A driving force of Japanese robotics R&D is to solve their elder care problem. Eldercare is certainly in their crosshairs. Perhaps we can export all of our displaced accountants and mortgage bankers to change bedpans.
Actually, unless someone troubles to risk creating AIs for cooking the books, only honest accountants and bankers really have to worry. Does that mean its not a problem at all?
I think they are quoting full cycles. That is the only explanation that I can come up with for a claim that 78% capacity after 500 charges is competitive. Lithium batteries are known to deliver a much larger amount of total lifetime energy when they are recharged before being fully discharged. So a full cycle test is not representative. It would be nice to see a new test emerge that says what the average lifetime power delivery would be with a more optimal charging pattern.
An example of this is the actual data on Tesla batteries which indicates a general lifetime of beyond 500,000 miles before breaching the 80% capacity mark. Assuming they recharge at 200 miles on average (I bet even that is a high assumption), this would equate to 2500 charges. Of course, that number is based on their old batteries. We don't have data on the current higher density generation that launched this year.
They offer the high-speed modes that reduce the vehicle lifetime. That is not good for the environment.
There'd be no battery life effect if you limited it to usage when plugged into home power - a necessary requirement to stop the inappropriate application of free supercharger power.
And it would fit nicely with the myth that Elon created bitcoin. But, I do agree with your environment point.
It is hard to say exactly what the performance is but the NVidia Drive PX 2 currently included in all Teslas contains the same Pascal GPU used in the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. There is also a significant SoC on the same board.
I can actually imagine Tesla offering a feature to mine bitcoin with the car's automated driving system. The NVidia processor used is likely suitable for it and designed with at least some consideration for reducing power usage. It could be set to mine only when hooked to AC power, thus not costing Tesla anything extra.
The publicity could be interesting and even add to the idea that Musk secretly created Bitcoin. With a little Musk hype, it would be a fun feature or easter egg.
It might even result in more people opting to pay the extra fee to have the self-driving hardware installed at purchase.
Virtually every windows user I know has more than one screen unless actually traveling with their laptop. And trying to get actual work done on a single 17" laptop screen makes you want to throw the dang thing.
You're missing that it works if there is a disabled root account without a password too. Many people just give their own account admin access or create an admin account that isn't named root and disable the "root" account. You'd think that would be safe. It isn't.
I have a 4 core processor with 8 threads, 32 GB of memory and two displays. I typically have 8 apps open at a time and upwards of a dozen tabs on my browser. My desktop is clean, my apps are in my task bar, and most are assigned to hot keys. It all works fine. Stop messing with me.
I am a user that has to see multiple apps at a time. I often have four apps visible on my two displays using side by side positioning. Quickly switching between them provides me nothing. They need to all be in front of my eyes. If I need to work with more, I'll get more monitors.
Why can't they find other ways to innovate?
My main computer interface right now is actually the Google Assistant. My Google Homes, phones, and chromecast devices control much of my home. After years upon years of wishing that Microsoft would support multiple sound (with separate volume controls), video, and other devices simultaneously from my PC without wires so that I could just have the computer directly control all of my environment, Google did an end-run on them. Now that the majority of my devices are handled by the assistant, all I need is a good service to be offered that either allows the Google Assistant to run on and control my PC or adds my PC to the network as a Google Assistant compatible device with a rich set of commands. Oh, and I need to be able to cast to my PC, not just from it.
It makes me wonder where they think they are going to go with AR. AR needs to replace the desktop. I should be able to call virtual devices into existence in my environment and control them with my voice. Google Assistant is ready to do that - just add services. Cortana is not.
Kelly's phone was compromised in a way that could have allowed even the microphone to be captured. In fact, last I read any specifics about it, they couldn't say that it wasn't. He was essentially a walking bug.
But, critical information can be derived from even seemingly innocuous sources. Just being able to use the accelerometer to be able to trace his movements within the White House could yield damaging information. I've seen some work where keycodes being punched into an entry keypad were decipherable from the movements of a phone in a person's pocket.
