I think you definitely identified the issue well. Changing the design of an existing project, especially if you're not already involved in the project is a daunting task. You have to try and convince a core group of users that the design is going to be better to entice new users. But the problem is that those core group of developers likely don't care that the UI isn't up to par, and likely don't want it to change.

I even remember having this problem personally when trying to improve designs of webpages at my workplace. We had many of our technical users still using the command line for their mail, and even for browsing some webpages. Their whole workflow was stuck in the command line and they've been doing it that way for 20+ years. Trying to change things to improve the experience for others was like pulling teeth. They would retort the classic "Why change it? It works the way it is, no need to change it". Which to a degree I can understand. Some websites out there really do change their UI's for completely silly reasons and sometimes even lose functionality because of it.

At least this is one positive thing coming from AI driven development. People can actually make some pretty decent UI's without having to know as much about good UI design. AI can try to utilize the "best practice" standards and make a UI that often looks much better than most devs could make. There are some downsides of course, such as the fact that almost every new website nowadays looks the same, since Claude seems to have one style it always goes with. But maybe that tradeoff is okay.

I don't agree about the AI at all. AI is terrible at design (compared to programming).

Having relatively nice UI skin doesn't equal good design. They are surprisingly unrelated as i am sure people know highly usable well designed software with bad UI and also know super beautiful UIs that are unusable - badly designed.

AIs are bad at design because they don't understand and can't keep context of the whole together. Just like in programming they are much better at solving single well defined problem. Design is very much opposite of that, it's always about reharmonizing in context with the whole after you make a change.

Some governments do seem to take the OpenGov label to heart and make a good effort to have a good amount of their data be open to the public. However there definitely is a large majority who just latched on to the label they likely heard at a conference, and don't truly understand the concept. They just saw everyone else doing it and decided they need to hop on the bandwagon and throw a few cookies out to make it look like they followed course.

When AI was new, I definitely got fooled by "OpenAI" and thought it was an open source style AI company. Boy was I wrong there.

The straight abuse of language lately has become quite frustrating overall, but part of that gets political and I'll stray away from that to not get too off topic. When I see these words like "Open" used in the title so often, it just makes the word feel like it's tied to a new fad, and makes it harder for me to trust projects with those names.

I just don't get why they didn't go with OVH in Montreal or something like that. Odd to switch to EU in my opinion. I'm currently using OVH in Montreal for many years and never had any issues.

Agreed, if I simply didn't like the style or words an AI was using in something it wrote, I would switch to a competitors and see what it can come with. I probably wouldn't hit the thumbs down on the Gemini response as it's not that the response is wrong, I just didn't like it. I usually reserve the thumb down for when the AI is wrong.

Also, depending on what I am asking it, I often don't want to use the thumb down or up, as this may mean my conversation is going to have some kind of human review and depending on what I am asking for, I may not want to bring attention to my stuff.

Referring to the example from the Twitter post you cited, wouldn't the KWh per mile simply be a lot higher because these vehicles are engaging in much less efficient travel overall? City driving itself is often pretty inefficient because of all the stopping and going, and these vehicles likely are driving in a lot of the rush hour traffic and high density areas everyday. Not to mention they probably idle around a lot more than a normal persons car would in a day.

So wouldn't that be the reason the figures would look 2.5x worse than the regular Jaguar? I'm sure there are other factors of course since running the computer systems, lidar and all the other features will also consume more power, so I'm sure from a baseline it will be less efficient anyway, I just think because of the kind of driving it engages in, this will make it also look far less efficient.

Depending on conditions, heat or AC can consume up to 5 or 6 kW in extreme weather and a small fraction of that in milder conditions. The most efficient speed of an EV is hard to pin down. If all fixed loads could be turned off, it would be most efficient at the slowest possible speed but with HVAC and compute loads present, the most efficient speed is around where the aerodynamic load is equal to the fixed load. That's still likely to be rather slow but the idealized math that gives this optimum is for steady-state operation. There is a round-trip loss for regen, so there is still an advantage to steady operation even if it is not as big as with ICE cars where no kinetic energy is recovered.

My guess for the poor reported number is excessive idle time w/ HVAC and compute stuff on within the trip interval.

Weather can be arbitrarily extreme, but:

1. My whole house AC only consumes 3 kW when the outside is really hot, like 36 degrees C, and I seriously doubt that car AC can consume 5 or 6 kW

2. With hotter weather, the density of air also decreases and air resistance is reduced. This partially offsets the need for extra cooling (of both the occupants and the battery), so range is only perhaps impacted by 5-10%.

Max power consumption of the compressor in my car is 5.5 kW (see pg. 28 of https://www.scribd.com/document/783343319/MEB-220169869). The blowers would draw additional power. These values would only be hit in extremes and I'm not certain the compressor can run at 100% duty cycle.

Possible, but EVs tend to be more efficient in city driving than highway driving, thanks to regenerative braking and the fact that the dominant form of energy loss, air resistance, scales quadratically with speed.

Don't we have automated systems all around the world with the same element at play? Elevators? Trains/Subways that are autonomous, robotic lawn mowers, self-driving little delivery vehicles on sidewalks, all kinds of automated machines in factories that kill people, etc...

I feel like you could come up with long lists of cases where there is no direct human to blame. Someone may be at fault down the chain, but nobody who was directly controlling the machine. Just like if a mechanic screws up my brakes and I end up crashing, it wasn't directly me who caused the crash, even though I was sitting in the seat.

Not really a fair comparison between Tesla's autopilot and Waymo though. You'd have to compare Tesla's Robotaxi but I believe they have been running for a far shorter period and I'm not sure how much data is out yet or how reliable it would be at this stage. The Robotaxi runs I believe a different version of autopilot meant to not have a human driver and has a lot more work that goes into making sure it's highly tested in the area it is being deployed. Whereas the Tesla Autopilot I believe can work in pretty much any area, so it may have more potential issues that come up.

Also a common thing I see happening with the Tesla Autopilot for an accident is that it's often not the fault of the autopilot. It's often the fault of the human driver who takes over last second. Naturally the driver will lie or not even realize they were the problem as they may have had auto pilot active 1 second before the crash. I think it's that natural human instinct when you see something happening to crap the wheel or hit the pedal in that "oh shit" kind of reflex. And that sometimes causes the driver to make a mistake.

I actually was in a crash with a person driving a Tesla vehicle where I think this was the cause. 3 lane highway, they were in the center lane, I was in the left lane, transport truck in the right lane. The transport truck slightly drift towards the edge of their lane and the Tesla driver freaked out and over corrected their steering wheel to the left and came swerving into my lane and was losing control of their car between both lanes until they suddenly slammed on their brakes in front of me. I gotta say, the Tesla brakes combined with the regenerative braking have some impressive stopping power. Unfortunately that also meant they stopped way faster and so suddenly that I hit their rear a bit. I got very lucky that insurance ruled in my favour and had them 100% at fault.

Apologies for the tangent, just trying to illustrate a point via a personal story of how even when the system is working well and keeping the driver safe, they can still make a human-like overreaction which overrides the autopilot and leads to a crash.

I get pretty annoyed when I see news articles with the headlines "Tesla crashed while auto pilot activated", but then there has yet to be an investigation and we actually don't know whether autopilot was in fact active or not yet. It's a clickbait style headline that I think makes people more hesitant about the progress of Waymo and Robotaxi vehicles.

> It's often the fault of the human driver who takes over last second.

Per The Guardian:

  “Two years prior, the NHTSA had flagged something strange – something suspicious. In a separate report, it documented 16 cases in which Tesla vehicles crashed into stationary emergency vehicles. In each, autopilot disengaged “less than one second before impact” – far too little time for the driver to react. Critics warn that this behaviour could allow Tesla to argue in court that autopilot was not active at the moment of impact, potentially dodging responsibility. […]”

  “The real surprise came after [Mark Rober’s] experiment. Fred Lambert, who writes for the blog Electrek, pointed out the same autopilot disengagement that the NHTSA had documented. “Autopilot appears to automatically disengage a fraction of a second before the impact as the crash becomes inevitable,” Lambert noted.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/05/the-vehic...

I kinda feel like "It's often the fault of the human driver who takes over last second" means it is still Autopilot's fault. It either needed to alert and hand-off control to the user well before the situation got bad- or stick with control. Getting into a bad situation and just handing off control is the worst possible way to do things. The human needs time to update their situational awareness, the Tesla needs to explain what is causing its concern to the human, etc. If it can't do that effectively- and quickly enough in the pre-accident moments- then it needs to not be used at all because it is more dangerous than just a human driving on their own. 20 years ago I did robot-human driving collaboration experiments for the US Army and I can tell you based on our experiments this is a really hard problem, but those experiments are why Tesla's entire approach has seemed suspect to me from the beginning.

It's either functional or not, this sort of half-assed system is the worst of all worlds. And I say this as someone who has routinely trusted his family in a Waymo. But I think that the Tesla approach is much more dangerous.

So what I am referring to is more when they look at the data and they see there was human intervention that took place. Whether it be they pressed a pedal or jerked the wheel or whatever. I'm sure the system could handle the situation better on it's own, but the human reaction, especially when you've been driving yourself for many years is to take control and take action when shit hits the fan.

I think overall though as self-driving becomes more mainstream the system will only get safer. Not only will the computer systems themselves have better software and hardware to make them smarter, but there will be less and less human drivers doing stupid things that they have to account for. The roadways will have more predictable and sane self-driving vehicles on it.

I think the problem we have right now is that you almost do need these half-assed systems that still rely on human interventions to get over the initial hurdles of having people accept this technology. People want to feel like they still are in control while using something they may not fully trust. And regulators in many areas often also have this same desire. While I don't think we currently are at the ideal situation for self-driving, I think we are definitely getting there. I think Tesla's self-driving features really opened up the minds of people that human-less self-driving is a viable option that we can explore and that it can also be done safely.

I'm sure a time will come where we can switch to selling fully automated cars that people can buy for themselves with no human intervention needed, but I think we still aren't at that phase yet. People are starting to accept things like Waymo, but I still think many people would not accept having no control of their own personal vehicle when navigating around, even though I think it would be safer that way.

Yep I had a case where I bought something online and it was not as described. The merchant didn't respond to emails, I filed the PayPal chargeback and the case was taking ages as the merchant wasn't responding. They finally responded on the last day to basically say I got my item. Despite all my evidence I provided it didn't seem to matter. So I again would have to respond and now wait for PayPal to rule. I was getting so sick of it, I just filed a chargeback with my credit card company instead and they gave me the money back right away upfront and did their own investigation after the fact and ruled in my favour.

I have had PayPal work for me for refunds many years ago, but the problem is often how long the whole process takes and how long your money is held hostage. By the time you maybe get your money back, you've already had to pay off that money on your credit card (if you used credit for the PP transaction). I've found that when I do a chargeback via my credit card, they often give me the money back right away and then do an investigation. If it were to not go my way the money would get taken back. I think this feels more fair depending on the case. Some cases are pretty clear cut and there is no reason to hold your money hostage while they confirm what you said is truthful.

Valve isn't doesn't have to appease any public shareholders every quarter. There are likely no real expectations apart from making some profit which I am sure they will easily do. Then they just do like they have done with the Steamdeck and leave it on their store as an item they keep in stock and make some decent side income on. Throw it on sale for all their big sales and get some nice sales bonuses off it here and there.

I think ultimately there goal is to push more people towards Linux so that more games get developed there. All of their hardware pretty much targets the Linux side of gaming, so they really are trying to get rid of the Microsoft monopoly on PC gaming which I think is great.