With EVs, Tesla's the only one in the US not phoning it in. I used to think they were until I got a new Model Y Juniper.
I don't count Rivian or Lucid until they actually have even somewhat affordable EVs.
But pretty much everyone else in the US is doing a piss poor job with EVs and just don't seem to care at all. Ford seemed to have lost interest in the F-150 lightning.
I agree that trade needs to be a two way street. But I'm not convinced yet on "affordable" since these might be severely subsidized by the Chinese Gov to undermine domestic car makers across different nations. I say might only because I'm not 100% sure.
I do think they're missing an affordable SUV (something that's a true 3-row SUV like the Model X but cheaper). And Musk has teased something like that recently.
And Rivian is about to make an affordable SUV. So overall, I am hoping that there is a vibrant ecosystem of EVs from companies that actually understand software (as opposed to many EVs that have shitty software). Not sure about Lucid.
How do you like Model Y so far? I am eyeing that and a Rivian. The newest Y design is great (outside) and the price is where I want it. But I can’t help thinking that it will break the second I complete my signature for purchase/lease.
I absolutely love it. I had a Model 3 for 7 years before that, and that car (at least in 2018) felt like a slightly beta car. Manufacturing was a bit shoddy in places, but still was an _awesome_ car to have for 7 years.
But the Model Y seems like they fixed everything I complained about with the 3. Smoother ride, everything feels higher quality, and FSD (if you can get it) is just amazing.
Anyway with Teslas, you feel like you're living 10 years in the future from everyone else on the road. But Full Self-Driving makes it feel even more stark.
Like I said, at the price points of the Model Y (at its quality), there aren't too many alternatives. At least in Sept 2025 when I looked. I wish there were.
I don't count BYD because I was never going to buy a BYD even if it was available, because of how deeply connected these cars are nowadays. Maybe it's irrational, but giving the growing drumbeat of some sort of conflict with China over Taiwan, it doesn't seem prudent to have a fully connected car phoning home to the CCP.
Price point is a major factor. I am looking at other EVs but can’t get over how expensive some are (e.g. Taycan). Now I know there is an argument that a Porsche drives nothing like a Tesla, and sure, I believe it. (I own a Boxster). But the price gap is huge.
Thanks for the insight. The more I look at the Y the more it moves closer to the top my list.
You can tow. However you can't reasonably tow for any distance. You can probably even tow for most trips - but you will spend 1/3rd of the trip or more sitting at a fast charger in the best case (and in many cases the only charger is a level 2 chargers so many hours at the charger for every 1 driving)
I don't know how anyone who carefully and closely reviews their output could possibly think that. Much of the time their code is fine, but every now and again they make a catastrophic (though often well-hidden) mistake that is so bad that all the tests pass but the codebase will be bricked if enough of those go in. They make such disastrous mistakes frequently enough that a decent-sized codebase can't last for more than 18-24 months.
If the average programmer is this bad, then there must be better-than-average programmers reviewing the code. The problem with agents is that they can produce code at a far higher volume than the average programmer.
Anyway, I don't know how well the average programmer programs, but if you commit agent-generated code without careful review, your codebase will be cooked in a year or two.
> I think it is insane that people got into a situation where they had committed to a javascript runtime that had to "figure out how to monetize at some point".
Why? What's the risk? It's open source. Also, speaking of open source, we are happy to commit to open source projects that have no monetization, nor any plans to ever monetize.
I think parent commenter meant that what's insane is that js runtime is not treated as an utility which should never be monetized. It's as if GCC developers haven't figured out how to monetize, but they are willing to at some point.
If you don't think MAGA parents wouldn't force this on their children, you need to look up the history of MAGA and MAGA-types
Helicopter parenting is at an all time high. The same parents are loading Life360 onto their kids' phones and expecting them to keep it installed after turning 18.