The reason Tesla plans on guaranteeing $0.07 / kWH on the megachargers is that they intend to supply all of the electricity themselves via solar farms. Others have already calculated that they can make a profit doing this. Even if megachargers were to use utility power, they'd have to have powerwall battery banks to buffer that kind of energy. So, the only extra cost of solar will be the panels and associated electronics.
Overnight (or day if the trucks run night routes) depot charging of these trucks will not use megachargers. Smart depots will install their own solar farms with Tesla powerwalls.
Tesla can supply the whole system here from truck to fuel.
BTW, this is the way fleet cars will work too. The fleets will be owned by the manufacturers who will provide their own power at their depots. Their power needs, though less than if they were using gas, are easily high enough to justify the capital expenditure for a utility-scale solar farm. This is one of the reasons that they will be able to drastically undercut the per-mile cost of owning your own vehicle.
Expect to see other auto companies who intend to be in business after 2025 or so purchase or create solar companies in the next few years. No auto company will be able to be a major player without fleets and all fleets will need to provide their own energy to compete.
I'm betting the eight "pins" on the port aren't pins. They are sockets with two contact surfaces.
Eight 120 kWH batteries (five in the 300-mile version) made using the newer 2170 cells wouldn't be much of a stretch of the current technology. This would provide 960 kWH total which is within the range of estimated needs.
Tesla reuses the same AC/DC converter in their superchargers that they use in their vehicles. Current superchargers use 12 of these 11kW AC/DC modules to provide about 130kW (after losses).
If you go with the same theme but update it to use 12 of the 20kW AC/DC modules now used in the model S, the existing supercharger design could be trivially increased to about 216kW after losses.
Eight 216kW superchargers operating simultaneously could deliver 1,728kW - more than enough to provide a 400-mile charge in 30 minutes.
The market this is aiming at is the regional distribution trucking business where a driver leaves his home in the morning, goes to work drives a load to a destination, possibly picks one up, drives back, and goes home to his own bed for the night. This is the majority of the trucking business in America. A 500-mile range covers it nicely. Even if it didn't, a 30 minute stop at a megacharger could get you home.
The reason I said fleet is because they are the ones with the resources to take advantage of this and wipe out those that don't have the resources.
wow. Between fuel and maintenance savings, the 500-mile range version will probably pay back double its cost! If that holds true, it will become a "must purchase to stay in business" type of item.
I have long thought it insane that the EV business did not start with RVs first, then big trucks and buses, then commercial vans, then SUVs, and finally cars. The torque and maintenance benefits of electric over diesel should allow it to dominate the big vehicle applications. Anyone who has passed an RV struggling through the Rockies or pulled over to the side with steam hissing out of the engine compartment should know that the big vehicles beg for this tech.
You're wasting your breath (and so am I but WTF). Facts and reason mean nothing to the anti-Musk constituency. Start quoting facts and they'll just claim you're spreading fake news.
The big three is no longer three and would be down to one if GM hadn't been given several times more money than the total received by Musk from the government over all time - not to mention the massive subsidies of the oil industry which includes the cost of multiple wars over the last few decades.
Just looking at Tesla's balance sheet, the total revenue over the last five years (not including 2017) is nearly $17 billion. Even if he had sold the maximum 200,000 vehicles that can get the - up to - $7500 credit to date (he hasn't), the total subsidy would be less than $1.5 billion - so less than a tenth of the revenue they've generated.
To say that Tesla is financed by tax dollars is truly fake news but then "fake news" is also fake news.
Netflix streaming gives me great series including awesome originals but is mostly worthless for movies. It is the replacement for the TV of old (I cut cable). If I want to see a good movie, the basic choices are rent from Red Box or get Netflix disks by mail. I don't ever own because that's just a piece of clutter in my house.
