It’ll become rarer, but will never go away. As long as diesel is being made, heavier duty trucks will have a diesel option.

Even if it becomes a solely biodiesel option. You’re just not going to beat the efficiency, energy density, and quick refueling of an internal combustion engine until you can have a battery 1/15 the mass for the same energy, and can charge the thing in under half an hour, and doesn’t cost more than the vehicle itself when it’s time to replace it.

ICE engines, and diesels in particular can run for millions of miles. The record for a semi mileage is just over 3 million miles on the engine. You’re not going to find a battery pack that can go anywhere remotely close to that long. Especially in a heavy use vehicle like a truck that will be constantly going through charge cycles.

Just looking at the Tesla semi, the 500 mile range battery is 900kWh. A 100kWh model S battery costs $15,000 to replace, with $13,500 of that being the battery itself. Scaled up, the semi battery would be in the $90-100k range to replace.

The average semi runs around 100,000 miles per year. If you can get 1,000 full charge cycles out of the battery, you’d be replacing one every 5 years to the tune of nearly $100k each time. Not to mention replacing the electric motors themselves at several grand pop, and those don’t tend to last as long as the battery. Especially in a truck hauling 82,000lbs.

For a freight train you absolutely couldn’t. Even high power lines aren’t powerful enough to power the electric motors on a locomotive through the standard way that things like light rails operate.

That locomotive example I used has a 4.5MW electric motor output. It would be next to impossible to get 4.5MW from the line to the motor using a third rail or something. The power draw would be too great for a freight train with say 6 locomotives. I live 50 feet from a rail line and 6 locomotives is about the average I see per train.

And just for scale, there are over 26,000 Class I locomotives like that in service. If each one ran for only 12 hours per day on average, that would eat up half a trillion kWh of power per year. That would be 12% of the total US electricity production per year, assuming no losses in transmission or efficiency.

Most if not all freight locomotives are diesel electric as well.

You’re just not going to beat the energy density of diesel. 1 gallon of diesel fuel has roughly 40kwh worth of energy in it. Modern diesel motors are around 35% efficient.

So you’re looking at ~14kwh of useable energy from 1 gallon of diesel, weighing 7 pounds. So 1kwh is around 0.5lbs.

1kwh of EV battery currently weighs ~13-14lbs based on the model 3s battery capacity and weight as well as the Hummer EV.

So on a train or truck with a 5,000gal tank (just using the AC600X locomotive as an example), you’re talking 35,000lbs of carried fuel and 70,000kWh of useable energy.

To carry the same energy, you would need 910,000-980,000lbs of batteries. Twice the weight of the locomotive itself. Even if we increase the density by a factor of 10, you still need almost 3x the weight of batteries as you do diesel.

And the time to charge a 70MWh battery would be insanely prohibitive. Like a few days each time. With a 1MW charger you’re looking at minimum 70 hours if you could run at peak power with no losses. Realistically more like 80 hours with how chargers slow down as the battery gets full and charging losses.

Natural gas could used to be a little bit cleaner, but CNG vehicles use 12-15% more fuel to get the same power than diesels so it would really be a wash on CO2 emissions. And you would have to replace every diesel engine out there along with all the infrastructure just for a less efficient power source. Natural gas is phenomenal for large scale power plants, not as much for ICE vehicles.

It’s the same issue with large ships. You just can’t beat the energy density of petroleum. And ships use the nastiest byproducts of oil refining already because they’re so cheap. Banning using bunker fuel would just cause them to switch to diesel for a little more rather than go full EV. Going back to sail boats is going to happen before EV boats lol.

Same with planes. Batteries are just too heavy for aircraft in any large capacity. Plus it’s not like we really want a bunch of giant flying lithium bombs overhead. Putting out an EV fire is already insanely difficult. Imagine trying to put out the fire from a battery 10x larger that crashed in the woods somewhere.

