This is completely false. I own one. It goes up to the low 80s mph before the gas engine kicks in. Acceleration from a stop is sub 6 second 0-60. Hardly weak. Charges from fully empty to full in about 2.5 hours.
Mine gets a 40-45 mile all electric range. I drive 10-12k miles per year, and ignoring extended multi-day vacation road trips once every couple years, I fill up the tank 2-3 times per year.
My experience with my Prius PHEV is the same. I don’t even have a level 2 charger. I just plug it in in the garage overnight, and most days I don’t use any gas.
The only time the ICE turns on before my EV range is up is if I hit the windshield defrost button when it’s cold. That’s presumably to prioritize getting heat out through the vents quickly. I’ve never accelerated fast enough, nor gone fast enough to trigger the ICE engine taking over. It’s straight up an EV for my first ~40 miles every day.
I rented a BYD M9 PHEV minivan while on vacation in Cancun, Mexico and other than the vehicle winning over my family in, like 2 days, the mileage was amazing. 1000km range, of which, 180km was battery (that's 520mi of gas + 100mi battery range).
PHEVs in the US are gimped by poor regulatory incentives - we should be forcing manufacturers to increase overall range + EV range. If this model were sold in the US by a US manufacturer, I bet the ranges would be halved (and still considered good/decent in comparison to existing alternatives).
That sounds like the real issue, vs. EVs. This sounds like you basically have to plug it in every time you park it. And there’s no way you could do any sort of (even small) road trip without using gas.
(For comparison, our EV6 has about 200-250 mile range, and we charge it about once a week or so, give or take, unless we take a road trip.)
Also, one of the main advantages with EVs is their insane low maintenance, but sounds like PHEVs still have to all the same maintenance issues of ICE vehicles.
> This sounds like you basically have to plug it in every time you park it. And there’s no way you could do any sort of (even small) road trip without using gas.
> Also, one of the main advantages with EVs is their insane low maintenance, but sounds like PHEVs still have to all the same maintenance issues of ICE vehicles.
I keep seeing this repeated, but I kept a detailed decade-plus spreadsheet of maintenace costs for my last ICE car, and ~2/3 of the costs were for components that are common to EVs.
1. Maintenance isn’t just about cost. It’s about the number of things that move and/or need fluids, and can fail/leak. It’s about dealing with service centers trying to upsell you on every little possible thing that could go wrong.
When I take my EV in, it’s for one of two things: I need my tires rotated, or I need new tires. That’s it. There’s no “curtsy inspection” that comes back with literally 40 different things that I could have done to it.
2. Our household has four vehicles: one EV, three ICE vehicles. There’s no way the occasional new tires (rotations are free where we bought our tires) amount to 2/3 the cost of the maintenance needed on our ICE vehicles. It’s probably closer to 1/10.
I think you’re overestimating what all needs maintenance on an EV.
> and am familiar with which items are common to an EV.
This is the overestimating I was referring to. I think you’re either mistaken in what items are common to EV, or you’re overestimating the cost of those items.
There is only one thing that needs maintenance on an EV: tires.
Unless you’re saying that tires amount to 2/3 of an ICE vehicles maintenance. In which case you may want to shop around for more reasonably priced tires.
Not the person you replied to, but I'm not sure how you arrived here. Brakes, coolant, washer fluid, diff oil, gearbox oil, cabin air filter, wiper blades. Did you know EV motors can also require oil changes (at hundreds of thousands of miles, in fairness)?
Nice Michelins for my ICE have been something resembling 1/3 of service costs. Not 2/3 but not negligible either.
Maybe at 1/10 the schedule of ICE vehicles, at least for me. I use regenerative braking almost exclusively (probably 95+% of the time).
> coolant
Yes, I did forget about that one. But frequency is about 50% less often than ICE vehicles. Maybe once every 5-10 years.
> washer fluid, cabin air filter, wiper blades
Agreed on these as well, but I bucketed these in the trivial category, totaling less than a tank of gas once every 6-12 months, and all DIY things that you don’t need to take to a service center for.
At the end of the day, I only care about things I need to take it to the shop for. Which means I only need to take it in for a no-questions-asked tire rotation 1-2 times a year, and new tires every 4-5 years. Everything else I can easily do at home.
> diff oil, gearbox oil
These are the same thing, but you’re correct. But it’s infrequent (maybe once or twice over the life, and around $150.
