nathannecro

As mentioned, I had a few teething issues with the Rivian (mostly car noise and a leaky AC) so I was able to try out some other EVs while the truck was in the shop. I'll say that companies like Hyundai, Ford, and Mercedes have really come a long way in building EVs and all three of those are at least as good as Tesla if not better.

In my area, I can lease an entry-level Mercedes EV (I forget what they're called) something like 20-30% cheaper than I can get a Model 3. The entry-level Mercedes is decidedly worse than the Model 3, but you can't beat the pricing for what is still a very solid car (with more space and better sound quality to boot).

It's really unfortunate that Rivian hasn't scaled. To me, their struggles really show how difficult of an industry it is and how small mistakes can really ruin an otherwise solid showing.

Gotta give kudos to Elon for dragging Tesla through the same hurdles and coming out on top with a profitable vehicle.

Ah yes, I forgot about that. The windshield spontaneously cracking was also something I forgot to mention.

I guess I made that statement partially looking directly at the Cybertruck's actual performance and partially looking at the Cybertruck relative to other offroading vehicles.

The reality of the situation for the Cybertruck is that it's a pretty heavy vehicle (with as you mention) not great stock tires -- but everyone knows that. The absolute biggest issue with it though is that the tie rods for all 4 wheels don't seem to be adequate -- especially if you're coming down pretty hard on a single corner. There are countless videos out there where you see Cybertrucks with floppy wheels -- especially out offroading.

Secondly, the Cybertruck has sub-par departure angles where the hitch just gets dragged along the ground. Combined with the realization that the hitch is only rated for 160lbs of vertical load (and it's structurally attached to the frame with aluminum -- which cracks, not bends). I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable doing much beyond just bumpy roads with the truck.

Finally, the breakover angle is just not good at all either. Ground clearance doesn't mean much when the wheelbase is so long. The Rivian sits at about 15 inches of clearance with stock wheels and the Cybertruck comes in about 5% shorter at 14.4 inches. Not only that, but the Cybertruck also has a 5% longer wheelbase than the Rivian and its suspension does not articulate as much -- especially at full lift.

Real world, this means that the Rivian's departure angle in the truck is 30 degrees (plus a little more). The Cybertruck sits at 24.7 degrees in its drivable mode (it goes up to ~27 degrees if you have it in the crawl "extract" mode). There's also a 3.5ish difference in breakover angle as well.

Relative to other "standard" offroading 4x4s like the Rubicon/Wrangler or Land Cruisers, the Rivian is at best average and the Cybertruck is decidedly worse. Couple that with the R1T being able to independently power each wheel, the Cybertruck is IMO more recreational than proper off-road.

I'm not here to gatekeep so I will point out the obvious and say that the Cybertruck is for sure, a better offroading vehicle compared to most recreational/luxury vehicles out there. I'm just not sure that I'd qualify it as anything better than "okay?".

I'll say this, I preordered both a Rivian and a Cybertruck when they announced and I purchased the Rivian because it was available roughly 2 years before the Cybertruck even started deliveries.

I've had some small teething problems with the truck but it has been the best vehicle I've ever driven. It works perfectly as a regular daily driver but I can load my SCUBA gear and tanks into the back, and go off-road, get a bunch of dives in, and be back to my truck that I've outfitted with fresh water for a shower, a fridge in the frunk for snacks and drinks, and a gear tunnel with dry and warm clothes.

Now that I can charge on the Supercharger network, the truck has just gotten even better since I no longer have to plan out my charging as carefully. The Rivian is built like a tank, it's handled everything I've thrown at it in stride, and the Rivian software folks have been making progress month after month.

I'm so glad that I bought a Rivian but really, I'm even more glad that I didn't buy a Cybertruck given the absolutely disastrous launch that its had. Just off the top of my head, I've heard of wheels falling off, trim falling off, tonneau cover nonfunctional and non removable, 20% less range than marketed, accelerator pedal falling off and sticking, PRNDL falling off, seats that creak and wiggle, poor offroading capabilities, red screen of death, FSD driving the truck into the wrong lanes, and I'm sure there are many other issues that I've not even heard about.

