It's not brought up because this is not the source of the growth whatsoever. It has only served to keep our gasoline and methane costs low compared to the rest of the world. That's nice for people but does not create massive economic growth in the 21st century of the kind being discussed. That is all coming from the tech sector. If you want to talk energy to power the server farms, the growth in energy is happening with renewables which are and far cheaper than any fossil fuels.
That's one way to frame it. Another is Sol-ark incurs costs of developing, marketing and supporting their official devices and the contract manufacturer is able to sell their own version in the Chinese market. Greedy people who don't want to pay Sol-ark for all the costs they incurred bought grey market devices that Sol-ark has repeatedly warned are in contract violation in this market. The manufacturer, not Sol-ark, has now bricked those devices, and people are blaming Sol-ark anyway because they want to continue to justify their actions.
These devices do not depend on the cloud. If I want to take my Sol-Ark inverter offline I can just take the wifi dongle off it. Dunno about the bootleg Deye one.
Why are you blaming Sol-Ark when Deye is the one in breach of contract taking illegal actions the entire time? Seems very disingenuous. They also did not force Deye's hand in this action and seem surprised by it.
Title is a bit misleading and makes it sound like Sol-Ark did this. They did not. Title should be "Deye manufacturer reportedly disables all Deye inverters in the US". They are the same entity but this wording avoids confusion about Sol-Ark being responsible.
Flashing is easily fixed with a capacitor and also not a bad thing if it turns off when it loses power immediately. The only explanation that makes sense to me is it being separately controlled is a feature not a bug.
As usual when you take a dismissive stance ("this is obviously a waste of money!") you are ignoring lots od details. The use case of a mail carrier is not well suited by a massive eSprinter. They have no need for something so large. They want to be seated at the height where most mailboxes are so they can make many deliveries without getting out of the car.
Whenever you find yourself going "why would they make THAT decision?" assume it is yourself that is ignorant and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than dismiss the choices of people who specialize in the area you are puzzled by.
Having this strong of an opinion on something you admittedly don't understand (the appeal of podcasts) is not a great choice. Maybe ask people instead of making up stuff.
You might as well wish that the factories produced teleporters. You're putting the cart before the horse. You have to fix the demand side first. I know there's an online demand for public transportation and bikes and if you are in that bubble it can feel like the whole world is with you, but in the real world, most people (obvs not everyone) prefers to have their own car.
Western country populations seem to be willfully falling for obvious fossil fuel propaganda over and over again. Future generations will rightfully curse our names. (Including today's children.)
Owner of residential solar in snowy state and snow isn't even worth expending the effort to clear off. It doesn't block as much light as you'd think, and if there's enough light to generate power the panels will heat themselves up and the snow will slide off.
Because people need power in Wisconsin and even there solar is cheaper than fossil fuels. Also snow isn't a big deal for solar. Clouds are the problem.
It's news because the US is a big time laggard in renewables for a variety of terrible reasons. (Mostly oil/coal lobbying and utility monopolies stifling competition.)
1) Batteries very rarely need to actually be replaced. It is inevitable that transmissions and ICE engines will need very expensive large services and always need regulae maintenance that adds up over time.
2) ICE engines absolutely do not and will not last longer than batteries and electric motors. ICE engines ans transmissions just have way, way more moving parts and are being put through far more stress. If you want something that will last for half a million miles or more, buy an EV.
This is brought up all the time by anti-EV folks. Usually in the form of "the grid can't handle everyone switching to EVs!" Which is obviously silly because no one is snapping the infinity gauntlet and turning all ICE vehicles into EVs overnight.
It's not theoretical, and you don't need them to talk to each other to reduce accidents. Nor is the tech you mention necessarily unique to EVs. There's evidence already that the safety features shipping on modern cars, including collision warning, avoidance, cross traffic alerts, etc. are already helping to reduce accidents. Where EVs can help here on safety is encouraging people to drive more slowly (due to efficiency concerns) and also advanced in motor traction control that is not possible on an ICE vehicle. The rest is not unique to EVs.
The greater wear on tires issue is over stated. By far the greatest impact on tire wear is how you drive. My first set of all seasons in my BMW i4 M50 went more than 25k miles.
The cars being heavy issue may get better due to EVs longer term due to it bringing more attention to efficiency and manufacturers prioriting efficiency more. Additionally, some EVs are not notably heavier than ICE cars in their class; eg Tesla Model 3 and Model Y.
As someone driving EVs for more than 10 years; maintenance is far less. The articles claiming maintenance is more expensive on EVs are lying. What has happened is there has been a non-scientific survey by Consumer Reports showing people self reporting more problems with EVs. But most of that can be chalked up to going through a period with A) brand new companies like Rivian and Lucid launching their first vehicles and B) EVs from legacy auto companies being brand new models; typically brand new models have more issues than the same model a few years later.
But note that those problems are warranty issues, as in no cost to the owner.
This article brings up some very simple software engineering problems and the most obvious/widely used approach to dealing with them, but this is by no means the only approach that works best at scale. Also not necessarily the best approach at scale because sometimes you do need to roll back.
If you're serious about writing robust and reliable systems, think about V-1 and V+1 not just the version you are writing and deploying. The point about your code interacting with multiple versions in production is a good one, but also upgrades and downgrades should be considered.
So many times HN posters have extolled how Bezos hasn't interfered with the WaPo and those of us who expressed concern about his purchase were chicken littles. It has never been true and it's plain as day now. He bought it for the same reason Musk bought Twitter. To have control over a media outlet he values.