Apple has plenty examples of that behaviour as well.
To name one: if you ever connect any headphones with media controls and you accidentally press one of them while no media is playing, it will open up Apple Music. Its convoluted to stop that behaviour.
Most people don't end up charging their battery because it still has an ICE so why bother? So now they have the worst of both worlds. Complex ICE machinery that needs regular service and heavy battery that doesn't end up being used.
Only true for a plug-in hybrid with a series drivechain (a.k.a. "extended range electric vehicle"). The more common type has two parallel drivechains linked with clutches, so you still have all the drawbacks of a conventional internal combustion engine drivechain when you're using it.
> The more common type has two parallel drivechains linked with clutches, so you still have all the drawbacks of a conventional internal combustion engine drivechain when you're using it
I don't know about the whole world, but in both the US and Europe nearly half of the hybrids on the road are from Toyota, so unless nearly everything else is two parallel drive chains linked with clutches whatever Toyota does is the more common type.
Toyota uses a series-parallel system that works by having a planetary gear system that connects the ICE, a large electric motor, a small electric motor, and a drive shaft all together.
The planetary gear system functions as a power splitting device and a continuously variable transmission. It lets them direct power flow in a bunch of different ways. Here's a summary based on Wikipedia. (MB == the bigger battery, 12V == the regular 12V batter, ICE == the ICE engine, MG1 == the smaller electric motor, MG2 == the larger electric motor):
This is a big part of why Toyota hybrids are at the top of reliability rankings. Compared to a pure ICE they replace the clutch, the transmission, the starter motor, the alternator, the reverse gear set, and the flywheel with the planetary gear power splitting device. the two electric motors, and electronics. The power splitting device has very few movings parts--just the gears themselves, a pawl that can mechanically lock the gears when parked, and fluid pumps. The gears only move by rotating, unlike in a conventional transmission where they also change position. This makes their hybrids mechanically much simpler than a pure ICE.
If you charge the battery, sure. Most people simply don't.
Data collected across 600.000 vehicles in Europe show that most people don't and that emissions are just a smidge under typical ICE vehicles. If you factor in the high emissions produced during battery productions it looks to be an overall bad package.
The idea itself is certainly good but the real world simply doesn't show it.
You have to factor in regerative braking. Toyota's had ~25 years to get their system dialed in. Hybrid is worth it unless you're only ever doing freeway speeds flat out with no braking.
As a Toyota hybrid owner, you see that Toyota's design is kinda at a local optimum, hitting limits in every direction which sometimes rear their head in the user experience.
For example, the sluggish 0-60 is due to the design being unable to get all the power from the engine to the wheels at slow speeds, due to the electrical path through the CVT gearbox being too small.
The funny noises when going down really big hills are due to the system having no way to dump excess energy after the battery is fully charged and being forced to rev the engine at 5000 rpm with no fuel to waste some.
The slow throttle response is due to the engine always running at 80% throttle for efficiency, which means if you suddenly need more power you can only quickly get an additional 20% before waiting for the rpm to slowly rise and give lots of power in a few seconds.
EV's do have similar design limitations (drive on a racetrack and you'll need to let the hardware cool between laps), but they seem easier to overcome by simply sizing the system slightly bigger to hide the limits.
You make valid points, but to get almost 40 mpg in something that would get closer to 20 mpg without the hybrid system, there are gonna be some drawbacks.
My understanding is that the torque control speed is much faster though, so it's actually difficult to get the tires to slip. I can't screech my tires in my EV, but it'll do 0-60 ridiculously fast.
Bring in fast chargers or a lot of the commercial offerings into the mix and you're looking at .6 per kWh. Never mind the subscription/account bullshit a lot of companies are doing.
Regardless of that, I would still only ever buy an EV when I get a new car.
I generally disagree with your stance (though I respect it as your opinion) and would like to offer you a different view on this. It might take a bit to explain my point so please bear with me.
