well China debate aside, where are they? i've been dabbling in electrics for over a decade now, on the lower range they are still 30% more expensive than gas cars. Surely someone, anyone outside of China could have done one cheaper by now? Leaf came out 16 years ago and they still can't get it under $30k?
I assume you are coming from a US perspective, because smaller economical EVs are available in europe and dominate in asia. America car companies have managed to make a 50k+ truck the average new car purchase. They aren’t going to kill that golden calf voluntarily. Instead they have managed to lock out the competition. Why Musk elected to build another truck instead of the promised model 2 is beyond me. Besides, with EVs you really have to consider total cost, they are still slightly more expensive to buy in the EU as well, but you quickly make it back on fuel.
Don't forget maintenance costs in the TCO calculation too. Transmissions, fuel pumps, timing belts, radiators (mostly), fuel injectors, emissions systems, etc are all out of the picture in an EV. Servicing those things may be infrequent but is often extremely expensive.
I think this is the biggest thing that non-EV owners do not understand. Or perhaps they do but not the full scope because money is spent little by little over the years. the oil changes, brakes, belts, starters, alternators, whatevers… I have 2014 Tesla S and I literally spent practically nothing for 11 years. I had to put in a new modem, replaced 12V battery twice and that’s about it. Still on original brakes (102k miles) because with regenerative breaking I hardly ever use the brakes, I mean there is just nothing to spend your money on (I even called Tesla in the beginning of my ownership and was like “do I need to being the car in for something” to be met with “is something wrong with the car? no? why are you calling us then??!” :) ). I will never own a non-EV car again and neither will my kid or anyone in my family
I hear a lot of Teslas banging around corners in my town and it leads me to believe that EV drivers freed from annual dealer maintenance actually believe that tie rod ends don't need to be inspected and replaced.
I recently had to do some service (12 years to the day of the purchase) and mechanic, who worked for tesla for a decade and now has a local shop, told me exactly the same thing - you got shit that moves, you gotta lube it once in a while! but I own another EV and 47.5k miles later the car hasn’t seen a dealership since I drove off it.
> Don't forget maintenance costs in the TCO calculation too.
OK? Then don’t forget to add a replacement battery, replacement battery heating and cooling system, factor in a few extra sets of tires over a lifetime of the vehicle, you can also assume the suspension will wear out earlier, so at least ball joints if not also struts.
I’m an automotive EE, there is no free lunch.
I have a car we just got rid of in our research shop, in order to replace the battery the entire rear suspension and half of the interior had to come out. To an insurance agency, the car was literally totaled between the cost of the battery and the labor to replace it.
I think EVs today are intended to last shorter than the battery. There has been examples of model 3s reaching 250k+ miles on the original battery, a number most cars (ICE or EV) do not come close to before being salvaged. There are also startups re-purposing battery packs for stationary use ex. from old Nissan leafs. So I don't think you should consider battery pack replacement costs as part of owning a EV.
no idea how spotify ai specifically works (i don't use that service) but:
> fitting the track into the set as a whole. It’s not a random music discovery process
there have been plenty of attempts to analyze music and to automate track matching like the music genome (going back to '99) and while human DJ's definitely have their place (i actually listen to lots of those) it's not inconceivable that a lot of modern music could also be mixed and matched automatically with at least half-decent (to a human) results.
P.S. found the article itself pretty funny - like a nerdy, methodical complaint, just funny to read
Check out Paul Lamere's talk about playlisting that he presented at ISMIR 2010 (The International Society for Music Information Retrieval has conferences about all this stuff, and Paul founded The Echo Nest, which Spotify later bought):
ISMIR: The International Society for Music Information Retrieval
>Tutorial 4: Finding A Path Through The Jukebox -- The Playlist Tutorial. The simple playlist, in its many forms -- from the radio show, to the album, to the mixtape has long been a part of how people discover, listen to and share music. As the world of online music grows, the playlist is once again becoming a central tool to help listeners successfully experience music. Further, the playlist is increasingly a vehicle for recommendation and discovery of new or unknown music. More and more, commercial music services such as Pandora, Last.fm, iTunes and Spotify rely on the playlist to improve the listening experience. In this tutorial we look at the state of the art in playlisting. We present a brief history of the playlist, provide an overview of the different types of playlists and take an in-depth look at the state-of-the-art in automatic playlist generation including commercial and academic systems. We explore methods of evaluating playlists and ways that MIR techniques can be used to improve playlists. Our tutorial concludes with a discussion of what the future may hold for playlists and playlist generation/construction.