You didn't answer my question and went around it with a politically correct socially acceptable platitude. Like how when people asked "if they think black lives matter" and they answered "I think all lives matter".
Because I'm not for or against religion, so I think it's equally important to be able to ridicule all aspects of the discussion.
To directly answer your question - yes, a very strong yes. But that also applies to all religions, and all of anti-religion. Anything else is disingenuous and hypocritical
Since this has turned into a "giggle about fans" thread, one of my favorite company names is Big Ass Fans [1]. They make really large fans for warehouses, etc. And their logo is a donkey.
I got three of their house fans from Costco a few years ago. Great fans - low power draw, good looks, includes a nice light, good noise profile, etc.
The fans didn't include wall panels, which I wanted rather than only remotes. No problem, I figured I'll order 3 of them from their site. However, there's an obvious bug in the shipping calculator, where the cost to ship three little wall boxes came out to $40+$40+$40 = $120. (And where the shipping page called this a "flat rate".) If I wanted to order 50 wall boxes, the shipping would be $2,000! The shipping cost was completely incongruent with other items in their shop - e.g. I could order 100 branded mugs for a flat shipping charge of $40. (And this is on top of the wall controllers that where already $123 each for some pretty simple electronics.)
I had probably a dozen support interactions over a couple weeks over both phone and email trying to get Big Ass Fans to fix their broken website and/or just put the wall controllers in a $30 flat-rate shipping box for me before we finally settled on a $55 shipping charge where I still felt like I was getting ripped off.
Congrats to the Zed team. I love that there's such a powerful and blazingly fast editor out there for us.
While it's been hard to use zed when the pull of claude/chatgpt desktop and terminal apps feel more full featured and take up more of the share of daily work, I continue to use Zed any time I do need to explore a codebase or review a markdown plan from an agent.
I hope that there can be improvements to the markdown preview because at least in my case, I'm using that feature a LOT these days.
It's all about who you follow. My feed is mostly AI people, entrepreneurs and nerds. Some political stuff gets through, but otherwise, I'm glad to be back on X in the last few months (I left a few years ago in disgust over the insane politics because even nerds were only talking politics).
No, that’s just solving for you. The person you are responding to is asking for an ethical stand; just because you can ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
This is the same bullshit that people bring up with Facebook, there’s no reason we can’t apply the same rubric to Twitter.
Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that he should leave a social network website because some of its users are bad? Or that the people that run the website are bad?
And also, there's some alternate microblogging site that is less hostile to truth and civility? Which site is that?
Lots of the users are bad, but the owner specifically tweaks and changes the algorithm to suit his own agenda and push his stance. That's what makes it an unserious platform.
> And also, there's some alternate microblogging site that is less hostile to truth and civility? Which site is that?
Mastodon, by definition. Any hostile instance can be left for a better one.
During one of the x threads where Mitchell was (legitimately) complaining about Github, there were a couple replies suggesting that GitHub should hire him to be their CEO.
And I remember seeing that and thinking "huh... not at all a bad idea."
There is a specific kind of leader that can turn such ships around, and they are strong in their convictions, and aren't just "managers", but visionaries coupled with strong execution and power to attract talent.
I think a new GitHub will emerge and when it's just right, will grow like wildfire (like OpenClaw, or even GitHub itself did during the SVN and SourceForge era). And many are already trying to be that new GitHub.
The old saying goes: Everyone only uses 10% of what MS Excel can do. But everyone uses a different 10%.
The same goes for Github to a degree. Yes, there are hot paths that "everyone" uses, but also areas where most people never wander and other use daily.
Google Docs doesn't do even 20% of what Office does, but it's a serious competitor anyway. That's because it implements a 5% feature that 80% of its customers use: instant internet sync.
At first I thought the KDE apps all playing on the K was kinda weird and awkward, but as time went on I really appreciated how easy it was to search for them due to this. So I really think it's a benefit to play on traditional words rather than use them as-is.