No race. Right from the start you go straight to block all and whitelist a few deemed mediocre enough to provide all that the poorest people need (according to those who have whatever they want). That is your basic tier. Everything else costs more.
One of the best defenses to a civil suit for not blocking something that was used to cause harm is that it wasn't legal to do so. If you wipe out that defense by allowing ISPs to block ports, the ISPs gain a responsibility that turns into a liability, and the lawyers will do the rest.
One of my earliest memories is laying in the back window area of a '68 Pontiac staring up at the Milky Way while traveling. Of course, allowing this today would likely get parents arrested for felony child endangerment.:-)
I live on the east coast. Even during the power outage following Hurricane Irma, there were still enough lights around that the Milky Way was only faintly visible.
The last time I truly saw the Milky Way in all of its glory was during a camping trip in the Badlands. I highly recommend it.
I wonder at the effects of all of this light. I don't think that I am ever in the dark long enough for the chemicals to gather in my eyes to activate my night vision. I can always see some color.
And what of the societal effects? Could our reduced interests in space be at least partly due to generations of children growing up who have never truly seen the stars in the way earlier ones did?
If we can't ban it, perhaps we could at least switch to amber light that allows night vision to activate.
If you connect to cellular towers, it is tracked by the provider. What's the difference if Google has the information too? Do you actually trust Verizon more than Google?
Do you think that turning off your cellular connection and just using WiFi will help? Think again. Virtually every major site you connect to tracks your IP which will be the WiFi's IP. It's a simple database lookup from there. To pinpoint your location to within the WiFi range. Google has a bit more accuracy because they triangulate based on all WiFis your phone can see rather than just using the one IP, but all know approximately where you are.
Many people today drive vehicles that are tracked and don't even think about it.
If you walk down a city street, use an ATM, use a debit or credit card to pay at any business, and so many other things that people don't think about, you're tracked. How many times have you been called about credit cards in your name being used in two different places during a timespan that made travel from one to another impossible? Maybe that one isn't super common, but I've had it happen many times.
Location privacy is virtually dead. The ship has sailed. Anyone using fear of it to shock us today has some agenda of their own.
Many, if not most, are not able to tolerate those older generic medications. Also, many of the older medications have been shown either not to increase or even to decrease lifespan. It is an interesting fact that few blood pressure medications achieve a lifespan increase.
The only one that I've found to lower my pressure while not suppressing my heart rate during exercise (and thus causing me to pass out) is Losartan. It costs $60 per month or $720 per year.
At that rate, my medication is around low-midrange in cost. My mother's blood pressure medication costs her $270 per month.
Thank you! You finally came up with the solution to getting millenials out of their parents' homes! Having to pay the income tax for the "income" of free room and board is the straw that will break the camel's back!
The cap being talked of here (180GB) is not a bandwidth cap, it is a total usage per month cap, and the service is a home service which is typically shared by a family and all devices in a home.
Our home usage per month tops 500 GB on a regular basis according to measurements at my router, and I don't even have 4G screens yet. I'd guess we stream about 20 device-hours a day of HD format video media and 8 hours a day of audio media. We are only a family of three. As people dump cable, this kind of usage will not be unusual. I dumped cable over a decade ago.
I do not consider myself a power user anymore as I'm not downloading DVD sized software distributions multiple times a day or even a month like I used to. I am generally surprised at the usage reported by the router though it has dropped hugely from the terabyte+ months when I was working large-scale software development.
It is interesting that they discuss caps that would be OK with an average home user today. They won't be OK with an average home user by the time this comes out. Therefore, they are already planning on a network capacity designed to justify caps and gouging. The basis for the whining we'll hear 5 years from now is already in place.
Is it important that a truck - presumably intended for long hauls rather than Tom-Slick-style racing - be able to accelerate like mad?
