There's nothing more effective than a piece of fiction at transmitting the subtle complete world-view ideas of an author directly into your brain.
I mean that in the sense that non-fiction is still very much fictionally presenting a world view of the author or the subject, but in a way that's bounded by real facts. Literary fiction doesn't have that constraint.
Human history and society is actually made up of ideas and by taking 2-300 pages to digest a set of ideas you come away with a new perspective you can't get any other way.
Fiction is alive and well. This article is specifically about the decline of literary fiction.
I think people simply realize how boring and pretentious much of contemporary literary fiction is; many choose to go pick up a science fiction, or thriller, or even romance novel that can convery all the same ideas in more interesting and accessible ways.
I think it's pretentious too, but I also think it's a useful distinction in the sense that the category aspires to deeper and broader ideas than a lot of fiction- Harry Potter, Hyperion, Dennis Taylor, We Are Legion, Twilight.
Not to say that the distinction itself, literary vs non-literary fiction, isn't extremely pretentious. But we all recognize that some book's ideas are more shallow than others.
afaik Iran is a very very different case demographically from Iraq and Afghanistan- in terms of being bigger, more modern and secular. It seems like those are dynamics that make it harder to go to war/stay in war.
Quite the contrary, the religious populace is more likely to fall in line and decide the government knows best; it’s the secular populace that is demanding retaliation and critical of the government for not pursuing nuclearization already.
One data point I heard recently was 80% of Iranians oppose the current regime. That said I've also heard there is wide support for Iran to have a nuclear program. Presumably as a matter of national pride. I would still imagine the secular population to be less inclined to go to war with Israel in general.
The only Iranians I've personally talked to are ones that live in the west. They generally want to have peace with Israel and want to see the regime removed. Again very anecdotally they are still not happy about Israel bombing Iran but if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority for a hypothetical secular or democratic regime.
The fact that someone dislikes their government's current ruling regime doesn't mean they want the US to invade and install a puppet government instead. It's a false dichotomy.
> if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority
Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran. When Israel bombed an Iranian consulate, Iran referred it to the security council and waited, but the security council took no action. When Israel carries out an assassination within Iran, Iran did the same thing. Only after the UN refused to do anything to hold Israel to account did Iran retaliate. Then recently Israel launched a massive series of strikes against Iran, assassinating top members of its military and blowing up apartment buildings. It seems clear that the Iranian government didn't want to go to war with Israel, but at a certain point they ran out of options.
Iran has been attacking Israelthrough its proxies. Israel struck the Iranian consulate in a country they're at war with meeting proxies they're at war with. This is indeed an escalation. As a response Iran launched a huge number of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, which is a major eacalation and direct attack.
> Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran.
Really?
It is interesting that you made no mention of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, not Houthi in Yemen. All are well-known proxies for Iran to militarily harass Israel. They all receive direct funds and weapons from Iran.
lol. Watch Khameni’s morning broadcast where they have hundreds of delusional adherents shouting “Death to America, Death to Israel” 50 times in a row. I’m sure you’ll come out feeling the same way.
If you're in Iran it makes sense that you would want that if you feel that Israel is a threat. (But it doesn't make it a good idea).
I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
In Afghanistan they had basically just been fighting a war, where the last war in Iran was 30 years ago?
> I meant that demographically, if your populace isn't as poor, battle hardened and religious (like Afghanistan) maybe going into a long ground war is less politically feasible?
> 95,000 Iranian child soldiers were casualties during the Iran–Iraq War, mostly between the ages of 16 and 17, with a few younger
> The conflict has been compared to World War I: 171 in terms of the tactics used, including large-scale trench warfare with barbed wire stretched across trenches, manned machine gun posts, bayonet charges, human wave attacks across a no man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as sulfur mustard by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops, civilians, and Kurds. The world powers United States and the Soviet Union, together with many Western and Arab countries, provided military, intelligence, economic, and political support for Iraq. On average, Iraq imported about $7 billion in weapons during every year of the war, accounting for fully 12% of global arms sales in the period.