As a long time Tesla owner (I was an early adopter of the first gen Model S), I expected the overpromise and underdelivery of their products, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs.

It's because the article uses a different source than you for total revenue. If you look at the wiki page titled: "List of largest companies in the United States by revenue" [1], it lists Centene as 22nd with a slightly outdated ~$154B in revenue.

You should know the author was referencing American companies because your second line of your post reads, "One of the 25 largest corporations in America, Centene brings in more revenue...". If you look at your 'Companies Market Cap' site, you'll actually see that it includes a global set of corporations including, but not limited to, Saudi Aramco (KSA), Sinopec (CN), Petro China (CN), Volkswagen (DE), China State Engineering (CN),Toyota (JPN), JBS (BRA) etc. And those were the only ones I saw without scrolling.

I have issues with the way that author wrote her article, but I have even more of an issue with commenters like you who don't actually take the time to read or comprehend the matter at hand. You just come into a comment section with the intention of trying to prove your preconceived perspective.

The point of this article, if it's not clear, is that certain health insurers do not do a good job advocating for their insureds and do not fulfil their end of the contract. In this scenario, it seems like one could make a good argument that this lead to the death of a young man wrestling with alcoholism. It's obvious, if you read the other comments here, that the real story are the sweeping complaints of the private healthcare system in the US in general as many others seem to have had similar issues.

I'm not sure what exactly their NPM has to do with this discussion. Other, seemingly better insurers (both larger in scale and fewer complaints by customers) post margins that are more than double of Centene so it seems like Centene should take your advice and either go out of business or do a better job running their existing business.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_t...

Tmobile is $10

If one were to advertise an added smokey flavor, then marketing it as "smokey" or "smoked" (assuming the product was actually smoked) is correct.

Just like how 'organic' has a specific definition, a 'smokehouse' is: "a building where meat or fish is cured by means of dense smoke" [0]. So if the product is not cured in dense smoke in a building, then it cannot be marketed as smokehouse{d}.

It's as easy as using specific terminology to market their product. The fact that food producers don't, indicates to me that they're either stupid (and unaware of what words mean) or it's done maliciously (to mislead people).

0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse

I've had to deal with my fair share of frivolous lawsuits (the ADA is a well meaning, poorly implemented set of rules).

However, in this case, I wouldn't classify Sheehan's work as being parasitic. Companies are obviously being misleading and deceitful in order to sell more of their product. It makes sense to me that someone is out there holding their feet to the fire and forces them accurately market what they make.

I thought the exact same thing when I saw their second trailer.

Probably in the sense that at a slower speed, op would have been able to avoid the bad driving from the other driver. Assuming that OP was driving at 60kph originally, a 15kph slower speed equates to a roughly 0.75 extra seconds of reaction time (assuming braking acceleration is roughly 7.5m/s2). Given that an average humans reaction time is somewhere between 0.25-0.5 seconds, that means 15kph speed difference would have allowed OP to react and affect the situation. Even at higher initial speeds, 15kph gives your more than half a second extra time.

As some other users have noticed, this particular author's syntax is a bit aggressive. The author of this opinion piece, Edward Ring, is the founder of the California Policy Center; according to Wikipedia, the CPC is a "conservative and libertarian public policy think tank".

