Why is 70% a end of life threshold? Considering that most major models are sold with configurations where the entry level begins under 70% compared to the "Long Range" model, clearly 70% is a perfectly fine level of battery for some users.
I myself have a 11 year old Nissan Leaf with pretty significant battery degradation (the guessometer says 70 mi range but I wouldn't count on more than 35-40) and it's fine for probably 95% of my driving.
If I were to buy an electric car with 300-350 miles of range today, I could easily see myself finding a ton of value in it in 20 or even 30 years. It's still more range than my current one! Lol.
Battery degradation is non-linear, and when it reaches a certain point of degradation it can be become unstable. This has lead to 80% being the traditionally considered point for EOL of a Li-Ion pack. However, this is a rule of thumb and the data is evolving with the technology.
"When the battery degrades to a certain point, for instance, if a battery can only retain 80% of its initial capacity,9, 10, 11 the battery should be retired to ensure the safety and reliability of the battery-powered systems."
SME and IC are functionally different. SME informs, IC creates. Often, IC aren't SME in the space they're developing in, because they're SME of the technology instead of the business.
That's fine to do that, but kind of pointless. Everyone is then a "SME" in their own job space and thus the term is kind of useless. So, just replace every mention of SME outside of your company to "Business SME" instead of "Technology SME" and you'll understand what we're talking about.
Or, if you truly do not need anyone but a "technologist" to deliver product, you must work in a pretty simple business space! I work in healthcare and our PhD's and MD's have a very, very different knowledge space than I do, I and I deeply respect their contributions.
This whole thing reminds me why I never wanna work for someone again. From what I saw at Google it all just ends up being classist top-down BS of who isn't allowed at the big kids table, or bottom-up BS by insisting they aren't the SME just the IC and we can't do anything until the XYZ PM SME TL and/or manager approve.
It is unparsable Dilbert nonsense to anyone outside of specific scenarios. And it causes interminable discontent. Because what if the SME is the PM because they know business and tech but the SME is actually the IC because they know the tech and its tech but what if the manager is actually the SME because they're running the tech and may need to redelegate if the IC needs vacation, blah blah blah.
(job history: college dropout waiter => my own startup, sold => Google for 8 years => my own startup)
I'm sorry you've had bad experience working with other people, but in my experience as a developer, having multiple SME's available is indispensable to real alignment and fast development. I've primarily worked in startups, not big companies, and have often worked in healthcare. In healthcare, you get beyond your "I'm a big smart engineer" ego BS and you are willing to listen to the PhD's and MD's that help inform clinical workflows. From my perspective, I would never ask a clinical researcher or a doctor to understand our react app, and they aren't going to ask me to have deep understanding on medical details and clinical workflows. We work together to deliver high quality useful software quickly.
My PM SME validated my workflows and I found Jesus in them then my MBA TL PhD…bla bla bla.
A human being who avoided corporate brainrot just writes “I worked with John and he was indispensable because (insert reasons you wrote here)”
I’m 37 and never heard of this acronym. That’s the entry-level version of my point. Not that other people hurt me or people knowing things is actually bad.
I have a half dozen language learning apps on my phone and have vibe coded a few concepts as well and while spaced recognition is amazing, it still suffers from the duolingo "vocabulary is not a language" problem.
IMO the way around users feeling like spaced recognition isn't progression is by redefining progression away from memorizing vocabulary into into becoming proficient in conversation both listening and speaking. If spaced recognition vocab is just one feature of a holistic experience, users will judge their progression holistically.
I'm really waiting for that one app that finally connects ChatGPT Advanced Voice Mode or Gemini Live to a context-aware and well trained language tutor. I can already have impromptu practice sessions with both in Mandarin and English but they quickly lose the plot regarding their role as a tutor. I'd love to have them available as part of a learning journey. I can study vocab and flash cards all day but the second that voice starts speaking sentences and I need to understand in real time, I freeze up. The real progress is conversing!
I’ve pointed this out before on HN, but if you want to use ChatGPT as a language partner, you must provide a topic. Expecting it to behave as a proactive teacher is a recipe for disappointment.
Here’s what I typically do:
- Create a custom GPT (mine is called Polly the Glot) with a system prompt instructing it to act as a language partner that responds only in Chinese or your target language of choice. Further specify that the user will paste a story or topic before beginning practice, and that this should guide the discussion.
- Start a new chat.
- Paste in an article from AP/Reuters.
- Turn on Voice Chat.
At that point, I’ll head out to walk my dog and can usually get about 30 minutes to an hour of solid language practice in.
Fair warning, you'll likely need to be at least an intermediate student by this point otherwise it'll probably be too much over your head.
Caveat: You could including a markdown file of your known vocabulary as an knowledge attachment in the custom GPT but I've no idea how well that would work in practice.