One of the most dangerous things modern trucks often do is allow themselves to accelerate downhill and decelerate up hills - partly to capture energy as momentum that would otherwise be lost to braking - but also because they are often underpowered and couldn't maintain speed all the way to the top of a hill without the running head start. Ultimately, the inability of diesel trucks to efficiently maintain a constant speed is a major contributing factor to the lowering of their speed limits relative to other vehicles in most states. How many times have you had to go to the fast lane to pass a semi going uphill only to have to dash out of the fast lane to not be plowed over by the same semi on the next downhill? All of those speed changes and lane changes increase accident likelihood.
Electric trucks will be able to maintain constant speed using regenerative braking on the downhills and the extra torque of the motors to power up the hills fully loaded without loss of speed (due to that ability to "accelerate like mad". This is a huge gain in safety. Hopefully, they will have a decent capacitor bank so that you won't have myths arise about this practice causing a reduction in battery life.
When enough diesels are displaced, it is likely that this normalization of highway behavior will result in the restoration of speed equality with other vehicles. After all, it is generally safer when all vehicles are traveling at the same consistent speed.
Smart locks are almost always dead-bolts and know whether or not the bolt was thrown. It should not report closed and locked if it isn't.
Also, if you burgle the place on the same day, you're caught. It is extremely unlikely that the police won't be able to find further evidence given that they will know exactly who to look at. In addition, if they ever got away with it once, they won't get away with it again. They'd likely be fired just on the possibility that they committed the crime - firing does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt nor even weight of the evidence. And "reasonable doubt" is a much lower standard than what TV leads us to believe.
Your other replier really has the only point that needs to be made, and the reason I'd never use this service. The concern with letting people into your home is not what they can steal that day, it is in the notes that they take and perhaps even sell to someone else for future use. Breaking into a home is trivially easy - so much so that having a key is of little extra value to the process. Knowing which home to break into is not so easy. Things have gotten so cheap today, that breaking into homes is almost a worthless endeavor. Few people have anything worth stealing. The pawn value on electronics is next to nothing. So,
spotting the needle in the haystack is valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
A driving force of Japanese robotics R&D is to solve their elder care problem. Eldercare is certainly in their crosshairs. Perhaps we can export all of our displaced accountants and mortgage bankers to change bedpans.
Actually, unless someone troubles to risk creating AIs for cooking the books, only honest accountants and bankers really have to worry. Does that mean its not a problem at all?
I think they are quoting full cycles. That is the only explanation that I can come up with for a claim that 78% capacity after 500 charges is competitive. Lithium batteries are known to deliver a much larger amount of total lifetime energy when they are recharged before being fully discharged. So a full cycle test is not representative. It would be nice to see a new test emerge that says what the average lifetime power delivery would be with a more optimal charging pattern.
An example of this is the actual data on Tesla batteries which indicates a general lifetime of beyond 500,000 miles before breaching the 80% capacity mark. Assuming they recharge at 200 miles on average (I bet even that is a high assumption), this would equate to 2500 charges. Of course, that number is based on their old batteries. We don't have data on the current higher density generation that launched this year.
They offer the high-speed modes that reduce the vehicle lifetime. That is not good for the environment.
There'd be no battery life effect if you limited it to usage when plugged into home power - a necessary requirement to stop the inappropriate application of free supercharger power.
And it would fit nicely with the myth that Elon created bitcoin. But, I do agree with your environment point.
It is hard to say exactly what the performance is but the NVidia Drive PX 2 currently included in all Teslas contains the same Pascal GPU used in the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070. There is also a significant SoC on the same board.
I can actually imagine Tesla offering a feature to mine bitcoin with the car's automated driving system. The NVidia processor used is likely suitable for it and designed with at least some consideration for reducing power usage. It could be set to mine only when hooked to AC power, thus not costing Tesla anything extra.
The publicity could be interesting and even add to the idea that Musk secretly created Bitcoin. With a little Musk hype, it would be a fun feature or easter egg.
It might even result in more people opting to pay the extra fee to have the self-driving hardware installed at purchase.
