> Also if there is an explicit split there will be groups of people who "game" it (spend disproportional amount of time to "train" their kids vs actual natural talent - not sure if this is good or bad).
The idea of tracking out kids who excel due to high personal motivation when they have less natural aptitude is flat out dystopian. I'm drawing mental images of Gattaca. Training isn't "gaming". It's a natural part of how you improve performance, and it's a desirable ethical attribute.
Nothing lasts forever, and eventually you have to port, emulate, archive or otherwise deal with very old applications / media. You see this all over the place: physical media, file formats, protocols, retro gaming, etc.
There's a sweet spot between giving people enough time and tools to make a transition while also avoiding having your platform implode into a black hole of accumulated complexity. Neither end of the spectrum is healthy.
"Yes. Your New Vehicle Limited Warranty will follow your vehicle and be transferred to the new owner when a vehicle ownership transfer is performed through Tesla."
I have taken multiple 1000+ mi road trips with great ease on 280mi range. I would describe it as the exact opposite of catastrophic. And they've only become easier since then (e.g. more charger deployments).
Can you please share some (non-byzantine) trips that you can't make with only 80% battery capacity? Let's assume 240mi (80% of 300), since that seems to be about the average EV range nowadays.
It's stated directly in the article that Tesla's study reports vehicles with 200K miles generally retaining 85% capacity. That's nearly 300% better than what you're suggesting.
first off that's not the case just check everyone running their battery calibration tests on forums.
And the context above is the warranty not covering long enough durations. 70% or 8 years does not protect the value of the vehicle. Below 70% @ 9 years is a worthless car
> first off that's not the case just check everyone running their battery calibration tests on forums.
Relying on posts from forums is going to end up with some major selection bias. People who don't have significant battery degradation are less likely to go to forums to see what others have been dealing with.
i agree partially. I think both outliers will post. the good ones for bragging rights.
But don't be too quick to dismiss. there's an entire industry in tesla battery repair to address the loss in value. That wouldn't exist if the batteries were at the claimed level.
and there are many other indications.
It's funny how "statistics" from tesla will be taken at face value, whereas other real experiences from owners are dismissed as "anecdotal".
They are all just stories. Who do you want to listen to?
Manufacturers DO publish reports. Tesla routinely provides data about the lifetimes of their vehicle batteries, which turn out to greatly exceed their warranties. (This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Manufacturers just can't afford to have high warranty return rates).
The rest of your post is an attempt at hand-waving away what is a real phenomenon. EVs are still new to a lot of people, there's a lot of FUD floating around, and that can affect used vehicle prices. Markets behave irrationally sometimes, and that leads to opportunity. (In this case, getting a value buy on a used EV).
> hybrids are still obviously better
Hybrids are objectively worse. They have less all-electric (efficient, non-polluting) range, they charge more slowly, they have a more complex drivetrain with more parts subject to repair, etc. They're a better fit for a specific market segment, but that segment is small and rapidly becoming non-existent. You can get cheap EVs nowadays that have more range than my last ICE.
> that segment is small and rapidly becoming non-existent
Disagree. People vastly overestimate the complexity of hybrids.
The mechanical and electrical components in a Toyota-style planetary gear based hybrid are much simpler than a standard automatic transmission, and demonstrably more reliable than both a conventional automatic and belt-style CVT.
This is a long way of saying, the specific market segment hybrids are a good fit for is the set of all passenger car customers that an EV is _not_ a good fit for. Anyone buying a Corolla, Civic Rav4 or CR-V should be buying the hybrid, and sales seem to be trending that way.
[Hey I own one of those]. Nah, the majority of people buying those specific vehicles should be buying an EV instead. In fact, this article is targeted specifically to them.
Rather, the biggest need for hybrids are people who frequently tow long distance at highway speeds. The combined aero drag is ridiculous: about 25% of typical EV efficiency. You'd need to drag a humongous 300kwh battery around to get range comparable to a typical sedan while towing.
Instead, some of the new EREVs are more like a BEV + hybrid, in that they have a BEV-sized battery (e.g. 100+kwh) for all your non-towing driving, along with a generator to handle the long distance towing.