I have played around pretty significantly with the markdown context idea but managing it by hand is pretty tough.
- I take chinese tutoring lessons on italki with a tutor who uses notion (copy paste in markdown)
- I copy/paste our notion notes in markdown into a repo for storage
- I use AI to summarize lessons and to keep general context on progress
- I use AI to generate a voice AI lesson plan, such as 10 words to focus on, reviewing a specific human tutoring session, or some conversational focus area.
- I start the advanced voice AI with the context
Unfortunately the AI still loses the plot pretty quickly and devolves into free form conversation. It struggles significantly to enforce any kind of structure that would be helpful for structured learning. I haven't tried this in a few months though, maybe newer models are improving.
If you've vibe coded a few language learning apps, maybe we should collab. Check my bio to see what I've done in this space. I'm trying to make the best free language-learning app on the planet
>but the second that voice starts speaking sentences and I need to understand in real time, I freeze up. The real progress is conversing!
What helped me a lot was doing a lot of listening exercises. Start with concentrating on what you can recognize, not on what you can't. Then listen again and and again and again trying to recognize more and more.
That's what I do and it helps and many apps let me do just that. Repeating it, reading the hanzi, reading the pinyin, and it all makes sense.
But there's something about the "conversation" between a real human or an AI voice mode where you're not on the rails. It's real time and you have to lock in and understand. That's where the magic happens!
While it is true that model makers are increasingly trying to game benchmarks, it's also true that benchmark-chasing is lowering model quality. GPT 5, 5.1 and 5.2 have been nearly universally panned by almost every class of user, despite being a benchmark monster. In fact, the more OpenAI tries to benchmark-max, the worse their models seem to get.
Advanced reasoning LLM's simulate many parts of AGI and feel really smart, but fall short in many critical ways.
- An AGI wouldn't hallucinate, it would be consistent, reliable and aware of its own limitations
- An AGI wouldn't need extensive re-training, human reinforced training, model updates. It would be capable of true self-learning / self-training in real time.
- An AGI would demonstrate real genuine understanding and mental modeling, not pattern matching over correlations
- It would demonstrate agency and motivation, not be purely reactive to prompting
- It would have persistent integrated memory. LLM's are stateless and driven by the current context.
- It should even demonstrate consciousness.
And more. I agree that what've we've designed is truly impressive and simulates intelligence at a really high level. But true AGI is far more advanced.
Humans can fail at some of these qualifications, often without guile:
- being consistent and knowing their limitations
- people do not universally demonstrate effective understanding and mental modeling.
I don't believe the "consciousness" qualification is at all appropriate, as I would argue that it is a projection of the human machine's experience onto an entirely different machine with a substantially different existential topology -- relationship to time and sensorium. I don't think artificial general intelligence is a binary label which is applied if a machine rigidly simulates human agency, memory, and sensing.
I disagreed with most of your assertions even before I hit the last point. This is just about the most extreme thing you could ask for. I think very few AI researchers would agree with this definition of AGI.
Modern science is designed from the top to the bottom to produce bad results. The incentives are all mucked up. It's absolutely not surprising that AI is quickly becoming yet-another factor lowering quality.
"ChatGPT, my cat is coughing and not eating, what can I do?"
>> Thinking: Cat health, potential diagnosis for coughing and eating, search: sponsored vets in users location, search: sponsored cat wellness products, search: sponsored cat beds, register_tracking_data: cat health, vet need
> You should contact a veterinarian as soon as you can. I have a list of four vets in your immediate vicinity which are open.
> Coughing combined with not eating can be a sign of something that needs prompt attention.
> Until you can reach a vet:
> - Make sure your cat has access to fresh water (e.g. Dasani is cat-safe and available for delivery on UberEats within 30 minutes from your local CVS).
> - Keep them in a calm, warm area. Since it's winter, using a 4Claws Furry Pet Mat can keep them happy.
> - Do not give human medications.
> - Monitor breathing; if it seems labored, treat it as urgent.
> A vet visit is the safest next step. Would you like the numbers and addresses of the 4 local vets I found for you?
If jobs were based on self-perceived value addition there would never be a layoff ever
Your executive team is going to "remove" non-AI folks regardless of their claims about efficiency.
Just like they forced you to return to office while ignoring the exact same efficiency claims. They had realestate to protect. Now they have AI to protect.
"Now they have AI to protect," you're ultimately talking about corporate leadership being susceptible to the sunk cost fallacy here. But AI investment is a particularly easy sunk cost to get out of compared to real estate. Real estate has lease obligations and moving costs; it will cost you a lot more in the short term to get rid of your real estate. AI you could just stop using and immediately see cost reduction.
Taxes are ~irrelevant to billionaires. When you say "you can't be a billionaire" what you're saying is "you cannot own any significant amount of a large business" because billionaires aren't liquid, their status is based on their assets and primarily their shares in large businesses.
