The range is fine today, the problem is charging infrastructure now. There aren't enough high speed chargers, and we can't build more because of the same reasons we can't build more AI datacenters: power. Tesla can build tons of them because they're backed by large grid batteries that suck up the power peaks from fast charging so that they can install their charging stations anywhere that has somewhat reliable power. If you don't have the batteries to act as a peak shaver, then it's really hard to install high speed charging where people need it most in residential and commercial areas that are already oversubscribed.
It's not fine for all use cases. There are many people who are holding out because it's either not fine for their main use case, or even just a use case that occurs infrequently, but still important to them.
I'd like to see data on the distances people drive on a regular basis. For America where I am from, I think that a vast majority of people could use EVs today with the ranges they have today. I didn't see any EVs with ranges below 200+ miles and most had 260+. If you have to go further than that on a regular basis, I think that most cars won't work for your specific needs, let alone EVs. The whole range argument seems like some FUD to me that was made up by the ICE industry, honestly, because EVs have had these same ranges for a decade now.
I'm speaking out of personal experience as an EV owner in Los Angeles that takes occasional road trips. It's those occasional road trips that are preventing me from going full EV. And I'm like 99% certain I'm not a tiny minority.
Worthless comment. Of course it's not an issue for city driving. It's an issue for long trips and rural driving. No one said EVs don't serve many use cases. I have one myself.
Worthless human. More range is not needed and mark my words, mainstream EVs will not bother going beyond ~300 miles. Even the 400mi in a model s is a lot. More charging stations maybe, though we have plenty here in CA so roadtrips in a Tesla have never been a problem.
appreciate the compliment. I'm one of those Californians with a Tesla, and we keep a gas car for certain trips that would be very difficult with a Tesla. I'm not just making something up here. But whatever you say.
> I don't think we should normalise children on platforms where the content contains political agitation, sexual and violent content, crypto and fintech scams, etc. Especially when this content is packaged up to them and commodified.
This may be true but it has nothing to do with what the person you are replying to said.
The original comment suggests that the policy is politically motivated. The commenter replied with other reasons for the policy other than political agitation. I think its a valid response.
I also don't buy the implied claim from the original commenter that age-limits are paternalistic/suppressive with regard to political thought/speech. Large tech platforms control political thought/speech on a regular basis, a lot of which is executed by state actors. Even in the absence of devious actors, algorithms are editorial by nature; they are not neutral infrastructure by any means.
No, sorry, it's orthogonal to the poster's comment, which states that, regardless of merit, the purpose of the ban is political. Arguing for or against it is beside the point.
Perhaps the original comment should have been more direct in and just said that Zionists are the ones pushing for these bans. The head of the ADL has made comments about this. A video by Sarah Hurwitz, Obama's speechwriter, went viral recently about how social media needs to be banned for young people because it's hurting the zionist movement.
The head of the ADL is a firehose of stupidity; that does not mean he controls policy. I also reject the pretense that public opinion of Israel would be higher among teens without social media, given their actions over the past few years.
No sorry it wasn't a dig at you: the video was posted by someone who appears on Alex Jones' Infowars, talks jewish conspiracies. I just don't take that stuff seriously, doesn't make it wrong and if there's an argument you want to make I'll listen.
That video was literally posted by hundreds of accounts. I just picked the first one I found in search. And exactly how is "Jennine K" anything like Infowars? Did you even bother to look? Do you want me to find the exact same video from a "reputable" account? Can you address the contents of the video? It's direct and unedited, her exact words.
I assume you are a Zionist, based on your rhetorical techniques.
Zionism is when healthy information choices? I don’t trust infowars, sorry but that’s served me quite well over the years.
I did look, you’re being obtuse again, after all how else would I know it’s from an infowars adjacent account.
You strike me as the type
of person who thinks e-safety commissioner is CIA, they also call me a zionist for doubting that- it’s the goto ad hominem for people embroiled with I/P conflict.
This sort of social media bs and the way it affects political discourse is why social media is so damaging, much of it is just political propaganda.
You are completely untrustworthy. You clearly have an agenda. Nothing I posted has anything to do with Infowars, so you multiple attempts to slander me expose that you are purely agenda driven. This thread is over.
I don't really have an agenda but I have opinions I'm wanting to share & discuss– some of which I'm certainly wrong about. It doesn't feel to me as if you could honestly say the same.
