If you want to believe those things are unattainable, you can, but just remember that Steve Jobs got an internship at HP at the age of 12 by calling the founder on the telephone. Literally anyone could have done that.
This completely ignores reality. Jobs was a one-in-a-billion. To pretend privilege doesn't exist by invoking near mythological probabilities perpetuates it.
His phone call could have been placed by anyone. The question is, was his success mythological, or was it because he was the sort of a man who was willing and motivated to place such phone calls?
To get the internship Jobs had to know about HP, and to live close enough to HP - in a relatively privileged part of the country - to make it a possibility.
Compared to Rest of US, never mind Rest of World, only a tiny percentage of twelve year olds had those two opportunities.
I read it was in the phone book. If you’re too young to have experienced this, it may surprise you that phone numbers were typically publicly listed in books that were mailed out annually, in those times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_directory
You act like guns some weird anachronism, but from my perch, it seems that the need for civilized people to maintain firearms is increasing, not decreasing.
Consider that we have a documented justice system in many places that is repeatedly releasing violent criminals onto the streets, such that they are going on to set people on fire on the train, knife innocents on the subway, swinging and hitting elderly women with nail-embedded boards on the sidewalk. Note these crimes happened despite their lack of firearms. Should we not have guns to defend ourselves from these barbarians?
If the justice system were perfect, and crime rates far lower, then firearms would be less necessary, but never unnecessary, because civilization in a local phenomenon, and it only takes one barbarian to disrupt civilized order for the peaceful people of the world. It takes one civilized person with a gun to restore order.
In many places in the west, immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England, gangs that bomb in Sweden, etc. Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
"I need my guns to defend myself from the (((barbarian hordes)))" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that leads the rest of the planet treats gun nuts like the nuts they are. Unfortunately for the US, the US valorizes this particular psychosis
In my world, a civilized person is one who upholds peaceable society, and a barbarian is one who uses force to upend that society. They're not hordes, but they are barbarians.
And the gun owners desperately fantasizing about finally encountering a situation that will allow them to live out their Falling Down fantasies are..? The civilized people?
If you encounter a failing justice system and your response isn't "let's fix the causes" but instead "thankfully I believe in convenient self-service executions", you aren't upholding peaceable society, and I suspect that a peaceable society isn't what you'd prefer.
I would argue the prospect of people waiting to stop them is a good deterrent, a beneficial complement to any effective justice system. When seconds count, the police are at best minutes away. For example, concealed carry is demonstrably effective in mass shooting attempts in churches, ending the threat in 6 seconds:
https://youtu.be/LflruqEMlVU?si=Q4VeYnClxPGtrI88
Consider too that there are many documented cases of the authorities being incompetent to or unwilling to stop a threat, most recently in Bondi Beach, but also in Uvalde. Maybe they’re just not coming to save you?
Allowing US style gun proliferation creates a chicken and egg problem:
How can you prevent these rape gangs from accessing the same weapons? They are not caught, prosecuted and banned from obtaining guns? Even if they are, there will be more guns to steal and circulate in either case.
The answer is laws, but you say they are not working perfectly. So rape gangs will be armed rape gangs next.
When I visited Stockholm ~17 years ago, all shops were displaying valuable items in steel cages anyway (e.g.: TVs were "locked" in heavy-duty steel frames to prevent "removal"), so the problem runs older than the immigration policy gained momentum.
> immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England […] Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
I don't think you understand the nature of the "rape gang" problem —- what it actually refers to, how it works, and why arming a populace wouldn't do a thing to stop it.
Because the USA has this exact same problem (low-level organised crime gangs sexually exploiting naïve, broke or drug-addicted young teenagers in deprived settings) and gun ownership didn't fix it.
The "rape gangs" are not some roving crime phenomenon that turns up at your door and can be dissuaded by waving a gun.
So yes. Not only do we not extrajudicially shoot rapists because vigilante violence doesn't do anything useful, arming a whole population would not stop this problem in deprived environments in cities. It hasn't in yours.
This, or a miniaturized version thereof could change the game for light electric vehicles -
imagine an electric motorcycle that weighs substantially more like an electric bicycle.
