Maybe it’s humor, or maybe when after one comes of as a jackass with a freudian sentence - a pitiful attempt to brush it off with “haha, it’s a joke”. The line is thin.
As an apparently “poor person” owner of model 3 bought used, who it seems “must drive” it - I dislike the whiff of elitism in your post.
What must your world look like that you consider a 30K off-lease car a poor person’s last resort vehicle….
It might surprise you - as having never owned an EV before - I turned to Tesla because I thought of it as buying a trend-setting vehicle from a pioneering car maker that envisioned what next generation transportation might be unanchored to tradition - rather than risking buying a half-baked me-too attempt at a market-share catchup from a legacy brand.
Whether I was ultimately correct in these expectations is a different conversation, but I think one might see how I may have thought that knowing little about EV?
I am driving model y as a poor person. Can’t afford Skoda Enyaq or ID.4 or ID.7 or the nice BMW iX. There are no cheaper cars than Tesla that can be used as a first and the last car in a household.
It was clear to me since the incident with the English diver in 2018 which direction Elon took. I was observing him very carefully as a techno messiah before, very interesting personality and his companies. I wasn’t fan, it was just something new and never seen before.
And I had a moral dilemma back then. Support Elon buying Tesla or pay 15000€ more for Skoda… I just went with Elon. And now I am cool with that. Remember dieselgate? VW managers paid a company to gas apes with diesel fumes in US (because such tests are illegal in EU). God knows what did elsewhere. VW isn’t better by any means, just less press coverage.
The point is still kind of valid, it is a decently affordable EV compared to many other ”luxury” EVs. They also had (have?) very cheap payment options available. I’d suspect the expenses are a big factor in the purchasing decision.
edit: obviously it’s not a car for poor people as it is still very expensive. I understand your point too.
It’s not imagined though, I use my partner’s phone sometimes and every time I used it I thought it was broken because the UI jitter was so jarring at 60Hz. Actually I’m still not convinced her phone isn’t broken. Also her flashlight resets to the lowest brightness EVERY time it’s cycled.
If the UI jitter on their phone was "so jarring", it's not because it's 60 Hz. It's because the phone's CPU isn't keeping up.
Like, nobody watches a video filmed at 60 fps and then watches their favorite TV show or a motion picture at 24 fps and says "the jitter was so jarring". And that's at less than half the rate we're even talking about! Similarly, even if you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 Hz, it's not jarring. It's not jittery. It's pretty subtle, honestly. You can notice it if you're paying attention, but you'd never in a million years call it "jarring".
I think a lot of people might be confusing 60 Hz with jittery UX that has nothing to do with the display refresh rate. Just because the display operates at a higher refresh rate doesn't mean the CPU is actually refreshing the interface at that rate. And with certain apps or with whatever happening in the background, it isn't.
> Like, nobody watches a video filmed at 60 fps and then watches their favorite TV show or a motion picture at 24 fps and says "the jitter was so jarring". And that's at less than half the rate we're even talking about!
Those have motion blur.
> Similarly, even if you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 Hz
I don't know why you're phrasing this so oddly doubtful? Being able to tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz is hardly uncommon. It's quite a large difference, and this is quite well studied.
> If the UI jitter on their phone was "so jarring", it's not because it's 60 Hz. It's because the phone's CPU isn't keeping up.
No, it's not. This isn't about dropped frames or micro-stutters caused by the CPU. It's about _motion clarity_.
You can follow the objects moving around on the screen much better, and the perceived motion is much smoother because there is literally twice the information hitting your eyes.
You can make a simple experiment — just change your current monitor to 30hz and move the mouse around.
Does it _feel_ different? Is the motion less smooth?
It's not because your computer is suddenly struggling to hit half of the frames it was hitting before; it's because you have less _motion information_ hitting your eyes (and the increased input lag; but that's a separate conversation).
60->120fps is less noticeable than 30->60fps; but for many, many people it is absolutely very clearly noticable.
> Like, nobody watches a video filmed at 60 fps and then watches their favorite TV show or a motion picture at 24 fps and says "the jitter was so jarring".
People absolutely complain about jitter in 24fps content on high-end displays with fast response times; it is especially noticeable in slow panning shots.
Google "oled 24fps stutter" to see people complaining about this.
It's literally why motion smoothing exists on TVs.
If you switch from 60hz to 30hz you absolutely notice. I wouldn’t think it’s wrong to say it is jarring.
30hz is still perfectly usable, but you constantly feel as if something is off. Like maybe you have a process running in the background eating all your CPU.
I imagine going from 120hz to 60hz is the same thing. It should be theoretically indistinguishable, but it’s noticeable.
That's bs. You will immediately notice the difference when going from let's say 120 hz down to 60 hz on a fast gaming pc even if you're just dragging windows around. Everything feels jarring to say the least compared to higher refresh rates and it has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU. It's because of the refresh rate.
It's same thing going from 120 hz to 60 hz on a phone while scrolling and swiping.
It's quite interesting though that there are people out there who won't notice the huge difference. But hey, at least they don't have to pay premium for the increase performance of the screen.
It’s deeply flawed logic at best (or an intentional red herring at worst) to cite the existence of pseudoscience discussed elsewhere, as an argument against real science being discussed here.
There is a well-understood science to both auditory and visual perception, even more concretely so for the visual side. The scientific literature on human perception in both categories is actively used in the engineering of almost every modern (audible/visual) device you use every day (both in hardware design, and software such as the design of lossy compression algorithms). We have very precise scientific understanding of the limits (and individual variation) of human visual and (to a slightly lesser extent) auditory perception and preferences.
That’s why I specifically emphasized “perception and preferences”. Believe it or not, the science covers both - both what people can perceive, and what people care about and value.