> Did you know EV motors can also require oil changes
> Maybe at 1/10 the schedule of ICE vehicles, at least for me. I use regenerative braking almost exclusively (probably 95+% of the time).
In practice, my brakes always corrode from road salt and fuel-efficient driving habits and need replacing long before I actually wear them down, so regen brakes are largely irrelevant to brake life.
> Which means I only need to take it in for a no-questions-asked tire rotation 1-2 times a year, and new tires every 4-5 years. Everything else I can easily do at home.
So that sounds... basically the same as my ICE. Two shop visits per year for tire changes, one oil change per year at the same time as one of the tire changes.
There are many things that break or need maintenance on my ICE vehicles that I don’t want to mess with myself: oil changes, transmissions, alternators, belts, engine issue (oil leaks). Engine air filters are about the only ICE-specific piece I don’t mind doing myself.
Re: brakes, where I live, I don’t think salt will play much a factor, and not sure what you mean by “fuel efficient driving” wearing your brakes, but I’m using regenerative braking 95+% of the time.
> There are many things that break or need maintenance on my ICE vehicles that I don’t want to mess with myself: oil changes, transmissions, alternators, belts, engine issue (oil leaks).
Of all those things you listed, they took a total of 3 garage visits (that weren't already scheduled for tire changes) over 14 years. Not what I'd call "many".
> Re: brakes, where I live, I don’t think salt will play much a factor, and not sure what you mean by “fuel efficient driving” wearing your brakes, but I’m using regenerative braking 95+% of the time.
I mean that if you drive in a fuel efficient way - i.e. by not constantly accelerating/braking unnecessarily, your brake life will be much extended. My current car has regen brakes, and I expect the brakes will require replacing just as often as they did on my old ICE car, due to corrosion.
Again, probably only relevant for extremely long term ownership, but someone will need to own and maintain all the high mileage decade-old EVs a decade from now.
My daughter one day told me that her Tesla said it needed oil maintenance. I scoffed and tried to mansplain to her how EVs don’t need oil. Then I checked the car, and sure enough, it was asking for oil. One of the contained oil systems had sprung a leak. That’s on a 6 year old Tesla Model X.
ICE maintenance is pretty cheap, with the exception of tires, which are a huge outlay (but also the most important safety item!). My Honda only needs $35 of oil/filter once a year, maybe $40 of brake pads once in 80,000 miles, and a burned out bulb for a few bucks. Top tires all around though, easily $600-$800. A few one time things around the 100k mile mark, maybe plugs/sparkys/belt or similar, but not regular in any sense, most cars will only have them ever done once.
> seatbelt receptacle, a cruise control buttons, roof exterior rubber trim, a headrest, a window switch, washer fluid spray nozzles, lug nuts, wiper blades, shocks, struts, door weather stripping, rivets holding the front plastic splashguard on, headlight bulbs, headlight buffing, washer fluid reservoir cap, replacement speaker, turn signal switch, windshield repair, backup light switch.
Other than washer fluid, wiper blades, and the occasional headlight bulb, many of these I’ve never had to replace on any of my vehicles (ICE or EV), and the few that I’ve had to replace was maybe once on one car.
I feel like you’re an unlucky sample of 1.
Most of my ICE vehicles needed none of these, and only things related to ICE vehicles (oil/fluid changes, brake pads/rotors oil leaks, transmissions, alternators, belts).
Maybe a bit, but overall my numbers line up with what most sources give for average TCO maintenance numbers. But really, the car was just getting old - having a couple random things to fix per year on a 10+ year-old car isn't unusual. (And my ICE component maintenance was quite low, so you could say I was lucky there, rather than unlucky.)
I think it's your maintenance numbers that are way off, "zero maintenance other than tires" doesn't line up with what any reputable source gives for TCO maintenance costs for EVs or non-ICE components.
I think you also might be overestimating what the average ICE owner has to take care of.
Most Americans don’t keep a car long enough to even pay it off - they’re in an endless loop of trade-ins, meaning that most non-accident damage is covered by warranty.
I’ve had my current ICE car for just over 5 years now and finally paid my first out of pocket repair cost: $40 for a new washable air filter. Other than that, my expenditures have been tires and a couple hundred bucks in oil changes that I didn’t want to do myself.
> I think you also might be overestimating what the average ICE owner has to take care of.