Right now it takes about 10-15lbs of motor to produce a 3KW motor for an electric bike, this motor is about 10 times that in power density afaict.
The Livewire electric motorcycles use something like 100-200 lbs of motor to produce 1/4 as much power, 75kw, so that’s an improvement of 8-16x.
Does this motor design scale down? It's not clear from the article - the article focuses more on the relative efficiency gains over the previous model.
A 30lb 1000hp motor doesn't necessarily mean that they can also produce a 3lb, 100hp motor. It would be cool if it did, but I doubt that it does because usually component strength doesn't scale linearly.
That being said, these are still valuable for traditional EVs. Even if they are only a modest weight savings in the grand scheme of modern vehicle weight, their ability to improve packaging options will be a boon. One thing the industry has dicovered is that the generic "skateboard" platform doesn't make for the best vehicles, in terms of packaging.
I'm more fascinated by the question of whether it scales up... imagine much smaller and more efficient electric engines for cruise liners and cargo ships.
Notably, it’s probably also not very efficient, and eventually they’ll likely upgrade with some of the improvements from these types of motors to save on fuel.
Electric pedal bikes are already at the limit of what their chassis’s support even with small motors.
10kw+ is comparable to starter gasoline motorcycles in the US (or midsize motorcycles elsewhere) capable of going on the highway. At that point, you need to start scaling everything, like brakes, tires, and the size of the chassis.
The livewire has a motor large enough to drive a car.
That can be offset by not requiring the same sort of range that's typically assumed to be required.
While I'll be likely be riding my ICE bikes for decades because one of the things I do on them is trips with 1000 or 1500km days, truth is the vast majority of my riding is sub 25km round trips from my place. Most of my friends places, a lot of the places I shop or socialise, and the office (which I pretty much never go to any more) fit inside that range. And most of those trips take place on roads with a 60kmh or slower speed limit. _Maybe_ a few short sections of 80kmh.
For all of those short trips, I probably don't even need 2kWHr worth of battery, maybe only 1. The electric motorcycles available around here seem to start at 7 or 8kWHr, and go up to over 20.
The downside to that is the smaller the battery capacity, the smaller the short term peak power it can deliver. The sort of cell chemistry and construction typical in those sort of bikes seem to be limited to 10 or 15C peak discharge, so while their 8kWHr battery can peak at 80kW or just over 100hp, if they downsized the same pack to 1kWHr it'd probably only deliver 10kW peak power.
On the other had, alternative cell chemistry and construction can look way better. I have a few LiPo drone battery packs rated at 60C continuous and 120C peak. A 2kWHr pack of those would give me 120kW continuous and 240kW peaks. Quite likely though at the expense of much greater risks of catastrophic fire. I've had a few of those pack catch fire while charging and one that self combusted in an almost explosion like fashion when I slammed the drone into a concrete pole at about 120kmh. I can totally see why an electric motorcycle manufacturer with warranties and safety reputation and legal/regulatory obligations wouldn't want to accept that risk.
I'd love an electric motorcycle that's "fun" enough to ride, and gets 25km or so reliable range. But it'd need to be at least a bit price and "fun" competitive with my little bikes, a 117kg 125cc ~25kW two stroke and a 138kg 250cc 24kW fourstroke. I have no doubt it'd be possible, perhaps even easy to build an electric bike with the same "fun" power to weight ratio, but right now not down to the sort of price that'd make me take on a project like that.
25km range is department-store electric scooter territory. A motorcycle that can do highway speeds could expend that entire range in 15 minutes or less, which would be quite a high discharge rate and also an unusual user experience for most.
Maybe what you want is a large electric bike like a Surron or similar?
Well, and the fun ones are power-to-weight monsters. Making them 100 lb heavier (and neutering range) is a recipe for a less exciting motorcycle. Might work for something like a Gold Wing (though limited range would also be a problem there).
It's still a problem today, 2025. I think the LiveWire S2 models come closest, but they still have anemic range. (And we're ignoring cost, which is also much higher.)
Buyers are aware they exist and registration isn't a problem. Ability to repair is another big problem / question mark.
