> Good writing is about expressing and transferring ideas.
Not everything is a scientific paper. Good writing can also be art. There's a reason why Shakespeare wrote his 18th sonnet and not just "I think you're very beautiful".
Shakespeare had an exceptionally large vocabulary. He constantly used words his audience / readers didn't understand. And that's okay with you, because he was "expressing and transferring ideas". Except that it's not okay with you, because he didn't "use the words that [his] readers will understand and that express [his] ideas the clearest".
The idea a non-fiction text such as a scientific paper wants to express is (mainly) empirical.
The idea a fiction text such as Shakespeare's works wants to express is (mainly) emotional.
The exact meaning of words is more important in the former case than the latter, though not unimportant in the latter.
Shakespeare is one of the biggest outliers when it comes to reach as a function of complexity of language, and I don't think that generalizing from that specific anecdote is useful, especially as pertains to modern writers. I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
> I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
It's very easy to get published today, I just got published and so did you.
But sure, your advice is probably good if you are concerned mainly with commercial success. I would venture to guess, though, that most great, enduring writing comes from something inside the writer that they feel they have to express, rather than from looking outside themselves for the right "product-market fit." Some writers find a simple, lapidary style, others prefer more ornate language. Both can be great and I don't think we should call one right and one wrong.
What happens when you place your phone in the microwave (don't turn the oven on, obviously) and walk away with your speaker? I'm curious what kind of range you're getting.
For reference: I just tried this with iPhone 13 mini + WH-1000XM3 and the connection dropped after ~5 meters.
There is no one way of doing this. What you write is correct, but most people use the (IMO simpler) 3rd digit rule: the decade is decided by the third digit of the year. So 2020, 2021, ..., 2028, 2029 belong to the same decade, as do 2030, 2031, ..., 2038, 2039.
This indeed causes problems for the 1 - 9 AD decade, which only has 9 years this way, but most people won't care because we live in 2023.
> In another five years, and if a report in a Japanese newspaper is to be believed, Toyota will have the key technology for wide-spread adoption of battery-electric vehicles: Solid-state batteries with twice the range of today’s EVs, while charging only in minutes.
Well, it's six years now, but that doesn't seem that much of a delay?
There's just too much Bannon-esque "flooding the zone" these days...
And now, we wait for the entirely justified downvotes (though, this thread being so AG-ED* at this point, more likely I'm just talking to myself. Again...)
Not really? Mileage is probably the single largest thing people care about. If they never have to go to a charger and can just do it at home then it's a win.
Getting an EV with 200 miles that effectively is 120 is a joke. I couldn't even drive to and from work comfortably with that.
If you daily drive 60 miles (or more) each way to work, you might want to consider your life choices and what they represent. If nothing else, recognize that you're a far, far outlier and that technology and policy choices are not likely to be built around your needs & preferences.
> you might want to consider your life choices and what they represent
For most people who commute that far, their "choice" is not being able to afford rent anywhere closer where it's sufficiently safe and schools are sufficiently good.
It's also a catch-22 because even if those people could live closer to work, they would then need to park on the street, which would make the range just as -- if not more -- important.
What’s funny is, you’re both wrong and very right at the same time.
I’m sorry to tell you, only crazy outliers commute 100+ miles roundtrip to work (feel free to prove me wrong with real data) so current gen EVs are just fine in range for mainstream[1]. Just as some people NEED a snowplow attachment on their car because they live on a 5 mile driveway in the mountains, or NEED a v12 engine to pull a 20 ton RV, you will always have special needs with that commute.
But!! As far as Americans tending to absolutely obsess about range you’re right. Even dozens of non-outliers I’ve heard worrying themselves sick about “what if they do that road-trip they’ve been meaning to do.” And in a country where suburbanites buy $90,000 pickups and never even get the bed dirty with any kind of cargo, people will be buying vehicles with odd priorities in mind like the once-yearly road-trip.
[1] they’re not fine in infrastructure though since owning one without at least some home garage charger is certainly worse, and tens of millions of Americans live in apartments with garages and carports not even remotely equipped for even a handful of residents to electrify, and others just have to find a spot on the street. This is the thing really capping adoption today.
My EV has a WLTP of 300km. I can count with my fingers the times I've had to stop to charge it during my regular life. Half of those were just this month because I'm on my summer holiday.
All other times the car is sitting and charging while I'm doing non-driving things anyway.
Tesla also released the Model Y 4 years ago and now it may outsell the Corolla this year. What do the waitlist and sales for the RAV4 or Prius Primes look like?
They announced the Cybertruck that year and they still haven't delivered one, and ditto for the new Roadster 2 years prior. Tesla has demonstrated that long development cycles aren't bad, especially when creating a new tech (the Model Y is built on the Model 3 platform)
Weird how the largest pandemic in 100 years, supply chain issues, and huge demand for the Model Y made changing plans a good idea. That is what competent leaders do; make decisions in the best interest of the company, rather than adhere to arbitrary timelines. Maybe they should be making decisions like Toyota instead.
Perhaps pay attention to the topic of the thread, and not treat every Tesla discussion as an opportunity to prove your loyalty and defend the honor of Elon. We are literally discussing the idea that Toyota can take their time to get something right, because Tesla has done the same thing, to great success.
The cybertruck was largely a marketing exercise, and hype generator, same as the Roadster 2. They were "announced" in a time when Tesla needed all the spare cash it could get, so they opened up pre-orders that they had no intention of fulfilling for 4-5 years.
I’m in the market for a RAV4 plugin hybrid and the wait time here is at least a year if not two. I’d love a Toyota EV though, I have no interest in a Tesla so if Toyota truly entered the market I’d be all over it.
When things like the pandemic and disrupted supply chains happen, companies sometimes need to move in a different direction than planned. Or is Tesla's massive growth in the last few years and sales numbers not enough to convince you they might actually know what they are doing?
Successful companies don't adhere to arbitrary announcements and timelines; they change plans when necessary.
VanMoof released the VanMoof S3 in 2020, which was €2000 (the predecessor was close to €3000). The S3 sold very well because of its low price and great design, but its build quality was really subpar. In fact, insiders say around 10% of all S3 bikes had defects that required repairs (note that 1 - 2% is standard for a typical bike model).
So in the end, VanMoof sold many cheap bikes which was great for their market share but not so great for their margins. Then, on top of this, they had to repair many of the bikes they sold which ate into their margins even more. Lastly, because of supply chain issues, they weren't able to offset the repair cost by fixing the S3 issues and quickly selling many proper units to new customers.
> I'd also be surprised if they used custom cores for smaller chips like for airpods/airtags.
AirTags have an nRF52xxx SoC by Nordic. The only Apple silicon in them is the U1 UWB chip (which is also present in iPhone, HomePod, Watch, ...) which runs on a 16nm Cortex M4.
Recent AirPods run on H1 / H2 SoCs though, which are custom Apple chips. Wouldn't be surprised if they are built around the E-cores from the iPhone SoC.
Don't think so. I know many people here in the Netherlands who own a home at the age of 25 thanks to their parents, and their parents are generally actually nice people who just want to help their children out. It makes their kids happy and they like seeing their kids happy.
It goes beyond making their kids happy. If you see your family as an expending unit, helping your kids finance their education and buy a house is probably the most impactful thing you can do financially. Having a house early saves you a ton on rent and that’s even more important when you are young and have a low salary.
Might as well just be someone with social anxiety. Many people like that in tech.