> Most Americans don’t keep a car long enough to even pay it off - they’re in an endless loop of trade-ins, meaning that most non-accident damage is covered by warranty.
No, I think you may be underestimating. According to this article [1] at least, it’s close to 13 years. That’s well into large/costly maintenance items.
Maybe on HN, people don’t keep their cars long enough to need new brakes or transmission flush, but that’s not typical.
Curious for the big examples. Some major things EVs don’t have: oil changes, belts/chains, transmissions, most things related to the engine & drive train are different… seems like the main similarities would be tires, brakes, body work, amenities.
No the GP, but in the 10 years of owning my ICE vehicle I've had these things serviced:
Oil change/Oil filter, Spark plugs, Alternator belt, Aircon belt, Brake pads, Brake fluid, Wiper blades, Wiper fluid, 12V battery, Tyres, an accessory fuse, a jammed seatbelt buckle. Two of the power locks are a bit sticky and probably need a touch-up of oil.
The first 4 are ICE-only, and brake pads are worn less if you mostly use regen. The rest are the same on EVs.
And by far the biggest cost of car ownership (for new cars at least) is depreciation. And EVs depreciate rapidly - enough to offset the costs of oil changes I imagine. And I actually like bringing my car into the dealer twice a year for service. I get to wander around and check out what's new, eat some free snacks, shoot the breeze with my dealer about what's happening in the industry, and then spend the rest of the time on my laptop. Maybe this is sad to admit, but I actually kind of look forward to it.
That being said, if you're in the market for a used EV right now, that depreciation actually works in your favor. I was looking at prices on used luxury EVs recently, and have to admit I was pretty tempted by some 2-3 year old cars selling at less than half MSRP.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your main point, but I will say that Toyota's hybrid design is one of the best ICE engines out there. The transmission is replaced with planetary gears and the starter and alternators are replaced with a pair of motors to control the throttle and continuously variable transmission, making it one of the gentlest engine designs out there.
But yes, there is engine oil to be replaced and whatnot.
And also, to your point, my experience with my PHEV is my short range driving is electric, but it turns out most of my miles is consumed by annual long range trips. If I commuted to work, things would tip more in favour of EV driving. All to say how much EV you get out of your PHEV will depend highly on the type of driving one does.
> Mine gets a 40-45 mile all electric range.
That sounds like the real issue, vs. EVs. This sounds like you basically have to plug it in every time you park it. And there’s no way you could do any sort of (even small) road trip without using gas.
> (For comparison, our EV6 has about 200-250 mile range, and we charge it about once a week or so, give or take, unless we take a road trip.)
its gasoline car. You use 45miles for every day commute while charging overnight, and use gas for roadtrips: 500 miles range + 3 mins put gas into car
Toyotas hybrid uses gas when you accelerate hard to get that 0-60, it’s a combined system horsepower. Unlike phevs, EREVs are only driven by the electric drive, and the gas system is a series generator, so the EV is fully capable & always doing 100% of the work. PHEVs fundamentally aren’t.
Anyway, the real world data from PHEV usage shows you are the outlier, most people don’t bother plugging them in regularly due to their limitations.
Again, false. You can clearly hear when the combustion engine kicks in and it's indicated in the dash. I can floor it in electric mode and it still gets up to 60 in around 6 seconds, no gas involved. Hybrid mode is probably slightly faster but it's a very marginal difference.
I don't believe your last statement because you've been wrong about everything else, and it doesn't make sense. Plugging it in is exactly as easy as literally any electric car, and it simply doesn't have the limitations you claim it does.
I don't know what you've been reading, but you should evaluate the veracity of it as a source and talk to actual owners. I know several others who have one and we're all quite happy with them and don't get gas often
“ The researchers attributed most of the gap to overestimates of the “utility factor” – the ratio of miles travelled in electric mode to the total miles travelled – finding that 27% of driving was done in electric mode even though official estimates assumed 84%. ”
Perhaps the rav4 prime @ 41ml max ev range is a better system than all the other low range PHEVs like it, and has better real world usage data than them. I doubt it though, but I don’t have the data on just the rav.
It's an interesting article - thanks for sharing! The original report is worth reading too. [1]
I agree with the premise. The "utility factor" used to estimate fuel efficiency for PHEVs does not line up with real-world data, which effectively creates a loophole to avoid emissions regulations and keep selling gas guzzlers. This is a problem, and should be fixed.
In regards to which cars are most to blame:
> Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW account for the lion’s share of fines avoided over the past three years, together responsible for 89% of the total.
This is a recent trend where luxury carmakers are using PHEVs to circumvent emissions regulations. The latest BMW M5 [2], for example, is a PHEV with a monster 4.4L V8 engine. Car enthusiasts actually hate it compared to the old model because the hybrid system increased the weight by 1000 lbs. But making it a PHEV is probably the only way that BMW is still able to sell a V8. It seems kind of stupid all around.
The RAV4 PHEV is also a big, heavy (4,500 lb) car with a large (by European standards) 2.5L engine. But I would hesitate to lump it in with luxury cars from BMW, Mercedes, Land Rover, etc. I would also hesitate to apply findings from a European study to the US market, where large gasoline cars are currently very popular (not that every discussion needs to be about the US - but the RAV4 is the best selling car in the US so it's important to that market). Not saying you're wrong about RAV4 PHEV emissions relative to the gasoline RAV4, just that the study you linked doesn't really support making any specific claims about that model. The report only mentions Toyota once, where it is lumped into an "others" category on a chart along with Ford, Hyundai, JLR, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Suzuki.
If you build a product that most people don’t “use correctly” then you have not built a good product suitable for that use. Blaming the customer and expecting them to change is a losing strategy
There are reasons to buy a PHEV even if you never plug it in. Their electric motors tend to output more power than HEV versions of the same model, leading to more performance and a quieter drivetrain (even with the engine running, it doesn't have to work as hard). You can also run climate control and infotainment while parked without having to idle the engine, which is nice when waiting around on a hot day. Or you can remotely start the air conditioner with your phone.
Basically you can get EV quality-of-life features on a gasoline-powered vehicle.
I probably wouldn't recommend a PHEV to someone who doesn't have a place to plug it in every day. But there are reasons to buy a PHEV beyond just fuel efficiency.
The cars fine. It’s great it works for him. I wouldn’t personally buy one today when lots of options for real BEVs exist, but you do you.
What I do care about, and why I care that he’s an outlier, is that low range PHEVs mainly exist to get emissions credits for manufacturers so that they can sell more gas cars, and those emission savings aren’t real [1]. You could say everyone’s dumb for using them this way, but clearly the ergonomics of the electrical capabilities in this category are lacking in important ways.
And I can’t prove it but I bet the manufacturers have known this for a long time. But adding a plug to a hybrid with a tiny battery was an awfully cheap way to get your existing car counted as “green” for credits, so too tempting.
I was a regular SDE at brex for a couple years and my various documents about comp say I have RSUs, and carta says so as well.
I've never bothered to understand the details since none of the private companies I've worked for have had the non-cash portion of their comp be worth anything but $0 before.
I think you have to be careful with this as well, the word "blocking" in particular reminds me of a protest over the Israel/Gaza war that happened at my alma mater a couple years ago.
Protesters camped out at a central campus thoroughfare, and some protesters tried to stop people from walking through it. Not every protester did this and it wasn't done consistently by those who did, although some people avoided the area entirely just because they didn't want to deal with it. There were certainly other ways to travel from point A to point B on campus, just slightly longer and less convenient ones.
Were people "blocked" from walking through campus? Without disagreeing on any of the above facts, whether people agreed that someone was "blocked" largely came down to who was on each side. So you end up in this annoying semantic argument over what "blocked" means, where people are just using motivated reasoning based on who they want to be the bad actor.
Then you have another layer of disagreement - is it the responsibility of someone walking through campus to make a tiny effort to walk a few minutes out of their way and avoid instigating or escalating? Or do they have every right to walk through a public campus they're a student at, and anyone even slightly getting in their way is in the wrong? This feels closer to a principle people could have a consistent belief about, but again, people's opinions were 100% predictable based on which side of the protest they agreed with
I’m not sure what peoples feelings about have much to do with anything. A protest is not effective unless it impacts some kind of ‘violence against the state’. Usually, this is blocking roads at its lightest.
I hope that you’re young or something… impeding a citizen is violence against the state, as the state gets his power from the work of it, citizens.. which is basically in the western world this describes most protests. Being granted the right to protest by your government is meaningless because if you took away the right to protest, then your people would just protest. The states options to quell unrest are: violent repression or negotiation. over the last 5000 years. We’ve determined that the best way to keep people in their place and the rulers in power is a mix of the two, hegemony look it up.