> The heaviest ones seem like the same weight as a 600cc or 1000cc crotch rocket - am I missing something big?
Livewire One is 560 lb! Energica Ego was 570! 600s and liter bikes aren't anywhere close to that -- low 400s lb for 600s, and 430-440 lb for a liter bike.
> This, or a miniaturized version thereof could change the game for light electric vehicles - imagine an electric motorcycle that weighs substantially more like an electric bicycle.
Sounds terrible for every other user of paths currently.
There’s no area in the world that allows e-bikes with more than 750w motors. A 3kw motor is illegal (cf Surron), unless you are talking about an e-moped requiring registration.
They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used.
The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles.
The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough to cyclists and already forces them off sidewalks, onto the street, and to follow traffic laws designed for cars. There's not much else to take away, and the rules right now are unreasonable enough that cyclists always break them.
I think what I would like to see are explicit requirements for insurance and licensing for powerful e-bikes, but made significantly cheaper so that people will actually bother. Requiring helmets for the insurance would also make it much more straightforward. We can require them to take the street or a dedicated bike lane and fully mandate that they have to be walked on sidewalks.
> The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.
I'm not so sure about that.
I don't want a 6000kw Sur Ron riding in the bike lane with me. The whole point of the bike lane was to make a safe space for riding a bicycle. I want the bike lanes to be safe enough for children to ride their bikes in, and having something that powerful in it is not conducive to that goal. They are by and large too fast and too unlike a bicycle for bike lanes. Having things that powerful there is going to dissuade a lot of potential (non electric) cyclists. My girlfriend already gets too freaked out by how fast some of the legal e-bikes in the bike lane go.
Certainly they shouldn't be on the sidewalk. But what does that leave? Just the road. If that's the case they probably need to just adhere to whatever standards the state has for scooters or mopeds. Which probably means some kind of license, maybe registration, and possibly insurance.
But that type of e-bike manufacturer doesn't want to make a light electric scooter that's road legal, they want to make a thing that skirts regulations by being "for off road use only".
And the buyers by and large don't want to deal with license and registration, and certainly not insurance.
Just because people are doing an illegal thing a lot doesn't mean that the law needs to find a way to make it legal.
I think what they mean is these e-bikes pushing 60mph should be legal but reclassified as something closer to a motorcycle. The problem with keeping them illegal is people tend to treat them like bikes when they should be on the road.
This is already handled in the licensing in the UK and Europe it’s an A1 motorcycle license if it’s below 11kW, A2 up to 35kW, and everything over is the full-fat A license.
The law either needs to make it legal or properly be applied to everyone. The worst situation is when an unenforceable law which does not have the teeth for a situation is on the books - it's the same as it being unregulated, but now the government can fine you whenever it wants.
I don't think there's any inherrent difference, but until the laws catch up the "powerful e-bikes" are clearly more dangerous. Riding a traditional motorcycle requires a license, passing a driving test, and following the rules of the road - none of which are true for e-bikes.
An ebike weighs less than a motorcycle by at least half (for super lightweight motorcycles) or less than 1/6th the weight. So a fast ebike is about as dangerous as merely the human person +100lbs traveling at speed.
100 pounds of bike plus 150 pounds of person hitting a pedestrian at 30+ mph is still going to do cause serious injuries to both of them.
But it's really a moot point because there are essentially zero motorocycles travelling on sidewalks, bikepaths, and trails where pedestrians are going to be concentrated, while it's a free for all for e-bikes.
In general, motorcycle/pedestrian accidents are pretty rare. Statistically, motorcyclists are most likely to injure or kill themselves rather than bystanders.
> There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.
They are called motorcycles. At > 4kw they are that (here). So either you get them registered a such, get a license and insure them, or downgrade them to under 4kw, get a license and insure them as a moped, or downgrade them to 2kw and pedal assist only and register them as a pedelec. All other options is 250w continuous (you can get away with about 500w peak) and pedal assist only.
You are also not insured if you drive an illegal bike on the road.
> The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough to cyclists and already forces them off sidewalks, onto the street, and to follow traffic laws designed for cars.
If we’re talking about high powered e-bikes, I don’t want them on the sidewalk either. Once they exceed the current regulations they’re in the moped/motorcycle category.
