Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more fuzzfactor's commentslogin

Things like twitter aren't supposed to be worth money anyway :)

In an ideal world nothing would be able to change that.

Edit: not my downvote btw, where did that come from? - - corrective upvote instead contrary to bot action


Either way I think the benefit for me would be after the vehicle is well-worn and only has 10 or 20% of its original range remaining.

If it was so much more efficient than average to begin with that could make the difference whether it was still viable for daily use including short commutes for a number of additional years when almost all other vehicle choices would require a new battery at that point.

Batteries are a bit like capacitors, and I think people are aware how some of the shoddiest capacitors were placed on motherboards for a while there before people figured out how substandard their lifetime was after it caused so many premature failures.

However the engineers who used about twice as much capacitance as the minimum to start with, whether it was intentional or not, were not struck nearly as bad.


Seems like that would be contrary to the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.


These were so fun to drive.

1973 had some of the longest Cadillacs in decades.

Not everybody was aware at the time, but the turning radius was actually smaller than the Volkswagen beetle.

Not the turning radius of the whole car, just the wheelbase ;)


I’ve not looked it up, but I’d venture to guess that a ‘73 Fleetwood was one of the longest cars made. And, as you alluded to, absolutely bonkers length from wheel center to each bumper.

Our Hyundai has the opposite problem. Because the flat battery pack allows the wheels to be shoved to the corners, it looks smallish but has a longer wheelbase than Hyundai’s large Palisade SUV. Which makes it a pig to park.


The light rail is especially chilly, but it has to be with how often they open all the doors at every stop and let in a little heat each time.

As a planned city the downtown urban area was ideal for all kinds of transportation, with streets wide enough not to be obstructed by double-parked wagons, and suitable for streetcars to be installed just about anywhere when they arrived. Much more amenable to public transport than SF or New Orleans, even though horses were the primary consideration to begin with.

The problem was always overpriced real estate downtown, and it got to be too late for newcomers to afford, so anyone that could then started or settled in nearby communities at different distances outside city limits.

With unbridled growth, the city gradually annexed or enclosed these "suburbs", some of which are inside the 610 loop. Pretty much part of the urban area now, but not originally connected by more than one trail usually, which must have left some residual bottlenecks to this day. And that's inside the loop, where people once commuted in from the western suburb of Bellaire, or the close-in location of the Heights.

Just outside the loop to the southeast, people used to consciously depart from Houston and drive "all the way out" to Pasadena. When public transport was on the rise in the county (far too late) about 50 years ago, Pasadena voted not to pay the extra 1% sales tax which was earmarked for Metro, simply because they did not want innumerable people in the big city who couldn't afford cars to descend on their much smaller industrial suburb so easily.

I guess without intervention, stupidity trumps planning if growth is excessive or too accelerated.

For me, I'm just fine on a bike in 100 degree heat with (life-giving) humidity to boot, but I'm probably not the average senior citizen. The homes I like best were built specifically for this climate before A/C, and have more than enough windows to open, and I prefer not to use A/C when driving alone either.

I came from Florida so this is Northern Living to me, if I didn't like it hot I wouldn't be here :)


No different than the front tire, same thing as any modern car which does not carry a spare tire either.


When the primary mission is to eliminate as many jobs as possible, then job titles and descriptions would seem to be more superfluous compared to a normal company.


>every $1 it invests brings back $100

That's great leverage.

As long as it really is true and continues to hold true for all the big players involved then things should be OK.

Though it does imply that there's got to be a long-term source of returns which is 100x richer than Nvidia is now, and that source is willing & able to give up 100x what Nvidia can afford to spend now, or where else is the return actually going to come from?

OTOH if the leverage turns out to be unsustainable, or never was quite as extreme as estimated, then adjustments will have to occur, whether that amounts to carefully planned compensation for any shortcomings, or more abrupt developments which relieve undue pressure.


So many don't want to admit things like that.

"Economic value" is great stuff and kind of all-encompassing.

But a lot of it is mainly moving money around after wealth has already been created, sometimes generations earlier.

To this day the lion's share of "creating wealth" is traceable to natural resources.


Well, Nvidia started out as a manufacturer first & foremost.

Maybe I'm in the middle of the road :)

Seems like economy, scale, velocity, and even "critical mass" are related in some way, but not the same at all.

I would say it's quite possible that economies of scale can go from positive to negative without much warning.

I think it's most sustainable financially when the underlying "economy" is what drives the resulting scale-up, which usually does occur in phases or stages where each successful milestone informs the next campaign more realistically than you can get any other way.

As market demand grows beyond baseline sustainability it becomes less costly to serve each additional customer this way.

The opposite effect could occur if meeting lofty scaling goals requires an ever increasing cost of customer acquisition beyond the point of unmet initial pending demand.

When the scaling process itself is what drives the activity without being limited by the actual buying power of the ultimate consumers at any one point, things can really get ahead of themselves. Accounting practices can be so diverse that the only way to be sure whether scaling ahead of the curve was actually "economical" is after liquidation ends up occurring.

Unfortunately, liquidation of one kind or another is more likely when the scale is based on hyperbolic dreams rather than more reasonably optimistic estimates. But who's to say which is which, and the continuum between them is blurry enough without any highly interested parties trying to muddy the waters even further. Who even knows if they've given it as much thought as it deserves, or if more clear-headed thinking could be the primary factor given what there is to work with :\

Hence the designation "Hyper-Scalers".


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: