Supposedly, the government of Ohio has provided up to $2Billion in tax incentives for Intel to build the manufacturing in Ohio. The largest ever incentive package for Ohio.
May not be a bad investment for them if it does work (ie. the ROI on that 2bn could be quite high). Once you have such a large presence from one company, over time the talent pool can probably attract others.. Would be fun if Ohio is thought of as a high-tech place in 30 years or whatever.
Re Efficiency of Electric Vehicles. I suspect the author was trying to find a nice way to make an apples to apples comparison of the relatively small sample of EVs currently available for sale. While the chart looks very presentable, I don't believe it offers any valid conclusions for a couple of reasons:
1) At steady state highway velocity the energy consumption is dominated by aerodynamic drag, where drag = 0.5*density*(velocity squared)*(drag coefficient)*(Frontal Area). The drag coefficient of a sedan and a pickup are drastically different as are the frontal area. This is why you wouldn't compare an ICE sedan to an ICE pickup truck, same logic applies to EVs.
2) In the city the mass of a vehicle has historically been a large driver of its fuel efficiency. This is because the energy required to accelerate the car is = 0.5*mass*(velocity squared). In the city a vehicle is repeatedly accelerated and then brought to rest because of stop signs, stop lights and traffic. Every time an ICE vehicle is brought to rest all of the kinetic energy is turned to heat as the brake pads rub on the brake disc. This heat is unrecoverable and wasted to the atmosphere. EVs employ regenerative braking where the wheel motors are used to slow the vehicle while subsequently charging the battery. While this process isn't 100% efficient, much of the energy is recovered making the mass of a vehicle much less of the variable driving in city energy use.
In summary, 1) on the highway aerodynamic drag is the driver of energy use, not mass. We can't compare cars and trucks (even if they are EVs) unless we attempt to normalize for drag coefficient and frontal area. 2) If a vehicle employs regenerative braking (as EVs do), the mass of the vehicle is less of a factor for in city energy consumption when compared to a traditional ICE vehicles.
While the chart is pleasing to the eye, I don't believe it offers any meaningful insight. Cars need to be compared to cars and trucks to trucks. Normalizing for mass is not a meaningful way to make the data comparable.
*I am not an expert at anything. I'm open to being wrong.
I think it depends what you're doing. The conclusion that trucks are less energy-efficient than cars is a totally valid one. The question becomes: Do you need a truck, are you making the right trade-offs for the utility you're getting, or are you someone who buys a huge truck and drives mostly by themselves, not carrying anything, just because you like the look of it or whatever?
So it's valid to compare different vehicles. Assigning a judgement on whether the results are good or bad is one layer above, and it's where you can group things by utility or whatever.
The official EPA range calculations include a mix of highway and city driving, so a lot of that information about both types of driving is embedded in that part of the math, I think.
The BMW i3, which is one of the worst performers on the chart, is a small car, and the Jaguar I-Pace is comparable in weight and type to the Model S, so seeing where they end up on the chart does show that something must be going on there, and that Tesla is doing pretty well with its optimization work (the Model X is as heavy as the Rivian truck, but does much better, f.ex.).
It's not a debate! It's fine, it's just an interesting chart, I wasn't trying to make a specific point with it, just showing some data. No need to sweat it.
Very interesting comment on podcasts, I agree that they directly compete with what I call idea books (2-300 page books on a concept, like Range or the Sports Gene) which I think can get explored pretty well in a single or series of podcasts (though I guess Malcolm Gladwell did the opposite taking the Bomber Mafia from podcasts into a book [which I enjoyed]) I think the books that still should be written (but are harder to read) are the larger history books which need lots of detail to get the full picture, or more through introductions to basic science. Regardless it is an interesting thought as podcasts are much easier to consume that books, but there is a bit of depth and fact checking that is absent in most.
On the consumption side, yes! but I was thinking primarily on the production side.
Writing longform is so hard and it takes so much work and so long to get the finished product out, podcasting instead is quite the sirens song calling...
The thing is, a really good book can go much deeper than a podcast, or is often the basis for a good podcast discussion with the author.. So I hope that most of the books that don't get written are the middling ones, and that we don't lose out on too many truly great ones. I guess we'll never know for sure... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps the books that do get written will be better, because the authors will have tried out some of their concepts on their audiences ahead of time. Sort of like comedians practicing/honing their routines in front of smaller nightclubs before hitting the big stage. Just a thought.
I don't follow Shopify closely - but the move away from logistics makes it seem like they are becoming the new EBay (with Paypal - given Shopify's focusing on payments for online SMBs). That's probably an oversimplification - but more-and-more payments is the key for Shopify.
eBay is a marketplace that aggregates demand, Shopify right now only provides the tools and not the marketplace/demand, so that's another big difference. But who knows what other tools/services they'll start offering over time and how they'll evolve.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Supposedly, the government of Ohio has provided up to $2Billion in tax incentives for Intel to build the manufacturing in Ohio. The largest ever incentive package for Ohio.
May not be a bad investment for them if it does work (ie. the ROI on that 2bn could be quite high). Once you have such a large presence from one company, over time the talent pool can probably attract others.. Would be fun if Ohio is thought of as a high-tech place in 30 years or whatever.
Re Efficiency of Electric Vehicles. I suspect the author was trying to find a nice way to make an apples to apples comparison of the relatively small sample of EVs currently available for sale. While the chart looks very presentable, I don't believe it offers any valid conclusions for a couple of reasons:
1) At steady state highway velocity the energy consumption is dominated by aerodynamic drag, where drag = 0.5*density*(velocity squared)*(drag coefficient)*(Frontal Area). The drag coefficient of a sedan and a pickup are drastically different as are the frontal area. This is why you wouldn't compare an ICE sedan to an ICE pickup truck, same logic applies to EVs.
2) In the city the mass of a vehicle has historically been a large driver of its fuel efficiency. This is because the energy required to accelerate the car is = 0.5*mass*(velocity squared). In the city a vehicle is repeatedly accelerated and then brought to rest because of stop signs, stop lights and traffic. Every time an ICE vehicle is brought to rest all of the kinetic energy is turned to heat as the brake pads rub on the brake disc. This heat is unrecoverable and wasted to the atmosphere. EVs employ regenerative braking where the wheel motors are used to slow the vehicle while subsequently charging the battery. While this process isn't 100% efficient, much of the energy is recovered making the mass of a vehicle much less of the variable driving in city energy use.
In summary, 1) on the highway aerodynamic drag is the driver of energy use, not mass. We can't compare cars and trucks (even if they are EVs) unless we attempt to normalize for drag coefficient and frontal area. 2) If a vehicle employs regenerative braking (as EVs do), the mass of the vehicle is less of a factor for in city energy consumption when compared to a traditional ICE vehicles.
While the chart is pleasing to the eye, I don't believe it offers any meaningful insight. Cars need to be compared to cars and trucks to trucks. Normalizing for mass is not a meaningful way to make the data comparable.
*I am not an expert at anything. I'm open to being wrong.
I think it depends what you're doing. The conclusion that trucks are less energy-efficient than cars is a totally valid one. The question becomes: Do you need a truck, are you making the right trade-offs for the utility you're getting, or are you someone who buys a huge truck and drives mostly by themselves, not carrying anything, just because you like the look of it or whatever?
So it's valid to compare different vehicles. Assigning a judgement on whether the results are good or bad is one layer above, and it's where you can group things by utility or whatever.
The official EPA range calculations include a mix of highway and city driving, so a lot of that information about both types of driving is embedded in that part of the math, I think.
The BMW i3, which is one of the worst performers on the chart, is a small car, and the Jaguar I-Pace is comparable in weight and type to the Model S, so seeing where they end up on the chart does show that something must be going on there, and that Tesla is doing pretty well with its optimization work (the Model X is as heavy as the Rivian truck, but does much better, f.ex.).
I'm not very good at debating in public. Send me a Twitter DM and maybe we can hash it out a little better this evening.
It's not a debate! It's fine, it's just an interesting chart, I wasn't trying to make a specific point with it, just showing some data. No need to sweat it.
Cheers! 💚 🥃
Very interesting comment on podcasts, I agree that they directly compete with what I call idea books (2-300 page books on a concept, like Range or the Sports Gene) which I think can get explored pretty well in a single or series of podcasts (though I guess Malcolm Gladwell did the opposite taking the Bomber Mafia from podcasts into a book [which I enjoyed]) I think the books that still should be written (but are harder to read) are the larger history books which need lots of detail to get the full picture, or more through introductions to basic science. Regardless it is an interesting thought as podcasts are much easier to consume that books, but there is a bit of depth and fact checking that is absent in most.
On the consumption side, yes! but I was thinking primarily on the production side.
Writing longform is so hard and it takes so much work and so long to get the finished product out, podcasting instead is quite the sirens song calling...
Agreed crafting a good book is much harder than having a good conversation with interesting people, it will be interesting to see how it plays out
The thing is, a really good book can go much deeper than a podcast, or is often the basis for a good podcast discussion with the author.. So I hope that most of the books that don't get written are the middling ones, and that we don't lose out on too many truly great ones. I guess we'll never know for sure... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps the books that do get written will be better, because the authors will have tried out some of their concepts on their audiences ahead of time. Sort of like comedians practicing/honing their routines in front of smaller nightclubs before hitting the big stage. Just a thought.
It's very possible!
01101111 01100110 00100000 01100011 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 01100101 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101100 01101111 01101111 01101011 01100101 01100100
01001001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110101 01101100 01100100 00100000 01100101 01111000 01110000 01100101 01100011 01110100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 01010000 01100001 01110101 01101100 00100001
01001100 01001111 01001100
10101111 01011100 01011111 00101000 11000100 00101001 01011111 00101111 10101111 00100000
I don't follow Shopify closely - but the move away from logistics makes it seem like they are becoming the new EBay (with Paypal - given Shopify's focusing on payments for online SMBs). That's probably an oversimplification - but more-and-more payments is the key for Shopify.
Do I have that right?
eBay is a marketplace that aggregates demand, Shopify right now only provides the tools and not the marketplace/demand, so that's another big difference. But who knows what other tools/services they'll start offering over time and how they'll evolve.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