> There's not much else to take away, and the rules right now are unreasonable enough that cyclists always break them.
So what’s your suggestion? Let people ride electric motorcycles on sidewalks? Change the laws so that high powered e-bikes don’t have to follow the rules of the road?
I don’t think the current laws are unreasonable. I live in a place where people routinely ride their e-bikes on the sidewalks and it’s absolutely awful, especially with young children. Every time we go somewhere I have to hold their hands and yank them off the sidewalk at least once to dodge another e-bike zooming past. I can only hope enforcement catches up and starts impounding bikes from people breaking the law and issuing large fines, because I don’t know how else to stop this.
Any ebike that goes faster than 25kmph in Europe and whatever it is in NA should not be allowed anywhere were pedestrians can go.
The real solution people don't want to accept is that ALL non arterial roads in ANY urban/suburban/rural environment should be limited to 30kpmh (and equivalent in NA). And by limited I mean traffic calmed: 1 lane per direction, narrow lanes, raised street crossing, raised intersections, European style roundabouts, the works (Dutch style) - so that people actually respect the speed limit because they don't want to bang their car.
Once that happens, bike stay in bike lanes (or multi use paths with pedestrians) and everything else can go on the regular non arterial roads and stuff that's registered (mopeds and up) and go on any road.
But my "solution" requires major political adoption and probably decades of sustained vision in investment. In places with good governance it will happen naturally and everywhere else will slowly be left behind.
It’s only one step away from full zero road deaths.
I propose that in order to be able to leave your house people should have to have a valid reason, have done a course, and apply for a single-use permit.
Because, obviously, people can’t be trusted to do the right thing, ever, and one death in the community, for any reason, ever, is too many.
The goal is not to protect the people on motorcycles, who (if we're being brutally honest) forfeited most expectations of safety as soon as they got on their bikes.
The goal is to protect the regular cyclists and pedestrians who they currently share paths with while trying to not make them TOO unsafe.
In many states there’s a carve out for mopeds, for example which have less than 50 ccs of displacement. In Texas you can ride them with just a regular drivers license, but ccs have no meaning in the electric world. Should be straightforward to make the case for equivalent regulation, but would require a new advocacy campaign/org.
I see kids blasting around at high speeds without helmets.
Kids treat them like fast bikes you do not have to pedal. Wiping out on a bike at 13mph is a very different proposition to wiping out on a bike at higher speeds.
I saw just a couple nights ago some kid doing what appeared to be about 40mph on an eBike. Wind in his hair, not pedaling, just blasting it. I am sure new regulations will come to speed limit them, but at the cost of dead and disabled young people.
ETA: I went to go look up laws requiring speed limiters on bikes, and the top hit was about how you can disable them:
Article states typical eBike speed limiters are 20-28mph. That is the kind of sustained speed Olympic cyclists can maintain for some period of time, and much faster than kid's toys need to be capable of. And these are the mandated limiters!
A kid died right in front of my door on one of those. They call them fatbikes around here and they're super dangerous to operate. Way too much torque and speed for kids (and, fairly, most adults) to handle responsibly.
See - you nailed it. I did plenty of dumb shit when I was a kid, but like the specific number I quoted - 13mph - wiping out at that speed, which I have numerous times even as an adult - is a totally different level of bodily harm compared to the speeds I see kids doing on eBikes.
Would I have as a kid blasted around at 40mph if I could have? Goddamn right. That's actually my point - I'm not dead or permanently damaged, just the recipient of quite a lot of road rash. Worst injury I ever had on a bike was a broken trapezium, as an adult, for something totally not speed related (~13mph, yes), when a tree fell in front of me and I braked and flew across the handlebars. Game that out doing even 20mph and that's a different outcome.
Classic case of, "I've been there, done that, and this situation is nuts".
It's a real pity because not only did a kid die, he died on a piece of cycling infrastructure that is now much less safe than before because it gets used by kids moving at a speed higher than the cars will ever go in the same street.
And never mind the 45 kph scooters (that regularly do half as much) using the same bike path.
