300 doesn't seem like that much considering their size and global reach. They have Volkswagen, Audi, Seat, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Ducati, and Scania. Some of those brands are just rebadged cars and some are trucks or motorcycles - but all can be electrified.
in order to make a successful EV one of the best practices is to design it as an EV from scratch.
That is probably true, but then again they have 13 years, which is at least 2 platform changes away for most models. They can probably come up with a platform that shares body and non-drivetrain parts but has dramatically different guts to keep the center of gravity low and the weight balanced front-to-rear.
Agreed, and it's notable that this group hasn't gotten any funding to make hardware - if that's even a goal for them. I don't think anyone is saying this work isn't a good thing - it's just a little premature to call it "news" when it is much more likely to be a dead-end.
When a $600 phone is broken or stolen, it's (depending on your income) a very bad day or a disaster. When a $200 phone is broken or stolen, you can loose it again 4 more times before you get to the same $1200.
They have the Samsung A series in Europe (I just borrowed one while I was in France). I liked it, but it's not available in the US. You can buy the international version for around $250 but it won't work on all US frequencies.
Do you think your modern computer just jumped out perfected from the sweat of the giant Ymir?
Sure, but how many discarded theories went by the wayside on the way to the modern computer? Odds are long for any new theory to pan out in the end. I agree that it will be far more interesting when they demonstrate something. IBM and Microsoft have real, honest to goodness quantum computers working right now - and are apparently on track to get the qubit count up to useful levels.
Transport yourself back in time and you would make the argument that the rich are wealthy and you would give as reason that they dont have to do things like wash their own clothes, hunt their own food, carry buckets of water to their homes, and so on.
They were still "rich" and "wealthy" compared to their peers. Both words are relative measures, so what is the problem?
but still you will deny this and its because you have a naive cash envy.
Right, but let's say you go to the deserted island with only a satellite phone and a hoard of cash sitting in a bank somewhere. You still have "wealth" because you could call in a helicopter full of whatever it can carry. The liquidity of your assets is independent of your wealth, that is my point. A guy who lives in a 1 bedroom 5th floor walkup in Manhattan and has $4 million sitting in his 401(k) is wealthier than a guy with a 4 bedroom colonial in Alabama with $400k in his 401(k). Quality of life is a funny measurement, full of subjectivity. But the fact is that they guy with $4 million dollars could move to Alabama any time he wants right next to the other guy and he'd have an extra $3 million or so. He's rich and he's wealthy, even if he lives at a lower standard of living by some measures.
You are grasping to define wealth as money when it isn't. Consider health-care.
No, I'm using money not to define wealth, but as a convenient benchmark. Within a given context, wealth and money are highly correlated.
So yeah, you can go to France where the entire society pays a 50% tax rate and the entire society gets "free" health care. You can then find an individual in France who makes peanuts but is living a lot better than some guy in a society that does not have socialized health care. I can also find a healthy guy in the same society who pays a 20% tax rate and is doing a lot better than his equivalent in a society with the high tax rate. What's the point? In both of their respective societies, more money would mean more wealth.
I think the term that you should use to be more clear is "standard of living" rather than wealth, unless you are talking about the aggregate wealth of a society or something. Even then, "standard of living" would be a lot more clear to most people.
I still don't buy it. Cash is freely exchangeable for any other property. You are in a far more powerful position to have $1m in cash than to have $1m in real estate. He could live off of the land like a hermit in a cabin with 100% of his assets in cash under his bed and still be both rich and wealthy. You are going to have a hard time convincing people otherwise, and I'm not sure what your goal is anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
300 doesn't seem like that much considering their size and global reach. They have Volkswagen, Audi, Seat, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Ducati, and Scania. Some of those brands are just rebadged cars and some are trucks or motorcycles - but all can be electrified.
in order to make a successful EV one of the best practices is to design it as an EV from scratch.
That is probably true, but then again they have 13 years, which is at least 2 platform changes away for most models. They can probably come up with a platform that shares body and non-drivetrain parts but has dramatically different guts to keep the center of gravity low and the weight balanced front-to-rear.
The cafeteria always has that Fancy Ketchup lube.
All states have some kind of good Samaritan law.
Burnt umber.
I have a buddy in the big house who carved a few tabs out of an old mattress. That's how he gets by.
