Hacker News Reader

Comment by rasz | Hacker News Reader

Remember that time photo film got cheaper as more and more people switched to digital cameras? Combustion engine powered cars will be relegated to hipsters, museums, hardcore enthusiasts and specialist/niche applications.

View on HN

I'm not aware of a strong functional benefit of electric versus combustion. But digital cameras had strong benefits over digital, so I don't think it's a good analogy.

In general, I don't think analogies are for making arguments, because people focus on the difference between the analogy and what it's being applied to, like I just did. In education, to teach a new principle, I think they are great.

Have you driven a Tesla or another fast electric car? They are the new digital cameras.

How? What do they do that cheaper combustion cars don't?

Accelerate faster than a combustion sports car, no expensive engine maintenance etc. And since the only major cost of electric cars is the battery they will go down in price as we get better batteries and very likely get cheaper than combustion cars pretty soon. Electric engines are super simple, only reason combustion cars are even competitive today is that we have invested so much research into building combustion engines.

There are cheaper and faster combustion sports cars.

Cheaper yes, faster - not many.

You aren't disagreeing with me.

There were cheaper and better quality analog cameras up to around 2003. By 2005 DSLR was a gold standard.

Cheaper fuel. Refill at home. Cleaner air. Cheaper to maintain (no oil changes, air filters, sparkplugs, less wear on breakpads). Quieter.

I think your dismissal of all analogies in making a point is detracting you from actually understanding their view.

Some analogies are made to demonstrate the similarities and some are made for the differences. The context is key. You just whiffed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com