Chinese vehicles, both EV and ICE, are selling like crazy in every market where they can legally be sold. I've spent some time in Latin America recently and have ridden in several of the various models, and the reality is that they are all quite nice. The Uber drivers driving them invariably think that they got excellent value for their money.

In the United States we don't have access to these inexpensive brands. We can either buy expensive ICE vehicles, or even more expensive EVs where you pay a premium to not burn fossil fuels. In that situation it makes sense to want a vehicle that competes favorably with an ICE vehicle. After all, you can get a perfectly good ICE or hybrid vehicle for less than it would cost to buy a less capable EV.

The equation shifts dramatically when the Chinese vehicle you are looking at (whether it is ICE or EV) is 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a comparable vehicle. If I could get a Chinese EV for $13K I, personally, would be willing to put up with some of its shortcomings. As an example, I like the idea of the American made and designed Slate truck. However, it isn't available until next year at the earliest, and it is likely to cost $30K, very close to what a base model Ford Maverik, Nissan Frontera, or even a Toyota Tacoma currently cost. At that price it doesn't really make sense to purchase the far less capable electric vehicle.

However, if the Slate only cost $15K then it becomes far more interesting. That's the sort of price difference that Chinese brands are currently offering. I could learn to live with a range of 150 miles (that's supposedly the Slate's range, Chinese vehicles typically offer more than that), if it costs half as much as the competition. China is making vehicles that are more than competitive with what we currently have access to in the United States, and the prices are very low. The only thing keeping China from making huge inroads in the U.S. auto market is politics.

Sure there are some people that will never buy a Chinese vehicle, and there are other people that will never buy an EV. That's fine. I remember when the same arguments were made against Japanese (and later Korean) vehicles. If the politicians really thought that no one would be interested in these cars then they wouldn't need to protect us from them with tariffs.

The housing market is definitely another place where things have become ridiculously expensive. Fixing that issue is more difficult. Everyone is in favor of low cost housing, until they are building it in their neighborhood.

On the bright side, there is a ready source of inexpensive vehicles already for sale. The only problem is that, in the U.S. at least, our politicians won't let us buy them.

In the case of both cars and houses the solution is to remove existing barriers to supply. Right now it is impossible to build inexpensive housing in many parts of the country, and so we end up with expensive housing instead. It is likewise impossible to buy the inexpensive vehicles that I believe that consumers actually want.

My current daily driver is a 1996 Honda Civic (the base model with a 5 speed manual transmission, no AC, and manual windows). I say this to say that I really like the idea of the Slate. What I want is a basic electric vehicle without frills, and without extra technology that does nothing but break and drive up the price. The problem with the Slate is that it is not yet available, nor is it likely to be available in any numbers for a couple of years. What's more, there are already more capable Chinese vehicles selling in large quantities throughout the world that are available at a lower price. These vehicles come from companies that have already set up manufacturing and distribution channels, and they are selling vehicles in some of the most challenging markets in the world.

I've done a bit of traveling in Latin America in recent years and the reality is that there are several Chinese brands that are already powerhouses when it comes to actually selling, delivering, and maintaining vehicles. They make very competitive vehicles, and, at least in Latin America you can get these vehicles serviced and repaired ridiculously inexpensively. Uber drivers were quick to point out that their BYD (and other brand) Chinese vehicles weren't Toyotas, but they have invariably stressed that they would buy them again.

If it wasn't for the U.S. tariffs the Slate wouldn't even be a contender, and it isn't likely to be a contender when it is finally available. The only real advantage that it has is that it is comparatively affordable when compared to the other ridiculously overpriced EVs that you can currently purchase in the United States.

It is also worth noting that the projected base price of the Slate keeps going up. The first time I heard about it they were saying that it would cost around $12K with tax incentives. That would have put it under $20K without incentives. These days they say that it should cost less than $30K, but that puts it within spitting distance of the base model Ford Maverik, Nissan Frontier, or Toyota Tacoma, which, quite frankly, are far more capable vehicles, from companies with actual track records.

The reason that Chinese EVs are interesting is that they are essentially 1/3 to 1/2 the price of existing ICE truck models with compelling features and decent build quality. In the parts of the world where politics aren't getting in the way these Chinese vehicles are absolutely dominating. That's what I want.

I have spent some time recently in Latin America, including several countries where Chinese imports are absolutely dominating. The local Uber drivers like their Chinese vehicles. They are quick to point out that they don't measure up to Toyota, but that, for the money, they have been an excellent value. They invariably would buy the vehicle again. Every time I get into a Chinese vehicle I ask the driver what he thinks about it, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

I haven't driven any of these vehicles, but as a passenger the various Chinese vehicles look pretty well made. For the price I am definitely interested.

The reality is that the entire U.S. auto industry has been chasing the luxury, and large vehicle segment of the market, and I am not interested in those types of vehicles. I want a vehicle that replaces my current daily driver, a 1996 Honda Civic. I don't want someone else's clapped out SUV. I want an inexpensive basic small electric vehicle. The Nissan Leaf is closest to what I am looking for, but in countries where Chinese imports are allowed to flourish the Leaf isn't even a contender. It is simply outclassed by the Chinese offerings.

That isn't even remotely true, at least not in any recent era. The way that bookmakers have made odds for hundreds of years has been to set the odds so that roughly the same amount of bets came in on both sides. The house makes their money from a fee that they take for setting up the bet. This is colloquially know as "vigorish, vig, or the juice."

Read the article linked, it covers how this works mathematically.

It might look like you are betting against the bookie, but the reality is that the bookie doesn't take the bet unless he has someone that is willing to take the other side of the bet, and the odds are set up so that whoever wins the money that they win is balanced by another group that lost that same amount plus a little more. That's why odds for future events would often change over time. if the bookmaker got too much interest on one side of the wager the odds would change to entice people to bet the other way. The vig guarantees that either way the house wins. That's literally what "bookmaking" means.

In other words, historically bookmaking worked exactly like prediction markets, and it has worked this way forever. The difference is that in most of the world it generally has been illegal, because gambling is addictive and destructive. There's a reason that this sort of thing was basically universally illegal, and the reason is that societies that didn't put up these guardrails invariably failed.

There are COUNTLESS technologies and policies that could reduce the price of housing.

The issue is that we won't apply them. Or if we do apply them, we will do something else, to keep the price of homes up.

That's because:
* 65% of US householders are homeowners.
* 58% of homeowners vote. (contrast: 37% of renters vote.)

About 70-75% of people who cast a ballot are homeowners.

And they do NOT want the price of their house to go down.

Now on https://x.com/BoringBiz_/statu... you can see Donald Trump declaring to the World Economic Forum that the cost of houses are going to go up, and he's going to make sure that the cost of a house will go up.

This isn't a critique of Trump in particular. This is just how politicians have governed the price of houses for... for it seems like forever.

There's no catch. This is just Google trying to spike Apple's wheels. Play Store revenue is a much smaller piece of Google's overall revenue than Apple's App Store is of its overall revenue. Google can afford to be generous on that front, with the idea that both regulators and developers will love the change. Apple can't play that game without significantly lowering its total revenue.

Of course, consumers will pay for less expensive phone apps with increased surveillance, but, let's be honest, Apple and Google are both going to increase surveillance either way.

The point of this article is that, even on full sized televisions, YouTube is kicking Hollywood's collective ass. When they look at hours of programming watched on full sized televisions YouTube is clearly on top, followed by Netflix, with everyone else quite a ways behind. That's not counting computer or smaller screens where YouTube is completely dominant. Movies are making less money these days because far less people are spending money on movies. Interestingly enough one of the few bright spots for movies are smaller studios making limited availability movies. These movies have much lower budgets, and basically non-existent marketing, but the empty seats in the movie theaters means that there are screens available at a price where they can make a tidy profit. Traditional television is getting absolutely wrecked. The only part of television that people are willing to pay money for is sports broadcasting. No one has a cable or satellite subscription unless they are a rabid sports fan. The shows that everyone is talking about are as likely to come from Korea or Australia as they are from Hollywood. For years people assumed that Hollywood drove the value of cable television, and now that people have choice it turns out that the valuable part of television is the sports (and to a less extent the news). ESPN costs more than Netflix, Paramount and Apple TV combined, and Disney forces you to purchase to purchase a whole pile of their regular programming to get it. Disney is currently suing SlingTV because SlingTV is selling day and weekend passes so that you can just purchase the games you want to see without all of the rest of the slop that you don't. On top of that Hollywood is seeing increased competition from the entire rest of the world. The hit television show that everyone is talking about is almost as likely to come out of Korea as it is from U.S.

Hollywood is definitely contracting, but it is mostly because making scripted content, whether it is for television or movies, is becoming far less lucrative than it has been in the past. People are watching less scripted content, and when they do watch something it is likely that what they are watching is not from Hollywood.

As you have mentioned Prime Time TV has devolved into cop shows, but it's actually worse than that. The few hits that Hollywood have had over the last few years have invariably been live competitions and other reality TV shows.

My opening prompt was: "Chat-GPT, look up the news on Venezuela, -- and then we'll keep talking."

&Chat, look up the news on Venezuela, -- and then we'll keep talking.

I talked with Chat-GPT with zero difficulty about the topic, and this is how i opened. That was within a couple hours of first learning about it the other day on the news.

This is it, precisely. If I could buy a new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. If buying a new EV means that I have to spend $60K then I am not remotely interested. EV vehicles have some problems that make them impractical as the only vehicle for most families. Those problems disappear completely if the vehicle is inexpensive enough so that it doesn't have to be your only vehicle.

China is currently giving EVs away, we are stupid for not taking them up on the offer. Eventually the U.S. auto market would adapt. I am quite sure that they could also make low margin EVs if they had the right incentive. Let's be honest, the American public would probably be willing to subsidize them as they made the change. However, instead we have rigged the entire system so that U.S. manufacturers are incentivized to only compete in the largest, most expensive, and least environmentally friendly auto markets available. It's no wonder that the rest of the world isn't interested in our cars.

