At least one of them is sitting on a raspberry pi in my house. Rather than pay a subscription for a workout tracker app or learn and configure a bloated open source one, I built my own in a few hours with Claude with the exact feature set I want. Its been a joy to use.

They certainly behave as if they do.

A third argument is that it was because of aliens from the planet Blotrox Prime. But I suppose without evidence we'll just have to accept that all three theories are equally probable.

Interesting how you decided to switch to hyperbole instead of providing evidence for your claim. Backing up your viewpoint would have easily shut me down, putting the ball in my court to do the same. Instead you gave a knee-jerk childish response.

Hypocritical; you did the same with the hyperbole. Why are you stooping to my level instead of being the better person?

Nope. Just a reductio as absurdum that you decided to counter by asking that I maintain higher standards of debate than you.

The notion that atomic architecture came about because people are stupid and performative is not really useful. Its fairly misanthropic and begs the question why it became so prevalent in JS specifically.

The philosophy was kinda refreshing in the early days. There was a really low barrier to publishing and people were encouraged to build and share tools rather than hoard things. It was probably somewhat responsible for the success of npm and the node ecosystem, especially given the paltry standard lib.

Of course, like most things, when taken to an extreme it becomes absurd and you end up with isOdd.

I think the issue is that the JavaScript ecosystem is so large that even the strangest extremes manage to survive. Even if they resonate with just 0.1% of developers, that’s still a lot of developers.

The added problem with the atomic approach is that it makes it very easy for these fringes to spread throughout the ecosystem. Mostly through carelessness, and transitive dependencies.

> you could just modify your real DOM straight from your networking code

You can also use your underparts as a hat. It doesn't mean its a good idea.

You imply that you somehow get a visibly different end result if you touch DOM directly. Except to me, using React instead of a simple assignment to e.g. update the text on a button feels like taking several long flights that complete a lap around the world just to get from LA to SF, instead of the 1-hour direct flight.

React is a paradigm change (from imperative to functional) that makes sense in a large UI project. React itself is fairly small in terms of deps.

The main issue is the tooling. JSX is nice enough (not required though) to want a transpiler that will also bundle you app. It’s from that point things get crazy. They want the transpiler to also be a bundler so that it manages their css as well. They also want it to do minification and dead code elimination. They want it to support npm dependencies,etc…

This is how you get weird ecosystems.

It's a case of Chesterton's fence. Having built complex apps pre-react, I wouldn't be in a hurry to go back to that approach because I have first hand experience of running into the problems it solves.

You're making me very happy with my decision in 2021 to resist the appealing design of the Honda and buy an id3 with a reasonably sized battery.

Also your in winter are you running the heater constantly? I find just dressing for outdoors, leaving the heater off and using heated seats/wheel means I only lose maybe 15% range.

The temps don’t affect your range that much, it’s mostly the tires.

I got a heat pump and using the heater or AC only needs around 1 kWh during the winter or when it’s hot.

But winter tires increase the power consumption by 30%, just like with a diesel.

> are you running the heater constantly?

Something every car prior to this has been able to do without any impact on performance.

> means I only lose maybe 15% range.

Which could be a reasonable sacrifice if you choose to make it. It's certainly not included in the marketing for these vehicles.

Running a heater is easier the less efficient your engine is, because there's more waste heat to work with. ICEs have the clear advantage there

If the energy is used for something intended (e.g. hot air) than it is not inefficient.

That's not really the context of the comment though. The point is just that an EV turns ~80% of its fuel energy into motion (with the rest as heat) and an ICE turns about ~30% of its fuel energy into motion (with the rest as heat).

If you need heat, an EV needs to turn more of its fuel energy into heat, while an ICE can just repurpose what was otherwise being dumped.

The second factor is your battery needs heat. So you may be forced to generate excess heat even if you aren't using it in the cabin.

The point being is that EV cars are a great idea, but the American auto market was not a good _general_ fit, and manufacturers didn't tailor their products enough to actually be successful. They really just pushed a bunch of product onto the market to capitalize on government subsidies.

Which, to me, is the real "risk." Manufacturer incompetence. That all being said my next car will probably be a hybrid.

What is your point exactly? That EVs manufacturers should be held to standards higher than everyone else who markets products by focusing on the upsides? Or that we should continue to use inefficient climate destroying technology because it happened to provide a side benefit that we've become habituated to?

> That EVs manufacturers should be held to standards higher than everyone else who markets products by focusing on the upsides?

Eh, yes? They are presenting a new technology and want us to switch - they should prove their technology is superior.

> Also your in winter are you running the heater constantly?

Nope. But last winter it got really cold (< -10°C). Also the Honda was aggressively heating the battery

Bacurau was quite a trip. I left that one pleasingly befuddled.

What on earth is a AAA film?

There's no such thing (parent likely borrowed this term from the video game industry)

The whole single A, triple A thing comes from league baseball. Single A was the lower leagues and AAA is the top of the heap pro ball. AAA denotes big budget tent pole productions. So big a studio could go bankrupt if it doesn't do well.

Ah so the OP thinks OBAA was designed as a big budget popcorn flick? No wonder they didn't like it.

Paul Thomas Anderson will tell anyone who will listen that he doesn't make commercially sound films. It's kind of his thing...

They did throw some serious money at this film, though, so I can see where people would have strange expectations.

it's actually from credit ratings which predate baseball leagues

when they said AAA i assumed it was satire

It's far worse than regular gambling

Yeah reading this comment thread really reminds me how dull and disinterested in art so many people in this community are.