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

You think making the biggest breakthrough in battery tech is easier than monetary incentives?

It's a difficult thing, but it's only one thing. Paying people to buy & drive cars that they'd otherwise wouldn't isn't a sustainable practice either.

>The native integration knows about car's battery state all the time and auto-suggests stops.

CarPlay does this on my F150 Lightning. It manages state, preconditioning when routing to a charging stop, will suggest charging stops as I'm routing, etc. etc.

There's really nothing special about GM's implementation IMO, except that they charge you monthly to access it.


We bought an F150 Lightning instead of a Sierra EV mainly because of this. I'm not interested in 'cars as a service'.

Deleted mine months ago. Altman is one of the slimiest tech ceos out there, which is saying something.


Yes. I see it hallucinate method names for 3rd party libraries constantly.

It’s useful, but when users here say they’re vibe coding 98% of their work, I have to think they’re not working on anything complex.


Hmm no way. Ive used to see hallucinations like 50% of the time prompting gpt3.5 for simple functions.

I don't remember the last time ive seen a made up library/methods these days and Im definitely using way more for more complex stuff. The tool calling changed the game.

Even for work I do almost 100% of my coding telling claude what to do. I mean I break down the tasks and tell it more or less exactly what I want but I find "rename this thing across these two repos" easier than doing it myself


I ran into the non existent methods and functions far more a year ago than I do today. I hadn’t even considered it as I don’t write a lot of code, Most of my job is talking with people to understand the problems and to drive strategy.


Conversely, I have yet to see agentic coding tools produce anything I’d be willing to ship.


If I had to bet; they'll put their 3.7L V6 in and run it on the miller cycle with a fixed drive to hit @130+kW or so.

The changes for cooling, etc. will be substantial, but the problem space is already well-known by the team, so the time to market probably won't be as long as we think.


That's probably a quick way to do it, but considering that using a miller cycle means we're going to want the turbo version of the engine, that alone is going to cost like $4k on Fords end. Add a 100kW+ generator with the power electronics to charge while driving, fuel system, exhaust system and cooling system, and we're probably approaching $10k upcharge for the customer.

Gotta remove a whole lot of batteries from that car to make it cost competitive again. Realistically, with an engine this powerful, we can probably cut down to like 30kWh of total battery capacity, which gets us back to where we started financially. And 30 kWh is enough to drive 70 miles all electric, which should pretty much should cover most daily use for people who charge at home.

Now, the questions if we can do that cheaper with a much smaller engine. Ford has a 1 liter inline 3 in the Fiesta and Focus that makes half as much power. Should be enough...


The dreamers amongst us have noted that Ford has a patent (at least an application for one, I don't recall if it was granted) for putting an EREV generator under the bed near the back of the truck. Since it can be a smaller engine and does not require an attachment to the drivetrain, maybe this is feasible.

If they did that, it would remove one of my reasons for not being too interested in the Lightning EREV -- the anticipated loss of the frunk. It still introduces a bunch of mechanical bits and associated maintenance requirements, that is unavoidable, along with a substantial increase in cost.

I bought my Lightning with the intent of keeping it 7-8 years, and it meets my needs very well, so this is mostly just navel gazing for me. The EREV version would have more range that I would rarely benefit from, and be substantially less powerful, which is also a negative from my perspective, in addition to costing a bunch more. My current truck is by far my favorite so far. I hope when I'm finally ready to try something new, there are better options. It's a high bar.


Also bought a Lightning. I use it for plenty of truck related things that don't involve towing and it's great. I like to target shoot on family farm land, and it's awesome to toss my steel targets and equipment in the bed and offroad to the area I shoot on (there's an area pretty far in with a sharp elevation change that's created a large berm). Or going to lowes to get a ton of fertilizer/plants/gardening equipment for my spouse.

I also use it to commute, and it's even better at that (part of that is mine being the Platinum trim). Quiet, smooth, powerful, has Android Auto/CarPlay (unlike GM's products), etc.

They really are a fantastic vehicle for those who don't need to quickly tow heavy trailers 400 miles. Especially on the used market.

I think the issue was that Ford wasn't making much margin on them and they weren't moving sufficient volume to make up for that. (around 20K/yr avg)


Sounds like an argument for better hiring practices and planning.

Producing a lot of code isn’t proof of anything.


Yep. Let’s see the projects and more importantly the incremental returns…


I wholeheartedly agree. Shitty companies steal art and then put out shitty products that shitty people use to spam us with slop.

The same goes for code as well.

I’ve explored Claude code/antigravity/etc, found them mostly useless, tried a more interactive approach with copilot/local models/ tried less interactive “agents”/etc. it’s largely all slop.

My coworkers who claim they’re shipping at warp speed using generative AI are almost categorically our worst developers by a mile.


Ah, Gary Marcus, the 10x ninja whose hand-crafted bespoke code singlehandedly keeps his employer in business.


That’s not what I’m suggesting at all.


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

Search: