Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nixonpjoshua's commentslogin

I agree EREVs make a lot of sense, electric first but not requiring a full commitment, especially for a truck that sometimes has to do things like towing.

https://insideevs.com/news/777407/scout-motors-erev-reservas...

I'm sure this wasn't lost on Ford, 80% of Scout reservations come with the EREV and only 20% BEV.

Maybe one day they will have enough volume in the segment to justify making the pure BEV version again but with parts sharing with the EREV. An advantage to EREV design is that if done smartly you can offer the same vehicle stripped down and BOOM you have a BEV too.


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.


Studies have shown that hybrids are more reliable than ICE vehicles - it turns out that using EV mode of the time and ICE less often increases reliability. No reason an EREV shouldn’t be even better.


One factory was done, and already producing EV batteries. They're converting it to fixed energy storage:

https://www.wdrb.com/news/business/all-1-600-kentucky-batter...


Even if batteries were very cheap, you run into scaling issues where your battery pack ends up very heavy, so then you're using increasingly more energy to lug your heavier battery back around for everything that isn't long-range towing.


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.


I am reminded of how space exploration has come largely before deep ocean exploration, seems like a human bias.

Putting data centers under water makes way way more sense than into space.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Natick shut down in 2024 (though apparently it hadn't been in the water since 2020.) It seems like it basically worked, but it wasn't clear that the cooling advantage was all that big relative to the hassle of having them in a difficult-to-maintain environment.


> Putting data centers under water makes way way more sense than into space

You need permits underwater. You don’t in space.


The FCC regulates satellites launched from or communicating with the US, including stuff which extends beyond spectrum licensing like mandatory 5 year deorbiting capability for newly launched LEO satellites. Europe, China and India are not regulation-free utopias either.

You've actually got more option to jurisdiction-shop with underwater data, but I'm not convinced that's the major issue with building datacentres anyway.

Ultimately there are latency and minimise data-transfer arguments for doing certain types of data processing on local machines in space, but the generalised compute and model-training argument only works if the unit economics stack up as sufficiently good to cover the risk and R&D, and they're not obviously favourable compared with cold place on earth with clear skies and access to cold water even assuming launch costs become minimal. (It's slightly amusing to see how much some advocates of that other controversial futurist vision of spaced-based solar power - whose chances of success equally depend on low launch costs - viscerally hate the latest wave of datacentres-in-space hype...)


> FCC regulates satellites launched from or communicating with the US

FCC is easier to deal with than multiple layers of environmental, planning, power, and water concerns at the local, state and federal levels.

> they're not obviously favourable compared with cold place on earth with clear skies and access to cold water

There are fewer of those places that can be developed than there is space. The bottleneck to space is launch. The bottleneck on the ground is power.

I don’t think anyone thinks the math works right now. But as OP showed, it’s surprisingly proximate in a way SBSP is not.


> FCC is easier to deal with than multiple layers of environmental, planning, power, and water concerns at the local, state and federal levels.

If you get fed up of multiple layers of concerns and US specific bureaucracy, you simply move to a different country where a single authority is desperate to not only remove hurdles but might even give subsidies to someone that wants to employ lots of people to put up solar panels and give them a bit of surplus power and hot water. Chips and solar panels fit as easily in shipping containers as they do in spacecraft. The FCC actually has to handle the concerns of entities more concerned by the environmental impact of your megaconstellation because it's a 1km^2 wide missile travelling at 17,500 mph which much of the rest of the space industry is expected to expend propellant to evade where orbits intersect, which is a bit more concerning than 5km^2 of slightly less green fields and some question marks about water abstraction, and there aren't other authorities you can turn to. (Space is underregulated in terms of not having any practical traffic management beyond launch and spectrum licensing, but that's more risk rather than dream libertarian business opportunity; the FCC can still kibosh your project, you just won't get anyone clearing debris out your way)

Technically there is more space in space than Earth, but once you start factoring that convenient orbits for earth data transfer involve carving a high speed path which intersects with other spacecraft also moving at high speed and not all with as much control as they'd like it starts to look a lot less capacious. The Earth not about to run out of coastal regions with unbuilt land any time soon.

(SBSP has its own similar issues, of course)


Yeah try tell average eco joe you are planning to warm up oceans by 0.00000001% of what sun does already.

(I agree right now it probably makes sense, but decades and centuries away we probably don't want to warm up earth anymore. If anything space datacenters could provide shade for earth lol.)


I don't think it will be possible to make wireless earbuds or a ring with replaceable batteries without seriously compromising the ergonomics of fitting onto or into the human body.

I have a pair of earbuds designed to be as diminutive for sleeping comfortably and I have no idea how you would do that with a replaceable battery even if Airpod sized devices can be done.


The Fairbuds proved that it's possible.


Counterexample: hearing aids.


Now use rechargeable batteries that are not user replaceable


What are those sleeping earbuds?


The diagnostic criteria and symptoms have substantial overlap, ultimately everything in the DSM is a descriptive diagnosis not based on a mechanistic understanding of neurobiology so it's VERY likely that our categories don't map 1:1 to the underlying causes.


https://www.xreal.com/us/

https://global.rokid.com/

Both of these companies make exactly that. I have Rokid Max, can't comment on the quality for the Xreal


I own the Xreal One Pro – they are very good! (I wish their resolution was higher than 1080p but no one else offers anything better, either.)


I can second this, after getting PRK I ended up slightly farsighted after being majorly nearsighted, I did a intermediate pupillary distance between my distance PD and near PD and its great for how I use a computer which is 99% of reading I do.


good one haha, the properly scary part of the other nuclear arms race is fusion too even!


I haven't had quotations work for me in search in years now, it's really sad how boolean operators have stopped working too. I find it particularly difficult to search for "non latex" products as adding quotes on the total term no longer works and I just get products full of latex. Also I can't use boolean search to find the product because it just ignores the "-" in front of the word and gives a ton of results that match the search term latex.

Just an example where it isn't just making it harder to search for a profit motive but it's actually actively preventing (both Amazon and Google) from showing me the results or even ads for the product I actually want to buy.

If anyone has a good solution to this I would appreciate it, there is often a non-latex version of most all latex based products but finding them online is impossible if you don't already know the brand name!


You can put Google Search into Verbatim mode (via Search tools) to make it respect quotation marks.


TIL, thanks! The corresponding query parameter seems to be "tbs=li:1", if anybody wants to make this the default.


Sadly that is broken too, I find. I think it's doing some aliasing still, and other things.


Try using `-Lamport` to filter the latex results.


Maybe use the name of whatever the substitute is, like nitrile butadiene?


Are you talking about the markup language or kinky clothes?


I would guess it has more to do with the serotonin, Atomoxetine has small S activity and large N activity and relatively it can be discontinued much easier than any of these other drugs.


That's what I thought as well. On the medication I was on afterwards it only inhibited serotonin reuptake and the dose was lower. I imagine a really high dose would do the same thing as well.


This is actually the thing I am most excited about with the prospect of self-driving, the biggest way car-centric infrastructure ruins cities is by parking requirements.

Unfortunately most cities in the USA have parking minimums so even if a market change occurs and they are all empty the lots will stick around for a while until they are no longer legally required.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: