Not if the baseline assumption is that the value of a degree continues to go down and you could've climbed the ranks of plumbing instead of getting a white collar degree.
Why do you think the R5 was developed in China? Renault have been quite open about all the improvements they had to make to their processes, development centres and factories in France to make it. The Twingo was partially developed in China.
The EV batteries are sourced from Ampere and LG (in the EU) and the EESM from Valeo (in the EU).
Sharing platforms isn't something EU manufacturers are opposed to, but they do not want to be dependent on Chinese supply chains. That is the crux of ExChina, especially as the majority of an EV's value is derived from the battery and powertrain.
> I think this is a serious problem in existing car companies. They attach too much prestige and career to being "petrolheads", or simply working in the engine division; after all, that's the most expensive to develop and least easy to substitute part of the car. The EV transition threatens to sweep that all away. Probably most of the EU manufacturers won't really get on board until those people retire.
You speak as-if they didn't create EVs. It's just that most of the European EV platforms were resounding failures, be it CLAR, CLAR II (BMW), MEA1 & MEA2, (Mercedes), J1 (Porsche), e-tron (Audi), MEB (VW), of these MEB is pretty much the only one that turned around to generate some kind of volume, but that took many years. Sales numbers for all of these are way below predictions, we're not talking about a 50% miss here. I don't know how much a car architecture costs to develop, but I'd wager it is not a cheap endeavor. Between that and the comparatively large number of battery-related EV recalls these projects probably represent double-digit billions of losses for the European car industry. This seems realistic given the widely publicized $20bn Ford EV write-down. So given these enormous sunk costs and yet they're still somewhat investing in EVs doesn't read to me like they're not trying to compete on EVs. If that were the case, they'd just cut their losses, or done so years ago.
That's where all those European battery factories that were announced a couple years ago went: Consumers do not buy EVs anywhere near the expected volume and therefore there is no demand to finance such factories. The handful of batteries needed for the low volumes of EV production are easily sourced from existing factories and the rest is imported from China.
Stellantis/PSA doesn't appear in this story because they never went beyond compliance car EVs (i.e. their "let's stuff a 50 kWh gross battery and the cheapest electric drive we can buy from a supplier into an ICE chassis" approach).
> Consumers do not buy EVs anywhere near the expected volume
OK so the billion Euro question is: why not? Tesla seem to be making adequate sales in Europe. China has passed 50% EVs as new sales. Norway (in Europe, but not the EU) is approaching 100%.
Is it simply price? Of the car, and/or electricity?
The EU was originally proposing to phase out ICE in 2035, which is now less than 10 years away!
> compliance car EVs (i.e. their "let's stuff a 50 kWh gross battery
I had noticed that all the Stellantis EVs have desperately bad range. I guess that's why they're showing up for cheap leasing offers to meet compliance.
But that's what I mean. It's an intentionally half-assed product. Only the recent Renault 5 and VW ID series cars feel like serious market entrants rather than "will this do?"
BYD and Tesla are popular in the UK, but not EU manufacturers. Why? Product? Price?
I think e-tron have some success. As do Renault (and Nissan) despite Gohsn insistence on not building on it (goshn was a very successful manager and finance engineer, but people should understand he destroyed R&D at Nissan, Renault and Alpine, killing any chance at success they had despite their leg up on electric car)
> I also feel that the GPU/NPU value does not lose money as fast anymore.
That's because the rate of improvement in silicon manufacturing has been continually declining for a few decades, which has a compounding effect. Just compare the technological improvements in successive decades. 1976->1986->1996->2006->2016->2026.
That's why "in real terms" performance has only been very slowly improving if you compare apples to apples (and not e.g. apples to oranges by reducing precision, like nvidia tends to do, or by comparing chips with x W to an MCM with x*2 W and saying the latter is much faster). The "just halve the number of bits in each generation" strategy has also run out now, there's no more bits to halve.
I worked at a software company that made screenshot of your screen every minute. I also worked a non-software white collar job where you were expected to work non-stop for 8 hours, except for an unpaid lunch break.
People are still hiring, it's just very competitive - reframe rejection as learning opportunities returning wisdom.
In retrospect, many companies you get turned down from are likely companies you don't want to work for anyway hence the incompatibility.
It may be hard, but positive mindset will go very far towards enhancing your outcomes - you need to bring others up around you as well. Pause on this and think about the first thing that comes to mind when you respond to these words.
I saw a comment on HN a while ago. I don't remember exactly how it was worded, but roughly it was something like: if you are self-taught (which I am), you will have to do many shitty jobs before you get a good one. That is how I think of my situation. I am still doing shitty jobs, but I think that the shittiest ones are already behind, and if I had not taken them, I would not be where I am now.
> you need to bring others up around you as well
I am not 100% sure what you mean here, but I don't think that I have the authority or reputation to "bring up others." I find that telling other people what to do is futile, and the best I can do is leave them alone and let them learn from their experiences, or else you might be labelled a "rock star," which is coincidentally being discussed on lobste.rs right now:
When I hear space I think "that's the perfect location for a data center", since data centers are lightweight, small, require little power, don't need human intervention, have lifetimes measured in decades and don't have to reject heat. Since space easily satisfies these requirements, space is an ideal deployment location for data centers.
Isn't the Vegas Loop just a car tunnel? As far as I know, there aren't any actual hyperloops[1] involved, just a narrow highway, even if they deceivingly brand it "Loop".
It seems off at first glance but actually appears to work out if you do the math. You can model a solar panel as a flat, opaque rectangle. You can calculate power generation and equilibrium temperature for it based on surface area. If you require additional radiative surface area to achieve the desired equilibrium temperature you can place a flat triangle orthogonal to and behind the solar panel in its shadow.
Compute is "free" at that point because waste heat is coming out of the total energy flux which was already accounted for (because we modeled it as opaque).
Of course swapping out the equipment poses a bit of a challenge. The "helping hands" rate is entirely unaffordable and wait until you see this new DC's physical access policies. 0/10 would not rack with them again.
Depending on the model it just requires activation of the brake light switch, which is a very light touch. And if it's an EV or PHEV with blended braking you're not pushing against the master cylinder anyway.
reply