Names don't matter that much for brands. Names just have to be simple enough to remember (ideally two syllables or less). What the heck does Nike mean, for example? Boeing is just someone's name. Microsoft is just two words smashed together. A brand's name literally doesn't matter.
I often daydream about what a magical "life scoreboard" would have on it, some universe-aware program counting arbitrary things. I'd love for such a scoreboard to display "percentage of Nike shoe owners that know Nike is the Greek goddess of victory."
I would guess under 10%, and only that high because Nike sells shoes in Greece and Italy.
It does a lot but at the end of the day, if the core functionality is just not good anymore, maybe put all the side projects on the actual side and focus on how to make sure core functionality suck less.
For example - We adopted GitHub Actions, then we swapped it out this year. Our own primary use case is code hosting + PRs. We want it to talk to the other (better) tools that intended for their use case. We want it in a secure yet fast and available manner. Nothing else. I don't care about projects, issues, or whatever super app they're trying to become.
Every time Fossil comes up, people's big objection is that you can't squash commits. Personally, I'm fine with that - I tend to agree with Hipp that the repo history should not sacrifice truth for the sake of pettiness in the timeline. But a lot of people seem to disagree, which limits the audience for Fossil. I use Fossil for my own projects but I wouldn't expect it to become big like git is.
Mailing patches is the same as squashing commits. The Linux kernel would be much harder to maintain without messy history being carefully distilled down to well crafted patches.
But mailing patches is a pain in the ass. VCSes should support squashing and rebasing.
yeah that is true. i did manage a gitlab instance for ~100 developers (between 2019 and 2022) and yeah performance was shit. not gonna lie, i blame ruby for that.
if you accept the performance hit, it's great quality software though.
however, a fairly large company with 100-120 users (developers, devops engineers, QAs etc) and ~600 gitlab runners ran happily on a 8 core / 64gb virtual machine (hosted on a local vmware cluster).
> managing an on-prem instance is (literally) a full time job.
Hosting a Docker container is a full-time job? I have worked at several employers self-hosting their own instances without issues or a lot of effort. Many FOSS projects do, that definitely do not have a full-time guy for that. What are you talking about?
The problem is that what users want GitHub to be and what their owners (Microsoft) want them to be are disjoint.
If AI replaces software development the way that big tech company management wants it to, maybe they'll converge again. In the mean time, people want a git remote and they're getting an unstable host diluted with some flaky vibecoding bullshit.
Not really the fix you think it might be. That wouldn't change Microsoft's ownership, and he'd still be hamstrung by whatever cost-cutting, anti-competitive, user-unfriendly bullshit Microsoft wants to shove down Github users' throats.
He would pull them away from co-pilot and the unlimited spigot of money that agentic coding brings, which is contrary to the best interests of Microsfot.
> I think a new GitHub will emerge and when it's just right, will grow like wildfire (like OpenClaw, or even GitHub itself did during the SVN and SourceForge era). And many are already trying to be that new GitHub.
Really? I can only think of two: Codeberg and Sourceforge. Which are both great, but that's not what I'd call "many".
At least as far as I can tell, Gitlab seems to be used a lot more than the other two. I don't think I've ever gone to a page for a SourceForge project that was created after maybe 2012 or so, and although it's possible I've looked at a project on Codeberg or Forgejo, I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Meanwhile, I've run into projects on Gitlab (either gitlab.com itself or a self-hosted version) at multiple employers and various Linux codebases and packages (Plasma and Gnome desktop environments and other various windowing-related software, Arch Linux package sources, etc.).
I guess it's possible that my experience is wildly different than others, but if we're talking about volume of usage today rather than individual preferences, it's kind of shocking for me that someone wouldn't think to reference Gitlab at all in the list of potential successors, let alone not mention it literally first.
Note that SourceForge is very different from Sourcehut. Sourcehut is a self‑hostable software forge that can be interacted with by email even without an account. I'd forgotten about GitLab. I guess it's annoying enough that I repressed it.