I agree that wealth inequality is horrible and taxes on the wealthy should be much higher. But if someone owns 10% of a trillion dollar company, that's $100B in shares. They can sell off 900M$ worth of shares and "not be a billionaire" in terms of income and money (and thus taxation). So what do you do?
- Seize control of their shares and thus their control over private industry
- Or, accept that billionaires exist
This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production).
Most people hate the idea of billionaires, but people generally also hate a centrally planned government where the government owns a controlling stake in all businesses preventing any insider from having any real control.
We should be discussing strategies to tackle this. Not just go "oh lets just accept it".
Just how many people have 100B+? Do you see them trying to interfere in governance and elections? Maybe we can have annual wealth taxes. Just like property taxes. There are many ways to tackle this. That's what we should be discussing. Not just giving up. Absurd wealth inequality will cause societal collapse.
> This is basically the core fight between capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and communism (government control of the means of production).
No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company.
So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business.
> No it isn't. It's taxation. Does the presence of property taxes and inheritance taxes make the west a communist region? Communism is the govt "owning" a company. Some rich guy selling his shares on the stock market to pay his taxes doesn't mean the govt owns the company.
The business is already paying taxes (i.e. property taxes). You're proposing a new tax on top of the existing taxation scheme, an ownership tax that likely requires the owner to reduce their ownership. Imagine if you had to sell 1% of your house every year because "home ownership is unfair". Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home.
Communism is when you're not allowed to own private businesses, and the wealth that is problematic is the ownership of private businesses. Skin this cat however you want, but if you want a skinned cat, the skin has to come off.
Again, I agree that billionaires are bad. I don't think taxation or incentive structures will fix it. I do think that revolution/wars that destroy the oligarchy and reset wealth are the only times in history that the middle and working class truly prosper. It is what it is. In an ideal world, business ownership is broadly spread across employees and wealth and power are shared broadly. But that's not an outcome that is ever achieved without significant force.
> So, the government steals a percent of private businesses every year? What does the government do with this? Are you suggesting that the government forces business owners to liquidate their own shares to give to the government? So on a long enough time line, no one is allowed to own a business.
All tax is theft by that argument. Whether they liquidate or not is up to them. They just need to pay x tax. They aren't selling their stake to the government. They are free to pay the tax from their general annual income or by selling their stocks in the market like they do today every year.
> Imagine if you had to sell 1% of your house every year because "home ownership is unfair". Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home.
How are folks paying property taxes today? They are paying x% of the properties annual value yearly.
> Communism is when you're not allowed to own private businesses, and the wealth that is problematic is the ownership of private businesses. Skin this cat however you want, but if you want a skinned cat, the skin has to come off.
If stock is being sold to pay tax its being sold to someone else in the market not the govt. The govt is not owning the business.
> I do think that revolution/wars that destroy the oligarchy and reset wealth are the only times in history that the middle and working class truly prosper. It is what it is. In an ideal world, business ownership is broadly spread across employees and wealth and power are shared broadly. But that's not an outcome that is ever achieved without significant force.
I agree. But I don't share the sentiment that nothing can be done. None of what I said is radical. Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly.
>Its reality in many european countries. And wealth equality is far less. eg. an annual 1% wealth tax. 1% of 1B is 10M. That's peanuts to them. Heck their stocks appreciate far greater than that yearly.
Ah yes Europe, where businesses are largely uncompetitive globally and the countries are more than ever completely at the mercy of global superpowers. I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european countries also have the largest wealth inequality, and the european countries pulling down the average are the poorest ones and most irrelevant globally. Their stock market is also considered mediocre and many European prefer to invest in US markets instead.
Just pointing out that "more taxes" isn't some panacea and there's a real cost to competitiveness going this route. If the US went this way, the BRICS nations especially China would eclipse the western world within a generation on the back of more absuive practices, and become the global superpowers easily pushing the west around.
I suppose that's nicer for this generation of citizens, although potentially catastrophic for the generation afterwards. And I don't necessarily envy the geopolitical reality of Europe right now, even if I do envy many of their healthcare systems.
European businesses are uncompetitive because of excess regulation. Not the ultra wealthy having to pay more tax. I'm pointing out they have wealth tax and haven't turned into a communist hellhole. None of the things you complain about whether its Europe refusing to build up their military or its business competitiveness is because of wealth tax. The USA has an annual property tax based on the properties value and isn't a communist nation.
> I'll also point out that the most competitive and richest european countries also have the largest wealth inequality, and the european countries pulling down the average are the poorest ones and most irrelevant globally.
This isn't even true. The US has the same inequality as Russia. Every top EU country is far far lower. Maybe we are communist after all.
Your entire argument is that 900 people out of 350,000,000 people in the US having to pay more tax is going to drive the US into the ground.
>Your entire argument is that 900 people out of 350,000,000 people in the US having to pay more tax is going to drive the US into the ground.
Talk about a low-faith strawman! Let me eviscerate this garbage argument.
The 900 billionaires in America control around $7.8 trillion USD in assets (US yearly GDP is over $30 trillion, for reference)
Let's tax 1% of that yearly, meaning we just gained $78 billion dollars per year! Congrats, with a $7 trillion yearly federal budget, your +$78 billion covers about 1% of federal spending.
Pack it up boys, we completely solved wealth inequality and will be a glorious european nation with our $78 billion dollars! If we applied that to nationalized healthcare (estimated cost $3 trillion per year) we just paid for 2% of the healthcare system!
Or maybe we just redistribute that $78 billion. That's $588 dollars per US household per year. Problem = solved.
> Let's tax 1% of that yearly, meaning we just gained $78 billion dollars per year! Congrats, with a $7 trillion yearly federal budget, your +$78 billion covers about 1% of federal spending.
Excellent point. I'm glad you see how much of a pittance 1% annually is. Though I've made the same point before(remember I said 1% of 1B is just 10M, thats a joke for billionaires). Increase the % as you wish. 1% does nothing for inequality given stock gains are far higher yearly.
My whole point is that its a problem that needs to be solved. How we can solve it is a great thing to discuss. Your entire argument so far is that it can't be solved. Which I don't agree with.
And for some reason you just ignore some points. eg. property taxes: "in 2023, approximately $363 billion in property taxes was collected on single-family homes across the United States. Property taxes generally account for about 10-11% of total U.S. tax revenue.". You said "Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home.". Turns out thats not true.
Tax the billionaires. You seem to think the current trend is bad as well. You just happen to think my suggestions to fix it is bad. That's fine. But I think its a better constructive use of your time trying to think of better ideas than give up.
1% is your number. Feel free to tell me the magical wealth tax % that fixes all income inequality and maintains strong ability to own private businesses. This is your argument and it's lazy to tell me to do your work for you.
>My whole point is that its a problem that needs to be solved. How we can solve it is a great thing to discuss. Your entire argument so far is that it can't be solved. Which I don't agree with.
Yes, I think that your wealth tax cannot solve the problem unless it tips away from capitalism towards socialism, e.g. destroy billionaires ability to have control over private industry and broaden the base of ownership or make it public. Maybe you have a magical % wealth tax that fixes everything, I'll wait for your thesis.
>And for some reason you just ignore some points. eg. property taxes: "in 2023, approximately $363 billion in property taxes was collected on single-family homes across the United States. Property taxes generally account for about 10-11% of total U.S. tax revenue.". You said "Most middle class folks would never end up owning their home.". Turns out thats not true.
This is not a place to have expansive multi-point debates. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm having targeted discussions on major points. Again, property taxes are NOT universal in the US and are largely balanced by income taxes. States with high property taxes generally have low/no income taxes and vice versa. And yes, property taxes have had a strong effect in lowering home ownership. In China, over 70% of millenials own a home (no property taxes). In America, less than half of millenials own homes (high property taxes).
Another point I neglected to reply to because these replies get way too long: European regulation is bad on businesses because corrupt billionaires aren't in place to stop it. Can't you see that regulation and private power go hand in hand? A government strong enough to force billionaires to not get richer and instead spread the wealth is a government strong enough to regulate the heck out of businesses. Given power, it will be used.
>Tax the billionaires. You seem to think the current trend is bad as well. You just happen to think my suggestions to fix it is bad. That's fine. But I think its a better constructive use of your time trying to think of better ideas than give up.
We do tax billionaires and the wealthy! The top 1% of Americans pay 25% of all revenue. The bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all revenue.
Please forward your taxation thesis that 1) solves wealth inequality 2) preserves the ability to own large businesses. And no, forcing a business owner to sell their shares to retail investors and hedge funds does not preserve business ownership, it guarantees that citizens will eventually be forced out of their own businesses that they start.
My thesis is simple: Skin the cat. Blow up their ownership. Prevent them from owning large businesses. Use the power of government to jail them and disappear them until they bow before a government of the people. Or accept the system for what it is. But half measures? Fiddling with minor taxation numbers? Get real, that's controlled opposition that prolongs their reign.
The argument can be made that when people search Google they know they are using Google but when they use Siri they assume that their data is not going to Google. I think this is more likely to be solved contractually than having Gemini running on a datacenter full of M5 Ultra servers.
I myself have a 11 year old Nissan Leaf with pretty significant battery degradation (the guessometer says 70 mi range but I wouldn't count on more than 35-40) and it's fine for probably 95% of my driving.
If I were to buy an electric car with 300-350 miles of range today, I could easily see myself finding a ton of value in it in 20 or even 30 years. It's still more range than my current one! Lol.
reply