Workaccount2

You can get Model 3 LR that will do it for $20k used.

Like everyone else, you are thinking in "gas car" trying to resolve an electric car problem.

You start every trip in an EV with full range (unplug from home base charger). You drive 300 miles. You full recharge. You drive another 300 miles. You plug-in and go to sleep.

600 miles. One charge. $20k EV.

I recently did a road trip to Maine, and the whole week it didn't get above 15F. The difference in range was about 20% less. But I drive at 65mph with cruise control all the time.

If you often mowed a town park, you wouldn't buy a hand-push lawnmower and then be upset about lawn mower technology.

The Renault 5 is a town car. Its specs are closer to a golf cart than a motorcar. It fills a niche, but if you are traveling often, a different EV would suite you better.

In truth you cannot really do this because range is a function of drag, not really weight.

So if you are towing a 2000lb empty box mobile home it's gonna be worse than towing an 8000lb flat bed of decorative boulders.

In your typical 475km EV sedan, you would only need about 20 minutes of charging to do that 700km.

This is why I am like a broken record repeating that EV misconceptions kill EVs. You are applying gas car logic to electric cars, which is what people do, and stops them from getting an EV.

But it's wrong.

A 600 mile trip can (theoretically) be done with 1 charge, because you leave home with full range, and arrive with 0 charge (and fill up overnight). That one charge is done while eating dinner, or spaced out in increments over the course of the trip, stops which you would take anyway. I know few people who want to bang out 10 hours without stopping for at least 1-2 hours over the course of the trip. And those who do, can be the edge case with gas cars.

So you need to go 600 miles, and you need 1 full charge worth of energy during that.

If that one charge takes 1 hour, you can also break it up into four 15 minute sessions at any time of your chosing.

I'm sorry, but almost no regular person does 10 hours without at least four 15 minute stops.

Range is not at all the problem people make it out to be.

Range is the misconception, because people view range through the "sit and fill up then drive till empty" paradigm.

That is not how EVs work or how they should be used. They should be charged overnight/when you are doing something else, and on road trips should be charged to align with other stops even if those stops are 10 minutes. It's rare that I have ever done the "sit in the car for 40 minutes waiting for charge", and extremely common to do the "Put car on charger for 13 minutes while going into [insert any of the gazillion places with chargers in the parking lot] to use the bathroom, stretch legs, and get a snack, or see a landmark"

Also you usually structure it so you arrive at your destination with very low charge, because you fill up while there. I've yet to be at a hotel with a gas pump in the lot.

Again, EVs function differently than gas, and that change of paradigm really gets people ruffled up and confused.

The lighting is fine for towing, especially the type that people usually do. You can tow up to 10,000lbs and the truck has ridiculous power to pull it.

What you can't do it tow it long distances (>90mi, worst case) without 40 minute stops every 1.5 hours. That sucks.

But the truth is very few truck owners are towing huge loads long distances.

However, if you are pulling your lawn care trailer around town, you will not have a problem, because every day you start with a full charge.

As an aside, the main killer of range for a trailer is a function of speed and drag. Low drag trailers driven at highway speeds (60-65) have marginal impacts on range, regardless of weight.

Again, the whole thing is ridden with misconceptions and misunderstandings. The majority of people who tow stuff, can still tow stuff while reaping cheaper operating costs.

I disagree along with you. EVs would work for 80% of the population, there is a long tail of people who an EV will never (well foreseeable future) work for.

Thankfully, the mass of humanity that should be transitioning lives in populated areas and never tows anything for more than 75 miles. There is no need to get bogged down in back and forths with the small subset of people who an EV will not work for.

It's a shame the Lightning got discontinued.

As an EV owner, it sucks that the main thing holding the technology back is misconceptions and misunderstanding, rather than actual practical matters.

People think EVs are cars with tanks of electrons, and run aground the same way you would if you thought horses were cars full of hay. It's a different transport tool that gives the same results, you just have to know how to use it properly.

LLMs will never achieve anything as long as any victory can be hand waved away with "in the training set". Somehow these models have condensed the entire internet down to a few TB's, yet people aren't backing up their terabytes of personal data down to a couple MB using this same tech...wonder why

Let me just remind you that Microsoft owns the elder scrolls franchise now, for better or worse.

