Gross profit means before paying your bills, so it's meaningless when it comes to having cash to stave off creditors.

EVs may benefit from a transmission that can change drive ratios. Case in point: Porsche Taycan has a two-speed transmission. The benefit is probably quite small, otherwise other EVs would have a similar setup. It may also be that the benefit is primarily in performance rather than efficiency.

There is decent English wine being produced now.

On the occasion that I tow, the most I generally have to go is about 30 miles round trip. There is a *theoretical* trip I might make that would be 30 miles one way without towing and then 30 miles the other way without towing, but it's actually never come up.

So a modest towing range isn't a huge deal breaker for me either.

However, I would think it be wise for them to have some EREV option. Particular bonus points if it is reasonably removable to get the storage space as needed when the generator won't be needed.

Grape vines grow in the UK. The Romans introduced winemaking to Britain. My first house had a grape vine that produced grapes, but they never quite ripened. Perhaps as the climate warms, they will ripen.

You perceive it as an LLM having an opinion. The LLM has no opinion, it just will agree with what you say. So it was in no way an active participant in concluding anything.

You said 'we' but that is an incorrect statement that can be a perilous mindset in ascribing too much agency and validation to a text generator.

The only possible approach would be to use surplus electricity from intermittent sources such as solar or wind as a store of energy, or, for industrial uses.

The first use of real green hydrogen should be to displace brown hydrogen in industrial uses. Why hasn't it happened? Because even this is not economically viable.

Was there meant to be a sarcasm tag in your post? Musk didn't found Tesla in any meaningful manner. He invested after the company had already been created. The same of the AI companies.

SpaceX may be one company he founded, after the original X/PayPal (note that he didn't found PayPal and, in fact, he had some ludicrous ideas of how the infrastructure should be changed after he came on board). Neuralink and the Boring Company: the only thing different from Musk and all the other people who had the same ideas is money, and perhaps, a lack of scruples.

Musk has used his money strategically. He had a huge advantage early on, in coming from a wealthy family. None of that makes him stupid, but it is very likely there are far more people who could have been as, or more, successful given Musk's start in life.

No, you concluded, it agreed, which is what these solutions are inclined to do when in doubt. This is fine, but it's bad to start assuming that the output is externally validating your half of the conversation.

So in corporate software development, I think LLM can readily reduce the needed headcount.

One is they ask employees to generate tons of procedural documentation that no one will ever ever read. Management will look and see a linked document hundreds of pages long and be satisfied that it was created, but never once will it ever be used by another developer. It's what managers imagine developers want of each other and so they force it, and developers have to satisfy this misconception while also providing what the developers need. Mountains of tedious garbage nonsense that looks vaguely right, congratulations, that is 100% in the LLM wheelhouse.

Another is having a team of junior devs that the senior devs would favor a small junior team because that quantity of junior devs are more work and less useful, but execs think an army is what is needed, when you just really want a nimble little team. AI is the marketing to make the business folks true believers.

The core people are still needed, but a lot of 'fluff' that perhaps should have already been gone can now be rationalized away.

Well, let's at least present a common thing in chain of thought in LLM that a human *wouldn't* do.

So it looks like a chain of deductive reasoning. You notice in some intermediate step that there is a mistake, a mistake that should foul every step that comes after. Except the next step is generated text that doesn't propogate the supposed 'understanding' in the previous step, without any sign of recognizing a fault and without any sign of explicitly having to correct it.

Faults in the chain of thought commonly are isolated and do not propogate. This is not consistent with faults in actual reasoning, where a mistake will propogate and foul the result, unless somehow recognized and corrected.

I don't know about your home, but using a licensed electrician to hardwire an EVSE including cost of EVSE was like $700, which wasn't nothing but compared to the purchase price of the two EVs, it's nearly a rounding error.

But still, if you are renting your home, or are in dense living your point absolutely stands.

I do wonder if they'll do a gas generator option. I seem to recall someone at Ford explicitly calling out 'EREV', so it seems like it's likely top of their mind.

I appreciated the modularity, and even having things be optional, but I agree the implementation was crap. Something as straightforward as a double-din area and pre-wiring for speakers whether you have speakers or not would have been so much more compelling. Factory infotainment means hard to upgrade, double-din could have been an incredible thing in this day and age.

Also wondering how much of the 'cost savings' really did save costs versus sounded like something that should save costs. E.g. the hand crank windows are appreciated, but given the prolific nature of power window assemblies and almost no hand-crank out there, wonder if it's really any cheaper versus trying to be cheap.

The consumer Lightning starts at $65k, it's a truck that won't fit in most people's garages and people shopping for brand new EVs are likely looking for it to be in the garage.

So if they do release a $30k pickup that's less than 200" long with a towing capacity of around 7k lbs or so... that could be *very* attractive. Ford knows their brand strength is pickups and small affordable EV pickup is a corner of the market not well served currently. It's not a bad choice at all for Ford to start here, maybe following up quickly with an 'Escape' EV.

the push for Hydrogen was largely driven by the U.S. military and the fascination with it providing clean water (could be used for drinking water for troops) when large vehicles were driven around in the desert. Supposedly, they were behind some of the funding and pressure on GM to research and develop it.

No telling how much or little truth there was to that one? But I never saw Hydrogen as the way forward for vehicles owned by residential consumers. If you want to successfully transform things so we have options other than gasoline/diesel fuel for them, I think you have to really focus on one clear solution. Battery powered vehicles were already making progress, and they were a good fit for people putting PV solar on their roofs, too.

Existing gas stations are increasingly accepting of the idea they can invest in a DC fast charger or two on their lot, but they don't want all new Hydrogen fuel infrastructure to invest in as well!