No, but they're the ones making the decisions about fighting such a war. The child soldiers in the 1980s are the politicians, the diplomats, and the generals in the 2020s.
Ah I see what you mean. Yes they don’t have the birth rate (or the suicidal fanaticism) to sustain a decades long attritional war against an occupation like Afghanistan or Yemen can.
But given the size of the existing Iranian population and geography, and the lack of any significantly sized pre-existing anti-government military faction, I’m not sure the US military is large enough to even occupy Iran in the first place, absent a draft.
I think they probably like having an GDP 25x larger than North Korea's. Gets a lot harder to export your products around the world when you're squared off against the US.
They still trade oil with China, that is as much as the rest of the world they need. Of course, getting trade overland is a bit more difficult than by boat which is mostly cut off during a war.
It has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. Also, they signed the Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain. As far I know, there is no risk of conflict with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, nor Oman. Who else am I missing?
Half joking: (ignoring Trump's recent "threats") Is the US a threat to Canada or Mexico?
I don't know that much. But I have heard about how in terms of daily outlook a lot of Iranians aren't very religious. Esp. compared to other countries in the region.
Even if Iran were arming regional proxies, that's an Israel problem, not an america problem. Though AIPAC et el makes sure no american is ever aware of that distinction.
That doesn't seem like a good reason to cancel the only thing stopping them from developing nukes. Of course they fund proxy armies, but that's a reginal problem that can be addressed through conventional means.
Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
Yep, the JCPOA was canceled because 1) Bibi has always wanted to go to war with Iran, and knew very well how to get the US's help to do it, and 2) Trump's ego can be trivially played by just saying it's something Obama got credit for.
> The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.
So it seems he's allowed to do this? It's still within 48 hours, so he has time to officially "notify" Congress, if he hasn't done so already. And since this was an aerial bombing, no armed forces remain there, so the 60-day bit is irrelevant.
Well let's not forget stuxnet... Iran hasn't been left uncontested. They have faced considerable setbacks along the way. They've been trying to develop [all of the things you need for nuclear weapons] for some time, and more recently had been accelerating those efforts.
Netanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years.
The single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on.
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
The deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
Breakout time was not reduced lol. You have a deal, then you get another deal, then you get another deal.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
I get the feeling you're willfully playing dumb, but to take it step by step:
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
Facilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).
Let's be clear Iran is the bad guy. But so was Saddam Hussein and he didn't have the weapons they said he did.
On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
I don't watch Fox News. Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons. I'm all for prosecuting Blair and Bush, always have been. This is not a matter in which you can just sit back and say "well, hopefully it's all innocent". Iran had to be open - they were the opposite.
> Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons
You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran.
I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all.
Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well.
Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
The alternatives were that they were enriching well beyond peaceful thresholds primarily for leverage in negotiations, or that they wanted "breakout" capability, so they could build multiple bombs quickly, if they ever chose to. But these alternatives can still be unacceptable from the standpoint of arms control and nuclear nonproliferation.
Iran is one of the top producers or radiopharmaceuticals from highly enriched materials including uranium. This should be unsurprising because Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran
There are some ridiculous pro-palestine/anti-israel takes out there that says that the politics of the region are more stable when Iran has nuclear weapons.
Israel has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels.
Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program?
Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that?
Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
One of the problems is that we became the defenders of Israel. And it's a situation we created when we created a religious extremist government in Iran.
The US and Israel have a long standing partnership. During the cold war the USSR backed Syria and Egypt (E.g.) and the US backed Israel. That was not different than other places in the world where the US pushed back against soviet expansion. Unlike Europe though there was never a formal defense pact. Also unlike Europe there were actual wars with people getting killed.
I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
- it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!)
- now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
The US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up.
But the US has also at times been a positive force.
I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum.