The hardest pill to swallow as a musician is that despite everyone who ever listened to you telling you you're great, despite being in a band and playing shows, despite maybe even selling some merch...if you are not in the top 1%, you probably will never even get chance to play a show that might put you on someone meaningful's radar.

I strongly suspect that the advent of LLMs stalled the new elder scrolls game another 5-6 years.

What are all the grifters going to do when AI can reliably tell people if a study is shit?

These studies are done to rebuff claims by people whose cohort largely overlaps with those who believe that homeopathic medicine is legit. It's not gonna change squat in their minds.

Don't worry, they are already salivating at the idea of a tallow renaissance, where they can do a viral marketing blast of "McDonalds Tallow fries"

>Most people do not live near "beef operations".

Yeah, but lived experience shows that a lot of people do.

That's what I am saying though. Anecdotes are the wrong thing to focus on, because if we just focused on anecdotes, we would all never leave our beds. People's choices are generally based on their personal experience, not really anecdotes online (although those can be totally crippling if you give in).

Car crashes are incredibly common and likewise automotive deaths. But our personal experience keeps us driving everyday, regardless of the stories.

I'd be skeptical about even new LLM siri being able to dial 911.

These models tend to have a "mind of their own", and I can totally, absolutely, see a current SOTA LLM convincing itself it needs to call 911 because you asked it how to disinfect a cut.

Apple likely wants to post-train a per-trained model, probably along with some of Google's heavily NDA'ed training techniques too.

Frequency vs. convenience will determine how big of a deal this is in practice.

Cars have plenty of horror stories associated with them, but convenience keeps most people happily driving everyday without a second thought.

Google can quarantine your life with an account ban, but plenty of people still use gmail for everything despite the stories.

So even if Claude cowork can go off the rails and turn your digital life upside down, as long as the stories are just online or "friend of a friend of a friend", people won't care much.

If nothing else, this was likely driven by Google being the most stable of the AI labs. Gemini is objectively a good model (whether it's #1 or #5 in ranking aside) so Apple can confidently deliver a good (enough) product. Also for Apple, they know their provider has ridiculously deep pockets, a good understanding and infrastructure in place for large enterprises, and a fairly diversified revenue stream.

Going with Anthropic or OpenAI, despite on the surface having that clean Apple smell and feel, carries a lot of risk Apple's part. Both companies are far underwater, liable to take risks, and liable to drown if they even fall a bit behind.

RFK's playbook is to wake up, check what the crunchy moms on instagram are cackling about, issue policy based on the comments sections.

1. I'm saying the choice is faux. Healthy people will have dramatically lower medical bills throughout their life, so why shouldn't they get discounted health insurance? Which leads to your second point which I already addressed in my initial post:

2. >This is why there is a hyperfixation on shifting blame away from (failing) individuals. The logic breaks when Billy has to admit he just hates exercising.

You said enrolling in insurance was a choice. If everyone with a BMI under 22 who did at least an hour of cardio a week had their own health insurance club, they would be doing excellent with cheap premiums and great care, while everyone else drowned in medical debt as their plans collapsed.

The choice right now is all or nothing. There is no choice for healthy people to only share a plan with other healthy people. If there was, everyone else, especially the least healthy, would be totally screwed.

This is a macro problem larger than health insurance, and exists everywhere from employee bonuses, high school group project grades, handicap parking, gas prices, Everest summits, to gas prices.

Those might all seem wildly disconnected, but they all have systems of unfair allocation to compensate for unequal outcomes.

Generally national healthcare programs are entirely dependent on young healthy people paying into the system despite rarely needing it, and then hopefully enough dieing quick deaths or having multiple children to cover their costs. These rebalancing systems are artificial and humans are generally terrible at managing them.

Its dumb to create an insurance program using anecdotes.

The system can accommodate (and frankly is the ideal many people strive for) some health nut getting long drawn out cancer battle at 41. Its rare enough to be noise in the giant money payout pool.

Obesity and it's litany of health effects are not rare, and next to age, are a dominating signal drawing money from the pool.

The most cataclysmic thing that could happen to healthcare would be chronically healthy individuals creating their own health insurance.

The actual realization, which usually comes years after the realization that there is no bottom, is that there is no top either.

The battle along the spectrum of privatizing gains (lower healthcare premiums for a healthy lifestyle - high premiums for unhealthy lifestyle) vs socializing losses (paying $20/mo to get $1200/mo of care - paying $1200/mo for $0/mo of care) is constant and boundless in either direction.