I scrolled past the intro on the website and got to the very first mention of protein, where it is pictured as the foundation of the "new pyramid". The literal very first long form text that appears after that graphic is as follows:
> We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.
I'm not about to go count all the mentions and provide an exact answer to your question, because this website appears to be saying things that I already know and have been living by for years; it has no value to me personally. But the initial call to eat more protein specifically says "both animal and plant sources".
Diversity is relative. The difference between Irish and English ancestry created low trust in the mid-1800s USA but is fairly irrelevant today. Trust grew over time.
From experience, my response to this is, por que no los dos?
I am 100% certain that conservative men being less likely to seek help is _part_ of the reason why various data shows them as having fewer mental health issues than their liberal counterparts. But I doubt that's the whole picture, and it's also by far the least interesting part of the picture - the cause and effect there is pretty simple and clear.
As another commenter in this thread observes, there's "too much psychology talk in every day life, everyone is traumatised and has unresolved issues etc". I think that's part of it as well, and it's not difficult to believe that this is something that impacts "liberal and left leaning men" more than conservatives, due to sheer exposure if nothing else. I think you do a disservice to the discussion if you dismiss this outright.
Are you going to lie that you didn't know that the videos are shown to you in exchange for ads?
Entering into a contract doesn't necessarily require you to sign a document. Quite a few contracts that we make every day require no formal acceptance, like entering a shop.
No, I'm going to state the truth that I never agreed to be shown ads, and you are extremely weird for lying and claiming that I did.
Google wants to show me ads. I don't want to see them. I demonstrated this by blocking them. Google continues to show me videos anyway. Clearly they're ok with the arrangement. They are free to present me with written terms, or gate all their videos behind a login, but they choose not to do so.
You are either very confused or playing stupid for some reason that I don't understand, but it isn't amusing or cute. This will probably earn me a dang warning but I don't really care - you are full of shit. You're making claims all over this thread that you've literally just made up.
I can point directly to the law in whatever jurisdiction you care to name that makes doing what you describe illegal.
You cannot point to anything that makes it illegal to view videos on a publicly accessible website without watching the ads that usually play before them.
This is how I feel about claiming that stealing from YouTube isn’t actually stealing. Juvenile nonsense. That’s why I came up with a nonsense counter argument
I don’t give a shit about laws. Common sense and morality are what matter to me and taking without paying will always be stealing according to both. I’m not trying to prove anything to you, other than how juvenile it is to hide behind laws and technicalities I guess.
Hah! Someone after my own heart. Well, since we're not talking law, let's get into it!
First of all, all profit is theft. Your boss and shareholders are only able to make money because they steal margin from your labor.
In this case, Youtube may be providing a platform, but what it gets in return is far more than it gives back to creators. Creators have no rights when it comes to Youtube - I can list many who were nixxed from Youtube because they violated a specific subset of neoliberal, puritanical "ethics." For example, Youtube will delist or demonetize videos that have too many swear words in them, or videos that discuss things that aren't illegal but Youtube doesn't like, such as adblockers or emulation software.
This is unethical. Youtube has no value outside of its creators. Yet it has total say over what kinds of content creators are allowed to make, and it sets the prices for creators, keeping the lion's share for itself. That is theft.
Youtube abuses its users as well, cramming features we don't want down our throats, like "Shorts" (puke) and increasingly longer ads. I know for a fact not enough revenue is going to the creators because they still need to seek external sponsorship, resulting in double-ads: youtube ones, and then sponsored portions of videos. Youtube also constantly enshittifies the UI. And, despite its puritanical neoliberal ethics, it does basically nothing about the extensive racist content on its platform (any video featuring black people doing just about anything will have years-old comments on it with racist content). And don't even get me started on the freakshow that is Youtube Kids. Just search "Elsagate."
Youtube feeds into the demonstrably mentally unhealthy attention economy and engages in dark pattern UX.
Youtube is undergoing platform enshittification, making things worse for its creators and users in order to extract as much profit as possible. It's not illegal, but it's certainly unethical. Given their shittiness, it's completely reasonable to leverage tooling to block their shitty ads. And don't pretend like this harms creators in any meaningful way. If I buy one t-shirt from a creator I like (which I do, frequently), I've given them more revenue per head than if I watched every single one of their videos, start to finish, one hundred times, with no ad blocking.