Gitlab's interface makes me want to cry every time I have to use it. I would not recommend it to someone who misses classic GitHub. Codeberg/Forgejo/Gitea would be a much better match.
I haven't made a comprehensive list, but off the top of my head:
- frequently needed navigation links buried within menus within other menus
- menus labeled by mysterious icons, sometimes with mysterious text, sometimes with no text at all
- authentication system that has failed me in a variety of ways over the years, even locking me out of an account in one case
- client-side script execution required to do anything all, even simply display a file
As I said, I haven't kept a list, but GitLab is very much in the category of interfaces that were built by javascript fanatics who don't understand (or don't care about) ergonomics or privacy. I accept that not everyone is bothered by its many problems, but I avoid it when I can.
Doh, I completely forgot about GitLab. OK so that's 3 services. I'm only counting hosted services that aim at serving all comers and providing an entire platform similar to GitHub. Individual disconnected instances, while useful, aren't a replacement for the social aspect of GitHub.
I'm still holding out hope for distributed and federated git forges. The only compelling reason for everyone to centralize on GitHub is collaboration on issues/PRs without everyone allowing signups on their self-hosted forges. That could be achieved without hosting every line of code everyone's ever written in the same crumbling infrastructure.
It'll probably never happen. But it'd be really nice if it did.
> I'm still holding out hope for distributed and federated git forges.
Do you know that you can just send a patch via email (assuming you're not using the gmail web client)? You can even save the diff on some hosting website and send the link via any text medium.
I say this as someone who actually ran mailservers for about 25 years, who can telnet to port 25 and type SMTP to send an email, and who is hugely found of plaintext: I'd rather quit coding than move to that workflow. I loathe every bit of the pipeline of getting a clean patch from machine A to machine B, where I control at most one of them, and having it come out the other side with the same SHA256 digest. I don't look down on people who prefer it: to each their own! But I'll never in a million years understand it. Say what you will about the GitHub-style PR process, and there's plenty to say about it!, but there's a reason that devs outside LKML and the *BSD mailing lists pretty much immediately leapt onto GitHub the moment it became widely known. It was a revelation.
In this workflow, I don't think it's meant to have the same SHA1 digest. It's a workflow that's very much designed for a handful of core contributors (who have direct repository access) and gatekept one-off patches.
Some other accepted git workflows, like rebasing onto master, or even adding a "committed-by" or "signed-off-by", don't preserve SHA1 hashes either, and it seems you don't really need that property outside of closely collaborating cliques.
I get your point and maybe my tone was snarky (not a native speaker). But why would you want an exact reproduction on the other side? The diff format is human-readable for a reason, so slight errors can be fixed quite easily (if they do happen). Extracting patches from a well-configured MUA can be done quickly too.
It actually sits right about in the middle of all countries for percentage of GDP from industrial sectors.
It's pretty heavily fossil-fuel powered right now, but like most of the rest of the world Morocco is planning to capture most of its growth in energy demand with renewables. Because, getting back to the original discussion, it'd be idiotic to choose fossil fuels over renewables in 2026.
100% agree with you. Especially with the amount of sun they get, would be a great candidate for Solar.
Renewables also seem to be the best pathway for many nations to attain some level of energy independence (which is NOT the same as oil independence though).
Are you, like, just not very into reading things or remembering things or is it just one of those things where you're stuck in the 1980s and haven't updated your books since then.
I don't count Rivian or Lucid until they actually have even somewhat affordable EVs.
But pretty much everyone else in the US is doing a piss poor job with EVs and just don't seem to care at all. Ford seemed to have lost interest in the F-150 lightning.
I agree that trade needs to be a two way street. But I'm not convinced yet on "affordable" since these might be severely subsidized by the Chinese Gov to undermine domestic car makers across different nations. I say might only because I'm not 100% sure.
reply