I don't remember the source so, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but, I read that no EV battery can be made for less than $50K. So, either BYD is cutting some serious corners (possibly) or they are being heavily subsidized (probably). If either are true, I can see how that would be damaging to us.
> I don't remember the source so, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but, I read that no EV battery can be made for less than $50K.
Absolute hogwash.
The only way for this to be true is if you amortize the cost of R&D and factory building over a small number of batteries and include it in the manufacturing cost, and I think it's incredibly misleading to include the cost of R&D into the cost of a battery, simply for the fact that you can make wild claims by just including it.
So...for an incumbent manufacturer that's putting very little effort into actually selling EVs, it might be true that it's costing them $50K per battery if you include the cost of setting up the manufacturing. But for someone like Tesla, who has literally sold millions of cars, even if you include that cost, it's closer to $10K.
I’ve heard replacing an EV sadan’s battery is typically ~$10K (capacity matters of course).
Also, fwiw, our home batteries (sold at profit, with lots of expensive other stuff and
install labor) were about $20K, and the same capacity as our small car.
I just watched Oh, God! again. She played that role perfectly. Like, "I'm sure my husband is crazy but I love him and, well, I guess we'll see where this goes."
I think the food manufacturers are culpable here, and "manufacturer" is really the best word to use. They're more like chemists cobbling together edible compounds than farmers growing things that provide nutrition.
Absolutely. And every time I come on HN to point out processed foods are bad, I always get the feigned confusion "But are cooked carrots a processed food"
You're getting downvoted here but I think there is precedent behind your statement. History is littered with weight loss drugs that had to be pulled because the shoe eventually dropped. Usually that was addiction or death which, admittedly, neither have been shown in the GLP-1's but, given the history of weight loss drugs, it's not unreasonable in my opinion to be cautious.
I'm not a chemist, biologist, or pharmacologist, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to be cautious based on how analogous the method of action is to other drugs, rather than the effect? GLP-1s don't work in the same manner that phen/fen did, for example.
DNP is an extremely effective drug for weight loss, but no one who knows anything about how it works would think that it would be reasonable to compare it to the GLP-1s, and anyone who knows how it works would also plainly see the dangers around its use.
GLP-1 type drugs have been on the market for decades now as well, and while they are not perfectly safe, we've got a good amount of data around the short to medium term side effects.
I'm speaking out of turn here since I'm not a React Native developer but, it seems to me that it suffers from the penalty of having to use the JS bridge that neither Flutter nor web use.
Headline:
Apple May Stop Producing Vision Pro by the End of 2024
First paragraph:
Apple has abruptly reduced production of the Vision Pro headset and could stop making the current version of the device completely by the end of 2024
Later on, it also says that Apple was stopped work on the second-generation Vision Pro and is focusing only on a lower-cost device. So that’s actually pretty reasonable.
I personally don't think it's reasonable for a publication to suggest Apple is outright discontinuing a product in the headline, only to reveal that, no, they're actually just making a strategy shift with the product line.
That's newsworthy all by itself. No clickbait needed.
I'm also an Apple Vision Pro owner. I don't see it as a flop and here's why:
The first Macintosh was, inflation adjusted, double the price of the Apple Vision Pro, and they shipped about the same number of units in their first years respectively.
People only see it as a flop because Apple is a gargantuan company now compared to then and they expect to see gargantuan sales of new products from Apple now. Apple is playing a different game this time around.
MacRumors isnt the site it once was. The amount of clickbait crap on there has gone up significantly. Very much on its way out. Dont bother trying to discuss that on their feedback forums though, its an instant permaban for even suggesting the quality of content might be slipping.
I’m 51 and I’m healthier than I was 20 years ago because I improved my nutrition and started moving my body on a regular basis. I go to the doctor about once a year for a physical and I actually had a provider tell me recently that she rarely sees someone my age as healthy as I am.
A common goal, but tumors mutate and bypass a lot of normal cell functions. Keep in mind that when dying cancer patients starve in the end, the tumors don't slow.
> Keep in mind that when dying cancer patients starve in the end, the tumors don't slow.
That's something I don't understand. If cancer cells grow faster then I suppose they should be more affected by the lack of nutrients. I know that this model is too simplistic to be true, but I don't know what exactly is missing from it.
I thought I remembered something about certain nutrients (magnesium?) being something you could intentionally reduce to slow down cancer growth -- kind of like a DIY chemotherapy; your cells need Mg to grow and multiply, but cancer cells need it more. Paired with other treatments, where applicable, the reduced nutrient diet had positive clinical outcomes.
The comment I was replying to made a specific claim that I was referring to.
Regarding your definition of quality nutrition, you'll have to be more specific. You can find scientific research to support nearly any dietary choice.
Everything I have read on the subject says obesity, a nutritional imbalance, is one of the main contributors to cancer growth, and specifically a reduction in sugar and meat have significant positive results in combating cancer's growth.
>> But Mukherjee’s August 2018 paper in Nature also found that a ketogenic diet was helpful — even “synergistic” — with certain cancers and certain treatments. At least in mice.
>> “It’s probably most helpful in cancers that utilize the PIK3CA / AKT / MTOR pathway [an intracellular signaling pathway]”
Weird I feel like I read the opposite, that a high protein/fat diet would slow cancer because it thrives on glucose, so cutting carbs/sugar was key.
It seems counter intuitive to me that meat & sugar would both be correlated because they are almost opposites from a metabolic standpoint. One is pure fat/protein and one is just glucose.
There is no reliable evidence that red meat consumption increases cancer risk. You are spreading medical misinformation by incorrectly interpreting low-quality observational studies.
nah. let's base the entire world diet on numbers of calories, provided by crops which are collected annually or biannually so we can have an efficient futures market :thumbsupemoji
I don't think so. My personal and very unpopular belief is that RTO is largely based on tax breaks that cities give to companies for their buildings being a percentage occupied and thus bringing more tax revenue to local businesses.
This might be a naive question but what's to stop a company from telling a city or municipality that they meet the percentage? Not like there's any way the city can verify.
I suppose parking lot occupancy would give it away for the big businesses that have their own parking. One could probably cheat this by getting car fleet purchasing power and storing vehicles in said lots but I think that may be obvious and getting caught would be quite the scandal.
Once again, its no ones job to enforce this much less inspect parking lots. You could go all “well they could mine satellite data” and sure they could but they could do that for a lot of issues that they don’t currently. Like how you can see that many homes are hoarder houses/illegal dumps just from a cursory panning of satellite imagery and the city doesn’t do anything.
If you have been in the SV area too long, it is easy to forget this but in most places most companies strive to obey the law. Because social compact and a predictable regime of how people behave and all that.
A tax "break" by a city to businesses for requiring their employees to work in an office building in the city would be public information, available on any city's website. Do you have any links?
No. All I have is the discussion with people that built about $1.2bn worth of office buildings but that was only for one company so it's entirely anecdotal and may not apply to other businesses that may not have negotiated tax breaks with the city.
I really didn’t get this tweet. I go to the mall anytime I need to. Support local businesses every day. What’s the connection with going to the office?! Can anybody explain?
Amazon has, for many people, completely replaced malls, local shopping, and similar, with the much more convenient alternative of remote-shopping. This tweet is observing that the same pattern applies to remote-working, and asking if there should be a "return-to-local-shopping" the way Amazon wants a "return-to-local-office".
Or, in other words, it's an observation of hypocrisy on Amazon's part.
One of my co-workers is trying to use one of Microsoft's low/no code platforms to do something with CRM and it's taking her months. I could've built something with code in significantly less time.
As far as I'm concerned, these platforms are borderline snake oil.