In the last two weeks, he's penned and published writing like:

"Few on the American Right are unaware of Anheuser-Busch’s recent foray into woke politics. Taking their regular customers for granted, the once-great American company “partnered” with a transsexual person" [1]

or

"construct low cost, minimum security detention facilities, and classify them as “permanent supportive housing.” Locate them on state owned land in rural areas with mild winters, and set up at least three types. One for criminals, one for drug addicts and alcoholics, and one for the mentally ill" [2]

or

"By adhering to junk science, promulgated by the billionaire-fueled “renewables” lobby and abetted by institutions filled with cowards who dare not touch the third rail of California politics – the “climate emergency.” Phony, futile but draconian measures to mitigate this concocted crisis are the main reason everything is unaffordable in California." [3]

Some of Edward's points ring true -- especially when he writes about certain things like slow bureaucracy that plagues Californian municipal and state governments. But I have a problem with this kind of extremist (and poorly researched+presented) writing. I'm not an expert on watersheds and so on, but based on Edward's prior writings, I'm also pretty sure he's not an expert either. What gives him the authority to be so dismissive against (what I presume) is policy driven by science?

This is also a mild rant against the awful selection of opinion writers for the WSJ Opinion pages as they often are cast from the same mold as Mr. Ring.

[1] https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/02/the-other-hills-to-die-on...

[2] https://californiaglobe.com/articles/heres-what-you-can-do-a...

[3] https://californiaglobe.com/articles/assemblyman-isaac-bryan...

Yep, in the last few years, there's been quite a lot of movement in the shipping industry to add wind-assist devices to existing/new ships. Michelin [1] is basically doing what you suggest. Maersk and Cargill [2] are also working on technologies that harness wind to decrease fossil fuel use. Oceanbird [3] is working on wing-style sails that they claim can basically move a cargo ship along at ~10kts.

1: https://spectrum.ieee.org/michelin-puffy-sails-cargo-ships-i...

2: https://www.cargill.com/the-future-of-shipping-is-sails

3: https://www.theoceanbird.com

For those who didn't take the bit of time to read the case study linked on the homepage of the OP, it answers the obvious question of "well isn't latency a problem?". It's well written and lays out some neat ideas.

For those who are too lazy -- TL;DR:

The software allows players to set up servers easily so if a band is geographically close, but remotely dialing in, latency is reduced. The software is intended to be used as the primary method of sound feedback so it's advised that amps are turned off and earplugs/headphones are used to block out "local" sound. And finally, the author of the case study found that their experience with latency was between 30-70ms and that was more than acceptable. The only problem stemming from this latency was that songs with fast drum fills needed some adjustments to slow down the drum fills.

Perfect, thanks for the recommendation. Looks like I'll have quite a few videos to watch.

I'm in the market for home backup batteries and was wondering if you could namedrop the mfgs of your batteries if you were satisfied with them.

I wonder if it's possible to automate the offshoring of financial assets with the same structure that the Pandora+Panama papers lay out. Folks who aren't quite "wealthy" but still have wealth they'd like to shelter from regulating authorities would then be able to take advantage of the same loopholes. Perhaps then there would be incentive to close the loopholes.

On a more meta note I find that many HN posts (including this one) follows Betteridge's Law of Headlines (1) and is obviously clickbait. Why would this be upvoted? What relevance does this have to do with "[something] that good hackers would find interesting" (per HN guidelines)?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline....

I like this perspective. I think it applies well to many things we collect.

I've been collecting fountain pens for more than a decade now and I've observed that new collectors end up buying their "trophy" pen only to have it remain uninked and kept in a drawer someplace. It's only a few more years later, when another "trophy" is inevitably collected, that both pens see use.

Wait a second, why is the chance of getting shot and killed by the police a per capita statistic.

The denominator should be the number of police-initiated encounters. I could only find 2018 data, but it's likely in the same ballpark. [1]

Thus, the chance of getting shot and killed by police (2020):

993 in 28,880,900 = 3.44 x 10^-5

For African Americans (2020):

241 in 3,393,800 = 7.10 x 10^-5

So it's an order of magnitude more likely that you'll be shot and killed by the police than getting hit by lightning. It's in the same category as being killed by cataclysmic weather in the US.