And here is the problem. They are already supposed to be speed limited if it's an e-bike. It's easy to tell the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle, but the difference between an e-bike and electric motorcycle is far more subtle. And most electric motorcycles lie and market themselves as e-bikes.
> And most electric motorcycles lie and market themselves as e-bikes.
Because they have pedals which nobody uses. In theory, it's pedal assist, but kids aren't really pedaling eBikes, they are using them like electric motorcycles.
You might think: Hey, how can you tell the difference between somebody using an eBike with pedal assist if so many of them look just like regular bikes?
I don't really see young people pedaling bikes at all of any kind. It's adults who don't have cars, or adults who are exercising pedaling bikes.
On a decent hill you can get a regular bike going >60mph. A dirt bike will let you ride off road at nice speeds over random terrain (no licensing required when not on public roads). In the realm of bikes, these are not an outlier. Limiters are easily overcome and speed limits are barely enforced on cars, let alone bikes. When you get a bike like this you deal with the danger and wear protective gear just like you would with any other bike (motorized or not).
Pedestrian danger is the real issue but is already covered as it is illegal to ride bikes on the sidewalk in most cities (and this probably needs to be expanded).
Bicycles have long needed a dedicated infrastructure as they are neither cars nor pedestrians.
>>On a decent hill you can get a regular bike going >60mph.
Yes, I've done this before by riding all the way up a local mountain on a road bike, clad in lycra, then on the way down I went over 60mph. It was terrifying and the physical fitness required to get up there in the first place required months of riding to actually do it. Meanwhile literal kids ride these on pavements, in between people, in cities where pedestrians walk - it's simply not acceptable. And I do own and ride an ebike(limited to 15.5mph) legally.
Sure, there exist hills where some reckless people who refuse to brake can hit 60mph/100kph on a classical (non-motorized) bicycle. Unfortunately it’s difficult to prevent such stupid behavior, but thankfully, the places where it can happen are severely limited.
Therefore, we should count our blessings that it’s not more common, rather than allowing devices that enable it.
> I saw just a couple nights ago some kid doing what appeared to be about 40mph on an eBike. Wind in his hair, not pedaling, just blasting it.
Saw an ebike zip past me at about 40 MPH in a wheelie, little motor screaming, splitting a lane in traffic. (El Camino Real, Silicon Valley). If anything happens ahead of them, they're toast. Can't stop and can't evade.
That assertion seems to be a disconnect of language. But - Selling firearms in Wal-Mart is bad enough, but it does tend to be more rural Wal-Marts than suburban (and not at all urban).
Said firearms are under lock and key in the same way they would be at gun stores. There are many gun shops in the same areas where Wal-Mart sells firearms. At least - where I live, which is a blue state. All bets are off for Texas.
We have everything locked up too just as you describe. We just have a lot of places to buy them, it's not like Wal-Mart here has a bin in the middle of the isle full of AR's next to the bin of Pokemon stuffies. Only pellet and BB guns are found on the shelf.
I don't know why I'm being pedantic, guns here are insane for many reasons but not because of this one. What bothers me is once you do buy it, you can just carry it anywhere you want now. Like random guys in MAGA hats holding what looks like a machine gun on a street corner is no longer an unusual sighting. It's weird, when I was a kid, my dad had rifles mounted to his truck rear window and it was common. Then, there was what seemed like a zero tolerance decade or two when guns were only on the news (gang violence) or in a gun safe (for hunting only). Then the pendulum swung to the wacky side of guns everywhere.
My kids school recently hosted a "gun recycling day" recently, with good intentions I think, but obviously once it occurred the parents were riled up with "you seriously invited people to bring their guns to the school! Where are the guns? Did they get moved off campus? etc" It's technically a private school and the event was hosted by the affiliated church, but still, pretty tone deaf to have that kind of event on the same property as a couple hundred elementary students
I live on the edge of the suburbs in a Blue state, at least where I live (and further on towards the city) open carry gets you the attention you're looking for from the police. People don't tend to do it.
I am not sure about further out. I know people in Michigan who keep a piece in their glovebox. I've seen in the movies what you talk about - the gun rack in the truck cabin. None of my rural relatives ever did that, not even in Michigan which is pretty gun-friendly away from cities.