Virtually every windows user I know has more than one screen unless actually traveling with their laptop. And trying to get actual work done on a single 17" laptop screen makes you want to throw the dang thing.
You're missing that it works if there is a disabled root account without a password too. Many people just give their own account admin access or create an admin account that isn't named root and disable the "root" account. You'd think that would be safe. It isn't.
They want to repeat the Windows 8 fiasco so soon?
I have a 4 core processor with 8 threads, 32 GB of memory and two displays. I typically have 8 apps open at a time and upwards of a dozen tabs on my browser. My desktop is clean, my apps are in my task bar, and most are assigned to hot keys. It all works fine. Stop messing with me.
I am a user that has to see multiple apps at a time. I often have four apps visible on my two displays using side by side positioning. Quickly switching between them provides me nothing. They need to all be in front of my eyes. If I need to work with more, I'll get more monitors.
Why can't they find other ways to innovate?
My main computer interface right now is actually the Google Assistant. My Google Homes, phones, and chromecast devices control much of my home. After years upon years of wishing that Microsoft would support multiple sound (with separate volume controls), video, and other devices simultaneously from my PC without wires so that I could just have the computer directly control all of my environment, Google did an end-run on them. Now that the majority of my devices are handled by the assistant, all I need is a good service to be offered that either allows the Google Assistant to run on and control my PC or adds my PC to the network as a Google Assistant compatible device with a rich set of commands. Oh, and I need to be able to cast to my PC, not just from it.
It makes me wonder where they think they are going to go with AR. AR needs to replace the desktop. I should be able to call virtual devices into existence in my environment and control them with my voice. Google Assistant is ready to do that - just add services. Cortana is not.
Kelly's phone was compromised in a way that could have allowed even the microphone to be captured. In fact, last I read any specifics about it, they couldn't say that it wasn't. He was essentially a walking bug.
But, critical information can be derived from even seemingly innocuous sources. Just being able to use the accelerometer to be able to trace his movements within the White House could yield damaging information. I've seen some work where keycodes being punched into an entry keypad were decipherable from the movements of a phone in a person's pocket.
The reason Tesla plans on guaranteeing $0.07 / kWH on the megachargers is that they intend to supply all of the electricity themselves via solar farms. Others have already calculated that they can make a profit doing this. Even if megachargers were to use utility power, they'd have to have powerwall battery banks to buffer that kind of energy. So, the only extra cost of solar will be the panels and associated electronics.
Overnight (or day if the trucks run night routes) depot charging of these trucks will not use megachargers. Smart depots will install their own solar farms with Tesla powerwalls.
Tesla can supply the whole system here from truck to fuel.
BTW, this is the way fleet cars will work too. The fleets will be owned by the manufacturers who will provide their own power at their depots. Their power needs, though less than if they were using gas, are easily high enough to justify the capital expenditure for a utility-scale solar farm. This is one of the reasons that they will be able to drastically undercut the per-mile cost of owning your own vehicle.
Expect to see other auto companies who intend to be in business after 2025 or so purchase or create solar companies in the next few years. No auto company will be able to be a major player without fleets and all fleets will need to provide their own energy to compete.
I'm betting the eight "pins" on the port aren't pins. They are sockets with two contact surfaces.
Eight 120 kWH batteries (five in the 300-mile version) made using the newer 2170 cells wouldn't be much of a stretch of the current technology. This would provide 960 kWH total which is within the range of estimated needs.
Tesla reuses the same AC/DC converter in their superchargers that they use in their vehicles. Current superchargers use 12 of these 11kW AC/DC modules to provide about 130kW (after losses).
If you go with the same theme but update it to use 12 of the 20kW AC/DC modules now used in the model S, the existing supercharger design could be trivially increased to about 216kW after losses.
Eight 216kW superchargers operating simultaneously could deliver 1,728kW - more than enough to provide a 400-mile charge in 30 minutes.