I don’t think it’s impossible or anything, I just don’t think it would really result in anything particularly interesting. The best DJs often add such an obscure reference or song, dialogue from a movie, etc. that comes from their own individuality. Music recommendation systems seem to mostly operate on a tagging/descriptive basis, because obviously they don’t have real lives to draw these references from.
If an AI would make interesting DJ mixes that aren’t merely collections of similar music, I think they’d need to be constructed in a totally different way.
there are plenty of amazingly lucrative businesses that do really well, like online casinos, tobacco companies, etc. that happily milk their users and don't bother with improving human condition. You can call that "successful product strategy" i guess, but to me that's still pretty repulsive. You can also call this hyperbole, but i really am very much repulsed at this: increasing addictiveness for the weak minds to extract more revenue.
We agree that the product is lucrative and the ethics are nonexistant.
> increasing addictiveness for the weak minds
This kind of statement is like saying only fools fall for spearphishing attacks. IME, there are lots of attacks on your attention, and it only takes one mistake.
If you have not been targeted yet, it's just a matter of time. For example, look around here at the Factorio users. "It's just a fun game." Ok, but how many hours a week are you spending on it? Looks like an addiction to me.
I know not everybody agrees with me, but when you are logging hundreds (thousands?) of hours on WoW, League, COD, ... it quacks like a duck.
yeah my teammates seem to enjoy checking in endless walls of MD texts of "documentation" generated by llms after it's done adding a feature. So even if that's an extreme and your documentation is more thoughtful, there is still a problem of:
* redundancy with the code: if code samples can be generated from the code, why bother duplicating them? what do they add? can they not be llm-generated later? and possibly kept somewhere out of the way (like, a website) so as not to clutter the codebase with redundancy
* if you do go for this duplication, then you are on the hook for ensuring it's always up-to-date otherwise it becomes worse than duplicate: misleading
So my preference is, when adding something to the repo, think very hard whether this information is redundant or not. Handcrafted docs, notes, comments that add more context like why was this built that way after a ton of deliberation - yes. Anything that is trivially derived from the code itself - no.
I've been trying to push people to use hitchstory or similar to generate docs from specification tests precisely to avoid that redundancy but most people just look blankly at it and go "why don't you just do that with AI?"
i don't know what i'm doing wrong but my mac has terrible time recognizing any USB-C headphones. First, it takes a while to recognize, then it never switches over by default so i often end up blasting on speakers if i forget that it's oh, USB-C headphones. Same confusion on Zoom. At the same time, Mac's 3.5mm just works, instantly.
But i realize that it might be hard to have 3.5mm on phones due to insane amount of size optimizations on these sophisticated devices we kind of take for granted by now.
yeah weird. Same goes for the "ATMs increased demand for tellers" strange idea suggested earlier in the article, which was automatically disproven right there by actually attributing the growth in tellers to deregulation. Which one is it?
that's kind of an ad hominem, but also beside the point: most bank apps (and websites) are actually absolute garbage, especially the top ones, just one example: the Citi app (on different phones) for a very long time refused to allow me to make a payment or change my password, so i had no choice but to use desktop. Somehow still, top banks' ugly websites seem to allow more functionality/fewer bugs than their mobile apps, which are very often just dumbed-down webviews or simplifications of their websites.
With so much hype it's a valid question: "is this useful/practical, or just a fun rabbit hole/productivity porn". Money is the most obvious metric, feel free to inquire the parent about other possible metrics that might be useful to others instead of asking rhetorical questions.
the obvious problem with replacing the algorithm is that people actually crave that shit, after all there have been tens of thousands of highly trained engineers making it as addictive as possible. So, no chance.
> It’s not anymore (actually google is awful now) and people are still using it
if people are still using it, then it's really one of the few things, right?
* you are wrong and it's not awful
* it _is_ awful but good enough for normal people to never care about alternatives, which are anyway not even very easy to find given the absolute stranglehold google has on that slice
either way not quite the same as choice of llms today.
reply