You really can't do it without regulation. For an electrical grid to work, there has to be lots of regulations that assure the power generation meets standards that make the power usable (including phase, frequency, preventing surges and brown outs, safety, etc). Electrical grids simply cannot function without regulation, at least to set and enforce standards.

That said, existing regulation is not so onerous. Anyone can stand up solar (provided space), wind (provided space and zoning), at fairly low cost. Hydroelectric is tough as it requires rivers, and damming those up affects lots of people. Nuclear is complicated for fairly obvious reasons, and burning "stuff" spews out harmful gases (and regulations impose reasonable limits on those; they probably should require capture and sequestration since the air pollution incurs huge costs that are passed on to consumers and non-consumers alike and in equal proportion).

FWIW, the Model 3 is considerably more efficient than the Model S. More like 350 miles on an 82 kWh battery, but the point is well-taken. Charge times are typically given for 10-80% (70% of the capacity), so 700 miles takes 164 kWh battery x 0.7 = 114.8 kWh charge. In 10 minutes, that would be 688.8 kW charging -- a LOT of power. That's not to say that there's not proposed megawatt chargers (mostly for trucks), but that may never be practical for passenger cars. Most people with BEVs do almost all their charging at home, and if you've got 10 kW coming out of that charger, then it's going to take a while to fill.

Large commercial vehicles use a different standard than cars: MCS.

Tesla has more >150kW chargers deployed than the rest of the industry right now. There are higher power CCS chargers out there, but relatively few. Tesla v4 chargers are 500V or 1000V with 615A. Max is 307kw for 500V and 615kw for 1000V. There are a few pilot sites, but these will be the replacement for the v3. Also, Tesla will not be the only supplies of NACS charging â" you still have EA.

NACS supports 1000V. Whether Tesla offers degraded charging to non-Tesla cars in the US at SuperChargers is unknown, but you wouldnâ(TM)t be limited to using the SuperChargers.

The question is who will have the most >400V chargers deployed by 2025 - Tesla or Electrify America? EA has the lead as theyâ(TM)ve started already (though have not deployed many) and Tesla has only a small number of v4 charger pilots.

Historically, Tesla has rolled out more chargers per year than the rest of the industry combined, so if they deploy more v4 in 2024, they should pass EA easily. They have a big advantage too in that their chargers cost about 1/3rd as much to install.

To be fair, the Tesla connector was rolled out >2 years before the first CCS spec was ratified. It was CharIN that introduced the incompatible connector.

The question is long, but mostly for the illustration, which makes it clear how it will be graded. I suspect the reason that so many got 0 points is that they used up all of their time on the preceding 3 questions and jut didn't get to question 4. That's a fault of calibrating the time to answer on the part of the test designers.

I remember in February of 2022 reading (Detroit Free Press, I believe), comments from GM to the effect that they expected to replace the Bolt with the Equinox in 2024 as part of their move to the Ultium platform. That was repeated in several other places in the first half of 2022. I guess people forgot, or that they felt there would be some overlap.

Touch displays make sense for a tablet, and UI's centered around that sort of interaction, but aren't particularly a good idea for the laptop form-factor. There's the ergonomic issue of holding the arm up and moving back and forth between touch pad, keyboard, and screen. There's the issue of finger prints. Most importantly, though, is that touch UIs have different considerations that non-touch UIs. Touch targets need to be bigger and consistently sized; they need to be laid out to accommodate the hand obscuring parts of the display during interaction. The touch UIs are designed not to use keyboard modifiers for the pointer interactions. The touch UIs also use up screen real-estate much differently.

I don't know that Apple has anything to gain from adding a touch screen to their Macs. For cases where it's appropriate, their tablets are appropriately suited for it.

This is, indeed, quite complicated, and right now most of the costs associated with it come from two things: the ad hoc nature of it (it's labor intensive and can only be done by a small number of groups), and licensing of technology (mostly various things related to CRIPSR). Patents on a lot of the CRISPR tech are already half-way to expiration, but there's considerable desire to monetize it ASAP - so somewhat reasonable licensing fees are expected.

With regard to the ad hoc nature of it... It needs to be reduced to practice. The software to perform the predictions needs to be validated. However, most of the technology used here is rather mundane contemporary molecular biology and could be automated with reagents packaged in kits. It would require companies to offer a service to do the analysis and prepare the cells, but the price will ultimately come down to how broadly applicable the approach is -- the volume of the treatments will ultimately set the price.

Keep in mind that whole-genome sequencing went from costing a few billion dollars in 2003 to less than $500 today through computer algorithm, automation, and advances in molecular biology.

The tricky bit here, though, is the regulatory hurdle. This is essentially a form of genetic surgery performed on immune cells. The closest thing we have to it is CAR-T. The regulators are still coming to terms with how to review, approve, and regulate these approaches.

I concur. Studio + decent 5K monitor is very pricey. I don't think that the M2 design would allow adding RAM slots, but it would be nice if they would add 2-3 user-accessible SSD slots, and move the SD card slot to the front or side edge (and maybe add a Thunderbolt port there too).

Out of curiosity, I just used A Better Route Planner to plot a route for a Tesla Model 3 to do a Canonball Run (Darien, CT to Los Angeles, CA). The 2842 mile route requires 19 stops for charging and is estimated to take 46 hours and 22 minutes, which includes 5 hours and 56 minutes of charging over 19 stops along the way. This is slower than the Canonball Run record of 32 hours and 51 minutes, but ABRP is assuming that you'll not exceed the speed limit by more than 5 mph along the way.

The longest stretch between stops on its route plan is 188 miles. If you tell it to maximize stops, it increases it to 31 stops with a max 142 miles (between IL and IA). If you tell it to minimize stops, 15 charges with a max 233 miles between (CO to UT).

They should use quarterly, not monthly, registration data.

Some vendors are not delivering every month. In particular, Tesla tends to deliver all their orders at end of quarter. If you look at the monthly figures you see all sorts of weird month-to-month swings. If you look per-quarter, it's much more consistent and intelligible.

I had seen Wish ads and had always assumed that they were a wholesaler for prostitute and OnlyFans supplies. I never suspected that they were trying to be an Internet dollar store. Seriously. The only thing I've every seen ad for from them are cheap sleazy costumes and weird lingerie. Perhaps if they advertised table covers, cleaning supplies, and squirt guns I'd have checked them out.

I mean, X is weirdly complicated and bulky overall, but it works very nicely for running GUI apps remotely. Where's the robust and universal replacement?

Specifically, I periodically used to use it remotely over X11 or using an X VNC service, and all was well. For some time now, there have been issues accessing it from remote X servers. It seems like it insists that it run local and have a certain level of XGL support. Iâ(TM)ve never found a functional work around. Since then, Iâ(TM)ve been less of a fan.