The market this is aiming at is the regional distribution trucking business where a driver leaves his home in the morning, goes to work drives a load to a destination, possibly picks one up, drives back, and goes home to his own bed for the night. This is the majority of the trucking business in America. A 500-mile range covers it nicely. Even if it didn't, a 30 minute stop at a megacharger could get you home.
The reason I said fleet is because they are the ones with the resources to take advantage of this and wipe out those that don't have the resources.
wow. Between fuel and maintenance savings, the 500-mile range version will probably pay back double its cost! If that holds true, it will become a "must purchase to stay in business" type of item.
I have long thought it insane that the EV business did not start with RVs first, then big trucks and buses, then commercial vans, then SUVs, and finally cars. The torque and maintenance benefits of electric over diesel should allow it to dominate the big vehicle applications. Anyone who has passed an RV struggling through the Rockies or pulled over to the side with steam hissing out of the engine compartment should know that the big vehicles beg for this tech.
You're wasting your breath (and so am I but WTF). Facts and reason mean nothing to the anti-Musk constituency. Start quoting facts and they'll just claim you're spreading fake news.
The big three is no longer three and would be down to one if GM hadn't been given several times more money than the total received by Musk from the government over all time - not to mention the massive subsidies of the oil industry which includes the cost of multiple wars over the last few decades.
Just looking at Tesla's balance sheet, the total revenue over the last five years (not including 2017) is nearly $17 billion. Even if he had sold the maximum 200,000 vehicles that can get the - up to - $7500 credit to date (he hasn't), the total subsidy would be less than $1.5 billion - so less than a tenth of the revenue they've generated.
To say that Tesla is financed by tax dollars is truly fake news but then "fake news" is also fake news.
Netflix streaming gives me great series including awesome originals but is mostly worthless for movies. It is the replacement for the TV of old (I cut cable). If I want to see a good movie, the basic choices are rent from Red Box or get Netflix disks by mail. I don't ever own because that's just a piece of clutter in my house.
No race. Right from the start you go straight to block all and whitelist a few deemed mediocre enough to provide all that the poorest people need (according to those who have whatever they want). That is your basic tier. Everything else costs more.
One of the best defenses to a civil suit for not blocking something that was used to cause harm is that it wasn't legal to do so. If you wipe out that defense by allowing ISPs to block ports, the ISPs gain a responsibility that turns into a liability, and the lawyers will do the rest.
One of my earliest memories is laying in the back window area of a '68 Pontiac staring up at the Milky Way while traveling. Of course, allowing this today would likely get parents arrested for felony child endangerment. :-)
I live on the east coast. Even during the power outage following Hurricane Irma, there were still enough lights around that the Milky Way was only faintly visible.
The last time I truly saw the Milky Way in all of its glory was during a camping trip in the Badlands. I highly recommend it.
I wonder at the effects of all of this light. I don't think that I am ever in the dark long enough for the chemicals to gather in my eyes to activate my night vision. I can always see some color.
And what of the societal effects? Could our reduced interests in space be at least partly due to generations of children growing up who have never truly seen the stars in the way earlier ones did?
If we can't ban it, perhaps we could at least switch to amber light that allows night vision to activate.
It is a loss worthy of mourning.
If you connect to cellular towers, it is tracked by the provider. What's the difference if Google has the information too? Do you actually trust Verizon more than Google?
Do you think that turning off your cellular connection and just using WiFi will help? Think again. Virtually every major site you connect to tracks your IP which will be the WiFi's IP. It's a simple database lookup from there. To pinpoint your location to within the WiFi range. Google has a bit more accuracy because they triangulate based on all WiFis your phone can see rather than just using the one IP, but all know approximately where you are.
Many people today drive vehicles that are tracked and don't even think about it.
If you walk down a city street, use an ATM, use a debit or credit card to pay at any business, and so many other things that people don't think about, you're tracked. How many times have you been called about credit cards in your name being used in two different places during a timespan that made travel from one to another impossible? Maybe that one isn't super common, but I've had it happen many times.
