Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:There is no unmet demand in the US (Score 1) 134

If we were to get vehicles at near China's prices its hard to argue that demand for evs wouldn't improve.

Not necessarily.....most of the folks that want and EV, have one.....there just is NOT the demand for them here in the US that you have in other parts of the world.

A lot of this is due to the recharging infrastructure not being in place unless you live at the extreme west and maybe the east coast too.

I live in the New Orleans area....and from the maps and charging station finders I've seen we Still have precious few public charging stations anywhere in this area....

This is typical for most of the US.

With that comes range anxiety, and there's a TON of people, about 1/3 of the nation's populace that can't charge at home due to being in apartment complexes with large parking nots and no chargers or renting homes without chargers out side or no off street parking.

Unless you own your home and can charge at home, it's just a PITA to deal with and EV over here for a significant % of the populace.

I don't want one.....wouldn't work for me.

Comment Re:Isn't this the idea? (Score 2) 105

Only the legitimate and quality ones. The author of curl [github.com] has been receiving a variety of reports that were generated by AI, none of which are legitimate.

That's a strawman argument. We're not talking about Curl. Curl's dev's took a different approach to what was going on and specifically determined they aren't legitimate and took no action. On the other hand FFMPEG devs looked at it and ... fixed the bugs.

So by what metric do you determine that this isn't legitimate and quality? The FFMPEG devs seemingly deemed it worth their time to take action after analysing the case.

Comment Re:Fixing CVE Slop? (Score 1) 105

Again, whoever read this "slop" decided that there was sufficient reason to then proceed to fix the bug. Why call it "slop"? If you felt the need to fix something then by definition it provided you with valuable information.

I agree Google should invest more in open source and that AI tools are creating newer and higher workloads, but right now it doesn't look like the work is worthless - based on the actions of the very team complaining about it.

Comment Re:90 days, huh? (Score 1) 105

Except that's the case for many bugs across many pieces of software. That doesn't make the bug less severe, it just makes the likelihood of being affected lower.

It's also one of the cases for depreciating and removing old code, precisely because someone somewhere will be running with it on by default. You say "included by default" and I ask "by whom"? I must have some 20 copies of the FFMPEG libs on my computer with all the different software packages that include them using compiler flags unknown to me and out of my control.

Comment Re:The Gema is a pesky bunch. (Score 1) 39

They're still stuck in the steam age of media technology

The problem is not Gema, it's that the legal system is stuck in the 50s and 60s and doesn't have written logical precedent for the kind of thing AI does. Gema are just a bunch of dicks, but the problem is currently the legal system *sometimes* agrees with them. That's the thing that needs to be addressed.

Comment Re:Use the existing rules. (Score 1) 39

Hearing a song is not copyright infringement.

Memorizing lyrics is not copyright infringement.

While you're absolutely right, the current state of copyright law and technology is at a disconnect. We're in a world where we need to convince people of such analogies (and even here on Slashdot the idea of hearing and memorizing isn't clear (I'm in the AI doesn't memorize department, it doesn't store an original copy), so that analogies start applying in a legal context.

What we need is for laws to actually exists which address this curious situation of a computer "learning" from what it sees or hears. Currently we don't have any which is producing wildly inconsistent outcomes across the legal field.

Comment Re:There is no unmet demand in the US (Score -1) 134

The main US market isn't fully convinced to go EV. The early adopter segment is happy, but that's a very different group of people than the main market. Totally different circumstances, different needs, different concerns, ...

Indeed, the US market has different concerns than much of the rest of the world.

In the USA we have the geography, and lack of political barriers, which allow us to drive for very long distances. The early adopters that are willing to tolerate the longer stops for a recharge, versus a refill of go-juice that takes much less time, have all pretty much got their BEV by now. There's going to be people buying new here and there as their new cars become old but that's a much smaller market than the initial growing market while BEVs were a novel item.

I know the BEV advocates will try to make the case on how its no big deal to have to recharge than refill but there's also horror stories still of people needing to have their BEV towed because they could not find a place to recharge in time.

