Even with "expensive" electricity, and using your worst case scenario, it's still usually cheaper to charge 400 mile EV from 0-100% (another worst case scenario), than it is to fill up an equivalent gas vehicle. Even before the current gas prices spike.

But let's use your "worst case" scenario.

Worst case 300 mile EV charge (100%, during peak hours): about $50

Filling up a highly fuel efficient ICE vehicle: about $40

Of course, if you only charge the EV to 80% (as is recommended, and more efficient), and only set it to charge it off-peak (as is normal), then the numbers are much better. There are, of course, worst case scenarios, but it's actually hard to make an EV more expensive than an ICE vehicle.

I would say that to charge an EV with a 350 mile range to 300 miles would be about $25 here in California. Right now, a 300 mile range tank of gas is easily $60 or $70.

You have to lose the old mindset of a gas vehicle, ie, you "fill it up" once. EVs are much more convenient: it takes 10 seconds to plug it in when you get home and then the next day it's fully charged - and they're almost all grid pricing aware.

Like, on my BMW PHEV, if I try to fast charge during peak times, the charger actually makes me confirm i want to spend more, instead of trickle charging until 8PM.

There's a difference between buying a GMC Pedestrian Destroyer and a Honda Civic.

Certainly true, but my 1989 Honda Civic would still be obliterated in a collision with a modern one- everything has grown substantially.

A modern civic, some of which arent much larger than yours, would have a much better outcome.

well, you voluntarily purchased a condo without deeded parking. if you want private storage for your private vehicle, pay for it.

i have a sports car and two motorcycles, and consequently, i did not buy a condo in the mission. instead, i bought a house by 19th street bart and my commute to the city is shorter than some of my coworkers who live half as far as me (by distance).

"sounds"? How about you do the math? Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense.

Waymo will never be a serious option until they fix the insane surge pricing. And yes, they're working on it.

> “I never got my driver's license, and I rely on Waymo to commute to an office every day," said Sarah Paige Roland, a Waymo rider in Phoenix. "I get privacy, time back, a safe ride, and I'm not obligated to talk to someone that I don't want to talk to. Adding cash back and priority pickups on top of that makes Premier a no-brainer for someone like me."

I get what they're trying to say, but their pitch boils down to: "use waymo if youre too stupid to get a DL and too antisocial to talk to people". Bit rough. They really could have done a lot better with this PR piece lol.

> use waymo if youre too stupid to get a DL and too antisocial to talk to people".

-or- use Waymo if you don’t want to spend resources on owning and maintaining a car, and if you are part of the population that has or may feel too intimidated or unsafe to navigate a potentially adversarial conversation with someone more powerful than you, such as women.

sure, and im saying they could have done a much better job communicating that

I read The Smithsonian Magazine decades ago. That kind of writing isn't new for them, IIRC.

Now, if you want to say that they wrote in the same annoyingly pretentious way that AIs often do, I could agree with that...

LLMs got it from somewhere

Right, you have to set boundaries. You put each task and user input into a box, and then the LLM makes a decision. It can only access APIs that have user identity attached, that act within the scope of the requesting user.

It can be done, but unsurprisingly it looks exactly like microservices distributed auth (also ZTP).

It's all the same problem, just instead of a JVM, it's an LLM.

User identity attached is not a solution, it doesn't solve anything if you have to pull in external data that you can't control.

Like in the banking world, you can make everything super authenticated, but if you have an API that receives the latest wire transfer YOU received with the message attached, you don't control the message content and it can be an attack vector.

Being authenticated/authorized is not the solution, it is data that the user can access.

You mean like for the first 20 years or so of Apple and Microsoft's history?

You can disable the control that prevents deleting the app (SIP).

SIP is only one part of this, you also would need to disable SSV.

^ How can you make such an obviously wrong statement

Go ahead and try. It's not like "any other app".