Speed holes, eh?

And a total lack of zoning, or jurisdictional restrictions of any sort (save Isaac Newton). No one whinging about noise, water consumption, land use, or any of that. No state/local/federal politicians to pay off. No public meetings where you have to at least pretend to care about local citizens' concerns...

I've got no retort for that. But the potential upsides listed above are compelling enough that you better believe the AIntelligensia will keep trying to make it happen.

That statement lacks any kind of historical context. "Realtors in the market for over 2 to 3 decades" ought to recall that for long stretches of time, the interest rates we see today would have been seen as 1) normal, or 2) a bargain. The recency bias of seeing 3% a few years ago was a bonkers-crazy anomaly.

A 30-yr mortgage today comes in around 6.25%. As it so happens, that matches the introductory 5-yr rate on the ARM I used to buy my first house 20 years ago. My parents like to tell me that, when they purchased their home in the early 1980s, mortgage rates were around 12-15%! See here for historical data.

Higher mortgage rates do make it harder to buy a home. And for someone sitting pretty on a 3% rate from refinancing a few years ago (like myself), it makes selling not very appealing. But to say the higher rates of today "have f***** everyone over" is half wrong, and wrongly implies some grand conspiracy with malicious intent. Home ownership rates have hovered in the mid-60% range for decades, with almost no correlation to interest rates.

You need to also look to home prices for the "f***** everyone over". Those prices have increased at wild rates, doubling since the 2008 recession, and going crazy since COVID. The higher costs have various reasons, but it's mostly because of a serious supply shortage. That contributes at least as much to the "what's my monthly payment going to be?" as interest rates.

Consider $385k @ 3.7% - the average sale price at the average rate circa 4Q2019, just before COVID: monthly payment $1772.
Now consider $385k @ 6.5% - same price, but at today's rate: monthly payment $2433. Ouch.
Then, consider $515k @ 3.7% - today's average sale price at 4Q2019 rate: $2370. Also Ouch: the increase in home price is about as bad as the change in rates.
Finally: $515k @ 6.5% - today's average price at today's rate: $3255. Bloody hell!

The monthly mortgage payment has roughly doubled since COVID, but interest rates are just one part of the picture. You could whine about the Fed, but 30-year rates are more closely tied to the bond market than to the Fed rate. Those higher 30-year bond rates are driven by 1) uncertainty about the future, and 2) the US Government's wild, irresponsible deficits. You won't really be able to do much about interest rates. But you can do something about home prices by advocating for more home building and density. That's driven by state and local policy, which you do have some influence on.

Musk brought xAI (maker of Grok) into the SpaceX umbrella. SpaceX is reasonably profitable, xAI is burning money. So Musk, who controls both companies, incestuously merged them together to cover the losses. Musk has pulled similar self-deals to merge X (formerly Twitter) into xAI last year, and SolarCity into Tesla years before that. SpaceX/xAI has a large AI datacenter that its leasing to Anthropic, and has plans to build its own AI chip fab (in partnership with Tesla - more corporate incest). And SpaceX is pretty bullish on using its rocket capabilities to make AI Datacenters in Space a real thing (or, at least, that's what they're selling to IPO customers). Plus SpaceX has StarLink, which isn't AI exactly, but certainly adjacent.

So while you might think you're buying into a rocket company, at least 20% of the valuation is xAI+Twitter, and a lot of the projected future growth is in datacenters (on the ground and in orbit). Without the AI fluff, there's no earthly way to justify a $1.25T valuation just on being able to launch rockets and StarLink. (Even with the AI, the valuation is still bonkers - costs vastly exceeding revenue for years into the future.)

Just what we need: the ability for anyone to publish a vibe-coded Android app.

Brings to mind a famous joke from George Carlin.

One can get multi-Gpbs radio links from orbit, but it tends to be 1) physically large and heavy, and 2) quite power hungry. These demonstrators are 6U cubesats, meaning the optical link equipment is really compact and power efficient.

For comparison: the NASA TDRS network, used for providing feeds from the ISS and telemetry from a bunch of LEO satellites, can manage 0.8 Gbps in the Ku-band. But those satellites are house-sized and use >1kW. NASA has been doing experiments and demo missions to use optical links for higher bandwidth.

Another comparison: Starlink satellites have a couple kW of electrical power available, and each one can do a few Gbps on its radio downlink. But it uses optical links to achieve up to 200 Gbps between satellites for backhaul.

Trump has no compunction about giving contractors your money, especially is he's "a friend of ours"

I came here to say the same. It's awfully dispiriting to know that the FBI and marketplace place as much value on the civil rights of everyone as it spends on Kash Patel's and his girlfriend's travel and security.

Perhaps Schmidt's speechwriter ought to have checked his references. He was supposed to say, "The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves."

On a per-mile basis, EVs are already cheaper. Compare a Model 3 using 0.25 kWh/mi at $0.20/kWh (charging at home, US residential rates) versus a similarly-sized sedan getting 38 mpg at $3.00/gal. The Tesla's "fuel" cost is $0.05/mi; the sedan's is $0.08/mi.

Cheaper electricity helps - such as using off-peak metering or residential solar. More expensive gas also helps - like misadventures in the Middle East, or a gas tax that reflects the actual costs of highways and environmental damage.

That's a pretty simplistic generalization. BEVs account for about 6% of new vehicle sales in the US, and have been as high as 10% in recent quarters. [ref] In California, it's like 13% market share. That's small, but hardly "no one". By comparison, muscle cars are about 1% of new car sales.

Put differently: if "no one" wanted EVs, then how does Tesla keep turning a profit?

Family of five! Sorry, Maggie!

That seems disproportionate. I don't know what your local electric rate is, but guessing it's around $0.20/kWh [ref], that's 4500 kWh each month, or 150 kWh per day! The typical US household consumes something like 30 kWh/day [ref].

I suggest you find yourself an energy audit. Your local utility or state government probably has a program where it would be free-of-charge or heavily subsidized. They could help identify things like inadequate insulation or sealing, outdate/inefficient equipment, etc. Oftentimes, the auditor could also provide a swag at what various improvements might cost, and an estimated payback period. In your case, with your waaaay-beyond-normal consumption, I expect the payback would be very short.

You may also consider contacting your utility directly - usage that high 1) they ought to flag as being anomalous, and 2) could be an indication or an out-of-calibration meter.

You jest, but there is some real truth there. Consider: Homer Simpson is a dolt with a high-school education. And yet, with this walk-on job at the plant, he's able to provide a family of four a decent lifestyle on that single income.

That was plausible when the show launched 35+ years ago. Today, that scenario seems fantastical. [1] [2] [3] [4]

I've seen a few concepts, like the kinda out-there Saloon. But I wasn't aware that they were producing any EVs, at least not for the North American market. A pity, too, since their hybrid powertrains are pretty good. I understand that designing/building a BEV is a different paradigm than a hybrid, but like Toyota I can't understand why the leap is so hard to make.

So....quit before they've even tried?