It's sad to see how much of an echo chamber hackernews has become, used to see a a decent number of users engage in critical discussion and exchange perspective, now threads like this are just a gong show of self-reinforcement.
To give some weight to the above, this thread leans way too heavy into EVs being awesome and the main issue is "the people or industry" (misconceptions, misunderstanding, oil industry bad, etc) while backing that with "rest of the world is winning the race" (FOMO).
Here's some counter points to a bunch of claims made in this thread:
1) EVs are not as practical as this thread proposes:
- Battery degradation is still mostly an unsolved issue. 10% within 3 years is common on the latest models as reported by drivers, 15% within 5-7 years is also quite common. LFPs do better but provide considerably less ideal range. 20% degradation is the cliff, where degradation accelerates and lithium ion batteries are considered EOL. For cars that under ideal conditions do 500km - 550km that's not okay over the lifespan of the car where you want good performance in the 8 to 16 year range. In addition, average car on the road in the USA / Europe is at 12 years (many cars far above 12 years old). These batteries will be lucky to make it to 12 years so the average age of EV fleet will end up much lower than ICE (not great)(more disposable) unless you replace the battery. Battery replacements are $10k-$20k and poor warranties (4 years or less). Costs are not coming down for various reasons.
- Actual cold performance (under -10C) is not good, there's no way to resolve this without increasing ideal range
- Range is considerably lower at highway speeds than city driving due to energy dynamics, exactly the opposite of what users need. ICE cars have an advantage here because their power curve is non-linear and power output improves with RPM, RPM goes up with higher speeds in the final gear so efficiency improves for a portion of the curve.
- Charging when living in apartment complexes or in multi-home units is not competitive at all with filling up at a gas tank, time wise or cost (unless subsidized).
- Most people drive few miles daily but long road trips yearly, often to remote places without reasonable charging infra. Versatility of use cases is a core requirement for most car users and EVs are not competitive here.
2) Growth is not as significant and growth rate has significantly slowed down
- EV sales are not at 30%+ of all car sales world wide as someone proposed in this thread claiming China is at 50%. China is at 50% NEV, which stands for new energy vehicle and makes up hybrids, BEV and EREV. EREV + hybrids are 40% of sales in China. That means BEVs are only at 30% of total which is what the rest of the world considers EV. World can't be at 30% EV sales itself as the rest of the world is far behind this sales % compared to China.
- China is pushing higher EVs not due to tech superiority but for energy security for obvious reasons, i.e. a lack of traditional energy independence and rising geopolitical risk
- Subsides have played a huge role in the growth and removal of subsidies will depress sales growth more
3) "rest of the world is winning the race" (FOMO)
- No one has won this race because the tech is not technically sufficiently superior to the currently available. This will change when solid state batteries become common place, but the problems with the tech are hard with a long tail of issues so that's still many years away from being widely rolled out.
> Counting on 10% returns long term is way to aggressive especially when you have to consider sequence of returns risks during withdrawals
Yes though the propose is not to retire. There's better things to do with your life (IMO) than work a standard 9-5 job for some corporation once you've accumulated sufficient wealth to have financial independence.
> Even 5% is not conservative enough while you are in the withdrawal phase.
Assuming you spend 5% per year. 5M@5% is 250k, 200k+ after tax for CG + eligible divs. That's a lot of money to spend every year, more than most families get to earn thru their labor yearly. Can be secured against downturns with higher 4%+ bond allocations too. 5M is financial independence for vast majority of households. 2.5M can be as well for many if their baseline spend remains at 100k.
> All of my friends still work so what could I possibly do with my free time that I don’t do now?
Financial independence provides vast opportunities for those with ideas but lacking time. There's a reason most businesses are pursued by those who have financial wealth on their side.
No one is misrepresenting your argument, it's well understood and being argued that it is false.
> students intellectual development is going to be impaired by AI because they can't be trusted to use it critically.
This debate is going nowhere so I'll end here. Your core premise is on trust and student autonomy, which is nonsense and not what the article tackles.
