Brother, your efforts are valiant, but I'm sad to say I'm starting to think it's a lost cause around here. Look at every single comment that's modded up in this thread. The progs picked a theme -- "they're tekkin' away muh INTERWEBZ" -- and succeeded in getting the vast majority of people (even the ones around here, a lot of whom have enough brain cells to know better) to buy into it to the point where anything anyone says that suggest their might be another perspective feeds right into that paranoia. It's really unfortunate.
You want me to compare an econobox with an entry-level sports sedan.
Only in your own special world is (a) the BMW 330i the least expensive entry-level sports sedan you could have chosen, and (b) the next thing down from an entry-level sports sedan an "econobox."
Sorry, but that's idiotic.
I wouldn't go quite that far -- you're just playing dumb so you don't have to acknowledge that your worldview is some combination of elitist and silly. And that requires a fair amount of intelligence, ironically enough.
You didn't read your link, pal. It does not say that "renewables receive a lot more tax breaks than fossil fuels".
I'm continually amazed by your propensity to just lie your ass off and hope it sneaks through. Here's a direct quote from my link -- hopefully all the words are short enough:
"Just last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided testimony to Congress on tax preferences provided to energy producers in 2016. According to the CBO, approximately $10.9 billion, or 59 percent, of federal energy tax preferences went to renewable energy. $2.7 billion, or 15 percent, went to energy efficient technologies or electricity transmission, for a combined 74 percent of energy tax preferences. In contrast, $4.6 billion or 25 percent of energy related tax incentives went to fossil fuels."
Now it's Saturday, so get outside and clear your head. Don't waste a perfectly good weekend being stupid.
The question went both ways: in short, why you picked a BMW to stack up against the Model 3. You have no rational response to that, as shown by your repeated resort to sarcastically characterizing anything less expensive than a BMW as a Yaris or Yugo. It's clear I'm interrupting your echo chamber -- apologies, and do carry on.
the only rational choice is to think about how to manage it.
OK, so how does one "manage" a technology that nobody really understands (and the only realistic shot at changing that currently on the horizon seems to be "let the algorithm explain why it does what it does")?
Sorry, but whataboutisms can't salvage this sorry excuse for scholarship, much less one that inaptly tries to compare subsidizing the electric vehicle with subsidizing the IC fuel source.
And if you were to make an apples-to-apples comparison of fuel sources, first you'd need to account for the fact that a whole bunch of electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. And for the rest that's not, these days renewables receive a lot more tax breaks than fossil fuels and have for some time.
Iraq "we did it for the oil" conspiracy aside, it seems to me you've basically just enumerated all the sunk infrastructure costs that EVs are now going to come along and free-ride on, and/or injury/fatality issues that EVs in and of themselves aren't going to change. Good job, I guess, but maybe you could take a small percentage of the above keystrokes and address what any of that has that to do with apples-to-apples comparisons of marginal costs for the vehicles that will now travel on the infrastructure that (whether you like it or not) exists and will be used by something.
News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.
As I'm sure you know, there are electric vehicle subsidies across Europe and Asia as well. So I'm not sure of your point. (As a side note, if the U.S. subsidies are truly so insignificant, why did Tesla's stock drop like a brick when the U.S. Congress announced its intent to end the subsidies?)
As to your broader thesis, were it really true that EVs are less expensive both off the lot and over their useful life, they would be selling like hotcakes on their own merits and there would be no reason for all those governments to offer all those incentives. So let's try to figure out why your analysis doesn't reflect real-world consumer behavior.
The most glaring issue seems to be your premise that the proper peer comparison is BMW rather than one of many other more cost-effective ICE vehicles. Just taking as true your claim that Tesla comes out on top (while squeezing my eyes shut and trying to pretend I didn't notice that the Tesla base model you're comparing doesn't even have power seats), that may work for the market segment that would have bought a BMW, but is a purely theoretical advantage for someone who isn't shopping for that level of finish in the first place. And I'm going to take a wild guess that you can't use any other EV to make this kind of comparison since all the rest are sustainably priced rather than effectively a loss leader like the Model 3.
A close second is your pairing of the shorter-range Tesla with a BMW with a V4 engine and the longer-range Tesla with a BMW with a V6 -- that's apples and oranges by definition. If my issue is range, the V4 BMW will be just fine. To the extent you're using a few tenths off the 0-60 time to draw that comparison, that's a metric that most people don't care about since they use their cars for things other than street drag racing. You seem to be engaging in the same single-issue myopia that you say people shouldn't with respect to long-range trips.
