it correct and it does not bow to 'the herd'. IMO, an opinionated design is neither good nor bad, but it is respected by me.
When I first moved to Spain, I was surprised beer was available in McDonalds, and that people commonly had beer with lunch. But not even here do we have beer available in car show rooms, that seems like the slightly wrong place for that, especially considering how strict Singapore seems from the outside.
25 years ago I was on a project that was based out of offices next to a BMW factory, so we got canteen privileges, and the food was awesome, and beer was available as one of the beverages.
This was at a car plant for people working in manufacturing.
At the university canteens/cafeterias in Italy they had wine and beer on tap next to the soda. It wasn't very good, but I was amazed the first time I just saw the tap there in the middle of the cafeteria where anyone could just go refill when they wanted.
Car show rooms are about catering to clients, selling them both a vehicle and a lifestyle, plus people are much more likely to make deals when they're offered food and drink.
Well, almost anywhere. There are places where if you have a beer with lunch and they saw you arrive in a car, they'll ask you for your car keys otherwise they'll call the police on you. Daily life works differently around the world :)
> There are places where if you have a beer with lunch and they saw you arrive in a car, they'll ask you for your car keys otherwise they'll call the police on you.
In Singapore you wouldn't necessarily arrive in a car (yet alone your own car) when you go to a car showroom. I'm not even sure they'd have enough parking around there.
I'm glad I don't live in a place where one beer would cause that. Several, yes, that's certainly an issue. But so much of the world seems to have lost the ability to be reasonable in favor of black-and-white thinking.
For those without religious objections or addictions, one glass of beer or wine with a meal is a complete nothingburger. Yes, it technically impairs your reaction times, but not enough to be a crime.
Yeah, Sweden is one hell of a place, few places have so many sticklers for rules collected in one place, for better or worse. And it's a very secular place in general, but very "zero tolerance" when it comes to drinking and driving, but completely opposite when it comes to "drinking too much only on weekends".
Why? Just make sure the customer who's test driving has the beer and wine after the ride. And their companions you can fill up before to put them in a good mood.
Right, but in countries where they're very strict about drinking and driving, you won't see even salespeople trying to get people drunk while selling a car.
It’s a fancy showroom, not a car lot. You can’t drive off in one of the products unless you want to make a grand exit through the plate glass windows. Singapore car registration costs as much as the car itself and all they’d do is get you started on the paperwork.
I think they can do the paperwork pretty quickly. And I'm reasonably sure they let you do test drives.
Just need to make sure that the driving customer has the beer after their test drive. You can fill up the companions before, however.
But to strengthen your point: I don't know for sure, but from what I can tell by looking at the place there's barely enough inventory at that showroom to allow some test drives. It's definitely not a car lot.
Aha, I'm not entirely sure what a "car lot" is, but the showrooms from BYD and other car makers here in Spain definitively let you test drive cars there, although you won't buy a car and drive away from it there. Apparently it works differently in Singapore :)
It’s not just tariffs. They’re not homologated to the US market, so even if you were will to pay multiples more than people in Australia do, you can’t register one in the US.
Tariffs are exactly the reason that situation is as it is.
BYD can outwait the adjustments of the US car industry to a new reality, in the same way that the Japanese did back in the 80s.
Last time, the US did it by screwing the union workers of the rust belt, while also giving up on passenger cars and moving to SUV/trucks, but this time it's a complete change in technology and the US (and Japan to an extent) is having trouble reorienting its manufacturing and supply chains to support the change.
If Ford can't sell an EV version of an F-150, then it has a real problem, because the rest of the world is not staying on ICE technology.
The Ford thing is bizarre. My brother has an F-150 Lightning. It’s an amazing vehicle that they just couldn’t market in this gonzo social landscape.
He is literally the walking version of the stereotype of a rural cowboy type. He runs a small hobby farm, leases pasture to local farms. He works in financial management for a regional company and his wife is a procurement officer for a state government.
They produce most of their electricity with solar. Replaced some tractor use cases with oxen. They literally don’t pay to operate their daily drivers. (A lightning and a Volt now Bolt)
The lightning replaced their emergent generator when that reached its end of life.
He got into this stuff after doing the numbers for the company. It’s cheaper and better to operate. Last year they bought a dozen Silverado EV pickups for their field people. They work fine where they deployed them. The workers love them and the opex is better.
The self described rednecks hate it because the internet told them to. He almost removed the branding because he gets approached by people warning him about all of the terrible things that will happen.
Isn't part of it the dealer network as well? They've existed so long on service money, they were actively pushing people away from the Lightning because the service needs were so low and they wouldn't be making money off them.
Yeah, Ford realized that early on and had once raised the idea of building their EV division as a direct-to-consumer more directly competitive as a Tesla-rival, but as soon as that news floated the dealers had a fit and one of Ford's ancient problems is that the dealers are also often its largest shareholders. That's been a recipe for Ford's many little disasters since 1919 (where the Dodge Brothers were dealers and shareholders and convinced US courts to force Ford to pay more profits to shareholder dividends than reinvest in R&D, those dividends then helping to finance the Dodge Brothers' next business, the Ford rival Dodge; the terribly broken concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders" comes almost directly from that 1919 lawsuit, if you've ever wondered how American businesses became the quarterly-focused way that they are instead of longer horizon focused).
This has been my experience when trying to buy any EV in the US. They technically exist, but finding one at a dealership is hard. Harder still is finding one that they actually have charged. Finding one without massive dealer fees is impossible. They use the forced scarcity as an excuse. Chevy dealership told me I was better off buying a Tesla. Hyundai told me “this isn’t really an EV kind of city”
It's the towing issue that compromised the Lightning too. Attach something to an EV to tow and you kill the range. A lot of people in this country buy a pickup to tow something with it occasionally.
> Attach something to an EV to tow and you kill the range
It reduces the range, just as it reduces how far an ICE truck can go on one tank. But that's only an issue if you tow long distance and cannot find a place to charge on the way. You could choose to rent an ICE truck for such (increasingly) rare occasions. People for whom that's not so rare should stick with ICE or hybrid, or in future with an EREV.
Once they can reset their range quickly like an ICE vehicle can then this becomes a non-issue. EV torque would be great for towing. But it's not quite there yet, outside of some BYD fast-chargers AFAIK.
But losing (even theoretical) tow range is something I think would bother the typical F150 buyer. Even changing from a V8 to a V6 in the F150 was a problem for such folks. They don't like change, and they don't like their truck's "stats" to reduce, even if it gives better overall performance.
The people with serious towing needs are buying F-250s anyway. The people towing their toys to the lake are mostly fine. If not, it’s not the right vehicle choice.
If North America is mostly only buying trucks from Ford and Ford can't sell an EV only truck, then has Ford given up on North America if EV is the present competitiveness need?
(Of course the related news was that in Europe Ford also moved to an agreement to rebadge Renault EVs instead of manufacture their own. Has Ford given up on Europe, too?)
The argument that tariffs could protect Ford to do the hard work at building more EV models seems proven wrong when Ford makes the short-term decision that it can kick the can down the road on supporting EV models until after the tariffs expire.
> If North America is mostly only buying trucks from Ford and Ford can't sell an EV only truck, then has Ford given up on North America if EV is the present competitiveness need?
No, because American truck buyers seem to prefer non-EV trucks while commercial EV buyers seem to prefer Ford's more practical E-Transit vans.
> The argument that tariffs could protect Ford to do the hard work at building more EV models seems proven wrong when Ford makes the short-term decision that it can kick the can down the road on supporting EV models until after the tariffs expire.
Ford's truck sales are not protected by the newly introduced tariffs but by the 25% Chicken Tax tariffs imposed in 1964. Seems unlikely that will change.
(There's been a lot of consolidation in the car industry over the past few decades which Ford hasn't much participated in. I guess the platform sharing agreement is a consequence of that as it wants to reduce development costs.)
> No, because American truck buyers seem to prefer non-EV trucks
For now. In a market with very few EV trucks (and very few EVs in general, and very few cheap ones).
If Rivian found a way to mass-produce an R1T at half the price, does Ford compete?
If BYD builds a North American truck in Mexico, does Ford compete?
GM's Silverado EV is growing at a decent clip, including commercial fleet sales, and looks possibly set up already to eat the market that Ford is leaving behind. If GM sales continue and maybe extend to another, cheaper pickup truck EV model, does Ford compete?
If Hyundai or Honda figure out how to get EV truck sales going in the US, does Ford compete?
Ford's pitching an EREV pivot as a "best of both worlds" situation. GM back in 2019 said EREV was a "worst of both worlds" situation that complicated drive trains for not enough benefit, especially to the consumer. Is Ford signalling competitiveness by ignoring warnings from their actual competitors?
Which is also why the US administrations of the Marshall Plan era thought they made it clear that tariffs were a bad way to stay competitive in a global economy. Tariffs were absolutely the wrong move. Ford's actions seem to be proving that.
