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

Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

caricecars.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#151

Post by kragen »

Onavo wrote: post #9
ptsd_isv wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can negotiate charging with essentially a single resistor. Deciding when to stop / balancing cells etc is the harder problem.

Well, OP Amps are technically "analog" too.

Op-amps are absolutely, 100% analog in every sense; there's no need to limit this assertion with the nonstandard adverb "technically". The term "analog" was invented in the first place specifically to describe circuits made out of op-amps rather than "digital" circuits. And, yes, you can totally balance the charge on your cells using op-amps and similar analog circuits. You will probably want some sharp PWM waveforms in the circuit, but PWM isn't all the way to digital.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#152

Post by kragen »

potato3732842 wrote: post #129
rjsw wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was working on diagnostics for cars using CAN in 1995.

If you were dealing with CAN back then then you of all people know it wasn't the norm at the time.

That was after the first 20 years of automotive computers, though, wasn't it, if only barely?

WP says, "In the early 1970s, the Japanese electronics industry began producing integrated circuits and microcontrollers used for controlling engines.[6] The Ford EEC (Electronic Engine Control) system, which used the Toshiba TLCS-12 microprocessor, entered mass production in 1975.[7]" Reference [6] says, "First half of 1970s: Japan starts developing ICs for automobiles ahead of the U.S.: Development of ICs for automobiles started with analog ICs for in-car entertainment, and was followed by 4-bit microcontrollers and other digital ICs for use with the wipers, electronic locks, and dashboard, and then by microcontrollers with 8-bit and wider bits for engine control."

But I don't know any more details. Was Toyota controlling its windshield wipers with a 4004 in 01974? Was Nissan controlling a speedometer with an RCA 1801 in 01973?

Anyway, if we date it from 01975, then 01995 would be year #21.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#153

Post by Brian_K_White »

hrimfaxi wrote: post #64
abakker wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, even back in the OnStar days, you could "opt out" and cancel the service and it would track you anyway. With BYD or any other car maker, I'd be worried the SIM was a placebo.

What would the car maker gain from adding a decoy sim?

What did GM gain from lying about turning off On-Star?

The only reason a decoy sim is going a bit far to believe, is because it wouldn't actually work. It wouldn't actually fool anyone and would just look bad when the first reviewer pointed it out a year before the car is even available for sale. If it weren't for that, we already have countless example proofs that a company will do literally anything if it will work merely 1% more than whatever it costs. Including car makers obfuscating and even flat out lying about their various connections.

What do they get out of it? data & control, same as ever.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#154

Post by shermantanktop »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #126
cuu508 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to operate with an assumption that any VPN other than your own should not be fully trusted. It's another thing to claim all of them are obviously corrupt.

If you had a company whose core business proposition was Quite Obviously Shady, would you expect them to be scrupulously legit in other areas? Quick question for you - rhino poaching is a huge problem in Africa, with poachers getting a surprisingly small amount of money per rhino they shoot, because the buyers only want the horns. Do you think paying the poachers more to not shoot the rhinos would solve that problem?

Suspicions, inferences and reasonable concerns are perfectly fine. Answering questions with questions is less fine.

Statements of categorical fact about a whole class of things (in this case VPNs) demand more than that.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#155

Post by Brian_K_White »

mikestew wrote: post #112
bityard wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the pictures, this is the kind of vehicle that you would gladly pay extra to have delivered to your second vacation home so you can park it next to your 6 other semi-exotic cars and drive it half a mile to the country club on Saturdays. If that is not your demographic, they might have geo-located your IP and blocked you based on the median income of your area. (Only half joking.)

Oh, c’mon, it’s 44K. One can easily spend 30K or more on a motorcycle these days, we are a long way from “country club” prices. If it came to the U. S., I’d probably pick one up to park next to our Hyundai (yeah, a Hyundai, not a Range Rover).

$44k for something useless.

Why are you guys ignoring that part of the equation and only talking about $44k as though it's the same as the $44k everyone else spends on that Hyundai that they actually need to be useful and haul kids and tools and furniture around a country that's bigger than the Netherlands all day every day like a mule?

Those are two entirely different $44k.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#156

Post by mattclarkdotnet »

mulmen wrote: post #110
rbanffy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm amused to see that so many cybertrucks have been powder coated or wrapped in vinyl. There are car enthusiasts and Cubertruck owners. There is little overlap between these two sets.

I don’t understand. Vinyl wrapping cars is a normal thing for car people. What’s the difference?

Normal in the USA maybe? It’s very unusual here in Australia to see a wrapped car.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#157

Post by _carbyau_ »

01100011 wrote: post #149
jmward01 wrote: post #21

I like the idea, and we need variety in the market to keep things evolving, but I like the bells and whistles. I just don't want it to phone home. Honestly, I want the title to be 'we don't have a network connection and we can still be a car'. Privacy is my #1 feature.

It's a good thing cars aren't required to have a visible, unique identifier or government and corporations might be able to track your movements.

As with everything to do with society and computerised features, it is a matter of scale.

Cameras reading numbers plates at multiple locations -including speed! - is one thing.

Noting your : location, speed, direction in subsecond increments, your climate control preferences, what songs/eBook you are listening to, your face imagery (thanks sleep alert camera) and listening to your conversations... this is a whole other level of possible privacy invasion.

Is all of the above being tracked? I could imagine much of that is unwieldy, or not that useful, data. But how can you know whether a company is taking this data or not without first being suspicious? And if you are suspicious at this level, then what could a company say to convince you they are above board, and only using your data to your benefit.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#158

Post by serf »

nine_k wrote: post #38

I like the general design very much. And additionally the fact that it is small, lightweight, and not imposing, while apparently being a fast car. Except for one thing: the brushed metal dashboard. I can imagine how terribly it's going to reflect the sun from behind when the roof is folded. I hope they can offer a tasteful matte dark version. As of the lack of bells and whistles, the dashboard seems to be prepared fo…

'engined-turned stainless' (not brushed.) was used in vintage race cars because it was the non-reflective option and looked nice. hid tooling marks from manufacture.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#159

Post by jesperwe »

nine_k wrote: post #38

I like the general design very much. And additionally the fact that it is small, lightweight, and not imposing, while apparently being a fast car. Except for one thing: the brushed metal dashboard. I can imagine how terribly it's going to reflect the sun from behind when the roof is folded. I hope they can offer a tasteful matte dark version. As of the lack of bells and whistles, the dashboard seems to be prepared fo…

Totally agree. Dashboard felt like a thorn in the eye.

Re: Carice TC2 – A non-digital electric car

#160

Post by jesperwe »

kragen wrote: post #151
Onavo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, OP Amps are technically "analog" too.

Op-amps are absolutely, 100% analog in every sense; there's no need to limit this assertion with the nonstandard adverb "technically". The term "analog" was invented in the first place specifically to describe circuits made out of op-amps rather than "digital" circuits. And, yes, you can totally balance the charge on your cells using op-amps and similar analog circuits. You will probably want some sharp PWM waveforms…

I would question whether a PWM "technically" counts as digital... It is on and off, sure, but so is a mechanical power switch, which few would describe as digital. "Digital" is more when we get higher level values represented by multiple signals that are on or off (aka bits).
Post reply on HN