> For batteries, 80% of the initial capacity is referred to as the point
The publication cites sources from 15 years ago for this "fact" [0]. That's ancient history in the context of EVs (even before the first reliable mass production EV - Tesla's Model S - was initially released). As a practical matter, the article points out that most EV manufacturers (Tesla included) warranty their batteries for at least 70% capacity at timespans near a decade, which would bankrupt them all if EV batteries just up and died at 80%.
0)
[35] O. Erdinc, B. Vural, and M. Uzunoglu, ‘‘A dynamic lithium-ion battery
model considering the effects of temperature and capacity fading,’’ in Proc.
Int. Conf. Clean Electr. Power, Jun. 2009, pp. 383–386.
[36] K. Smith, T. Markel, G.-H. Kim, and A. Pesaran, ‘‘Design of electric drive
vehicle batteries for long life and low cost,’’ in Proc. Accelerated Stress
Test. Rel. (ASTR), IEE Workshop, 2010, pp. 6–8.
It is an older paper, though that in itself isn't a reason to discount this (or any science). For example, the DoE still uses an 2014 predictive model to estimate longevity of today's EV batteries at "12 to 15 years in moderate climates (8 to 12 years in extreme climates)" [1]. However as the DoE says, battery longevity depends on a bunch of factors e.g. chemistry, charging patterns, etc.
To the practical matter - yes, EV manufacturers are very careful with warranty periods. Anecdotally, an acquaintance had a Tesla for 8 years. 6 months after the 8-year battery warranty expired the battery ceased working. The details were a little unclear (it was explained in broken English/Norwegian). That said, anecdata carries little weight. What we need is more peer-reviewed research to update our understanding of battery longevity. Until we have that we need to rely on the existing published knowledge... otherwise anyone can assert anything and we learn nothing.
This is so backwards, it's hard not to take it as a troll.
There is zero risk to using Java. People standardly use OpenJDK builds, which are freely and widely available under open source licensing (GLPv2 + classpath exception). In regards to maintenance, Java continues to be one of the most highly invested languages in existence.
In addition to the licensing risks there's significant technical risk, IME. Chief among them is making sure your colleagues are sufficiently literate to have read Bloch's and Goetz's (et al.) books, and sufficiently tasteful to synthesize those lessons into code which isn't horrible. This is exceedingly rare in practice. So there's the same risk, approximately, as with every other programming language and that's reckless Dunning-Kruger ass programmers.
If you had to pick an age for societal burden, it'd be the average "young" person who isn't making a net-positive contribution until around the age of 25. Most people don't receive a corresponding 25 years of retirement, and the retirement they do receive is a product of contributing to it for 40 years.
But it turns out young people become middle-age people, become old people, and we're all in this together. The real problem is not about how the pie is split across generations, but about the realities of lifespans, economic production, and expenses. If you're responsible for funding the entirety of your retirement, all of this is abundantly clear. When you nationalize retirement, all sorts of budgeting tricks start happening, like "borrowing" to fund other programs, papering shortfalls via population growth, etc. Then you start getting age warfare when the govt has to eventually cut back.
You could dissolve the national retirement plan, but that seems like a bad idea for similar reasons as entirely dissolving national welfare and insurance programs. It will always be the case that some people, need some help, some of the time. I guess in my ideal world, it's reduced to a much smaller safety net, because the government is managing the economy well enough that the populace has the wherewithal to save appropriately, and they are educated enough to do so.
Young people are an investment. Old people are purley a liability. This is true regardless of how they're cared for, when looking at it from a macro perspective. How the pie is split matters when talking about the sustainability of the system. Could you survive if 90% of your value is in investments? Maybe. 90% in liabilities? Probably not.
Having people fund their own retirement would be ideal from a economic standpoint, but given the histories and complexities of existing systems, it is probably not acceptable politically, or morally, in any country. Honestly it's a distraction.
At the end of the day, a country cannot tolerate too many freeloaders. It doesn't matter if they're pensioners or retired at 50, living to 100 hedge fund managers. Productivity is really the only thing that matters for a countrie's economic destiny.
The idea of tracking out kids who excel due to high personal motivation when they have less natural aptitude is flat out dystopian. I'm drawing mental images of Gattaca. Training isn't "gaming". It's a natural part of how you improve performance, and it's a desirable ethical attribute.
reply