It's 100% tariffs. So yes, it's of course tariffs. They’re not homologated because there's no point of selling something when half the price goes to import taxation
The reason BYD is killing it is because they can offer their cars at a price point unavailable to the US. The reason for that price point is because China is producing some of the cheapest batteries in the world.
BYD cannot build their cars in the US because the core part they need to make them cheap is the batteries. CATL makes the batteries that BYD uses and they aren't going to setup shop in the US. A lot of what makes CATLs batteries cheap is because China has a raw materials trade pipeline that's now superior than what's available in the US.
All of this goes back to tariffs.
By putting insane tariffs on all imports the US has effectively isolated itself from the rest of the world. Manufacturing will defacto be more expensive in the US because a significant portion of any incoming raw resources will get an automatic 25% tax.
The US does have it's own raw resources, but they aren't fully developed. Prior to 2024, we were heavily reliant on imports for a lot of our manufacturing. Shaking up the entire market for stupid reasons has destroyed manufacturing in the US. It'll take decades to repair and rebuild.
The steep tariffs against china that Trump did in his first term against solar, steel, and batteries were maintained by Biden. In term 2 Trump ramped those up to 11.
I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. Tariffs could be an important tool as part of a strategy to kickstart US manufacturing.
A big issue is education. In my region the state government is pushing hard to support semiconductor manufacturing. In addition to incentives for building facilities they funded education in community colleges to train up the workforce, did some similar stuff at the high school level and implemented incentives for supporting industry.
But… you get the army you have, not what you want. POTUS has the strategic insight of a cab driver and is surrounded by a wack pack of sycophantic C-team players. We’re hurting manufacturing because without a strategy you’re just driving margin enhancement for a few industries, and the grinding down of the economy will hurt most others.
We should look to the Chinese as a place to learn from rather than a faceless enemy. They achieved amazing results and made some mistakes and sought out to do some things that are kinda gross as well. But… they aligned policy, governance and incentives to move their country out of the sorry state it was in. DJI has like 20k PhDs working on drones. I doubt we have that many in the US.
I'm not saying that Tariffs are necessarily bad or wrong. But they are a shape blade that is really easy to cut yourself with. Blanket tariffs are effectively putting a sword on a rope and wildly swinging it around in a crowd.
Can they? I can get a lot of car for that money if I buy something used that's just a few years old, and I'll have a fairly good idea how to get my car serviced and how much it will cost, and how much I'll be able to sell it for.
Even if we don't consider these things, here in the EU, very few Chinese models look like a steal.
Tariffs or not (PHEVs and ICE cars are not tariffed like EVs afaik), the consensus seems to be that Chinese cars at a given category, are built better, cost like 10-20% less, are well equipped, but generally drive worse and often have annoying usability issues
All things considered, they're certainly competitive depending on what you're looking for, but don't look likely to oust the existing competition.
And I don't get the West's obsession with BYD - imo they look weird, they either get the interior or exterior styling wrong (with the notable exception of the Seal U), and aren't really selling that well compared to other Chinese brands.
The obsession seems mostly based around the naive assumption that you can take a Shenzhen sticker price, convert to USD, and that’s what the car would sell for at a US dealer, were it not for tariffs.
This is the wrong mental model for a few reasons, not least that breaking into the US market would require massive marketing and infrastructure investment that would have to be paid for. And that’s before you worry about reengineering for US regulations.
Also: The current Chinese EV market is not in a sustainable place. It’s the product of massive government investment and (over) incentive to produce. Most Chinese EV makers are headed to bankruptcy if current trends continue, so they won’t.
In the steady state, Chinese EVs with German-class tariffs would be competitive in the US but they wouldn’t blow the doors off the market any more than, say, Hyundai/Kia have.
I’m going to guess that a true competitive push into the US market would have marginal costs that exceed getting into Oz. But anyway your comment inspired me to do some digging:
The high end Sea Lion 7 from BYD apparently tops out at around 205k yuan in China. $29k USD.
I would think the comparison would be the BYD ATTO 3 premium vs Tesla Y premium.
Australian sticker price for the atto 3 is under $45,000 AUD, a smidgen over $30K usd.
With a wife with a mobility scooter and working 30-90 mins away from the office depending on traffic, I picked on up (salary sacrificing) as the lease costs less than what I was paying for fuel on the Kia carnival (Sedona in the us) each week.
Tesla model 3 entry level was another $10K AUD for a car with less features.