Actually transitioning from the early adopter market to the main market is notoriously difficult. A well known and well discussed topic.

Perhaps this is a topic that has been well discussed but are people listening?

As best I can tell the idea of getting a PHEV is popular in the USA, so long as it offers all electric commuting while offering the ability to burn hydrocarbons for long trips and such that could make charging inconvenient or difficult. From what I've seen too many PHEV options available have a very short all electric range, at least compared to the average American commute. The typical American commute is about 40 miles round trip, or that's what I recall from looking that up before. That seems about right from what I know of other people's driving habits. A quick search of the web tells me quite a few PHEV options get only 25 (-ish) all electric miles on a single charge so that would meet the all electric commute needs of about 1/4 of American drivers? Something like that. There's a few PHEV options that can get in the 40-50 mile range on a single charge, so half of American drivers could get an all electric commute with those? I'd guess so, that's kind of the definition of average.

What I expect to be popular would be people seeking a BEV as a second vehicle, something for a household with multiple drivers to use for their commutes but then use their primary vehicle for long trips. This primary vehicle may be a PHEV so as to get some of their daily miles on electric power but Americans aren't ready to go all BEV yet. Americans may never go all BEV, or at least not likely in the lifetime of anyone alive at the time I'm typing this. There's a huge problem with battery energy density and recharge time that will not be easily solved. We'd need a large shift in infrastructure to make battery-electric transportation practical for large potions of the market, and that would take decades to build unless there's some World War Part Two level shift in industrial output. Americans understand the depth and breadth of ICEV options because we've been soaking in it for 100 years. The BEV as we know it today didn't really exist 20 years ago, and since their introduction they've been offered as high-end and high-price options.

To get maximum miles of driving in North America on all-electric power looks to me like pushing he PHEV as the best option for a primary or only vehicle, and the BEV as a secondary vehicle for multiple vehicle households. I've been seeing plenty of advertising for PHEVs lately so that's already happening. I don't know how willing the BEV makers would be willing to tackle the middle and low end market. That would mean shifting from the idea of the BEV as a sporty and/or luxury vehicle to what middle income parents would buy for their teenage children to drive to school and such. That would dilute the "brand" that is the BEV and I can expect automakers would be reluctant to go there as that can impact their ability to sell other BEV options.

Comment Re:Exported deflation (Score -1) 134

Our market is just too small to for Chinese automakers to justify complying with our North American standards when the US will never ever allow them in. On the other hand if we allowed cars meeting European standards in, that would open the door to a ton of Chinese vehicles coming here.

I can see a problem with allowing European standard EVs into the USA and Canada, charging ports. If I'm reading things correctly in how the charging standards work North America uses NACS, and Europe uses CCS2. The switch to both in their respective regions has been fairly recent and before this switch it was common to see CCS1. Maybe China automakers can take advantage of this and ship EVs with CCS1 to both regions, and including the relevant adapters to the new standard. That's not likely a long term plan though, especially if the automakers already made the switch in their manufacturing to CCS2 since switching back would mean reversing any changes to manufacturing, and that may not be easy since there could be a big change downstream from the charging port since CCS1 has single-phase AC while CCS2 has 3-phase AC. CCS2 can operate with single phase power but it seems that could impact the power it can transfer, and getting more power is why they made the switch to CCS2.

There could be other big issues in allowing European cars into the North American market. I don't know how difficult it could be to work these things out. I expect a lot is riding on making NACS universal in North America which is why I went there. Supplying adapters with the vehicles might be a violation of the rules that make NACS the standard, or at least be an issue for making a sale as people might not want to deal with the adapters with every charge.

Comment Re:Unrealized... hardly. (Score 1) 54

5. Multitasking = probably takes a bit more powerful hardware, costing more

Phones and tablets have supported rudimentary multitasking from the beginning. Some 15 years ago both iOS and Android introduced features to keep multiple apps active and running even if they weren't displaying anything. Split screening multiple apps were introduced on Android 7.0 in 2016.

There's nothing in the hardware preventing this. By the way iPadOS 26 introduced a full window manager.

Slashdot Top Deals

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...