A traditional bicycle chain drive is something around 98% efficient - particularly if you're using internally geared hubs or a single speed with the chain line perfectly straight. What's a typical consumer alternator efficiency? Maybe 85%? And then a few steps for losses in the charging circuit and then again at the motor.
Not even napkin math, but ballpark I would think you're looking at having to pedal about 20-25% harder to accelerate the same rate compared to a chain, with no supplemental energy directed towards charging the battery (though I would assume al the energy goes through the power management system anyways).
However you get some gain in that you don't have to select a gear ratio, and that the electric motor provides torque efficiently at any rpm you can realistically expect on a bicycle. If it has an adaptive resistance level it will probably be more work (energy) but for many non-cyclists feel much more intuitive and simple
The alternative to a huge bubble is that it's ripple effects of inflation. All assets go up, RE, equities, btc, and gold/PMs because there's simply more money in circulation and so more ends up in investments of all categories.
A solid contender is this writer, who I follow on Twitter. This was the first article I read of his (which directly references Thompson) and I was absolutely sold.
I know it's a bit of trope to say this on HN... but why not Lisp?
If I make the assumption that future ML code will be written by ML algorithms (or at least 'transpiled' from natural language), and Lisp S-Expressions are basically the AST, it would make sense that it would be the most natural language for a machine to write in. As a side benefit, it's already the standard to have a very feature complete REPL, so as a replacement for Python it seems it would fit well
Additionally, even if Toyota were to get breached, they would not get my data