coenhyde

I like driving manual and I like my EV. But I don't want a manual in my EV. Just give me an EV without all the traction control smarts. Give me access to the raw power so I can control how and when it slips.

Hah, A lot of us already are pets, but at least the masters are still human.

Who said anything about silicon? Maybe AGI will be built on our current bread of processors or maybe the next generation. The only way i see you can be correct is if today's exponential technological advancements come to a halt or reverse. I do not foresee a future where we do not eventually create an AGI superior to us. Maybe in 5 years time, maybe in a 100. But it is coming.

I'll be keeping my body offline. But I think fusion with AGI is inevitable if we want to remain somewhat in control of our future. Otherwise we will be super ceded by super intelligent AI and become their pets.

i did the same with the same results

Make some radical changes in your life to course correct. A lot of people where are giving you coping mechanisms, ie exercise, no drugs, etc. All good but the problem still exists; you hate doing what you are doing. Don't learn to deal with the current situation, or you will further erode your confidence to do something else.

Maybe you can get a job doing what you like, but even switching employers to do something you don't really care for will still be a step in the right direction. As you will exercise your change muscle.

> This does not follow at all. Tesla sells their barely up market cars at luxury car prices and makes a significant amount of money off selling emission credits and raking in other government subsidies.

Emission credits were 3.6%[1] of revenue last quarter (Q1 2022). I don't know what "subsidies" you are referring too but you may be thinking of the EV tax credit, which was exhausted by Tesla in late 2019[2]. So in that regard other EV automakers have an advantage over Tesla.

> I also don't see Tesla being able to compete on luxury as they have significant problems with fit and finish. Now that traditional luxury brands have solid EV offerings it seems unlikely Tesla will be able to keep their margins and increase their sales volume.

Tesla has certainly had fit and finish issues but they are solving this. Their new Model Y produced in TX uses their "giga castings" which removes the opportunity to screw up alignment by removing ~150 welds for the body. Look it up if you want to know more.

I think error in your thinking is that Tesla will remain static while others catchup. That's not going to happen. Tesla is innovating (increasing margin) and scaling at a faster rate than "legacy auto".

[1] Q1 2022 Financials https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/IOSHZZ_TSLA_Q1_2022_Updat... [2] https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml

> That doesn't make any sense. "Legacy auto" knows how to make cars. To their final assembly factories there's not a huge difference between a BEV, PHEV, or an ICE drive train. So long as they feed in components they get cars out. They definitely know how to get components made to feed into their factories.

That's the problem. When they do it that way, they don't make a profit on BEV's. "Legacy auto" got good at building the supply chain network for parts. Then they pick and choose and assemble into a car. But everyone is taking a slice, and it's hard to optimize designs for efficiency between so many suppliers. Then they have their dealers to contend with.

What i'm saying is that "legacy auto" can certainly build and sell a BEV like they do with ICE. And it's not too hard for them to make that change, baring battery supply challenges. But they don't have the 30% gross margin that Tesla does. That margin will continue to grow and then turn into a weapon when Tesla needs to be competitive.

Tesla is focused on unit production, SKU minimization is a side effect. They are supply contained. Why make additional models of cars if you can sell more of the ones you already make instead? There's more than enough demand to support their limited SKU's, high price points and current production; for the moment. When Tesla manages to cap out on their demand, they can lower prices and introduce more models. But when that happens they will be at a scale where their economies of scale and vertical integration allows them to still make a large profit while their competition breaks even or worse.

I agree that the EV tech stack is easy. EV retro fits illustrate how simple EV's are. But that's not the part that matters. What matters is if you can make an outsized profit building and selling EV's. Legacy auto can't, Tesla can. Tesla is very vertically integrated so they can eek out extra margin that others can't. They also aren't inhibited by the existing dealer / service / financing model. So what I'm saying is if legacy auto wants to compete with Tesla, they have to refactor their entire business. And i don't see that happening. It will be interesting to see who is right in 5-10 years.

The incumbents will defend that market segment to their death indeed. Tesla is pulling a 30% gross margin on their EV's, while legacy auto looses money on their EV's. I don't see legacy auto being capable of refactoring their cars, manufacturing processes and business models fast enough to survive.

The fall can cascade quickly, as the incumbents are stuffed with debt. When sales of ICE fall due to the growing EV segment they will have a hard time seeking the funding necessary to transition. IMO it's all a bit late. But good luck to them. From my observation only Ford and VW really appreciate the situation they are in, and they are trying hard to navigate out. Hopefully they survive. GM is screwed.

