The #1 thing (in my opinion) that makes a difference in how easy it is to own an EV is whether you have a driveway or predictable parking spot overnight. Then you just stop thinking about this sort of stuff, ever.
In fact, since I got an EV (I have a two-car garage), I have forgotten to even check my gas car's fuel levels and have driven it near empty a handful of times, I simply forget to even check.
And as others have said, unless you're driving 250mi a day, a regular commute, you can recharge your car on a wall outlet. It does about 12 miles of range per hour, you can easily get about 100 miles of range every night.
> It does about 12 miles of range per hour, you can easily get about 100 miles of range every night.
I wonder if the residential 230v standard in many parts of the world contributes to EV adoption. A standard household outlet can do up to 3.5kw on 230v whereas in North America a standard outlet is 15A at 120v which only gives you a max of 1.8kw (realistically more like 1.6kw). To get increased power you need a 240v circuit which is typically only for selected appliances like dryers, induction cooktops, heat pumps, etc.
>I wonder if the residential 230v standard in many parts of the world contributes to EV adoption.
The veracity to which the government enforces rules that make work for variorus electrical professionals and manufactures has a lot more to do with it IMO.
In some places an EV charger install is a "here's the best we could do, you might trip the main breaker if you fast charge while running the stove and water heater and dryer all at once"
In some places it's permits and panel upgrades, and, "have to bring X up to code while we're at it, that'll be <1/3 cost of car>", and, and, and, (to the cheers of the same demographics who complain adoption is to slow no less).
BTW, I was just researching this last week (the christmas display) and ESP32 has a matter compatible chip now... so you an control all this from Apple Home and the other Smart Home platforms.
Absolutely mind blowing. What a fun time to do side projects.
Tesla's already solved this - their vision model does this phenomenally well.
And they've demonstrated adding a sidecar LLM to it as well, mostly for these kinds of "read these 3 street signs, what should i do next?" sort of situations.
From that same article - "The agency said it has identified nine crashes potentially linked to the issue, including one fatality and two involving injuries. It is also reviewing six additional crashes that may be related."
Fifteen crashes - though not to be trivialized - is not a damning number at all in this context. What's more, per the article it's unconfirmed that the crashes are related, so it's hardly fitting to dismiss Tesla's approach based on this.
I think it's great that serious efforts are being made in different approaches to autonomous driving - and in this thread's context, it seems possible that Tesla's approach might eventually be revealed as the optimal approach given modern AI.
Only for 2024 or maybe late 2023 cars and later (HW4). The older the car is the worse the FSD software is because the old hardware can't run the latest software.
Anecdotes. Only accident rate per mile driven (compared to human drivers' rate) is a relevant comparison. I don't think that any self-driving system will ever be absolutely perfect (all such complex non-linear systems are to some degree probabilistic and chaotic), but as long as the accident rate is lower than the human accident rate, I would consider it solved.
It's Lego mindstorm logic level to drive a car on the motorway, so per mile is an absolutely insanely bad metric in general.
Per mile inside cities or other difficult scenarios are what may get close to an actually meaningful metric. That's why Tesla is very misleading and waymo is much more legit.
Cute, but no. Can't compare a self-driving system that's only willing to work in a subset of conditions humans drive in, to humans driving in all those conditions.
> Only accident rate per mile driven (compared to human drivers' rate) is a relevant comparison
This is such an insane take I see all the time from self-driving boosters
If a self driving car glitches out and crashes in some edge case pathological scenario we don't just accept that as totally fine because its hidden under big statistics
The reason why a crash happened does matter, its not just about aggregate statistics
As a thought experiment if I have a perfect self driving system but I add some code that purposefully crashes 1 in 10 million rides are you ok riding in it since the aggregate statistics look good?
> As a thought experiment if I have a perfect self driving system but I add some code that purposefully crashes 1 in 10 million rides are you ok riding in it since the aggregate statistics look good?
Do I know about the purposefully added harmful code? If yes, I would demand you remove it, because why not. If I don't know about the code, I would be OK with it, since it's clearly still more safe than the alternative and apparently cannot be made even better.
You seem to be neglecting the important part of that scenario where you're other option you have to compare it to is a human driver that will randomly get it a crash at some higher rate.