You don't want to believe what I say, you don't think of me as trustworthy. Well I'm not, and you don't have to. You are welcome to your own opinion. That should put me above the likes of many, including infowars and those on sharing that video who believe they know and have a right to say everything. I'm not the one invoking political agitprop here, I would have rather discussed the topic of the submission.
> 1: "I get the feeling this has nothing to do with preventing harms"
> 2: "heres the harms and why I think we should prevent them"
Not trying to be rude here colordrops but I think you're being a too obtuse here, especially when the original person's comment was basically just "I don't trust them" (which is totally fair), I would rather engage in a good faith discussion of our opinions.
So, for example, I would write in my editor an expression to get the list of windows on the current display, then I can immediately map/filter through them, group, sort, read any parameters, etc. Then without missing a beat I can apply some transformations - programmatically move any window, resize, etc; on the fly, like playing a fucking video game.
Compare that to "more traditional" approach of issuing commands, then piping them to jq or something, then figuring out where the stuff is, then writing that into a file, then having your WM to pick up those changes, often you'd completely lose the state, then you'd have to go back to the script files, etc. I, don't have to save anything anywhere until I'm sure that shit works - I simply eval things on the go - I can "touch, grab and interact" with entities immediately after querying their info, there's no physical, mental or contextual separation here - I don't have to write something in the terminal, then something in one of my scripts, some parts in some other file, etc. - everything controlled directly from my editor.
Here's more practical example. Hyprland has something called Hyprsunset to deal with color temp and gamma. I wrote an extension that changes display color temp based on time of day - it's a simple clojure.core/async go loop, it reads from a hashmap where specific hours map to temperatures and then checks every 10 minutes; if it's time to apply new color, it does. That took me just a few minutes to whip out with a connected Lisp REPL. I'm pretty sure, it would've taken me far longer without it. The way how the "true" REPLs work (which e.g., Python one is not) simply is shockingly crazy awesome for rapid prototyping. Why more programmers don't do this is a complete mystery to me - getting into Lisp is not even that difficult, Clojure for example is far more simpler and more straightforward than even Javascript and Python. These days, you don't even need to know Emacs - install Calva for VSCode - that's all you need, it has quickstart guide and all.
The custom actions on windows when needed sounds great.
I thought hyprsunset already changes the temperature automatically for you. Nevertheless, sounds interesting, do you have this loop started when you launch your editor?
What is the difference between a "true" repl and one like python?
> I thought hyprsunset already changes the temperature automatically for you.
It seems it does now, when I wrote my thing there wasn't multiple profiles feature - it's a very recent feature that was added not too long ago. I guess I can remove my custom script now. But then again, if it just works, why bother?
> What is the difference between a "true" repl and one like python?
Like I said, all stages in R.E.P.L. do differ:
Read:
In Lisp, lexical analysis and tokenization keeps the forms as data - no need to do much here. In Python, this step produces private AST representation you cannot easily access and modify.
Eval:
In Lisp, the compiler just walks the forms freely - because they are already in the shape; in Python, parser-generated AST nodes get passed to compiler, AST is opaque to user code, it doesn't allow manipulation semantics, Macros in Python require AST manipulation libs - heavyweight, not first-class; This is fixed compile phase in Python - no runtime AST rewriting possible.
Print:
Serializes eval results back to readable representation. In Lisp - this is trivial because results already data structures in the right shape. In Python, you can't feed printed output back through eval and get meaningful metaprogramming.
Loop:
Reader directly consumes user input, they are just native forms, compiler sees the code like data, this allows transparent metaprogramming - you can easily write code that re-writes itself. In Python: string input first compiles then gets processed for execution; metaprogramming is pretty opaque - reconstructing the AST is much more difficult - not easy to write code that re-writes itself; eval/exec operate on bytecode, not source semantics.
In practice, what these seemingly unimportant differences make possible is:
first of all you get to write code as you are playing a video game - you just write shit and eval things, and immediately make things fly - find Figwheel demo video, Bruce Hauman there writes a clone of FlappyBird where he manipulates the physics directly from the editor - without any saving, reloading anything, without state changes, etc., he literally uses his editor like a joystick to move the effing bird around. And it's some darn old flick - there's nothing "revolutionary" about that technique - Lispers been doing shit like that for a long time. Or search up on YouTube "Clojure/Overtone DJ programming", where folks are playing music while manipulating some code in their editors, all in real-time. Or check this out - we run our services in k8s cluster. In staging env we maintain a REPL connection, so if we need to test something out, we just connect to it, change the code, eval and manipulate our entire pipeline directly from our editors.
