This confirms you are just spouting numbers, half the Tesla lineup MSRPs under $40k and I’ve seen battery replacement bills regularly in the $6k range. Continue being mad and misinformed.
I don't get how it could cost more to replace the battery than to buy an entirely new car that also has a new battery. I bought my Nissan Leaf for $13.5k after a lease.
A million different pieces of engineering, primarily, that the battery is designed to be much easier to replace than disassembling the entire car like the Fiat is.
I have several of their fabric mounts, one for a backpack and another for a dog collar, they’re more expensive than the cheap knockoffs but the quality is top notch and they’re worth every penny.
Wrong. It's more about money. People who run ISPs have said they don't support IPv6 because they won't see any return on the cost. These ISPs use CGNAT and like to solve customer "issues" by selling them a static IP. They would sell far fewer static IPs and actually have to look into issues rather than dilly dally around a bit so the static IP "fixes" the issue. They like to blame issues on other nefarious customers causing shared IPs to be banned or something like that.
In a lot of cases on a residential line you can't even pay for a public and/or static v4. The option simply doesn't exist. Many ISPs just force you to buy a "business" package for 3x the cost with a bunch of other features you may not need.
This talking point has been debunked since the 90s. Any device capable of doing NAT can perform the even easier task of filtering packets.
Even if you do decide to toss your router and connect directly to the internet it’s a lot less risky than it was in 1998 when Windows 95 didn’t have a firewall. I doubt IPv6 is going to make many people decide they want dumber gateway devices, however, since the cost differential hasn’t been meaningful for ages.
I cease to understand how the average HN commentator doesn’t see Tesla as the leader in this space, and my only guess is all the FUD media around them.
If you have a Tesla, you know that it’s far and above the best driver-assist software in the entire market, and next place isn’t even close.
Sure FSD isn’t Waymo, but it’s entirely different tech and it can drive infinitely more places than the two cities Waymo supports.
V13.2 is probably close to 1000 miles per critical intervention now. Geofence it, avoid stupidly dangerous UPLs and fix some map issues and they're already on par with Waymo. Next version has 3x the number of parameters and 3x context length. If you know anything about scaling laws you wouldn't be betting on Waymo right now.
They are using them correctly. That is how Tesla tells Rivian owners to use them. Tesla is updating their chargers with a longer cable to make this less of a problem over time.
Apparently that's the recommended way from Tesla to do it, per that thread. Do they not make extension cords you can use with the charger cables so you charge from other angles?
To add to the understanding of why there aren't just extension cords for these, those cables are liquid cooled. You pretty much need the right sized cable the first time to handle this much power.
Tesla is rolling out stations with longer cables. Supposedly, there will be more long cable V4 supercharging stations than the older short cable version in 18 months.
Rivian placed their charging port on the front left corner, while Teslas have ports on the rear left corner. So to charge a Rivian at a Tesla Supercharger, you have to park in the adjacent spot and plug in.[1]
More Supercharging stations are adding "trailer compatible" spots, so this should become less of an issue over time. I would also bet that EV manufacturers will standardize on a port location similar to how gas vehicles have. (Early gas vehicles often put the fill hole in places like the dash or under the seat.)
Longer cables have significant disadvantages. They cost more. They're less efficient, meaning they charge slower and/or require more cooling. They contain more metal, making them more appealing to thieves. They get tangled and damaged more easily. That's why Tesla made their cables so short and standardized on a charging port location.
I'm sure future charging stations will have some long cables for vehicles with odd port locations or trailers, but I don't know if every charger at a station will have a long cable. Considering the disadvantages of long cables, it makes a lot of sense for manufacturers to use one location for the charging port. That allows owners to use as many chargers as possible. And it would mean that anyone driving an EV wouldn't have to remember where the port is on their specific vehicle.
The cables are going from a cabinet many meters away from the dispenser to the dispenser. They could go another 3-4 feet and suddenly support a lot more vehicles.
Or Tesla could have placed the dispensers to the sides of even some of the spaces and alleviated the issue.
But Tesla envisioned only the few Tesla models to ever charge at Tesla chargers, so they designed them with tight tolerances.
Both of those companies have much higher costs per charger than Tesla. Kempower doesn't make their prices public, but the cheapest I could find was $50,000 for a 1 port 50kW charger. A dual port 200kW charger was almost $200,000. Alptronic's chargers are $50,000 for a 1 port 75kW charger and $90,000 for a 2 port charger with 300kW total output. Those numbers are just for the hardware. That doesn't include costs for installation, land, or grid connection. My best estimate of Tesla costs is around $41,000 per plug, and that includes all of those extra expenses.[1]
Sadly, the graveyard of failed companies is full of ones that made amazing products. Kempower's revenue has been going down over the past year, and they've burned through half of their cash reserves in the past few quarters. They've decreased headcount to reduce costs. I hope they pull out of this dive, as more competition is great for consumers. But it really is the case that fancier chargers are significantly more expensive. So much so that it's hard to make them profitable.
The chargers shouldn't have been made so short as to only ever accept 2-3 models of cars with identical charger placements. But they were designed to only work with a few Tesla models, so they weren't designed with flexibility in mind. Even Cybertrucks towing have a big issue with the vast majority of existing deployed chargers.
Lots of ICE vehicles have their gas inlets in a number of different spots. Some even have them behind the rear license plate! And yet people don't seem to have an issue getting gas in their cars.
IMO having the vast majority of chargers at the head like that was a bad decision. Putting them on the side of the spots makes a ton of sense and really opens up a lot of flexibility.
from my understanding this is addressed with the new v4 supercharger stations that are coming online now. its not just a rivian problem its the same with Ford EVs as well.
What caught me out was the random argument that undocumented (see: illegal) immigrants should receive social security benefits. By the very definition of how documentation works this would be impossible, so I’m assuming the author is advocating for extending citizenship en-masse.
Yet until 1996, any worker who payed into social security (which includes many undocumented immigrants) was entitled to its benefits. The source the author linked makes this clear.
> When the Social Security program began paying benefits in 1940, there were no restrictions on benefit payments to noncitizens.
> In 1996, Congress approved tighter restrictions on the payment of Social Security benefits to aliens residing in the United States. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)23 prohibited the payment of Social Security benefits to aliens in the United States who are not lawfully present, unless nonpayment would be contrary to a totalization agreement or Section 202(t) of the Social Security Act (the alien nonpayment provision).24 This provision became effective for applications filed on or after September 1, 1996. Subsequently, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 199625 added Section 202(y) to the Social Security Act. Section 202(y) of the act, which became effective for applications filed on or after December 1, 1996, states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no monthly benefit under [Title II of the Social Security Act] shall be payable to any alien in the United States for any month during which such alien is not lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General."
Also, many (maybe all?) documented non-citizen immigrants are eligible for social security if they meet the other criteria, so there's no reason to assume the author is arguing "for extending citizenship en-masse". Nor even that they are arguing for more visas being granted at all
Keep in mind that "undocumented" is a term-of-art. They may in practice be extremely well documented, in every regard except for an active visa.
A significant portion of "illegal" immigration is folks who have overstayed a legitimate work visa (and hence obtained a social security number during the visa application process), and there's also the whole bucket of folks who applied for a social security card under the DACA (which protections have since been mostly rescinded).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration#Terminolog... "undocumented" is a euphemism since "illegal immigrant" sounds like the person is illegal (vs having done an illegal action), but it has the unfortunate effect of leading to exactly this kind of confusion.
