I mean, depends on the size of the company. When you’re like 1-2 devs you basically do what you can to help everyone out. But yeah as the company gets bigger you’ll need to separate the responsibilities.

But America has a higher suicide raterate?

So in a solid, you can imagine each atom connected to each other by springs (bonds). They can vibrate on these springs. If they vibrate too much (by heating) then they can break the bonds and escape as a gas. Gasses basically have too much energy to bond again.

Molecules interact with each other. Energy is transferred as they bump around. If you were to follow a single molecule it would move around randomly. What we can measure is usually the average of many molecules.

It likely will stabilize, but it might become more of an enthusiast market. People don’t necessarily need a PC anymore.

Do you mean the efficiency question? I’m just deducing if they were competitive in servers Intel would jump at that opportunity.

As for the PC market, just looking at unit sales: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_personal_computer_vendors

And as for margins, well the exact information is a bit hard to find but in general lower end products have tighter margins and the buyers for them are more price sensitive.

Eh unless they have the most efficient overall, they won’t make inroads into the server market. The entry level laptop and desktop markets are getting smaller and has less margins.

Eh the issue with the support is their better engineers have little interest in working on an older project with no chances for promotion. The standards are just not going to be kept particularly high and will probably be outsourced. So while you may have long term official support, the actual implementations may be lacking. This is true for basically all companies though and also applies to open source projects as well.

The new MacBook pros do have a HDMI port.

My wife really likes that you can control the temperature without having to interact with anyone.

However humans may also be getting better via self driving tools such as radar cruise control. So you’d need to compare to a human with access to these tools.

The very original post I responded to says:

Please just do trains.

Which implies don’t do cars.

What government money? Aptera is privately funded. They’ve won some government grants but most of their funding is from investors. They’re not taking money away from rail projects.

And even if we went all in on rail, what are we supposed to do in the years it takes to make the transition? Keep using ICE vehicles?

Because you have to approach the two problems differently. If you want to support the expansion of railways, you’ll need political willpower.

But if you’re an individual who needs a vehicle, wouldn’t the best choice be the most efficient one available?

Why would a new company increase traffic? Like people just have extra disposable income and love going out to drive when everyone else does?

If your argument is, someone who would have bought the car would instead switch to using rail. Then there is no place in the US that has heavy traffic that can also have a new railway built for under $1b.

But the city already has highways. If we started fresh sure let’s do more rail.

My point is just, what infrastructure can you do with say <$1b? It’s a lot of money but not building a whole new railroad kind of money. You can get a few station upgrade projects, a couple of electric trains, etc.

There’s room for private funding of a new electric car company. Save the tax dollars for big infrastructure projects.

Why would you build the highway underground?

Really? So we can install thousands of miles of rail for under a billion dollars? Let’s do it!

Ok? The point is that rail development is expensive and like an order of magnitude the cost of Aptera. Ideally we could do both but they shouldn’t be put into the same bucket.

$24-48m per mile is still quite a lot. It’s just not the same scale in expense.