As an aside, I also believe that the way you've argued your point here speaks to a lack of contextualization. Murder is more abhorrent than many other causes of death simply because things like lightning strikes or car accidents are done without prejudice or intent. Murdering someone with a gun requires intent at every step. In some cases, it's preventable, and action should be taken to ensure that mistakes do not happen.

[1] https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf

FWIW, I use HN to stay connected with and watch people innovate and problem solve. You don't need to know Chinese to watch the video or peruse the code/fusion360 files.

The readme is parsed easily with google translate:

Inside Hardware is the PCB file of the controller, which is based on ESP32, equipped with MPU6050, and connects the driver through CAN bus.

Structure is the body structure design file. The step is exported by Fusion. There may be some bugs. It is recommended to download the Fusion360 project directly and open it in the software: https://a360.co/2TOtZRd

Edit: Some of the comments in the code seem to be Chinese/unparsable.

Been playing go for a while now and this is the first I've heard of goish tactics. What exactly does goish mean?

Sure, early adopter in the Model S, leased for 4 years. I leased because EVs are still evolving in terms of tech and batteries have a finite lifespan (and are a pain to replace).

Actually went back to my 2009 diesel car when the lease expired because:

-- I'm tall and the Model S cars don't have much headroom. I've driven a few of the newer models (as courtesy cars) and for some reason, they feel much better in terms of headroom compared with the early models. I don't think they're listed as having more headroom though so this is a bit of a head scratcher for me. I don't think my car had a pano roof so that might have been the difference.

-- The QC and interior really is below standard for the price point of the car. A lot of plastic trim, squeaky bits, and laggy UI (for the main display -- driving was fine).

About a year later, I went back and leased a Model X for another 4 years. Headroom problem solved, QC still bad but the new processing unit made for a much smoother experience. Picked up a Model 3 as well and that car is far and away the best value proposition from Tesla. QC better on the 3, comfort improved (I actually prefer cloth seats to leather), and headroom is decent. Still leasing for reasons above.

I believe that EVs and autonomy are the future of passenger vehicles and Tesla makes decent EVs with decent autonomy. For my money, there are better EVs out there at most price points, but no one else has the Supercharger network and reasonably autonomous driving (on highways). I drive quite a bit and in heavy traffic (like 75% of my life) and over long distances (up and down California), Autopilot significantly reduces mental load and physical strain.

For what it's worth I still keep my old diesel around though it's requiring more and more maintenance even as its been driven less and less.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's been my experience as a prospective Tesla Roof customer. For the record, I cancelled my order before this price hike was sent out, but man, Tesla's service and sales process is probably one of the worst experiences I've had from a price per service point of view.

FWIW, I own and have owned several Tesla vehicles and even though the economics of the Tesla solar roof + Powerwall didn't quite work out, I was willing to overpay a bit for the supposed ease of integration into the Tesla ecosystem. It was also a hedge against rolling power outages that California's been struggling with in the past few years.

I also have experience that Tesla customer service + sales support is pretty atrocious, but again, they were first movers and their product is legitimately pretty decent, so I was willing to take the hit. I was prepared for bad service, but what I got was legitimately awful.

I initially put a deposit down for a few Powerwalls (to be used to arbitrage power rates in CA and as a hedge against rolling blackouts). Over the next 3 months, I spoke with and was called by 6 different sales reps who told me that:

-- I could install the Powerwalls standalone and integrate it into my house

-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the Powerwalls wouldn't work

-- I needed to buy a Solar Roof otherwise the wait time for a Powerwall was greater than two years

-- Even if I bought a Solar Roof, I could only buy one Powerwall

-- I could only buy one Powerwall. If I wanted to buy more than one, I would need to buy a Solar Roof as well.

-- They were not selling Powerwalls and the only way I could get a Powerwall was to buy a Solar Roof.

Obviously, they wanted to sell Solar Roofs. Fine. My house could probably use a new roof anyways, and the economics weren't that awful.

So I asked them what the next step was if I wanted to buy a Solar Roof (and some Powerwalls) and they said that they'd estimate my roof area from some satellite shots. They said that it'd probably take a few days.

About two months later, I get an email from Tesla letting me know that they had done their math and my quote was ready. The final price for just a Solar Roof (one Powerwall) system that output just 9.5kW? $60,000. Adding another Powerwall bumped it by $8,000. For what it's worth, I got several other quotes for a comparable roof replacement + solar panels and average pricing was around $40,000.

Tesla's proposal didn't discuss timing, didn't break down the cost of parts vs labor, and basically asked me to pay up and let them putz around till they decided to get to me. I asked for more information, got a call back about a month later. After our conversation, got an email with the breakdown of literally "roof = $xxx.xx" and "labor = $xxx.xx". Timing was cited to be between 3 - 9 months depending on supply.

Every single person I spoke with was different every time. There was some continuity on the email side, but honestly, it seems like Tesla couldn't be arsed to actually build or sell this product in a competent manner. I just wanted to put a few overpriced batteries in my house to keep the fridge running but Tesla turned this into a year-long debacle. Even after I canceled my order with Tesla, I still occasionally receive phone calls and emails from them asking to schedule my install date.

Oh certainly -- like I said, there are plenty of pieces of propaganda I disagree with WRT the Chinese govt and its justifications for actions.

As to the OP's unasked question as to if the world would prefer living under Chinese supremacy vs American supremacy I think the difference is where in the world one currently lives. Generally speaking, I assume that North Americans, Brits, and small parts of Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Philippines) likely prefer American hegemony. OTOH, pretty much everywhere else in the world likely prefers a Chinese hegemony.

Sure, happy to provide the contra. Not everything I write below is something I necessarily believe to be true, but it should be generally representative of the beliefs from the opposite position.

China as a nation and as a group of people have rarely (if ever) been aggressive outside their own borders. Any time where China exerted force or pressure outside its own country is justified as being purely defensive in nature. Internally, this is seen as largely being a cultural difference between Chinese philosophy/practice and the rest of the world.

In contemporary times, this practice of non-aggression translates to China's global policy. "One belt, one road" -- one of the primary globalization initiatives of China -- is built around Chinese support of critical national and trade infrastructure of developing countries. The idea is to build up trade partners and diplomatic allies through cooperation and capital infusions. Examples include building international trade ports, providing billions in medical aid, donating technology infrastructure, building millions of km of roadways, and investing in local enterprises. Fundamentally, China is focusing on countries left by the wayside by Western regimes (Africa, parts of Southeast Asia, South America, parts of the Middle East) but China is a good partner to many European countries. This is a dramatic departure from European colonialism and American exceptionalism where military might and economic threats were the standard negotiating tactics.

This, the Chinese allege, is fundamentally why a Chinese global hegemony is better than previous historical attempts. The Chinese do not significantly interfere with other nation's business unless it is as an ally of support or unless it's a defensive reaction to outside aggression. This allows other nations and peoples of the world to live their own lives while taking advantage of the market efficiencies, technology, and capital resources that China can provide.

Would you like to cite them?

I suffer from awful allergies and went through shot-based immunotherapy! I'm excited to give you guys a try!

Uh, those numbers are more than three/five years old at this point. Beyond comments on the test bench not being properly set up, Ryzen has improved significantly since then.

AMD's latest consumer-level chips significantly outperform Intel's chips in both price and performance. When talking about prosumer video editing performance, the Ryzen 9 5900x, the second most expensive "new" chip from AMD is a 3.4% performance improvement over Intel's most expensive "new" chip 10980XE. Additionally, the 5900x retails for $549 USD while the 10980XE retails for about $1,000 USD.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pr...

That's awesome! Line rider reminds me of a past internet where things were a bit more creative and joyful.

I'm so glad to see that people like you are still spreading that love of the creation.