Using AI for creative purposes, specifically ones where the creative input is the goal, is one usage of AI that I strongly dislike. Art has always been seen and used to express something. It could be emotions, it could be a perspective, it could be a political opinion, or something entirely different. Every person doing art has an intention behind their performance. The intent may not even always be obvious to the artist, and sometimes the intent is money, but its there nonetheless. The end result of that intent can also be good or bad art.
For me it doesn't really matter what the thought behind a specific piece of art is, as long as there was one. I may not like a specific piece of art or even the intention behind it, but I also don't have to. I may not even understand a specific piece but that's also fine.
With AI, there is no intent. The AI isn't thinking. It doesn't know why a pixel was placed where it was placed, its just going off an algorithm and data that it was trained on. There was no idea, no thought, behind it.
The person prompting the AI is not the artist. They are not the creator and no matter how much work they put into the prompt, the result is not their creation. AI is not a tool in the traditional sense of how we might view a hammer or a camera, its an executor. If I were to go to Fiverr and tell a person to create an image for me, would you consider me the creator of that image? I wouldn't and I think most other people wouldn't either. The process of commissioning an image on the platform might even be exactly the same. You form a prompt, send a message to an artist, get a result, ask for refinement until you're satisfied with the result.
> I don't think that the parent comment argued that they are, but okay.
I think they did. They specifically said how a new tool is available and putting things into reach for people that previously wasn't. In the context about creating art, that reads to me like they do mean that prompters are considered the creators.
> Can you consider a movie director to be the creator of a movie? They are just telling other people what to do.
If the "only" thing the director is doing, in the most literal sense, is directing then no, I don't.
I'm not an expert in media production though but from the sparse amount of interviews I have seen a lot also write the scripts and are involved in a lot more than just directing.
I think ultimately this is just something we disagree on :)
If the "only" thing the director is doing, in the most literal sense, is directing then no, I don't.
I'm not an expert in media production though but from the sparse amount of interviews I have seen a lot also write the scripts and are involved in a lot more than just directing.
Firefox often groups tabs from the same site into one process. With large numbers of the same tabs open in both, check the total memory for all firefox processes and all firefox processes. You will likely find firefox actually uses less memory than chrome.
> whenever a team is trying "agile" in some way but hate it AND are given the choice, they drop it ASAP
Isnt that in itself "agile"? And I specifically dont mean following a religous ceremony plan etc but recognizing that a part of their process isnt working and then changing it. To me thats the entire point of actual agile. You try a process, it doesnt work, you analyze, and adapt.
> is it really that hard to just change the native alarm by a minute for someone that was interested in this?
Not OP. In theory? No. Takes a second to change it. To be quite honest, its yet another thing to keep track off and do. I know, for myself, I would remember to do it for a few days and then forget.
Its a tiny thing but the more I can outsource the better. My brain is occupied with enough other stuff.
Makes sense there is a divide in how people like to enact changes like this. For me, the mental shift of using yet another app would be more of a headache than just doing it manually in the native app. I've been using the native app for almost 2 decades, have some solid muscle memory through fumbling around with it late at night and early in morning during partial stages of sleep. Learning a new app, changing my muscle memory, honestly just opening it instead of the native app when thinking about alarm will be a big hurdle that I'm not taking on unless this app added more than a minor convenience.
Then there's the problem of discovery, if I wanted to do this, it's so easy I would just do it, manually, with native app. It's such a minor problem, I'd never even look for other solutions.
Most movies and tv shows are available for similar prices on blue rays, often in 4k versions.
While the resolution may be higher on streaming, the bitrate is often significantly worse. Beyond that Netflix has done upscaling in the past with middling success.
The front camera was hidden and you would slide the back up to expose it. Was not motorized and functioned using magnets. Very similar to what old dumb phones used. Super reliable and easy to use.
To name one: if you ever connect any headphones with media controls and you accidentally press one of them while no media is playing, it will open up Apple Music. Its convoluted to stop that behaviour.
Its not as bad as Microslop but it does exist.
reply