These differences in REPL also open up metaprogramming otherwise much harder to achieve. Like for example, you can write code that says: "here's the server part, here's the client part" and then let the multi-phase eval figure out the semantics - sometimes, these semantics can mean that the server part actually executes in a different runtime - checkout Hyperfiddle/Electric demos - some of them are jaw dropping - you write code in one place but some of it executes on JVM, some in the browser - completely different runtime. Same code, unified logic, lives in one place - goes to run on different worlds.
Automated behaviours like forcing windows to different virtual desktops, modifying windowing behaviour dynamically. Some windows are automatically tiled and others float, etc.
Tell that to Havoc Pennington. Dbus was the solution he came up with based on requirements and constraints set by the DEs. A lot of people have claimed we need something better, but nobody has actually created something better. Till someone does, Dbus is the standard for client communication with Wayland compositors outside the core protocol. Sure beats piping stuff over X ClientMessage events.
Everyone agrees with this obviously but it's like saying that we should be able to levitate or live in utopia. It's almost a law of nature that the types that become powerful are not your most savory individuals and will use the power to reinforce their positions.
It's a law of nature that they will _try_.[0] That's why people should always have ways of defending themselves, whether it's with courts or guns.
[0]: This is not a figure of speech - many anti-social traits which result in NPD, ASPD and their subclinical versions[1] are genetic. There is literal evolutionary pressure to exploit others.
[1]: Meaning the trait is sufficiently pronounced to be harmful to others but not enough to be harmful to the person having it so it's not diagnosed as a disorder.
We have tons of different systems for accumulating power all over the world. Corporate structures, democracy vs autocracy, etc. In each of those societies, we see different types of leaders on a sliding scale of savoriness.
My point is that clearly there are some forms of governance which result in more savory people and so you can argue that it's the systems that define the outcomes rather than any "law of nature".
Nonsense. Network service layer separation solves a different problem than OOP. It doesn't replace it. Services and containers bring features and capabilities that OOP doesn't provide. It's orthogonal.
But I think that's really the point: it gets applied to problems it was clearly not meant to solve. The article doesn't really get into that, but that's how I'm reading it because I've seen it happen. To some programmers, every component of a program is its own service, even when there's no need to have multiple processes. The only tool they have is that hammer, so everything has to be a nail.
It's insane to me that AMD is not spending billions and billions trying to fix their software. Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world and AMD is the only one poised to compete.
They are, but the problem is that shifting an organization whose lifeblood is yearly hardware refreshes and chip innovation towards a ship-daily software culture is challenging. And software doesn’t “make money” the way hardware does so it can get deprioritized by executives. And vendors are lining up to write and even open source lots of software for your platform in exchange for pricing, preference, priority (great on paper but bad for long term quality). And your competitors will get ahead of you if you miss even a single hardware trend/innovation.
There was a podcast episode linked here a while ago about how the software industry in Japan never took off as it did in America and it was a similar conclusion. According to the host, the product being sold was hardware, and software was a means to fulfill and then conclude the contract. After that you want the customer to buy the new model, primarily for the hardware and software comes along for the ride.
It should be obvious by now though that there's symbiosis between software and hardware, and that support timescales are longer. Another angle is that it's more than just AMD's own software developers, also the developers making products for their customers who in turn buy AMD's if everyone works together to make them run well and it's those second developers they need to engage with in a way their efforts will be welcomed.
I worked at at a number of GPU vendors, and it felt like Nvidia was the only one that took software as an asset worth investing in, rather than as a cost center. Massively different culture.
Why would you assume cognitive bias? Any evidence? These things are indeed very expensive to run, and are often run at a loss. Wouldn't quantization or other tuning be just as reasonable of an answer as cognitive bias? It's not like we are talking about reptilian aliens running the whitehouse.
I'm just pointing out a personal observation. Completely anecdotal. FWIW, I don't strongly believe this. I have at least noticed a selection bias (maybe) in myself too as recently as yesterday after GPT 5.1 was released. I asked codex to do a simple change (less than 50LOC) and it made a unrelated change, an early return statement, breaking a very simple state machine that goes from waiting -> evaluate -> done.
However, I have to remind myself how often LLMs make dumb mistakes despite often seeming impressive.
reply