It argues LLM literally don't facilitate cognitive brain development and can actually impair it, irrelevant to how they are used so it's malpractice for university admins to adopt it as a learning tool in a setting where the primary goal should be cognitive development.
Student's are free to do as they please, it's their brain, money and life. Though I've never heard anyone argue they were their wisest in their teens and twenties as a student so the argument that students should be left unguided is also nonsense.
That's not the core premise of this article, go read the article to the end and don't use your LLM to summarize it.
The core premise is cognitive development of students is being impaired with long term implications for society without any care or thought by university admins and corporate operators.
It's disturbing when people comment on things they don't bother reading, literally aligning with the point the article is arguing, that critical thinking is decaying.
> This is such a naive, simplistic, distrusting and ultimately monastic perspective
This is such a disingenuous take on the article, there's nothing naive or simplistic about it, it's literally full of critical thought linking to more critical thought of other academic observers to what's happening at the educational level. The context in your reply implies you read at most the first 10% of the article.
The article flagged numerous issues with LLM application in the educational setting including
1) critical thinking skills, brain connectivity and memory recall are falling as usage rises, students are turning into operators and are not getting the cognitive development they would thru self-learning
2) Employment pressures have turned universities into credentialing institutions vs learning institutions, LLMs have accelerated these pressures significantly
3) Cognitive development is being sacrificed with long term implications on students
4) School admins are pushing LLM programs without consultation, as experiments instead of in partnership with faculty. Private industry style disruption.
The article does not oppose LLM as learning assistant, it does oppose it as the central tool to cognitive development, which is the opposite of what it accomplishes. The author argues universities should be primarily for cognitive development.
> Successful students will grow and flourish with these developments, and institutions of higher learning ought to as well.
Might as well work at OpenAI marketing with bold statements like that.
Really appreciate your comment, literally the only comment in this long sub-thread that picked up on the nonsensical numbers fooker put out.
Realistically fooker's investment strategy into NDXT of 100k over 10 years would have produced around $2.5M depending on exact timing in the year and partitioning of that 100k. Way less than $15M nonsense. Also would have required extreme conviction alike the crypto types and completely counter how typically multi-million portfolios are managed (diversified).
Also, who needs 15M, at 5M net wealth there honestly is no reason to be working at a $200k/year job. You'll make way more after-tax income even assuming lousy 5% yearly return thru capital gains. Same story for 2.5M @ 10%.
Says the user who didn't even read the article. The whole first half had nothing to do with the author's values. It was about the poor implementation of AI algorithms as it relates to creator functionality. Shitty AI creator workflow, automatic ad injection, blocking of viewers to combat ad blockers...
Nothing on infra costs, hardware throughput + capacity (accounting for hidden tokens) & depreciation, just a blind faith that pricing by providers "covers all costs and more". Naive estimate of 1000 tokens per search using some simplistic queries, exactly the kind of usage you don't need or want an LLM for. LLMs excel in complex queries with complex and long output. Doesn't account at all for chain-of-thought (hidden tokens) that count as output tokens by the providers but are not present in the output (surprise).
Completely skips the fact the vast majority of paid LLM users use fixed subscription pricing precisely because the API pay-per-use version would be multiples more expensive and therefore not economical.
"Fuel efficiency on an ICE can drop up to 30% after 10 years"
Complete nonsense. Every 15+ year old ICE car I've known or owned was within 5% to 10% of original fuel economy, the reliable brands actually maintained their original fuel economy or surpassed it as fuel economy improves as engine wear in completes at the 20k-40k mile mark.
If your ICE car dropped by 30% then share the brand and your maintenance history.
"The average ICE car does not survive to 200,000 miles"
That's a fair amount of misinformation in your post.