I’m not reading all that, but certainly you can make the argument that stealing a zero marginal cost good isn’t wrong. It’s still stealing though. Stealing from an unethical entity may not be wrong either, but it is still stealing.
I was under the impression we were communicating, which I was genuinely interested in doing with you. Thank you for letting me know that wasn't the case.
I haven't read your comment and won't be replying to the content of it. I hope you have a good weekend!
did you give the grocery store an account name and tons of other information while stealing and they still allowed it? and welcomed you back the next visit, for years on end using those same credentials?
also did the grocery store start out as a free food store similarly to youtube? and then just expect people pay despite not enforcing it?
I agree with this. There was no meeting of the minds, no contract. But, the terms in the Google account probably include something about the terms for viewing youtube videos.
> You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business
You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not.
It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract.
Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract.
A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance"
I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.
If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, trespassed if you refuse, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone.
Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.
Poll a random subset of people with the question "are you in favor of free childcare?". X% will say yes.
Poll another set with the question "are you in favor of taxpayer funded childcare?". Y% will say yes.
I would bet any amount of money that X>Y, and (X-Y)% of people did not think about the fact that a free government service is not actually free.
Exactly how big X and Y are, I couldn't say. But identifying propaganda and deceptive language is never something that should be discouraged, even when it's advocating for a cause you agree with.
I skimmed the Project 2025 doc during the leadup to the election when there was a big hullabaloo about it. Did not read the whole thing as it was incredibly long, but did read some summaries. Maybe 75% of it was utterly boring conservative stuff that some people surely disagree with, but is hardly worth losing sleep over. 25% or so was somewhere in the territory of extreme right wing / borderline insane.
Skimming that website, whoever is maintaining that is being...very generous with themselves about what they mark as "completed", to put it mildly. For example, "Roll back goal of haze reduction (visible air pollution)" is marked as complete, with the source being an EPA article [1] saying "[the EPA] is reconsidering its implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Program", but no indication of what is being reconsidered, or if anything is actually done.
Putting all of that together with the claimed 46% number, I guess you can count me as a fool. But I'm not buying the hysteria here, sorry.
You are a fool because you didn't expend any effort before dismissing.
Yes, on March 12, 2025 the EPA published that press release.
But a non-fool would search the CFR to see if any proposed rules had been published.
Almost exactly one month after that press release the EPA started releasing draft rules revoking the previous administration's rejections of regional haze reduction programs and approving them instead.
Then you have to actually READ what West Virginia's haze reduction plan does: it removes the previous requirements to install additional post-combustion controls on various coal-fired power plants in the state in order to reduce emissions.
The rule was approved last month.
And the same thing is happening in other states.
"We're reconsidering an implementation" is bureaucratese for "that shit's done, yo".
Jesus fucking Christ this country is doomed because it's full of idiots who won't expend any energy whatsoever to figure out what's going on.
My experience is the opposite. I've yet to see a single example of AI working well for non trivial work that I consider relevant, based on 15+ years of experience in this field. It's good for brainstorming, writing tests, and greenfield work / prototyping. Add business context more complicated than can be explained in a short sentence, or any nuance or novelty, and it becomes garbage pretty much instantly.
Show me an AI agent adding a meaningful new feature or fixing a complicated bug in an existing codebase that serves the needs of a decent sized business. Or proposing and implementing a rearchitecture that simplifies such a codebase while maintaining existing behavior. Show me it doing a good job of that, without a prompt from an experienced engineer telling it how to write the code.
These types of tasks are what devs spend their days actually doing, as far as coding is concerned (never mind the non coding work, which is usually the harder part of the job). Current AI agents simply can't do these things in real world scenarios without very heavy hand holding from someone who thoroughly understands the work being done, and is basically using AI as an incredibly fast typing secretary + doc lookup tool.
With that level of hand holding, it does probably speed me up by anywhere from 10% to 50% depending on the task - although in hindsight it also slows me down sometimes. Net hours saved is anywhere from 0 to 10 per week depending on the week, erring more on the lower end of that distribution.
Mine gets a 40-45 mile all electric range. I drive 10-12k miles per year, and ignoring extended multi-day vacation road trips once every couple years, I fill up the tank 2-3 times per year.
reply