A third is comparing a vehicle I can actually buy today with one that I can get in a year to a year and a half -- maybe (note that Tesla's own website says that "12-18 months" ends in "mid 2018" and thus apparently hasn't been updated for a while).
A related fourth is assuming that Elon can still keep attracting investor capital and/or shoveling profit from high-end models into the massive money hole that is the Model 3 and won't have to substantially raise the price over the long haul.
But hey -- other than all that, I completely agree that everything is rainbows and unicorns.
Nice whataboutism, but that has nothing to do with the sensationalist claim in the article. In fact, if the headline were even remotely true, your concern would take care of itself through normal market forces.
At the moment the cost is partly because of government support, but electric cars are expected to become the cheapest option without subsidies in a few years.
So it's cheapest -- as long as you ignore that pile of money over in the corner that someone else is paying, and one we promise will go away Real Soon Now. Good grief.
Yeah, I voted this swill down as "stupid" this afternoon -- apparently that convinced them it would get a lot of clicks and needed to run post haste. LOL
about just about every model? Apple doesn't single-source-source modem chips; as a result, they get minor but measurable differences in performance between manufacturers. Shocking, really.
but the outcome they produced was to give the anti-net neutrality people the illusion of having popular support for their plans.
I could buy that if there was the first glimmer of anyone keeping score on comment volume other than the the bitter, disgruntled NetNeut fanbase. Are you aware of any source at all that said anything close to "yay -- we got the most votes -- we win"?
Eric Schneiderman, who is on record characterizing voter fraud as an "imaginary problem," has decided to beat his chest and make political hay out of the idea that people may have misappropriated identities for something that wasn't even a vote. I wish I could say I was surprised.
Make no mistake about it, the FCC is refusing to participate because they know the comments are fake, they just don't care because that is the outcome which was paid for.
Sorry, but you're the naive one: the comments are not a popular vote. They did not produce any outcome.
It changes nothing because the comments aren't a popular vote.
The millions of cut-and-paste submissions that came in on both sides were completely worthless to the rulemaking process, as well as a royal pain to sort through.
It seems like you've distorted my original point a bit from "we don't have to do this -- we could decide not to" to "we can make people stop doing it." The latter I never said. But I could see that happening if someone really crossed a line.
Will you go to war? Will you kill people and break things to stop AI development?
If someone actually started weaponizing this stuff or otherwise connecting them to physical machines/networks/systems that could make Bad Things happen, I could see the rational world actors taking a stand as they currently do at times with conventional weapons.
But to your larger point, if it's impossible to make anyone outright stop, it's by definition impossible to make them respect any boundaries short of stopping.
And if that's the case, this entire discussion is futile.
It looks like you're badly conflating "Russia" and the KGB. It's hard to see how that doesn't unavoidably color the rest of your analysis.
Did the CEO specifically order this file to be removed or was it a general order? Given the reading of the article it appears to be the latter.
You didn't read the entire article. The Q&A at the bottom explicitly says it was the former: "After discovering the suspected Equation malware source code and classified documents, the analyst reported the incident to the CEO. Following a request from the CEO, the archive was deleted from all of our systems."
No no... must be a long term black op by the NSA...
If by "long term black op" you really mean "long term fuck up by an agent storing classified material on a home computer backdoored by downloading compromised keygen software," I'm right there with you. Otherwise, this appears to just be a distraction.
I think you selectively misread what he said. . . "The genie is out of the bottle."
That's all part of the same false premise and doesn't change my point at all.
I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it.
Agree that's what he's saying, but disagree that we "have no choice."
Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.
If that's true, clearly the machines are already in charge and thus it doesn't matter what we do. If the humans are still in charge, they can decide to stop.
And we know that particular rendition of those bits came from Kaspersky how?
Since then he's said that there was a trojan on the PC he got the files from (but the trojan infection wasn't their fault because the PC user had turned off Ka[s]persky for awhile which they also knew) so Russian hackers must've gotten the information that way
And he extensively documented the reasons why he believes that to be the case. On the other side as far as I can tell, we basically have "Kaspersky and the KGB both ended up with copies of files and are both in Russia... oooooo."
Slashdot Mirror
To a point, the less choices people have, the happier they are with whatever they choose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If it's a "good" website lots of people want to access, any private entity that stands in the way of freely accessing that site = evil.
If it's a "bad" website lots of people don't want to access, any private entity that supports freely accessing that site = evil.
Any questions?
