The problem with many of these EVs is that they were way too expensive. The main reason companies were producing them is due to regulatory requirements and how emissions standards are calculated, not necessarily because wanted to sell these EVs.
What we really need are incentives for companies to build more affordable EVs. California could play a role here, but given the
strong opinions we have about Elon Musk, nothing will be done.
Raise taxes on gas? Put extra taxes on sell ICE vehicles? Increase registration fees for ICE vehicles?
(In short - ICE sales will paying for money lost via EV sales)
I’m not saying it will be easy. I’m saying that if we really want EVs to succeed we can do it.
> All the EV tariffs are staying place past the end of the Trump administration because protectionism is now bipartisan.
Anything Trump supported will continue to be seen as hot garbage after he is removed from office. There is no appetite for protectionism when it has hurt rather than benefitted the American economy.
That heavily depends on the Dem primaries. I think after the unpopularity of Biden and the 2024 loss by Harris there might be more appetite to rock the boat instead of getting another establishment caretaker.
However, the more radical wing of Democrats still have some anti-globalism in them (eg Bernie). But still, imho: Unusual outcomes are on the table for Democratic party leadership at this point.
There is no world in which this would happen, because the auto industry holds up so much secondary and tertiary domestic manufacturing (most of which use China at the bottom anyway).
Those factories won’t be run by Chinese automakers they’ll be shut down with the corresponding loss of jobs and secondary industries.
Gotta say I was annoyed at the time but deprecating the Australian car manufacturers last decade means we have no scruples about allowing cheap as chips Chinese EVs through the door and I’m loving it.
No the regulatory requirements and emission standards have nothing to do with affordability. The only reason is just economies of scale. In fact regulatory requirements help because companies like Tesla historically sold their emission credits to other carmakers to make money.
Confused about this comment. Are you talking about government subsidies and tax incentives? Haven't companies and consumers already been given these incentives? Now that they're drawing down, it's obvious there's a limited market. What needs to happen is real economic demands need to make the market not created ones. Then prices will come down and efficiencies will increase .
Excellent insight. Trust is key for capitalism. And for functioning democracy. When trust is lost, whether in the system or in your fellow citizens, everything begins to suffer.
I think of society as an extended family. If you do not trust your spouse, many things in your home simply will not work.
There are also a few questions that remain unanswered:
- Did she have previous arrests, and did they use booking photos to identify her? I found someone named Angela Lipps who was arrested in 2001, 2003, 2017, and 2019. The 2017 arrest was for a probation violation: https://archive.ph/CpmXu
The 2019 arrest was for public intoxication: https://archive.ph/yjFL9
- Another confusing detail is that she was in jail for four months without being extradited. That is quite unusual, unless the local authorities were holding her on unrelated charges.
So this news story seems to have nothing to do with AI. It is also very light on details about the case and what actually happened. And actual criminal case here.
No. I think the core issue is that they used her 2019 booking photo (a mugshot) from a public intoxication arrest. I am not sure whether a photo like that is reliable :)
In the end, the detective compared the booking photo with the camera footage and concluded they were the same person, then presented that to the judge.
I also wonder what her “probation” was for. Maybe she once wrote a bad check and got into trouble, which might have made the detective more inclined to believe it was her.
Anyway, this does not appear to be an AI issue at all.
But it is nice scary story to remind us not to be lazy and trust it unconditionally.
And?
Do you agree with the point or the idea the poster said? Or not?
I remember that in the early days of HN there were people who would downvote comments just because they had grammar mistakes, without even trying to understand the idea or what the poster was trying to say.
I guess this thread looks like a bunch of grammar Nazis crying because they have lost their ammunition :)
You’re literally trying to justify using AI against the site creators wishes in a thread about not using AI.
AI will destroy HN and any hope of a similar site ever existing in the future. If you really want low quality slop posting, please go to Reddit and let the rest of us cling on for the little time HN has left.
To follow the pattern of your comment: You are missing the forest for the trees. Like many things, the difference between theory and practice matters here. In theory the only thing that matters is the idea. In practice the context and human element matters AND a culture of ai text could very much reduce the bar for quality.
An equivalent overly-pure reductive mistake is "why do you need privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong".
Look your comment: a lot of fluff and nice sentence construction. But I have no idea what you are trying to say (missing forest from the trees? Practice and context?).