But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
In the Obama deal Iran was allowed to back out if the US broke its terms of the agreement (which happened because of Trump pulling out), so they are acting 100% in accordance still with the original Obama deal. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.
It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.
90% sounds good but the real dollar amount feels low.
Two reasons for this stick out:
- Are the multi-million dollar SV seed rounds distorting what real business costs are? Counting dev salaries etc. (if there is at least one employee) it doesn't seem worth the effort to save $20k - i.e., 1/5 of a dev salary? But for a bootstrapped business $20k could definitely be existential.
- The important number would be the savings as percent of net revenue. Is the business suddenly 50% more profitable? Then it's definitely worth it. But in terms of thinking about positively growing ARR doing cost/benefit on dropping AWS vs. building a new (profitable) feature I could see why it might not make sense.
Edit to add: it's easy to offhand say "oh yeah easy, just get to $2M ARR instead of saving $20k- not a big deal" but of course in the real world it's not so simple and $20k is $20k. The prevalent SV mindset of just spending without thinking too much about profitability is totally delusional except for like 1 out of 10000 startups.
From the blog post: "We are a Danish workforce management company doing employee scheduling." Definitely not a VC-funded SV startup. Probably bootstrapped.
Yes, bootstraped for our own money. It makes a difference.
If I generalize, I see two kinds of groups for whom this reduction of cost does not matter. The first group are VC-funded, and the second group are in charge of +million AWS bill. We do not have anything in common with these companies, but we have something in common with 80% of readers on this forum and 80% of AWS clients.
We're also bootstrapped and use Hetzner, not AWS (except for the occasional test), for very much the same reasons as you.
And we are also fully infrastructure as code using Ansible.
We used to be a pure software vendor, but are bringing out a devtool where the free tier runs on Hetzner. But with traction, as we build out higher tier services, it's an open question on what infrastructure to host it on.
There are a kazillion things to consider, not the least of which is where the user wants us to be.
> BYD’s solid-state EV batteries set a record by gaining 1,500 km (932 miles) range in just 12 minutes of charging.
> The test charged the battery to just 80%, meaning total EV range could reach upwards of 1,875 km (1,165 miles). Keep in mind, that is CLTC range. On the EPA scale, it would be closer to 1,300 km (808 miles)
Is this true? How quickly will other companies be making these types of batteries?
Is there some reason why solid state batteries seem to be being deployed in cars sooner than in phones?
For the last part, my guess is that the advantages are much more valuable in an EV than they are in a phone (where batteries are mostly fine. While longer life and faster charging are always nice to have:they are just that: nice to have), so if you are A) production limited and B) they are still more expensive (the article states they expect them to be price-comparable by the end of the decade), then they probably aren't worth it in a phone (yet).
When price comes down and production comes up (assuming those things happen), then I would expect them to start appearing in phones as well.
That logic seems crazy to me. Extra hundreds of miles are also just nice to have, and with the same material that goes into a 500kg car pack you could make 10000 double life phone batteries and sell them for $100 each. There's more per-cell overhead in the phone batteries but is it worth a million dollar drop in revenue?
Consumers seem to disagree with you on the first part. I personally think that current battery tech is fine for EVs (I have an EV with a 260 mile range, and only a 77kW max charge rate, and I think it's fine even for 10+ hour road trips), but a segment of the consumer space wants more than that.
I personally thought that the more interesting part of the article was where they claimed to be able to add 800 miles of range in 12 minutes. At those kinds of charge rates, my ideal EV would probably have a 300ish mile range that I could charge from 10-80 in <10 minutes (although I believe that part of the way they get those charge rates is with large battery packs, so a smaller pack would probably not charge as fast).
Additionally, while the specs for EV sedans are currently fine, batteries are only barely good enough for larger, less efficient vehicles. Maybe the killer app here isn't a sedan that goes 1000 miles, but a truck or SUV that can go 500.
