They could design the fuel tank to be symmetrical about the axis parallel to the car’s axels. This would let it be flipped during installation at the factory to have the refueling port facing either side. Then the only difference would be the body panel and little door that covers the gas cap.
Many (mostly European and North American) manufacturers can’t even be bothered flipping the indicator and light controls around, there’s no way they’d flip the whole fuel tank.
They could but there are downstream packaging compromises that would cause. It is easier to design the vehicle without imposing that design constraint on yourself
> It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. The resulting weight savings make it a bit more efficient. That's something this shipping yard specializes in.
According to that person, weight does indeed matter.
Yes, the weight of the hull, which is immense. Compared to that some solar panels probably weigh about as much as the paint. It's still ship, not an aircraft.
Also, thin film solar panels that can be stuck to a flat roof likely weigh less than the small portion of the battery capacity (250 tonnes of batteries total) they could theoretically substitute for.
If you were optimising for mass rather than ease of maintenance you'd probably put them on (despite the relative lack of surface area meaning you still needed to recharge at each end)
I wouldn’t mind privacy-focused AI tools, either (as long as they don’t cram it in our faces). On its AI search assist, DDG has a button to open up a private session with GPT, which I use on occasion.
I wonder if it’s legal to modify the images to look more sinister. Otherwise, someone passing by might not read the text, making it free advertising for council/sherrif.
> But then he never answers that fundamental question
The fundamental question is “is it economically viable”, and the answer from his model is “not really”
> A constellation of 40,000 satellites with GPUs “infrastructure that makes it easier for humans to keep spreading out”?
I think he’s claiming industrializing larger and more economical power generation in space, as well as the means to put it up there, would make it easier to transition to a theoretical space economy
> But isn’t that precisely what everyone has been saying?
From the article, he claims that people handwave the economics, so at least the people he has interacted with haven’t been saying that.
If it’s an AI bubble, it would be stupid to open new manufacturing capacity right now. Spend years and billions spinning up a new fab, only to have the bottom of the market drop out as soon as it comes online.
Assuming that opening a new fab is the only way to match the demand is simply asinine.
You can ramp up production in limited capacity, make long term contracts, or pass the manufacturing rust to the buyer. When we needed a vertical stabilizer for a legacy aircraft we paid for an entire production like to be built just to manufacture two tails, so there are tons of ways to do this if you want to be competitive. But instead this is a cartel like market where manufacturers colluded before, so they’re more likely to collude than spend billions doing anything.
Just open their books and schedules with a competent auditors and see if they’re artificially manipulating things or not.
That article says the main benefit of rent control (besides popularity) is an increase in YIMBY sentiment, but it seems it still has the downsides detractors dislike about it.
It doesn't do much to convince me it isn't a populist campaign promise.