It continues to amaze me years later how many people happily enjoyed watching 4:3 content stretched to 16:9, before 4:3 mostly disappeared from broadcasts.
Let’s follow the AI and automation craze to its eventual conclusion - automations everywhere, humans are either employed in automation industry, or are unemployed at a massive scale.
Stable jobs are replaced by ever-optimized gig economy for some, and chronic poverty for others. For there to even be economy - the massive underemployed population subsists on government welfare.
Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it. Those cashiers, toll booth, and warehouse workers did not find themselves in much more lucrative careers - I don’t see why it will be any different for truck and cab drivers who will be joining them in the near future.
If you see a future where these people who suddenly found all this extra leisure time o. Their hands and no income - are somehow blossoming in creative directions and realizing their own potential - I’d like to have it painted for me, as it all looks pretty bleak to me. Just not quiet sure of the timeline.
Best I can come up with is an emergence of some kind of counter-cultural protest market where people buy and sell “made by humans” products, and are continuously attacked by various regulations originating from mega corporations who captured the government.
> Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it.
Empirically, that's not true.
Unemployment was at an all-time low after most of those jobs were eliminated, and wages after adjusting for inflation continued to rise in real terms.
I am inclined to doubt the sources of these empirical observations. Statistics are funny like that, “average patient temperature in the hospital” effect and frequent inability to correctly attribute confounding factors outside of observed window.
Equally bad is anecdotal evidence, but I’ll drop some anyway. For a while now I am observing a crisis thats, admittedly subjectively, easy to see - but is somehow absent in those empirical sources citing economic accomplishments. An indirect evidence of what I am talking about - is crushing defeat of democrats/establishment in last election, following among other reasons, quite a backlash for boasting about said accomplishments.
But rather than picking issue with one of my points - I still would like someone to describe the counterpoint to my dystopian expectations - where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Ps. Oh speaking of statistics - remember Greenspan’s “there’s no real estate bubble, there’s froth in individual markets” right before 2008 financial crisis? It be funny like that, sometimes much derided common sense is all you need /shrug.
> where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Wherever all the cashiers, toll booth operators, and farmers went after automation took their jobs.
New jobs are created, the people displaced have to migrate to them.
Is it fun for them? No.
Is it how the world works? Yes.
Technology thus far has a VERY VERY long and established role of creating more jobs than it eliminates.
See >95% of the population being employed in agriculture for tens of thousands of years and being reduced to about 5% over the course of 100 years (and civilization being FAR FAR better off for it).
Will that trend one day end? Probably.
Will it be doomsday for the plebs? Who knows.
Is it happening within a timeframe worth worrying about? Unlikely.
To provide a counterpoint to your hypothesis that “people are fine with easily accessible but subpar results” I often switch from dubbed anime english voiceover to original japanese that I don’t understand and prefer reading subtitles because they convey the meaning and humor much better than the americanized voiceover, and the voice actors are better.
I hope that AI generated simulacra will eventually take its rightful place next to microwave dinners in consumption hall of fame once the novelty wears off.
> they convey the meaning and humor much better than the americanized voiceover
I'm glad this isn't just me. I occasionally watch anime and the English dubs are seemingly universally terrible compared to the originals. Subtitles are annoying but nothing like listening to someone mumble their way though a script.
Throughout entire human and chicken collective history we somehow haven’t managed to get wiped out by chicken transmitted decease - and suddenly its practically imminent and only massive mega farms can keeps us safe.
A thought occurs - perhaps it’s the mega farming that is the root of this problem and having some backyard chickens won’t really move the needle any closer to doom?
What has changed is the population density of humans. Disease outbreaks aren't at thing you can understand by summing all the disease vectors.
There is no needle - it only takes one case. While a megafarm may be a bigger vector, it can be quarantined, whereas everyone having backyard farms can not.
Farming changed radically after the 1950s, so pretty recently. It's pretty reasonable to believe it will. If you've been anywhere near mega livestock operations of any kind then you would know.
Well certainly antibiotics resistance (MRSA [1]) is a problem exacerbated by intense farming practices [2]. To the best of my knowledge there are two big sources of MRSA: Hospitals and livestock farming (the latter of which actually got its own acronym LA-MRSA as in livestock associated MRSA).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to directly compare the development of bacterial antibiotics resistance with the adaptation of viruses to be able to infect other kinds of hosts. Surely these disease vectors follow different developments.
It wouldn't surprise me though if intensive animal farming [3] has the capacity to exacerbate these problems, if only based on the high concentration of animals kept together and the generally poor health of these animals (poorly functioning immune systems, which is the whole reason for the overuse of antibiotics).
I know your comment is a joke, but we already have that more-or-less.
I'm getting close to doxxing myself, so without getting into specifics... controllers often bring in food to share, and we dress pretty casually every day. There used to be a professional dress code years ago, but that was negotiated out by the union.
The announcement of investing $500B with the proposed benefit of creating $100K jobs - to my amazement did not produce any commentary that I came across raising questions about the ROI of spending $5M per job created. I mean it’s all right there in the announcement!
For instance, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which allocated approximately $787 billion, was estimated to have created or saved between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs by early 2011. This translates to a cost of roughly $218,000 to $328,000 per job
In contrast, a study summarized by economist Valerie Ramey in 2011 found that each $35,000 of government spending produced one extra job.
Federal Highway Administration estimated that every $1 billion in federal highway and transit investment supports approximately 13,000 jobs for one year, equating to about $77,000 per job.
They also gave no indication of what types of jobs were going to be created. It's pretty hot-air.
If the goal is to create data centers for more AI training, you can rest assured that depends on creating as few jobs as possible in order to keep labor costs down and have more to spend on hardware and energy.