Brother, your efforts are valiant, but I'm sad to say I'm starting to think it's a lost cause around here. Look at every single comment that's modded up in this thread. The progs picked a theme -- "they're tekkin' away muh INTERWEBZ" -- and succeeded in getting the vast majority of people (even the ones around here, a lot of whom have enough brain cells to know better) to buy into it to the point where anything anyone says that suggest their might be another perspective feeds right into that paranoia. It's really unfortunate.
Sorry, bub. Those are just the tax preferences.
Yup -- exactly that which you previously said was not addressed by my link. Stick a fork in yourself -- you're done.
You want me to compare an econobox with an entry-level sports sedan.
Only in your own special world is (a) the BMW 330i the least expensive entry-level sports sedan you could have chosen, and (b) the next thing down from an entry-level sports sedan an "econobox."
Sorry, but that's idiotic.
I wouldn't go quite that far -- you're just playing dumb so you don't have to acknowledge that your worldview is some combination of elitist and silly. And that requires a fair amount of intelligence, ironically enough.
You didn't read your link, pal. It does not say that "renewables receive a lot more tax breaks than fossil fuels".
I'm continually amazed by your propensity to just lie your ass off and hope it sneaks through. Here's a direct quote from my link -- hopefully all the words are short enough:
"Just last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided testimony to Congress on tax preferences provided to energy producers in 2016. According to the CBO, approximately $10.9 billion, or 59 percent, of federal energy tax preferences went to renewable energy. $2.7 billion, or 15 percent, went to energy efficient technologies or electricity transmission, for a combined 74 percent of energy tax preferences. In contrast, $4.6 billion or 25 percent of energy related tax incentives went to fossil fuels. "
Now it's Saturday, so get outside and clear your head. Don't waste a perfectly good weekend being stupid.
Your projection, as always, is hilarious.
The question went both ways: in short, why you picked a BMW to stack up against the Model 3. You have no rational response to that, as shown by your repeated resort to sarcastically characterizing anything less expensive than a BMW as a Yaris or Yugo. It's clear I'm interrupting your echo chamber -- apologies, and do carry on.
the only rational choice is to think about how to manage it.
OK, so how does one "manage" a technology that nobody really understands (and the only realistic shot at changing that currently on the horizon seems to be "let the algorithm explain why it does what it does")?
I get that theory in the abstract, but when nobody understands why their own AI algorithms decide to do what they do, what exactly do you propose we do to have a prayer of black-boxing algorithms of outlaw AI, or whatever else you mean by "keep ahead of it"?
Sorry, but whataboutisms can't salvage this sorry excuse for scholarship, much less one that inaptly tries to compare subsidizing the electric vehicle with subsidizing the IC fuel source.
And if you were to make an apples-to-apples comparison of fuel sources, first you'd need to account for the fact that a whole bunch of electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. And for the rest that's not, these days renewables receive a lot more tax breaks than fossil fuels and have for some time.
Iraq "we did it for the oil" conspiracy aside, it seems to me you've basically just enumerated all the sunk infrastructure costs that EVs are now going to come along and free-ride on, and/or injury/fatality issues that EVs in and of themselves aren't going to change. Good job, I guess, but maybe you could take a small percentage of the above keystrokes and address what any of that has that to do with apples-to-apples comparisons of marginal costs for the vehicles that will now travel on the infrastructure that (whether you like it or not) exists and will be used by something.
News flash to Americans: there exists a world outside America.
As I'm sure you know, there are electric vehicle subsidies across Europe and Asia as well. So I'm not sure of your point. (As a side note, if the U.S. subsidies are truly so insignificant, why did Tesla's stock drop like a brick when the U.S. Congress announced its intent to end the subsidies?)
As to your broader thesis, were it really true that EVs are less expensive both off the lot and over their useful life, they would be selling like hotcakes on their own merits and there would be no reason for all those governments to offer all those incentives. So let's try to figure out why your analysis doesn't reflect real-world consumer behavior.
The most glaring issue seems to be your premise that the proper peer comparison is BMW rather than one of many other more cost-effective ICE vehicles. Just taking as true your claim that Tesla comes out on top (while squeezing my eyes shut and trying to pretend I didn't notice that the Tesla base model you're comparing doesn't even have power seats), that may work for the market segment that would have bought a BMW, but is a purely theoretical advantage for someone who isn't shopping for that level of finish in the first place. And I'm going to take a wild guess that you can't use any other EV to make this kind of comparison since all the rest are sustainably priced rather than effectively a loss leader like the Model 3.