Agreed, and it's notable that this group hasn't gotten any funding to make hardware - if that's even a goal for them. I don't think anyone is saying this work isn't a good thing - it's just a little premature to call it "news" when it is much more likely to be a dead-end.
My daughter has a $10 candy bar phone :)
When a $600 phone is broken or stolen, it's (depending on your income) a very bad day or a disaster. When a $200 phone is broken or stolen, you can loose it again 4 more times before you get to the same $1200.
They have the Samsung A series in Europe (I just borrowed one while I was in France). I liked it, but it's not available in the US. You can buy the international version for around $250 but it won't work on all US frequencies.
Do you think your modern computer just jumped out perfected from the sweat of the giant Ymir?
Sure, but how many discarded theories went by the wayside on the way to the modern computer? Odds are long for any new theory to pan out in the end. I agree that it will be far more interesting when they demonstrate something. IBM and Microsoft have real, honest to goodness quantum computers working right now - and are apparently on track to get the qubit count up to useful levels.
Ha! I'll have to play with it just for nostalgia's sake.
Yes, that also seemed trivial. We live in a weird world where you can completely copy game mechanics but are subject to patents on curved corners.
I recently rented an Audi, and its little navigation knob thing lets you spell out letters on a kind of touchpad. Despite not having a Palm for the last 15 years, I immediately started writing in Grafitti - which sadly did not work.
I don't know if I'm more amused by "they copied a gesture" or "they copied the idea of running 2 programs at the same time 30 years ago".
Oh, wow, thanks... that must have _just_ changed.
Transport yourself back in time and you would make the argument that the rich are wealthy and you would give as reason that they dont have to do things like wash their own clothes, hunt their own food, carry buckets of water to their homes, and so on.
They were still "rich" and "wealthy" compared to their peers. Both words are relative measures, so what is the problem?
but still you will deny this and its because you have a naive cash envy.
Careful, you are slipping into a logical fallacy.
Right, but let's say you go to the deserted island with only a satellite phone and a hoard of cash sitting in a bank somewhere. You still have "wealth" because you could call in a helicopter full of whatever it can carry. The liquidity of your assets is independent of your wealth, that is my point. A guy who lives in a 1 bedroom 5th floor walkup in Manhattan and has $4 million sitting in his 401(k) is wealthier than a guy with a 4 bedroom colonial in Alabama with $400k in his 401(k). Quality of life is a funny measurement, full of subjectivity. But the fact is that they guy with $4 million dollars could move to Alabama any time he wants right next to the other guy and he'd have an extra $3 million or so. He's rich and he's wealthy, even if he lives at a lower standard of living by some measures.
You are grasping to define wealth as money when it isn't. Consider health-care.
No, I'm using money not to define wealth, but as a convenient benchmark. Within a given context, wealth and money are highly correlated.
So yeah, you can go to France where the entire society pays a 50% tax rate and the entire society gets "free" health care. You can then find an individual in France who makes peanuts but is living a lot better than some guy in a society that does not have socialized health care. I can also find a healthy guy in the same society who pays a 20% tax rate and is doing a lot better than his equivalent in a society with the high tax rate. What's the point? In both of their respective societies, more money would mean more wealth.
I think the term that you should use to be more clear is "standard of living" rather than wealth, unless you are talking about the aggregate wealth of a society or something. Even then, "standard of living" would be a lot more clear to most people.
I still don't buy it. Cash is freely exchangeable for any other property. You are in a far more powerful position to have $1m in cash than to have $1m in real estate. He could live off of the land like a hermit in a cabin with 100% of his assets in cash under his bed and still be both rich and wealthy. You are going to have a hard time convincing people otherwise, and I'm not sure what your goal is anyway.
So if Bill Gates retired to a private island or a ranch in Montana, he would no longer be rich? I ain't buying it.
And I can think of no better way to spend that valuable time than watching streaming videos!
I fixed that by forking git and then adding a "fork" alias for "clone".
Well, yeah. The headline is bizarre. "Still"??? I don't think there are any on the consumer market - I don't think we're ready for "still" yet! :)
I ain't no lawyer, but I bet that word "arbitrary" leaves a lot of wiggle room.
OK? What in my post contradicts that?