> I don't know why I'm being pedantic, guns here are insane for many reasons but not because of this one.
Yeah, I mean. In Illinois at least, the guns get into the hands of the bad guys overwhelmingly because of straw buyers. Not because of "the gun show loophole". A small number of guns are obtained through theft. Mostly it's straw buyers, at least when it comes to guns used in crimes.
My family is filled with outdoorsy people (myself included), and although the numbers don't paint a picture of legal CCR owners being problematic, the wide array of people I've known who do carry makes me wonder how the hell it isn't a bigger problem. All manner of unhinged weirdos, some of whom pretty openly muse about the opportunity to shoot the kind of person they don't like. (Lots of normal people too - but plenty of weirdos)
Texas only got open carry a little while ago. Their whole reputation with guns is a hyperbolic fantasy, many northern and blue states have always had less restrictive firearm laws.
Walmart isn’t a supermarket, it’s a hypermarket, which isn’t really the same thing. This isn’t specifically a US distinction: it would also not be called a “supermarché” in France for example.
Most of them do have a (relatively small) grocery section, but are primarily dedicated to non-consumables like clothes, children’s toys, furniture, electronics, etc.
Whereas a typical supermarket (e.g. Safeway, Fry’s, Albertsons, Whole Foods etc.) might have a relatively small section of all of the above, but are primarily dedicated to food.
Exactly. His talking point seems to be, "In America you can go to a Tesco and buy a gun!" which is not remotely true. Replace with whatever stores you like in Europe (Carrefour, Aldi, whatever).
Calling Wal-Mart a supermarket is a giant stretch. As TFA says, some Wal-marts have groceries, and some have guns, and there is some small overlap between the two, but Wal-Mart is not what anyone would call a "Supermarket" - they are more an "Everything Store" where the "Everything" can vary by location which sometimes includes guns and groceries, but always includes TV's and frozen food and fishing supplies and clothing and shoes and candy and shampoo and razors and so on...
Most people are not buying groceries there, they go to actual supermarkets - near me Jewel-Osco, Mariano's, Aldi, Whole Foods, Kroger - none of which sell guns. Grocery stores do not sell guns by any common definition of the term "grocery store". You've got a corner case off of which your talking point is built. Corner cases do not make good foundations of arguments.
My advice: Come to the US and do some grocery shopping before making more such arguments.
I specifically said supermarkets, not grocery stores. I acknowledge they're not the same thing, but Walmart absolutely is a supermarket.
And I'll pass on visiting the US why y'all have armed police running around tackling people & disappearing them, and are demanding social media passwords only to refuse entry if you've been critical of Dear Leader. Sort your shit out, then maybe.
I agree with your first statement, but I'd point it the other way around. I often call big supermarkets grocery stores even when I shouldn't. And I never use "superstore" or "box store".
Language is clearly missing something if we don’t have a different word for Walmart, Target, etc. versus Albertsons, Fry’s, etc. I think if the latter set are grocery stores, then the former are clearly something else.
As I said, even though I'm reluctantly willing to entertain this, it's an incredibly niche talking point. Except for this one corner case which is only kinda-sorta true, people cannot buy guns at grocery stores. That's nonsense, and your talking point is nonsense.
Sure, it's just really funny to worry about people having to wear helmets ona bicycle when you have so many mass shootings per year it's been normalized to the degree that they don't even make the news anymore.
Apparently, just this year, a total of 366 people have been killed and 1,668 people have been wounded in 374 shootings, as of October 31, 2025.
Yeah! Like the NRA says, "From my cold dead hands!"
And like the NRA also says, "Unless you're attending an NRA convention, in which case please leave your firearms at home or use one of our provided lockers, because gun-free zones are a communist hellscape except here, and please pass through this metal detector too."
My neighborhood is full of kids on these things. The safety dynamics of driving around have changed completely. Small children flying on and off road at high speeds. It's crazy.
The issue is they're mostly ridden by teenagers with still-developing frontal cortices. The death rate is still lower than cars, but they're much more dangerous than a "real" bike (or ebike)
Listen, your world may not allow you to sell an e-bike with a 1000hp motor on it. But my world allows me to put a 1000hp motor on an e-bike and not tell anyone.
