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

Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 555 posts

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#501

Post by NineStarPoint »

lumb63 wrote: post #499
feanaro wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pitchforks? Seriously though, your comment is way too defeatist. Legislature has worked for centuries for this problem. Imperfectly, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But if all else fails, giant corporations are eventually going to get the good ol' pitchforks up their butt.

To the contrary, I think settling for a mechanism that (maybe) cleans up the damage after it’s done is defeatist.

This isn’t a case where you have to wait until after the damage is done though. Making a blanket regulation of “you can’t sell a physical good that has its capabilities artificially limited to create price brackets”, or something similar, would work in advance of people trying to sell such products in the US market.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#502

Post by dreamcompiler »

anon291 wrote: post #187
bluGill wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but are you are farmer? Suburbs can support great public transit, and it would be cheaper than cars for everyone. Suburbs cannot support the bad public transport options they get though. The lack of density makes it harder to design a great network (network is critical here!), you cannot make mistakes as there is no density to save you from mistakes.

> Suburbs can support great public transit, and it would be cheaper than cars for everyone. While I agree... there is no way Americans will forgo cars. Americans love our rural and public and wild lands too much to not be able to simply visit at moment's notice. Having lived in Europe, I understand how this works there. Europeans don't have the same relationship with nature that Americans often do. The ones that do u…

The other problem (that Europeans often don't understand) is just how big America is. Texas alone is twice as big as the UK and Ireland combined.

My point is that covering America with train tracks would cost $trillions. Yes, there was a time when we built something on that scale: The interstate highway system. But those days are long over. American politics is now far too gridlocked to build a public bathroom, much less a trillion-dollar public transit system. Even if it ended up saving money and the planet.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#503

Post by dreamcompiler »

adrr wrote: post #393
fuzzfactor wrote: post #256

>You can make your Mercedes EV go faster for $60 a month Umm, no. Allow me to correct this misprint. Unless you pay an extra $60 monthly your already-expensive vehicle will not give the full outstanding performance that your particular hardware was engineered to do.

You can chip most turbo engines for higher boost which means higher HP and torque. Current 911 vs the 911S is 13PSI vs 16PSI on the exact same engine. If you want Sports Plus mode which adds a little more boost, more aggressive shifting, tighter suspension, and launch control its also just software changes that porsche bundles with a dash clock. Companies have been doing this for awhile. Whats new is the subscription…

People will figure out how to hack these things. But the difference here, I think, is that EVs tend to be much more software-driven than even the most sophisticated ICE car. They're likely to contain half-decent crypto that makes hacking much more difficult, and EV companies are likely to sue you under the DMCA if you succeed. In addition these cars are always connected to the mother ship which can disable the engine by remote control if they suspect tampering.

"Chipping" an EV is going to be much harder than it was with ICE cars.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#504

Post by burnished »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #496
burnished wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing this as a problem with personal responsibility misses that the problem is structural. Culture as expressed through individual choices works great for many situations, but it does not fix broken dynamics. Besides, if you want to apply that axe put it against the people making those decisions to conduct business in that fashion. If your first thought is that it doesn't make sense to because then that person will…

I don’t feel personally responsible but recognize that I can take actions to avoid these things, at least in some cases. If I ever found a store (literally any kind) today that didn’t price almost everything at $X.99 they would have all of my business which they could support. However, I recognize that I’m just one person and ultimately these decisions primarily benefit me. That’s also why I advocate for it; the beha…

I think I read more into your post than intended, specifically your suggestion to vote with your wallet. It is frequently stated in such a way as to be the end of the conversation - shut up and change your purchasing habits, essentially. You didnt put it that way, my bad.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#505

Post by MisterSandman »

w0m wrote: post #395
MisterSandman wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binning is completely different, an i5 may be able to perform as fast an i7 if you overclock it, but it depends on your luck on how your i5 was, and it will almost certainly be unstable. Binning is the equivalent of making really fancy chocolates, and selling the slightly worse-looking chocolates for worse.

> and it will almost certainly be unstable TBF - this depends how well they streamlined their manufacturing process. As yield goes up; getting a perfectly stable 3ghz chip binned as a 2ghz before a flash lock becomes increasingly common. It became common to hunt for specific chips for this reason back when I actually had time to pay attention to it.

That is true, I'm sure there have chips that have been purposely down-binned because they needed more i5s instead of i7s (probably not right now, but back when Intel was dominating and slacking).

But even that unique case is very different from literally blocking features in a chip for extra money per month (you couldn't pay Intel to up-bin an i5 to an i7, except for the 1 or 2 times they actually tried that)

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#506

Post by wcarron »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #477
wcarron wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, even that's a luxury, but cars already have a display for audio, and it makes sense to have an in-built nav system (would be great if you could simply select the mapping/nav software from a list like a: goog, b: apple, c: OSM, and have it only do directions). This reduces the need for a 2nd, handheld or mounted device which has the potential for increased distraction. Navigation is a core function of travel, wh…

Why do you need direct access to your phone? Just dock the phone and have the screen work like Samsung's Dex.

You... don't? That was my point. A dock works fine, too, I guess.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#507

Post by wcarron »

recursive wrote: post #404
wcarron wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's another huge failure point of more software and significantly increases cost and complexity when the aerodynamic gains from no mirrors are negligible, especially considering the absolute monstrous size and brick like shape (terrible cda) of SUVs, trucks, and 'crossovers' that are extremely popular today.

> gains from no mirrors are negligible This study says 3% - 6%. [0] The fact that inefficient vehicles exist doesn't seem like a reason to make more efficient ones even more efficient. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111001682...

Fair. That's not nothing, but again, it's a tradeoff. I'd take a plain old mirror for the sake of simplicity/cost instead of the slightly higher efficiency.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#508

Post by wcarron »

smeej wrote: post #493
bluGill wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even want the GPS: my phone already has maps that are better than what is in the car: they update in real time for current traffic.

I'm currently driving a car from 2007 because of how much I do not want the "connected" features that have become standard since the advent of smartphones. I can't even find anyone who will sell me one with those features disabled. My only option is just to buy cars from before those features existed, and it gets harder every year.

Yeah, it feels like at some point I'll have to just buy a freakin kit car to get something simple.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#509

Post by vorpalhex »

boston_clone wrote: post #436
vorpalhex wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a related fact check. It seems like it is, but read it closely. Reuters here is not debunking the phrase was said by a WEF politician, they are debunking that is is a goal of Agenda 30. Nobody made that claim in the first place.

I'm correcting mischaracterizations made by the parent comment. The article I linked provides context and paints a different picture; not sure why you consider that to be unrelated.

Your article agrees with the claim the parent made - the WEF said "You will own nothing and be happy".

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#510

Post by perryizgr8 »

kulahan wrote: post #418
foxyv wrote: post #100

The best EV is an electric bus with trolley lines or a tram. I hate that I have to own a monstrous depreciating asset to have reliable transportation. If you think people are buying this to drive on a track you are naive. They are paying $60/month to make their already unsafe overweight vehicle even more unsafe. I hope they go bankrupt.

Maybe for you. I have no interest in paying for this subscription, but a trolley or tram or train would not solve my problem without an absolutely mind-boggling amount of infrastructure investment, and there are so many things I would rather pay for. I've never enjoyed public transit, here or in Europe. It's a pain in the ass to some degree, no matter how good it is. An individual car is the epitome of freedom, so yo…

> An individual car is the epitome of freedom

Nailed it. The car is the symbol of liberty and freedom, and not without reason. People who present public transit as an alternative to cars confound me. I will choose my own car over any kind of public transit every day. I even try to avoid flights if I can drive to my destination in ~12 hours. I can take a lot of luggage, stop and relax at my leisure, have good food, not submit to security checks. Cars are literally better in every single way to train/bus/tram etc.

Post reply on HN