Diesel isn’t going anywhere any time soon. I would imagine we start producing more biodiesel before the really heavy machinery goes full electric. And as long as there is diesel in use, it’s gonna make its way to consumers in large pickups because diesel can’t just sit around forever and companies are gonna do whatever they can to keep production high to make money.

Definitely not. Passenger cars will go EV relatively quickly, but you’re not going to see ICE go away in your lifetime.

Heavy duty trucks, aircraft, ships, etc all use petroleum combustion. That’s not going away any time soon. And as long as that’s still around they’ll still be making diesel.

You’ll end up seeing EV half ton and quarter ton pickups, potentially EV replacing the gas option in 2500+ trucks, but they’re going to have a diesel option for decades.

Huh I guess 4 guest appearances on a soap opera outweigh her entire musical career, including 2 Grammy nominations this year.

Uh Snapchat already does that. Nothing about it is encrypted. And deleted messages are only deleted from your device, not snapchats servers.

Just like when they banned shared accounts too I bet.

And has been doing it for years with the Ryzen G series chips. They have built in Radeon graphics chips. Not as powerful as a discrete GPU, but enough for a lot of people.

And if you spend a couple hundred bucks on insulation, you don’t need to preheat anything in your garage either.

Cars have had remote start for a long time. But you can’t just leave a gas car running in a closed garage. That’s a good way to accidentally take the forever nap.

For me it was the eyes. Pretty much all of the real faces had realistic reflections in the eyes. The AI ones didn’t.

I got 8/10. The blond AI and the dude with glasses were the two I missed.

The article isn’t exactly clear, but it seems like Apple is going to allow third party processing for in app purchases now alongside using the App Store payment system, which will be subject to the App Store fee plus whatever the third party processing fee is, but linking to an external website will not. Apple is requiring information about revenue generated from third party payment systems within the app to set the appropriate App Store fee. 12 or 27% now down from 15 and 30%.

They are also explicitly going to allow apps to link to external websites for payment processing, which won’t be subject to any App Store fee.

No, Apple only charges commission on purchases within the app using apples system. You can implement your own and tell people to make a purchase they need to go to your website.

That’s what Netflix has always done as one example.

It’s in one of the charts

Stripe standard is 3% plus 30 cents per transaction.

If your app costs $1 or you IAP costs $1, stripe would cost you 33 cents for that transaction. Or 33%.

To get down below 15% total you would need to have your average transaction would need to be $2.50 or higher.

The average app price on the App Store is 88 cents. https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store-price-app/

And the median in app purchase is about $1.30. https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/apples-in-app-purchase-prices-jumped-40-year-over-year-likely-tied-to-privacy-changes/

The vast majority of developers would pay more to use something like stripe.

Important to note that the 30% cut is also only on developers that bring in >$1M in revenue from the App Store and in app purchases. Which is less than 1% of developers.

For those under $1M it’s only 15%, which is on par or cheaper than what developing your own payment processing or to use another third party processor.

Company sells goods to consumers, more at 11.

There’s always people out there that want to be on the bleeding edge. People spend $2000+ on just a 4090 card, or $2000 on a stupid folding phone that breaks from a grain of sand.

For a high end enterprise geared headset that functions as its own standalone device and doesn’t require any connection to any other computer to work, this isn’t even expensive.

This isn’t meant to compete with something like a Quest. It’s meant to compete with something like the Varjo Aero, which goes from $5-10k.

For a company deciding on implementing AR/VR, the cost to get a Quest Pro for $800 plus a $2500 workstation to power it, vs a $3500 Vision Pro that doesn’t need a workstation, it’s pretty comparable.

The fact that they changed all references to it from “Vision Pro” to just “Apple Vision” really supports that.

It won’t be worth it for a hot minute. There are only a few routers on the market and they range from several hundred to a couple thousand.

And there are even fewer devices that support it. There are a couple laptops that support it, but they’re a few thousand dollars.