Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

rodneybrooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#111

Post by davedx »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #49
brcmthrowaway wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the silver bullet for battery tech?

I think there are ~3 major battery improvements to watch out for. 1. Solid state batteries. Likely to be expensive, but promise better energy density. 2. Some really good grid storage battery. Likely made with iron or molten salt or something like that. Dirt cheap, but horrible energy density. 3. Continued Lithium ion battery improvements, e.g. cheaper, more durable etc.

My money is on saltwater batteries. You can make them really cheaply. Flow batteries are still too complicated IMO.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#112

Post by sinuhe69 »

I always have a definitional problem with predictions. I mean, it's moot whether a specific prediction is right or wrong as long as it doesn't help us to understand the big picture and the trends.

Take, for example, the prediction about "robots can autonomously navigate all US households". Why all? From the business POV, 80% of the market is "all" in a practical sense, and most people will consider navigation around the home as "solved" if they can do it for the majority of households and with virtually no intervention. Hilarious situations will arise that amuse the folks; video of clumsy robots will flood the internet instead of cats and dogs, but for the business site, it's lucrative enough to produce and sell them en masse. Another question of interest is how is the trend? What will the approximate cost of such a robot be? How many US households will adopt such a robot by which time, as they have adopted washing machines and dishwashers. Will we see a linear adoption or rather a logistic adoption? These are the more interesting questions than just whether I'm right or wrong.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#113

Post by jsnell »

davedx wrote: post #107
jsnell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the economic proof of impossibility? As far as I know Waymo has not published any official numbers, and any third party unit profitability analysis is going to be so sensitive to assumptions about e.g. exact depreciation schedules and utilization percentages that the error bars would inevitably be straddling both sides of the break-even line. > with no evidence that the system can generalize, profitably, outs…

That's a very hand wavy argument. How about starting here: > Mario Herger: Waymo is using around four NVIDIA H100 GPUSs at a unit price of $10,000 per vehicle to cover the necessary computing requirements. The five lidars, 29 cameras, 4 radars – adds another $40,000 - $50,000. This would put the cost of a current Waymo robotaxi at around $150,000 There are definitely some numbers out there that allow us to estimate w…

(That quote doesn't seem credible. It seems quite unlikely that Waymo would use H100s -- for one, they operate cars that predate the H100 release. And H100s sure as hell don't cost just $10k either.)

You're not even making a handwavy argument. Sure, it might sound like a lot of money, but in terms of unit profitability it could mean anything at all depending on the other parameters. What really matters is a) how long a period that investment is depreciated over; b) what utilization the car gets (ot alternatively, how much revenue it generates); c) how much lower the operating costs are due to not needing to pay a driver.

Like, if the car is depreciated over 5 years, it's basically guaranteed to be unit profitable. While if it has to be depreciated over just a year, it probably isn't.

Do you know what those numbers actually are? I don't.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#114

Post by torginus »

_yb2s wrote: post #19
laweijfmvo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kobe Bryant basically commuted by helicopter, when it was convenient. It may have even taken off and landed at his house, but probably not exactly at all of his destinations. Is a “flying car” fundamentally that much different?

I think the difference is that a helicopter is extremely technical to fly requiring complex and expensive training, and the eVTOL is supposed to be extremely simple to fly. Also the eVTOL in principle is really cheap to make if you just consider the materials and construction costs- probably eventually much cheaper than a car. I was curious so I looked up how much you can buy the cheapest new helicopters for, and the…

Nothing that flies in the air is that safe for its passengers or its surroundings - not without restrictions placed on it and having a maintenance schedule that most people would not be comfortable following.

Most components are safety critical in ways that their failure can lead to an outright crash or feeding the pilot false information leading him to make a fatal mistake. Most cars can be run relatively safely even with major mechanical issues, but something as 'simple' as a broken heater on a pitot tube (or any other component) can lead to a crash.

Then there's an issue of weather - altitude, temperature, humidity, wind speed can create an environment that makes it either impossible, unsafe, or extremely unpleasant - imagine flying into an eddy current that stalls out the aircraft, making your ass drop a few feet.

Flying's a nice hobby, and I have great respect to people who can make a career out of it, but I'd definitely not get into these auto-piloted eVTOLs, nor should people who don't know what they are doing.

Edit: Also unlike helicopters, which can autorotate, and fixed wing aircraft, that can glide, eVTOLs just drop out of the sky.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#118

Post by yakz »

davedx wrote: post #106
VirusNewbie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>believes their money is better spent buying back their stock, Alphabet has to buy back their stock because of the massive amount of stock comp they award.

> Alphabet has to buy back their stock because of the massive amount of stock comp they award. Wait, really? They're a publically traded company; don't they just need to issue new stock (the opposite of buying it back) to employees, who can then choose to sell it in the public market?

It's much better comp if the value of the stock goes up.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#119

Post by stavros »

stouset wrote: post #69
AlotOfReading wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People living on the margins is fundamentally a social problem, and we all know how amenable those are to technical solutions. Let's say AV development stops tomorrow though. Is continuing to grind workers down under the boot of the gig economy really a preferred solution here or just a way to avoid the difficult political discussion we need to have either way?

I'm not sure how I could have been more clear that I'm not suggesting we stop development on robotaxis or anything related to AI. All I'm asking is that we take a moment to reflect on the people who won't be winners. Which is going to be a hell of a lot of people. And right now there is absolutely zero plan for what to do when these folks have one of the few remaining opportunities taken away from them. As awful as t…

This is orthogonal. You're living in a society with no social safety net, one which leaves people with minimal options, and you're arguing for keeping at least those minimal options. Yes, that's better than nothing, but there are much better solutions.

The US is one of the richest countries in the world, with all that wealth going to a few people. "Give everyone else a few scraps too!" is better than having nothing, but redistributing the wealth is better.

Re: Predictions Scorecard, 2025 January 01

#120

Post by bronco21016 »

Denzel wrote: post #73
jsnell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the economic proof of impossibility? As far as I know Waymo has not published any official numbers, and any third party unit profitability analysis is going to be so sensitive to assumptions about e.g. exact depreciation schedules and utilization percentages that the error bars would inevitably be straddling both sides of the break-even line. > with no evidence that the system can generalize, profitably, outs…

Analyzing Alphabet’s capital allocation decisions gives you all the evidence necessary. It’s safe to assume that a company’s ownership takes the decisions that they believe will maximize the value of their company. Therefore, we can look at Alphabet’s capital allocation decisions, with respect to Waymo, to see what they think about Waymo’s opportunity. In the past five years, Alphabet has spent >$100B to buyback thei…

Isn’t there a point of diminishing returns? Let’s assume they hand over $70B to Waymo today. Can Waymo even allocate that?

I view the bottlenecks as two things. Producing the vehicles and establishing new markets.

My understanding of the process with the vehicles is they acquire them then begin a lengthy process of retrofitting them. It seems the only way to improve (read: speed up) this process is to have a tightly integrated manufacturing partner. Does $70B buy that? I’m not sure.

Next, to establish new markets… you need to secure people and real estate. Money is essential but this isn’t a problem you can simply wave money at. You need to get boots on the ground, scout out locations meeting requirements, and begin the fuzzy process of hiring.

I think Alphabet will allocate money as the operation scales. If they can prove viability in a few more markets the levers to open faster production of vehicles will be pulled.

Post reply on HN