The point is, whatever your and my opinions on the adequacy of current EV charging, the market seems to value improved battery specs more highly in the EV space than it does in the phone space (or maybe it doesn't and BYD is making a mistake by keeping their batteries for their cars instead of selling them to phone manufacturers).
EV batteries degrade more quickly when charged too far above half-way. As a result, your ideal EV might actually have 600 miles of range and you’d just leave it half-charged most of the time.
From everything I've heard/read you can pretty safely go to 80-90% of listed state of charge (manufacturers often also include a hidden buffer for exactly this reason).
My car, which like I said has a 260 mile range, I only charge to 80% unless I'm going on a long road trip. So for 90%+ of the time, it's never charged more than 80% (and I very rarely discharge it to less than 15%). For most people, a 300 mile range like I describe would be plenty to be able to not need 100% charge except on rare occasions. But even if it's not for you, or for some people, I very specifically said "my ideal EV". A 600 mile range that I almost never use is just extra weight that I'm carrying around and decreasing efficiency, and isn't actually providing much real battery protection. I am absolutely not someone who drives 360 miles a day (which is what you could do if you were doing an 80% to 20% discharge on a 600 mile battery every day. I'm pretty confident that stats suggest that very few people drive that much on a regular basis. The 150 miles I get from the the 80% to 20% range on my current battery is already more than enough.
I’m out for 2-3 days. Better take an external battery for the phone. Done.
Doesn’t work with a car.
Really easy to work around Apple’s utterly crap battery life. If it were better that would be nice to have.
Going a certain distance so can’t take an ev at all. It’d be nice if you could, if your usage is mostly very urban, sure that’s just nice. Gotta visit Dad on the farm a dozen times a year or whatever? That’s not your life so you don’t see it as essential even if the rest of the driving is much shorter range.
To fix iPhone battery life, create an automation that turns on battery save mode when battery dips below 80%. Works really well. I figure they don’t build this functionality into the settings because people would use it instead of buying a new phone when the battery degrades.
Want an extra 100 miles of range? That's 600lbs of cargo. A person can't place that in a trunk, and a trailer would probably barely extend range due to the extra drag and efficiency loss.
I think maybe there’s some cross thread confusion.
The comparison I’m making is an external phone battery is $10. Replacing an ev battery is, hell i dunno, $10.000?
Not needing an external phone battery would be nice.
Needing external ev batteries is far more likely to be cost prohibitive. Adjacent to this thread people have raised size and weight issues as well. I didn’t even bother going that far because the straight up price puts it in a different ball park to an external phone battery.
Right, that's the discussion up to a certain spot.
Then the GP had a counterargument to EV batteries being expensive, by suggesting you could rent one for your three day trip for a pretty small amount of money.
And not only would that charge be quite small compared to everything else going on with your car, the further you drive with the extended battery the more you save by electricity being cheaper than gasoline. And that includes having to pay for depreciation.
So in the scale between $10 and $10000, it would be like renting a big piece of road equipment, not buying one.
To be clear the middle paragraph of my post was explaining why I think they said that, and the last paragraph was me adding my own commentary. I wasn't suggesting they were implying the part about gas savings, that was all me.
(Thank you Dylan16807, your interpretation is correct, and I apologize to harry8 because I didn't realize that my comment would read so cryptically when I wrote it).
I don't understand your point. EV batteries won't cost multiple thousands of times more for the exact same battery that would go in a phone. If you pay 1000 times more for 1000 times more battery, I don't see the problem. If anything, they probably want 1000 times more demand so they can gain economies of scale.
> If you pay 1000 times more for 1000 times more battery, I don't see the problem.
We know that "if" isn't true. That's the problem with the argument for only making EV batteries. A car battery is five thousand times as big as a phone battery and it's only hundreds of times as expensive.
I’d take a phone double the thickness to get double the battery life between charges. Options on that front are limited. Had an ulefone for a while which was better than most until the screen started getting constant phantom presses making it unusable.
> Is there some reason why solid state batteries seem to be being deployed in cars sooner than in phones?
Not quite energy density, but the energy density, cost, complexity when combined with the discharge profile generates a very "interesting" phase space.
There's a few promising technologies which have very, very good efficiencies but only like very slow predictable discharge cycles. These are excellent for say building giant GW batteries in the desert, but not so great for even car batteries.
Phones and tech have bursty power needs based on use, the cost of taking other tech down to the size of a phone is extremely high (especially if you're first to market unless you know you will sell millions of units). Not to mention the reliability of batteries typically decreasing as the size drops.
Cars tend to be in the middle with their discharge profiles being relatively smooth compared to say a laptop, but yes you still have economies of scale, complexity, reliability and supply chain and patents to contend with ;)
> isn't a normal cell in an EV battery is like a AA size?
No. Some companies use tons of cylindrical cells that are larger AAs (like 18mmx65mm, 21mmx80mm, or 46mmx80mm). But even then at 46mm in diameter it's a good bit bigger than a AA.
But lots of manufacturers use prismatic or pouch like batteries. They're large and rectangular. Like these batteries on this BYD, they're called "blades". Most other major manufacturers use prismatic cells.
> Is there some reason why solid state batteries seem to be being deployed in cars sooner than in phones?
Oh, that's easy. I already knew the answer, which probably means just about every AI could tell you. Phone batteries use Li Polymer (which is solid state BTW), because they can be any shape, including flat, wide and very thin. Other chemistry's can't be thin.
They already exist in Chinese phones, the new one plus has insane battery life because of its 6000mah battery, while still being as thin as a normal phone.
Other phones targeting the Chinese market have reached 8000.
But companies like Apple and Samsung like to just sit on their laurels and sell the same thing again.
I believe it's been 5 years that some Chinese phones already have Silicon Carbon battery... Samsung/Apple was crazy slow on this, and later this year everyone will get "Shocked" when apple supposedly show up their new phone with the new battery...
Many companies have been trying to make solid state batteries for years but it's hard to make anything that works at scale as opposed to some 2mm sample on a lab bench. I guess the likes of BYD got there first because they have put a lot of investment dollars and engineers in, being the world's second largest battery maker. I think CATL the largest are also working on it. And Toyota. I'm not sure any have been able to manufacture in quantity at an acceptable price though. Soon probably.
I think LLMs could have a reasonable chance at solving tab-related workflows (keeping track of tabs or the idea/concept of tabs) - that is tracking and sorting lots of small related research ideas.
Sort of like a backwards perplexity search. (LLM context is from open tabs rather than the tool that brings you to those tabs)
I built a tab manager extension a long time ago that people used but ran into the same problem- the concept of tab management runs deeper than just the tabs themselves.
Yeah, I feel LLMs can finally solve the tab overload issue. I suffer from this constantly.
I added few features which I felt would be useful
- easy way to organise and group tabs
- simple way to save and resume sessions with selective context.
What are your problems that you would like to see solved?
I don't like the idea of letting the LLM run wild and categorize things directly, but in a tab-organizing view it would be useful to add more semantic sorting of the tabs- maybe it would enable something like multiple tab-view control panel: Show all the AI tabs. Show all the image diffusion tabs. Show all the LLM tabs. (so overlapping views of sets of tabs)
This would of course apply to not just open tabs but tabs I used to have open, where the LLM knows about my browsing history.
But I think I would want a non-chat interface for this. (of course at any time I could chat/ask a question as well)
I think a large part of it is us, as user, we lake the appropriate discipline.
Resist the call to open in a tab every link in this article, overcome the fear of losing something if all these tabs lagging behind are closed right now without further consideration.
I mean that in the sense that non-fiction is still very much fictionally presenting a world view of the author or the subject, but in a way that's bounded by real facts. Literary fiction doesn't have that constraint.
Human history and society is actually made up of ideas and by taking 2-300 pages to digest a set of ideas you come away with a new perspective you can't get any other way.
reply