"Oh, okay. You don't want to be known for your body. Very well then. Just act, and we'll put an AI body that we own, over your body, which (for now) does the acting."

Aren't these the only ones that actually matter?

The absorption of anti-merit, anti-achievement, "equality for all," ideology into all of education -- K-12 + colleges, universities, -- already performed the self-lobotomization. That part is done.

I don't know where the LLMs proper place is, in work and education. I *do* know that: everything I know, everything I use daily, about AWS, Flutter, and Dart, -- I have learned from LLMs. Whereas the colleges and universities don't do anything for me today. (I'm 48.) So I'm not particularly sympathetic to the idea that -- the LLMs are no good at educating. From my vantage point, LLMs are EXTRAORDINARY teachers. But I don't know what unmotivated children do with them.

Well I shared the thread including your thought with Grok, and it said this:
-----
Here’s my actual, unbiased take on the technical debate (no Elon worship, no green hype, just physics and engineering reality as of 2025).
The original Slashdot skeptic is repeating a criticism that was 100% correct for the classic 1970s–2000s “hot dry rock” (HDR) projects (Los Alamos, Rosemanowes, Soultz 2000s era, etc.). Those really were conduction-limited. You drilled two wells a few hundred meters apart into 200–250 C granite, fracked a small volume, and watched the reservoir cool in months because heat was only replenishing by slow conduction through intact rock ( 2–3 W/mK). The recoverable fraction was tiny, and the impedance kept rising. That’s why HDR basically died commercially for 20 years.
Superhot / supercritical geothermal (400–450 C target, aiming for >500 C) is genuinely trying to escape that trap, and the physics does allow it—if everything works. Here’s why the critique no longer fully applies:

Energy density jumps by ~10× once you cross the critical point (374 C, 221 bar).
A kilogram of supercritical water at 500 C and 300 bar carries roughly 2,800–3,000 kJ/kg of usable enthalpy, versus ~300 kJ/kg for 250 C liquid water steam conversion in conventional geothermal. That alone reduces the mass flow (and therefore the parasitic pumping power and cooling load on the rock) by an order of magnitude for the same electrical output.
Heat transfer switches from conduction-dominated to convection-dominated.
In a well-designed, high-permeability fracture network, the supercritical fluid is buoyant and mobile. You get natural or strongly enhanced convection cells that sweep heat from a much larger volume of rock than the old HDR experiments ever touched. Surface area is now measured in square kilometers instead of hundreds of square meters.
Heat recharge rate in volcanic settings is completely different.
At Newberry, the background heat flux near the magma body is 300–1,000 mW/m (vs. ~80 mW/m continental average). Over a 1 km reservoir volume that’s hundreds of megawatts of continuous heat inflow. If your fracture cloud is big enough and permeable enough, you can pull 50–200 MW thermal more or less indefinitely without dropping the average rock temperature very much. (Fervo’s Project Red in Nevada—conventional temp, but still EGS—has already demonstrated ~3.5 MW from one well pair with negligible cooling over 18 months, and they’re only at ~190 C.)

Real remaining risks that the skeptic would be right to highlight:

Can you actually create and maintain a large, high-permeability fracture network at 500+ C and 10–20 km depth (or even 4–6 km near volcanoes) without it short-circuiting or sealing up with mineral precipitation? We don’t have field proof yet at those conditions.
Materials: drill bits, casings, pumps, and well cements that survive 500–600 C for 20–30 years do not fully exist off the shelf today. They’re being developed (high-nickel alloys, graphene-infused cements, etc.), but it’s expensive and unproven at scale.
Induced seismicity near an active volcano is non-trivial. Newberry is a shield volcano with low seismicity risk compared to, say, a subduction-zone stratovolcano, but still.
Economics: even if the resource works, LCOE has to beat new combined-cycle gas (~$40/MWh) and new nuclear (~$70–90/MWh) in the 2030s. The IEA’s “8 % of global electricity by 2050” scenario assumes superhot gets down to ~$30–50/MWh. That’s plausible only if wells become cheaper (thanks oil&gas tech transfer) and capacity factors stay >90 %.

Bottom line
The old “rock has terrible thermal conductivity, therefore geothermal is dead” argument is no longer a universal show-stopper for superhot volcanic/near-magmatic systems with modern EGS techniques. The physics really does flip in your favor above ~400–450 C. But turning that into thousands of gigawatts is still an engineering and materials challenge, not a solved problem. Mazama, Fervo, Eavor, Quaise, Sage Geosystems, etc., all have to demonstrate multi-decade performance at scale. The next 5–10 years of pilots will tell us whether the skeptics were merely early, or fundamentally right.
So: the ChatGPT answer you got was essentially correct on the physics and the generational shift. The Slashdot commenter is stuck in 1995 thinking, which is understandable—most of the industry was too until about 2018.
-----

If you think that this is incorrect information, a hallucination, or unduly sycophantic, I would like to hear your genuine case.