But it will be upvoted because it has nice English.
Anyway, AI is a future and this thread just shows how shallow we humans are. And we will blame AI. Because we are shallow.
If you freely admit that you struggle with reading comprehension, why would your opinion on how best to write be valuable?
I'm not saying that as an attack, but the parent comment was completely comprehensible; it doesn't seem like you have the required expertise in this area to comment.
I feel that way about business-logic code. If it works, and it's efficient, I couldn't care less if an AI wrote it.
There is no scenario in which I want to receive life advice from a device inherently incapable of having experienced life. I don't want to receive comfort from something that cannot have experienced suffering. I don't want a wry observation from something that can be neither wry nor observant. It just doesn't interest me at all.
Now, if we ever get genuine AGI that we collectively decide has a meaningful conscious mind, yes, by all means, I want to hear their view of the world. Short of that, nah. It's like getting marriage advice from a dog. Even if it could... do you actually want it?
I am here to express my ideas and opinions. They might not always be popular, but they are my opinions (that is reason that I have 3x less karma than you but I was here 11 years longer). And some people will debate my opinions and try to convince me that I am wrong. And sometimes I learn soemthing.
But if we start ignoring ideas and opinions and instead focus on superficial things like how they are written or communicated, then the whole point of HN is lost.
If that is true you shouldn't have any objection to a rule against letting a chatbot express your ideas and options for you. Express yourself, because asking a chatbot to do your thinking and writing for you is not a superficial thing.
> But if we start ignoring ideas and opinions and instead focus on superficial things like how they are written or communicated, then the whole point of HN is lost.
How a message is communicated matters and always has. Even before this rule, I could express opinions here in ways that would get me banned from this website, and I could express those exact same opinions in ways that would not. Ideas and opinions still matter, but so does how we communicate them. It's a very small ask that you express your own thoughts in your own words while participating here.
True, but the BlueSky audience is not really into following professional sports. I believe there was statistics (or just rumor) showing that conservative-leaning people are about 50% more likely to follow professional sports than liberal-leaning people. Sadly, I cannot find the source, but it might be so obvious that nobody bothered to run a proper poll. Or this is just what everybody believes so everybody goes with it.
Global warming is accelerating, yet we as a human race are doing very little to prevent it. Instead, we keep arguing about how Western countries need to match China’s approach to emissions. I kid you not, that is literally what people on HN are telling me, while China continues increasing its emissions every single year.
We (humanity) need much more than that, of course, but it doesn't help anyone to use old data.
On the up side, all this is being done for nice boring economic reasons (renewables are cheaper than alternative power sources), which means energy-based emissions are likely to go away automatically all by themselves.
On the down side again, there's lots of emission sources other than energy. Cattle and concrete are big ones (even cement at 3% is still worse than aviation is), but basically everything more than grassland degradation (which is 0.1% of CO2 emissions) needs to be resolved for long-term stability: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
> So, increase of 4.7% and then (likely) decrease of 0.3% is progress?
Yes. Obviously.
Because of why it happened, and because of how it didn't come with a recession this time.
Enough progress? I doubt it. But it is progress, and it's China doing it while still growing their economy, so it's time to end this idea that China's emissions are a reason for anyone else to refuse action.
I would rather wait for official stats before claiming victory. I think there will be a little upward adjustment from “likely” numbers because of this AI thingy.
> I would rather wait for official stats before claiming victory.
You sure about that?
With your recent comment history, you've been claiming victory for your rhetorical position without waiting for "official" stats (what makes a stat official?), and deny the stats which do exist as "propaganda".
That is in fact why I noted my newer reference was pointing to the same domain as you were using to claim yours.
As an aside: It's not like this is even a proper environmental victory condition yet, see my other links on that, just that the rate at which CO2 is going up (due to China) is not itself going up. "Victory" happens when atmospheric CO2 goes past 400 ppm again, this time downwards. All that can be said positively about China here is "heading in the right direction", although you seem to have a bee in your bonnet to deny even that.
Nothing will be done at Federal level.
But california is big enough to make things moving without any federal level law.
For example, what about this:
- no sales taxes on new EV sales
- free registration for 5 years
- free bridge tolls for 5 years
This will be paid by increasing gas taxes, sales taxes on ICE, and registration fees for ICE.
That might convince some of companies to start making EVs again.
reply