1) Any reliable ICE brand goes well above 200k miles with basic maintenance. There's a long history here of reliability and why so many drivers choose boring yer reliable brands like Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc. If you choose brands that do not prioritize reliability then that's on you. (i.e. Mercedes drivers switching into Tesla)
2) Mileage (distance) is not actually the determining factor here in longevity, car age is. Average age of ICE cars is around 12 years in the USA. That's average, which means there are many cars that are much much older than that. Battery cars will be lucky if they average out 8 years as a fleet. Probability is 75%+ you're looking at a battery replacement at the 12 year mark if not sooner. Vast majority of drivers will not replace said battery making the car a throw away due to cost (no one financially competent spends $10k-$20k on a battery for a car worth less than $10k). This will absolutely drive fleet age down, resulting in a younger fleet and more disposable cars. Replacement batteries are not plentiful or cheap and there's no reason for that to change due to the industry strategy.
"Tesla still averages being able to hold 90% of original charge"
3) Lucky you. It's well known in the community first year degradation is typically 5%-10% and there after 1-2% per year till a major failure. Do you know how to measure your original charge? Have you driven the car from 100% to 0% to verify total battery capacity or you just going of the BMS hoping it knows the true capacity. BMS is regularly off by 5%+ so for all you know your true capacity is already nearing 80%. If you know Lithium battery science then you know after 80% the capacity hits a cliff rate of degradation accelerates. Few people drive their cars below 10% battery so they don't really know.
To give some weight to the above, this thread leans way too heavy into EVs being awesome and the main issue is "the people or industry" (misconceptions, misunderstanding, oil industry bad, etc) while backing that with "rest of the world is winning the race" (FOMO).
Here's some counter points to a bunch of claims made in this thread:
1) EVs are not as practical as this thread proposes:
- Battery degradation is still mostly an unsolved issue. 10% within 3 years is common on the latest models as reported by drivers, 15% within 5-7 years is also quite common. LFPs do better but provide considerably less ideal range. 20% degradation is the cliff, where degradation accelerates and lithium ion batteries are considered EOL. For cars that under ideal conditions do 500km - 550km that's not okay over the lifespan of the car where you want good performance in the 8 to 16 year range. In addition, average car on the road in the USA / Europe is at 12 years (many cars far above 12 years old). These batteries will be lucky to make it to 12 years so the average age of EV fleet will end up much lower than ICE (not great)(more disposable) unless you replace the battery. Battery replacements are $10k-$20k and poor warranties (4 years or less). Costs are not coming down for various reasons.
- Actual cold performance (under -10C) is not good, there's no way to resolve this without increasing ideal range
- Range is considerably lower at highway speeds than city driving due to energy dynamics, exactly the opposite of what users need. ICE cars have an advantage here because their power curve is non-linear and power output improves with RPM, RPM goes up with higher speeds in the final gear so efficiency improves for a portion of the curve.
- Charging when living in apartment complexes or in multi-home units is not competitive at all with filling up at a gas tank, time wise or cost (unless subsidized).
- Most people drive few miles daily but long road trips yearly, often to remote places without reasonable charging infra. Versatility of use cases is a core requirement for most car users and EVs are not competitive here.
2) Growth is not as significant and growth rate has significantly slowed down
- EV sales are not at 30%+ of all car sales world wide as someone proposed in this thread claiming China is at 50%. China is at 50% NEV, which stands for new energy vehicle and makes up hybrids, BEV and EREV. EREV + hybrids are 40% of sales in China. That means BEVs are only at 30% of total which is what the rest of the world considers EV. World can't be at 30% EV sales itself as the rest of the world is far behind this sales % compared to China.
- China is pushing higher EVs not due to tech superiority but for energy security for obvious reasons, i.e. a lack of traditional energy independence and rising geopolitical risk
- Subsides have played a huge role in the growth and removal of subsidies will depress sales growth more
3) "rest of the world is winning the race" (FOMO)
- No one has won this race because the tech is not technically sufficiently superior to the currently available. This will change when solid state batteries become common place, but the problems with the tech are hard with a long tail of issues so that's still many years away from being widely rolled out.
This list is not exhaustive. Moving on.