Location privacy is virtually dead. The ship has sailed. Anyone using fear of it to shock us today has some agenda of their own.
Many, if not most, are not able to tolerate those older generic medications. Also, many of the older medications have been shown either not to increase or even to decrease lifespan. It is an interesting fact that few blood pressure medications achieve a lifespan increase.
The only one that I've found to lower my pressure while not suppressing my heart rate during exercise (and thus causing me to pass out) is Losartan. It costs $60 per month or $720 per year.
At that rate, my medication is around low-midrange in cost. My mother's blood pressure medication costs her $270 per month.
Thank you! You finally came up with the solution to getting millenials out of their parents' homes! Having to pay the income tax for the "income" of free room and board is the straw that will break the camel's back!
The cap being talked of here (180GB) is not a bandwidth cap, it is a total usage per month cap, and the service is a home service which is typically shared by a family and all devices in a home.
Our home usage per month tops 500 GB on a regular basis according to measurements at my router, and I don't even have 4G screens yet. I'd guess we stream about 20 device-hours a day of HD format video media and 8 hours a day of audio media. We are only a family of three. As people dump cable, this kind of usage will not be unusual. I dumped cable over a decade ago.
I do not consider myself a power user anymore as I'm not downloading DVD sized software distributions multiple times a day or even a month like I used to. I am generally surprised at the usage reported by the router though it has dropped hugely from the terabyte+ months when I was working large-scale software development.
The speed is higher, the cap is higher. Whoopie.
It is interesting that they discuss caps that would be OK with an average home user today. They won't be OK with an average home user by the time this comes out. Therefore, they are already planning on a network capacity designed to justify caps and gouging. The basis for the whining we'll hear 5 years from now is already in place.
Is it important that a truck - presumably intended for long hauls rather than Tom-Slick-style racing - be able to accelerate like mad?
One of the most dangerous things modern trucks often do is allow themselves to accelerate downhill and decelerate up hills - partly to capture energy as momentum that would otherwise be lost to braking - but also because they are often underpowered and couldn't maintain speed all the way to the top of a hill without the running head start. Ultimately, the inability of diesel trucks to efficiently maintain a constant speed is a major contributing factor to the lowering of their speed limits relative to other vehicles in most states. How many times have you had to go to the fast lane to pass a semi going uphill only to have to dash out of the fast lane to not be plowed over by the same semi on the next downhill? All of those speed changes and lane changes increase accident likelihood.
Electric trucks will be able to maintain constant speed using regenerative braking on the downhills and the extra torque of the motors to power up the hills fully loaded without loss of speed (due to that ability to "accelerate like mad". This is a huge gain in safety. Hopefully, they will have a decent capacitor bank so that you won't have myths arise about this practice causing a reduction in battery life.
When enough diesels are displaced, it is likely that this normalization of highway behavior will result in the restoration of speed equality with other vehicles. After all, it is generally safer when all vehicles are traveling at the same consistent speed.
Smart locks are almost always dead-bolts and know whether or not the bolt was thrown. It should not report closed and locked if it isn't.
Also, if you burgle the place on the same day, you're caught. It is extremely unlikely that the police won't be able to find further evidence given that they will know exactly who to look at. In addition, if they ever got away with it once, they won't get away with it again. They'd likely be fired just on the possibility that they committed the crime - firing does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt nor even weight of the evidence. And "reasonable doubt" is a much lower standard than what TV leads us to believe.
Your other replier really has the only point that needs to be made, and the reason I'd never use this service. The concern with letting people into your home is not what they can steal that day, it is in the notes that they take and perhaps even sell to someone else for future use. Breaking into a home is trivially easy - so much so that having a key is of little extra value to the process. Knowing which home to break into is not so easy. Things have gotten so cheap today, that breaking into homes is almost a worthless endeavor. Few people have anything worth stealing. The pawn value on electronics is next to nothing. So, spotting the needle in the haystack is valuable.