You're making it sound like the obvious answer is the irrational one.
You added "totally" - as others have said, I don't know if anyone will claim a perfect system with no fatalities, enough stats show that it is already much safer than human drivers.
And the true third party validation is that insurance companies are starting to offer lower premiums the more you use FSD. So their risk models are showing enough improvement that they're putting their money where their mouths are.
The idea that Tesla's FSD is not ready for the mainstream is quite outdated, given that tons of Tesla owners are already using it daily, not just your early adopter types.
Note that the article has no info on whether it's FSD or Autopilot and whether they contributed to the fatal crashes. "Verified engaged" means ADAS was active at some point in the interval from T-30s to the end of the accident. The total number of collisions is not normalized by the miles driven.
It also has no info on what hardware+software version was in use. The older cars are significantly less capable but there are far more of them on the road.
Ahhh I built an internal set of agents to run our company (finances, all info in the karpathy-style LLMWiki and a database of clients, contracts, billing, time tracking, all managed by MCPs, etc) and it's also called Kai (company name is Kaizen)
Yes this is a big part of what has turned me off Opus 5 completely. The other (more dangerous) one is how often it gets assumptions wrong. These both (along with Astra) caused me to split my time 50/50 now between the two models.
Not a day goes by when I push back on something, to which Opus 5 very unambiguously say "You were right, I was wrong" - this never happened so often with past models, nor with Fable.
We'll have to see how much Opus's ability to communicate has improved. It's already giving me better summaries of where we are in the conversation.
I don't quite understand this sort of thing happening. Wasn't the whole point of the internet to be a self-healing network where we route around severed cables, etc?
Or is it that these ATC networks are their own air-gapped network with less redundancy? That just doesn't add up. Or maybe there was only one line going to the ATC, with no multiple "ISPs" like a datacenter would have?
* Yes, TRACON have their own dedicated links. You can look into ASTERIX and STARS to learn some of the cursed ways the data processing and dataflow work.
* There is supposed to be a primary and a secondary link, in this case the primary failed and the fail-over also failed. It's unclear from the reporting if they were damaged in the same incident or if the failover was not tested or monitored adequately.
The Philadelphia TRACON site has been notoriously unreliable and was supposedly improved in 2025, it's also unclear if these issue actually could stem from that implementation.
Reporting is saying that the backup was cut a while ago and they only discovered it when the primary failed. Apparently nobody was ping testing the backup link.
I’ve had enough double-redundant links fail - and I mean pretty thoroughly double-redundant, different provider, different media, different physical path - that I’m quite surprised something like the air traffic control system only has two links.
Contractually dual-path, or actually dual-path? My understanding is that there's enough infrastructure horse-trading going on behind the scenes that it's very difficulty to be certain that two circuits between points A and B don't share the same infrastructure somewhere in between.
First big oops of this form that I remember:
"In December 1986, the ARPANET had 7 dedicated trunk lines between NY and Boston, except that they all went through the same conduit -- which was accidentally cut by a backhoe. "
I'm talking about data not able to leave the building, not even data getting lost on the way.
One example was a site that had fiber and coax, from different companies. They might have shared a pipe at some point along their length, hard to say. But both connections went down at the same time for digital reasons, not physical. The providers had simultaneous unrelated backend router problems and the site lost contact to both gateways.
This was with a nice SD-WAN system that routed everything dynamically across both pipes to address latency and errors, but if the packets get dropped at the first hop in both networks, there's not much you can do!
The saving grace in that case was the third redundant connection, a 4G cell modem, with a lot less bandwidth but able to keep the critical transactions going. These days I'd certainly want Starlink on the roof as well.
Yup. Seven different paths comes with seven different sets of equipment, and seven different rights-of-way that have to be negotiated, purchased, leased, whatever.
One thing that needs to be reviewed is if they are dual links or redundant links.
In any system where both sides of redundancy always carry traffic then loss of one link can cause congestion failure if any link fails. This is a very common means of failure in electrical networks that requires load shedding. Well, you can't load shed air traffic.
A more complex system that I like, but comes with it's own set of constraints and implementation issues is a system where both lines carry all the traffic at all times. This way the default state of the system is always working and your first failure isn't invisibly critical.