The author made an error of judgement of not abandoning his investigation to go to Best Coast Burrito in Emeryville.

How do you think NYC supports the population it does? Manhattan is not filled single dwelling houses, but at one time it was. It was much easier to build in NYC in the past than now. If they applied the same zoning restrictions then as SF does now, it never would have become the city that it is today.

Land utilization is always close to 100% in cities. It's a misnomer that cities can "run out of land". Cities go up, they increase density. If they can't go up, it is usually because of zoning restrictions. And that's a choice of local residents and authorities.

What a terrible take. You're the kind of NIMBY who creates the problems then blames them on new residents. How about you listen to their problems and solve some of them instead of blaming them for problems they did not create.

There has been some quality issues so not going to comment on that. But they're only "less maintainable" because you don't have to maintain them. No regular checkups, no oil changes. It's amazing. The only thing you need to do is occasionally give it more wiper fluid and tire changes. * Tesla Model 3 owner

Self replicating AI maps closer to a virus than what we consider life I think (maybe our definition is wrong). But I can't substantially articulate why. No matter how i think about it there are exceptions and examples of things we do call life that are similar to an AI. So maybe it's just my inherit bias because I am biological.

Sure all possibilities. But the point about policies and laws is to effect change in aggregate. We have all kinds of laws that try to prevent bad stuff from happening, but it still happens. Just because we can't stop all, doesn't mean we shouldn't stop some.

> didn't the buyback miss a lot of weapons? I heard from a friend who lived over there for a while that many in the rural areas ignored the buy back and illegal guns are fairly common if you know where to look.

No law is perfect. Yeah there are some unregistered guns. But i assure you that a "lot of guns" to an Aussie is very different from a "lot of guns" to an American.

I'm not aware of any tests you are required to pass before you can have a firearm license. A driving test verifies if you are capable of driving a car. There should be gun safety and psych tests to verify you are capable and of sound mind for a gun.

Yeah there are some unregistered guns particularly in rural areas. But they don't really enter the market, they are kept as prized possessions by their owners. There isn't a black market for these weapons that is easily accessible. Maybe if you're in one of the biker gangs you might have enough rep to get access but the mentally unstable 18 year old certainly can not.

The thing is, even in Australia we didn't try to take the guns. We just said, "give us your guns, and we will give you above market rate money. Oh and btw it is illegal to own a gun that isn't registered."

If your buy back program offers a higher rate than the market (black or otherwise). Then the buyback program will suck up the guns.

FYI we didn't "confiscate" them. It was a buyback for any guns you didn't register. I am anti guns. But after living in the US for more than a decade I acknowledge a mandatory buyback program wouldn't work here. For idealogical, practical and economic reasons.

The USA is the largest manufacturer of guns in the world. And the domestic market is important to their business. In Australia we don't manufacture guns, so it's easy for us to say no more gun imports.

If people in the US want their guns, then whatever. But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. We must acknowledge that all guns are not created equal. Some guns can kill more in a shorter period than others. If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter then why can't we go buy tomahawk missiles or a tactical nuke. Personally I'd like an M1 Abrams Tank for self defense.

As i hinted to in my second sentence. I was being facetious

I wonder if someone from DARPA reads my tweets.. https://twitter.com/coenhyde/status/1443694051652423688

Started thinking about this to solve the port congestion problem, which they obviously are too. + emission reductions.

To establish supply lines. If Alpha Centauri has something of value you could send out a self replicating robotic AI entity. It establishes its footing then start sending deliveries to Earth. If each one way trip takes 50 years, after say 120 years you could have a steady supply of resources.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

Well I was more imagining light infantry operations or recon in forward positions in the early stages of a war. If you need vehicles, you can use EV, then you generally don't need oil and lubricants as well. At least you don't have to airdrop fuel anymore.

It is. I guess I was extrapolating without explaining. Whatever results they get from this test at sea level, they should be able to predict the efficiency for a Space Based Solar System. I wasn't necessarily saying their test verifies that Space Based Solar would work, but just that they have the information to determine if it would.

1km through the atmosphere is probably all you need to verify that the approach would work for Space Based Solar. I know the military is interested in that. Imagine being able to deploy energy anywhere on Earth and not have to setup a logistics chain to facilitate it. That's priceless. The economics for SBS don't really make sense to me, for domestic energy consumption. But economics are irrelevant if it enables you to project power deeper into hostile territory.