Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | njarboe's commentslogin

Lots of tech gets discovered, is heavily patented, and then 20 years late,r when that large first round of patents expire, people start working on and developing the tech.

Yes. If you send an email from a protonmail account to a gmail account that email is in google's system. Same if in the other direction. Would anyone using protonmail not know this. I would guess at least 99.9% of proton users understand this.

I would like to read this website but the font and colors are so poorly selected (read and grey for most of the text) that I'm not willing to struggle to do so. I guess my eyes are just old.


It probably could have been true if regulations were not written that said if your nuclear power is going to be cheaper than other sources you have to spend on safety features until it's not cheaper.

Like the internet today, electricity could have been a flat monthly fee determined by your service line limit (similar to bandwidth) with limits in place for excess use.


Get solar on your roof and then just ignore their stupid rules and monopolies and corruption.

Working great for me. Friends down the road had a 16% increase in price per kWh, already locked in another 8% increase next year.


Self driving cars for hire (Waymo, Tesla, others) can be that point-to-point system that is affordable. We will just have to build tunnels to deal with the increase in traffic. Hopefully the Boring Company or someone else can get tunneling costs way down.


I generally agree that self-driving cars are going to take this niche, but not with tunnels. Tunnels add the same dedicated infrastructure problems as mass public transit.

I'd suspect most car trips today are 1 or 2 passengers with the back seat and trunk empty; we'll eventually see new form factors of on-demand vehicle that trim off unneeded space. If you need to get from A to B alone, no cargo to speak of, you order a ride that covers that class and it's small. If you're taking a shuttle from the airport with your whole family and luggage, you order a ride with those specs.


As long as one of those points is a transit stop then yeah, robotaxis make sense. In that model you don’t need the tunnels.

They make even more sense if they are a bit larger and can accommodate multiple people at once. Something like a large van or small bus.


If you are not being facetious, what you are describing is closer to a subway system, which has the disadvantage of being very expensive.


Hopefully someone else, so it actually happens and isn't overpromised and underdelivered.

(Also, tunnels are useful not just for the increase in traffic, but for moving car traffic away from non-car traffic, which makes both kinds of traffic safer, faster, and more efficient.)


"in people who don't need it from a marginal consumption standpoint".

We need the rich to spend more money. There are plenty of cool ways to do this. Build a mile high pyramid on a Nevadan playa, a canal to the Sea of Cortez to re-flood the Salton Sea, humans on other planets, new city states a la Praxis, interstellar probes, etc.

Some billionaires are doing some of these things. Hope more do in the future.


Agreed. This would get rid of borrow against gains to spend tax free. But also just get rid of the income tax, it is the worst way to tax, and do a land value tax.


Tesla's biggest factory is in China.


Tesla is good at building big factories. The Cybertruck (total sales ~46k) factory was designed to build 250k units a year and later 125k. Meanwhile BYD outsells Tesla in China and globally.


Over the last five years Tesla has made a profit of about $41 billion while BYD has had a loss of about $13 Billion. Would rather be the Apple of electric cars than always selling them at a loss.


“Venice built a maritime empire from a city that couldn’t feed itself; so who fed it—and why didn’t its enemies simply starve it out?”

I love ancient history and would read a good book about the Venetian empire, but the sentence answers the final question. Venice was a maritime empire (it's capital on an island), that's why its enemies could not starve it out. All in on finding out who fed it.


One could hope with improving tech and decreasing regulations we could have decreasing (nominal) energy prices in the future. That would be progress.


We'll most likely see off-peak or dispatchable-demand energy prices become effectively negligible due to cheap intermittent sources, but the price for reliable 24/7 supply will if anything trend higher. Storage is not enough to bridge the gap in all cases, so you need either very expensive peaker plants or less expensive nuclear to provide a reliable baseload supply for those critical uses.


The baseload framing is increasingly outdated. What grids need isn't constant supply - it's flexible supply that matches variable demand. Solar + batteries handle daytime and evening peaks well. Wind fills different gaps. The remaining "firmness" problem (extended low-wind, low-sun periods) is real but smaller than baseload thinking suggests. Most studies show you can get to 80-90% renewables before you hit hard storage limits. The last 10-20% is the expensive part, but that's a different problem than needing baseload for everything.


And HVDC long haul offsets a lot of those problems as well and is more effective than storage.


Yes if we could only build them. I recently learned there was one built from the Columbia river hydro projects to southern California in the early 1970's Has one been built since?


Demand is rising very fast compared to supply, I don't think that will happen.

Energy is like RAM or clockspeed: you can't have enough of it.


> decreasing (nominal) energy prices in the future

Hasn't happened ever before, not sure why this time it would be different.


Happened constantly till around 1970. One horse power used to take a horse. Now a very small electric motor for cents per day.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: