It's a scheme to convince people like the OP that it provides value when it doesn't, a scheme to sell to people like ShanghaiBill who are easily exploited due to their greed and entitlement. Down the road, it might be worthwhile if it doesn't degrade your future battery technologies.
For most it's a feature worth paying nothing for. Build it into EVSEs for free.
"Getting a second useful job out of the most expensive part of an EV makes sense. "
No it doesn't. First, it's not a "second useful job" very often, if ever, and not for many buyers, plus it decreases the lifetime of the "most expensive part of an EV". It's an option, it doesn't make sense for many people, perhaps any when you consider the long term cost.
"a reasonably priced way to keep the fridge and lights running is a pretty appealing extra..."
For many that's a rare problem. For others there are alternative solutions that don't wear your vehicle out.
"Making the hardware affordable is a good start; the electricity savings still have to survive the subscription bill."
For the subset that could receive any benefit at all. I get no value out of such management, my electric is flat rate. Plus I don't have a service interruption even once a year.
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's "useful".
The Apple fanboys by the first version, and every version, of everything made by Apple. Only the noobs don't know this.
The question with this device is why you'd want one even if it was flawless. Overwhelmingly unappealing unless you're 7 and want the world's most expensive gameboy without the games.
straw man central. You'd think bots wouldn't be so stupid.
The iPhone was a copy of existing smartphones. Apple copies it, then there's a relentless propaganda campaign, then Apple invented it.
But the F700 was not the original smartphone and no one even remembers it. Microsoft, in fact, made devices like that before Samsung or Apple. Nokia did as well. There was an entire market for smartphones prior to the iPhone.
Apple did do multi-touch, though, although only two touches and almost nothing exploited it. And Apple bought that from another company. Their touch keyboard, though, was a big improvement. Too bad they didn't even support applications, their web browser was worst in the industry AND they didn't do MMS. Steve Jobs didn't even use a cell phone, Apple didn't even know what texting was. Email was what everyone wanted, that was literally the Jobs claim. Never forget, Jobs thought email was the solution for phones, no one wanted text. He was some genius, and GREAT to his kids...
MTBF is not a calculation, although it may be estimated using one.
"Wear-out failures aren't always different from infant mortality failures, though."
That are completely different issues, always different.
"If the defect is caused by a design flaw in a component resulting in a structural weak point, that same weak point could fail after one use or a thousand, and it could just be a ticking time bomb. Someone could get very unlucky and find one that is slightly weaker, and it could break much sooner."
That would be reflected in a low MTBF rather than the example "MTBF of 600000 hours".
"Case in point..."
Do you really understand what that means? Because it seems clear you don't.
What a moronic post.
Applying for HR? Can't lose with that post!
I can't find a single redeeming word in this post. Who ever wanted to replace themselves with a computer? And what "traditional logic-solving algorithms" are being referred to here?
I guess the oldest
"Since you still don't understand words, a discussion can involve counter-arguments"
Particularly in argument-type discussions. It seems quite clear that you do not understand that argument is a type of discussion. Perhaps you can use AI to do some research on that topic, but be careful! Watch out for that reasoning.
Really, what is that? Sure it tells YOU everything YOU need to know, but that doesn't impress anyone.
"...think it is a search tool, you won't benefit from it."
False.
"Learn to use it to research."
Right, as a search tool.
"Stop believing the "AI is just a token predictor" nonsense..."
Stop believing an LLM is EXACTLY what it is?
"...you will quickly realize that it posses the ability to reason
It does, or it does not, depending on what an "ability to reason" is. I am certain you don't know.
"...and can function as a very well informed counterpart to bounce ideas off of and learn knew things."
No one disputes that AI is "very well informed", however AI proves incredibly inept at interacting with humans productively. The burden in on humans to understand the limitations of AI and to recognize when not to trust it. You seem incapable of learning that.
"For a business the only criteria for success is if it increased profit."
False. This says more about your assumptions that it does about business. Businesses can have most any goal, profit is a limitation you impose, it is Wall Street thinking.
"The few that do make it work for them can actually get ahead for now."
False, both for the assumption that "the few" is greater than zero AND that "the few" won't have competition from other members of "the few".
"... how widespread are proven AI skills to modernise and actually get ROI or ROAII
You're fully committed to the religion. What AI skills? What AI enablement?
"Sure I can make myself look like an anime ninja in the world setting of TRON but how do I monetise?"
Become a content creator? Or perhaps you are already. AI offers known capability, proven ways to "make it work", but you want to assume capability that is not yet demonstrated. No amount of bias in the language you use is going to be convincing.
"There are use cases where a return can be made but no one said it's easy and most won't manage it...as with all new tech."
And you prove to be someone who can't tell the difference. Sure, AI can generate YouTube videos, doesn't mean it is generally a useful business tool.
OS/2 must die!