A close second is your pairing of the shorter-range Tesla with a BMW with a V4 engine and the longer-range Tesla with a BMW with a V6 -- that's apples and oranges by definition. If my issue is range, the V4 BMW will be just fine. To the extent you're using a few tenths off the 0-60 time to draw that comparison, that's a metric that most people don't care about since they use their cars for things other than street drag racing. You seem to be engaging in the same single-issue myopia that you say people shouldn't with respect to long-range trips.
A third is comparing a vehicle I can actually buy today with one that I can get in a year to a year and a half -- maybe (note that Tesla's own website says that "12-18 months" ends in "mid 2018" and thus apparently hasn't been updated for a while).
A related fourth is assuming that Elon can still keep attracting investor capital and/or shoveling profit from high-end models into the massive money hole that is the Model 3 and won't have to substantially raise the price over the long haul.
But hey -- other than all that, I completely agree that everything is rainbows and unicorns.
Nice whataboutism, but that has nothing to do with the sensationalist claim in the article. In fact, if the headline were even remotely true, your concern would take care of itself through normal market forces.
At the moment the cost is partly because of government support, but electric cars are expected to become the cheapest option without subsidies in a few years.
So it's cheapest -- as long as you ignore that pile of money over in the corner that someone else is paying, and one we promise will go away Real Soon Now. Good grief.
Yeah, I voted this swill down as "stupid" this afternoon -- apparently that convinced them it would get a lot of clicks and needed to run post haste. LOL
about just about every model? Apple doesn't single-source-source modem chips; as a result, they get minor but measurable differences in performance between manufacturers. Shocking, really.
but the outcome they produced was to give the anti-net neutrality people the illusion of having popular support for their plans.
I could buy that if there was the first glimmer of anyone keeping score on comment volume other than the the bitter, disgruntled NetNeut fanbase. Are you aware of any source at all that said anything close to "yay -- we got the most votes -- we win"?
Reflexively mod me down all you want, rabid NetNeut mob -- it will still be true that comments are not a popular vote.
Eric Schneiderman, who is on record characterizing voter fraud as an "imaginary problem," has decided to beat his chest and make political hay out of the idea that people may have misappropriated identities for something that wasn't even a vote . I wish I could say I was surprised.
Make no mistake about it, the FCC is refusing to participate because they know the comments are fake, they just don't care because that is the outcome which was paid for.
Sorry, but you're the naive one: the comments are not a popular vote. They did not produce any outcome.
It changes nothing because the comments aren't a popular vote.
The millions of cut-and-paste submissions that came in on both sides were completely worthless to the rulemaking process, as well as a royal pain to sort through.
It seems like you've distorted my original point a bit from "we don't have to do this -- we could decide not to" to "we can make people stop doing it." The latter I never said. But I could see that happening if someone really crossed a line.
Will you go to war? Will you kill people and break things to stop AI development?
If someone actually started weaponizing this stuff or otherwise connecting them to physical machines/networks/systems that could make Bad Things happen, I could see the rational world actors taking a stand as they currently do at times with conventional weapons.
But to your larger point, if it's impossible to make anyone outright stop, it's by definition impossible to make them respect any boundaries short of stopping.
And if that's the case, this entire discussion is futile.
Because the files made it to Russia VIA Kaspersky
It looks like you're badly conflating "Russia" and the KGB. It's hard to see how that doesn't unavoidably color the rest of your analysis.
Did the CEO specifically order this file to be removed or was it a general order? Given the reading of the article it appears to be the latter.
You didn't read the entire article. The Q&A at the bottom explicitly says it was the former: "After discovering the suspected Equation malware source code and classified documents, the analyst reported the incident to the CEO. Following a request from the CEO, the archive was deleted from all of our systems."
No no... must be a long term black op by the NSA...
If by "long term black op" you really mean "long term fuck up by an agent storing classified material on a home computer backdoored by downloading compromised keygen software," I'm right there with you. Otherwise, this appears to just be a distraction.
I think you selectively misread what he said. . . "The genie is out of the bottle."
That's all part of the same false premise and doesn't change my point at all.
I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it.
Agree that's what he's saying, but disagree that we "have no choice."
Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.
If that's true, clearly the machines are already in charge and thus it doesn't matter what we do. If the humans are still in charge, they can decide to stop.
The files then somehow made their way to the KGB.
And we know that particular rendition of those bits came from Kaspersky how?
Since then he's said that there was a trojan on the PC he got the files from (but the trojan infection wasn't their fault because the PC user had turned off Ka[s]persky for awhile which they also knew) so Russian hackers must've gotten the information that way
And he extensively documented the reasons why he believes that to be the case. On the other side as far as I can tell, we basically have "Kaspersky and the KGB both ended up with copies of files and are both in Russia... oooooo."