I've noticed that people seem to believe as long as they bought something it should be safe. If you're smart enough to build something, I have to hope you're at least smart enough to realize that there might be consequences.
So that you can flip over in an uncontrolled wheelie at an even lower fraction of the throttle? Even if there was infinite energy throughput (aka power) at zero mass, the main limiter for power per total system mass would still be the battery. In any practical setup, even in super short runtime designs, getting, say, twice the power would not all that dramatic a runtime hit if it was achieved by scaling the same motor technology and paying for the extra mass with a little battery capacity. Unless of course you want to actually use that power increase for any meaningful fraction of the runtime, then you'll obviously drain the battery fast. But a zero-mass power increase would not change that a lot either.
Increasing power density (of the motor) just isn't worth much when it does not happen to coincide with an increase in efficiency (and then the battery mass saved for achieving the same range will quite literally outweigh the mass saved by a smaller engine for achieving the same power)
The good news is that those striving for power density aren't really at liberty to completely ignore efficiency in the process because cooling is a key issue for them.
Personally I chose a new over a used Model Y this year because the Juniper release includes a new front bumper camera which could prove crucial in certain unlikely scenarios, and improve overall self-driving. It’s important enough that there are rumors they’ll offer the option of retrofitting it onto earlier versions: https://evannex.com/blogs/news/how-to-identify-your-model-y-...
Also HW4 likely unlocks significant self-driving performance that the earlier hardware stack cannot accommodate, and will support features that are yet to be released for a longer period of time.
Which is all to say: looks to me that the progress is significant.
> Which is all to say: looks to me that the progress is significant.
Assuming you care about self driving enough. That's a big premium to pay for that alone. Fine if that works for you but I can't imagine that being a reason for many.
Getting a new battery or newer design battery is probably much more of a driving factor
My mantra: trust no inbound communications. If something is in fact urgent, it can be confirmed by reaching out, rather than accepting an inbound call, to a number publicly listed and well known as representative of the company.
These scams will only get better, they will impersonate your loved ones, your best friends, your children, and plead with you to save them by handing over money or information, but it will all be a ruse. The only things that can prevent this outcome are: positive ironclad proof of identity / personhood / company representation, or ongoing rejection of belief in inbound communications.
I used to think sophistication was the game, but when I brought up the obviousness of Nigerian prince scams with someone, I was told that the poor quality is a tactic. That is, these scams use scale, so the idea is that mediocre scams will weed those people out who are able to discern the scam and select for those who are easily manipulated. This increases the chances that you'll be able to scam the person.
```
By sending an email that repels all but the most
gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to
self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his
favor.
```
Given human propensity to settle near bodies of water (exhibited even to this day), and the change in sea levels after the last ice age, the bulk of intra-ice age settlement artifacts are probably submerged within a relatively short distance from our existing coastlines. I would be personally interested in an effort to systematically investigate these areas.
A recent episode of The Ancients talks about how oil and mineral exploration companies have been sharing their seismic mapping data of Doggerland with archeologists:
The sea level rose more than 120 meters in the last 20000 years, so it won't necessarily be that short distance, but I think at least it should be easy to calculate where to look.
An area with a half % slope could have an entire city below the waterline.
I think we're going to find that much like central and parts of South America, the extent of civilization has been vastly underestimated because Nature has covered over it.
Yes, even more recently the entire space between England and continental Europe used to be connected landmass, Doggerland [1]. It was home to Mesolithic people just 8,200 years ago.
It would be great to see more underwater archaeology, I'm sure there's a lot to find. But due to variations in local conditions it's really tough to systematically investigate: every site has to be treated individually. Plus doing anything underwater becomes at least 10× harder and more expensive. Human scientific divers can only work easily down to about 30m: anything significantly deeper requires commercial diving protocols, submersibles, or ROVs which raise the difficulty and cost even further.
I mean something more of the sort of a survey of sea floor and subsurface which would have been coastline at the glacial maxima, boats trawling multispectral scanners to identify candidate locations. There are a few different recent systems that push in the direction of this being feasible, e.g. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/cmhrp/news/usgs-designed-tool-...