But this is very hard as we see in TCP when things get out of order and high latency creeps in. You have to manage a lot more state at the data level.
True. But what if there are more people competent to set up & maintain secure tunnels through the internet than there are people competent to set up & maintain dedicated fiber links?
But what if the actual bottleneck isn't the size of the various cohorts of people, but a bureaucracy that inflicts some irrational set of conditions that impedes competent operation? If so, then changing media won't help; whatever scheme you envision will fail.
I'm rather certain the FAA does indeed either employ or contract people that are capable of providing the solution. I'm also quite certain those people live in a perpetual blizzard of responsibility diffusion bullshit: the FAA is a venerable and highly risk-adverse operation. If someone told me it takes months of meetings and sign-offs to so much as log into a router and perform a benign check of some setting, I wouldn't blink.
Yes, but low-functioning bureaucracies are also the most prone to outsourcing. They can't manage to get anything done internally, so they hire outside orgs (hopefully higher functioning) to perform necessary basic services. Often late in the game, when (figuratively) a VIP visit could reveal that their bureaucracy is too broken to keep its office bathrooms clean.
In this case, that outsourcing could easily look like "call local ISP's, get connections, set up tunnel".
One of the more popular means of diffusing responsibility. A mere symptom, in other words. Not a cause. There is a abundance of qualified contractors in our world that could provide a functioning fail-over solution using whatever medium one might imagine. Somehow, this does not happen. The problem is elsewhere.
Wow, at first, I thought "this is wonderfully silly" but within about 45 seconds of playing with it, I instantly wanted the window seat and thought, wow... I could see what it's like to fly over so many cities from above, just like with a window seat.
I'm so excited about this sort of stuff. ForgeCAD [1] for me was the first mind-blowing application of this a few months ago, where I'm able to just have claude (or codex) write JS that creates 3D Models that I can then print in my 3D printer.
- Built a ring for my compost bin that can properly hold down the plastic bag. This was originally a multi week project because I was also learning Fusion 360 in small 2 hour chunks over many weekends, then with ForgeCAD I had a good prototype in 60 mins with multiple iterations.
- I also built a cover for my overheating Logitech Circle doorbell, snapped a photo, gave it to claude, and claude found all the dimensions on Logitech's website, and then we iterated with 3-4 prints until we had it just right.
This is a whole new set of workflows that are unleashed with agents, even for hobbyists.
Yeah I was skeptical about AI until I learned (through hands on testing) that an AI can fail 9 times and get it right on the 10th time - in like 1/10th of the time it takes a human to get it right. It's all in the iteration.
Are those not the exact same workflows, just replacing "I spent time learning" with claude?
I find that if you don't skip the learning step, you can then use the tool more efficiently(e.x. you learn to measure twice and verify so you can iterate in 1-2 prints instead of 3-4)
I am not averse to learning (I spent hours learning Sketchup many years ago when redesigning my garage).
But the time freed up not learning Fusion360 freed up time to learn about different kinds of fasteners, clasps, how to arrange magnets, etc, so I moved the learning to a different place.
Plus avoiding the "wife is angry cuz this project I over-engineered has gone on for weeks unsolved" factor is always a nice bonus.
I feel pretty good about the 27 series in a way I haven't in the past (I've been running iOS 27 and it's working well), except for one thing, they remove x86 support (no more Rosetta), so just keep that in mind in case that might disrupt anything for you.
Yes, 27 is the final Rosetta version. The warnings are worded in a way that makes sense if you already know that but are easy to misunderstand if you don’t. I think they initially didn’t want to commit to the next version being called macOS 28. The final 27 release has started explicitly saying it’s going away in 28 which makes it a lot more straightforward.
The #1 thing (in my opinion) that makes a difference in how easy it is to own an EV is whether you have a driveway or predictable parking spot overnight. Then you just stop thinking about this sort of stuff, ever.
In fact, since I got an EV (I have a two-car garage), I have forgotten to even check my gas car's fuel levels and have driven it near empty a handful of times, I simply forget to even check.
And as others have said, unless you're driving 250mi a day, a regular commute, you can recharge your car on a wall outlet. It does about 12 miles of range per hour, you can easily get about 100 miles of range every night.
reply