The US could have had a competitive manufacturing industry, but we traded it for cheap offshore labor.
That destruction has been ongoing since the 90s. We've hollowed out our ability to make things.
We basically focused on the exact wrong things which has put us in a pretty vulnerable geopolitical position. Rather than trying to bring resources into the US to aid manufacturing, we tried to bring finished goods into the US at a lower price.
China has done basically the opposite. They've focused on bring raw resources into china while centralizing manufacturing. That's what has turned them into the global powerhouse they are when it comes to producing everything.
For the US to turn this around, tariffs would have been in order, but they needed to be pretty focused and with internal plans on building out the industries we wanted to grow.
Doing tariffs first without building manufacturing was just dumb.
US car companies became banks that happen to make cars.
How much would you like to pay for that 80k new truck? Sure, we can give you that monthly payment, lets just structure it as a 10-year loan where you end up paying twice that on a rapidly depreciating asset. Boom, we've just sold two cars and only had to manufacture one.
We have manufacturing capacity here! Some of this is simply down to US automakers choosing high-margin SUVs and trucks over cars (most US auto brands do not offer a single car).
Basically only Tesla offers any car that is even similar to the extremely popular Toyota Camry. No US maker offers a compact car anymore.
Honestly, I don't think the immediate impact of dropping tariffs on Chinese vehicles would be as dire for the US automakers because the Chinese vehicles largely sell into noncompetitive segments. I don't doubt that the F-150s and Silverados can coexist with BYD sedans.
> Doing tariffs first without building manufacturing was just dumb.
Not dumb, worse than that. Affected companies are either eliminated or deeply discounted. The 0.001% is going to hunt the 0.01%. The erratic policy of the current administration reflects exactly that: conflicting personal interests being fought over, "the US" or "the people" be damned.
What you are looking at is unbound and shameless grifting. Not the first insurrection by the oligarchy in US history. Monopolies and wealth concentration come with a price. A very steep price.
Western auto makers are getting slaughtered by Chinese competition outside of the US (and maybe the EU? I don't know what the EU tariff situation is). I have a Chinese EV. It was half the price of an equivalent Tesla and better in every single way. Build quality and reliability have been excellent. I've driven 60,000 km with zero battery degradation.
It's just sort of amazing how badly the west dropped the ball on green tech. We're also working on importing an off grid solar system from china that will easily be a third of the price that we'd get from a US supplier.
One interesting thing that people don't realize with regards to the US tariffs is that a lot of goods flow through the US on their way to international markets. For a long time it has been easiest for us to buy stuff made in china from vendors such as Amazon in the US and have it shipped internationally from the US. Now with all of the tariffs we end up getting double tariffed for doing this (once when the goods enter the US and a second time when they ship to my country). As a result I'm seeing more and more people looking for ways to buy from China directly.
Hmm, but aren't they dumping cars in the market and still not selling? They're stuck with massive amounts of unsold stock, and the market isn't taking it - something doesn't add up.
That's comma.ai's policy since they make hardware and solve physical problems. The tiny corp has been hybrid (remote-first) since day 1 because it primarily writes open source software, and there's a long track record of success with remote for this kind of task.
We have a few whole-team meetups in Hong Kong each year for 2-4 weeks, and there's a San Diego or Hong Kong office that anyone can work from as they choose. We also have a wide array of fancy multi GPU boxes that everyone on the team gets full access to (known external contributors can get some access also).
I think many companies that were quick to embrace remote have walked it back, not everyone is capable of working productively remotely, nor are all types of work amenable to remote.
It's not a helpful reply to that particular comment, but I think it's worth recognizing that the US is now in the same camp as HK or mainland China now where there will be some people who just simply cannot enter.
The mainland and Hong Kong still have significantly different visa policies. I'm not sure if it's changed at all since the handover, except for mainlanders entering HK.
Garden path sentence structure trap creation relies on initial word parse error encouragement. Brain pattern recognition system default subject-verb-object order preference exploitation causes early stop interpretation failure.
Solar battery costs plummet phrase acting as complex noun modifier group creates false sentence finish illusion. Real subject findings arrival delay forces mental backtrack restart necessity.
Noun adjunct modifier stack length excess impacts processing speed negatively. Back word function switch from direction noun to support verb finalizes reader confusion state.
We write to be understood. Short sentences and simple words make the truth easy to see.
I don't mean this in a disparaging way. But we're at a car-meets-horse-and-buggy moment and it's happening really quickly. We all need to at least try driving a car and maybe park the horse in the stable for a few hours.
reply