Sorry can't find much in English or much about it at all. Iirc I once chanced upon a meet-some-archaeologists stall set up in a town square nearby and listened to an archaeologist talking about it and showing fancy maps and diagrams that really excited me, but none of that seems to have spilled online.
Agree strongly. Especially around the Mediterranean including the north coast of Africa and the southern horn of Africa. Ancient humans are known to have inhabited the southern tip of Africa into the last interglacial period, and human migration across and settlement in the occasionally green Sahara could explain some things.
I was listening to Stefan Milo recently and he said something similar about how people might have lived along the coast of the Americas but because it was all mud and wood back then and is now covered in water, it'll mostly be lost at this point.
This is probably especially an issue for early North American settlements if people crossing over during the ice age glacial maximum were traveling down the coasts right after coming over the Bering Land Bridge
Less than you'd think. The white sands footprints push things back far enough that virtually all coastal sites would have been destroyed by glaciers at the LGM. We're still trying to map out the specific details.
Maybe if you specifically care about "the first people in North America". But even if that was really 20kYA+ (wild that this is a serious possibility now!) there's still a vast gulf of more recent prehistory that we know so little about. And there's probably loads of fascinating evidence to uncover.
The Gulf of Thailand to the Java Sea was dry land 16000 years ago. China's coastline was 100 miles out. New Guinea was fully connected to Australia. The Persian gulf was walkable.
They're using "Standard rail components, innovative construction" - standard gauge rail, but laid over a foundation of slab ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), which allows for the shallower foundation / avoidance of utilities relocation.
Using UHPC to rethink infrastructure is the big story here, I think.
One of the ways psychologists classify people is between those who are maximizers/optimizers and those who are satisficers/stop when things are "good enough."
As someone who is very much on the optimizer side of things, and experiences the struggles described in this article, the lesson I take to heart is that while satisficers tend to be happier, optimizers get more done.
Your optimizer tendencies make you into an expert, they open up new opportunities for learning and growth, they have the potential to have real consequence in the world. Be thankful for them, even as you guide them to their appropriate application.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
But are those really different classes of people? Isn't everyone a maximizer up to a point where they think "good enough"? Where that limit changes between people, and for each person probably depending on area of interest, area of expertise, and so on?
I see it much more being a mindset. Either you approach everything with the goal of improving it, or you approach everything with the goal of finding a works-and-is-good-enough solution. One is about maximizing quality and another about minimizing effort.
Since it’s a mindset, you can define it as different classes of people.
What I’ve observed is that the ones that are minimizing effort in the area you care about (tech as we talk about here), are doing it as a conscious choice to free themselves up for another area of life they value higher. Could be kids, could be something else.
As someone who sometimes thinks of themselves as an "optimizer", I feel the opposite take away. I spend too much time "polishing" trying to make something perfect, at the cost of actually getting things done.
You’re begging the question. If fluoridation decreases IQ through developmental neurotoxicity, is the lost cognitive capacity in the general population justified by the protection of children with irresponsible parents (who do not enforce eg the brushing of teeth) from the consequences of caries? This is a real moral problem we ought to contend with.
I believe society suffers from lower IQs, and that targeted interventions against childhood caries can be applied effectively without dosing the whole population. Why don’t schools teach toothbrushing? Why not have the school nurse check children’s teeth, or have a dentist come to school periodically?
The point of this article is that the evidence of what you are saying is unconvincing.
Even if it _were_ real science [Note: actual science engages with criticism and can withstand critique], the effect size being claimed is smaller than the margin of error on the tests.
Being a programmer, I know plenty of miserable, incompetent and outright criminal people with high IQs: the idea that IQ alone is something to maximize is just weird eugenics.
The impact of fluoride on actual social outcomes, measured by a double-blind study? That would be interesting. Maybe then we could talk about the ethics of inflicting life-long pain and suffering on children in favor of reducing their risk of unemployment by some small percentage.
What is being put forward right now, though, offers chem trail levels of rigor: it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't really, REALLY want to believe.
These opportunities come to those who seek them.