I ride Waymo on occasion. It’s generally fine. They don’t take highways and can vary in price, maybe more expensive on average. Can sometimes pick up and drop off a bit farther than a human driver would.

My wife like that you can change the temperature and there’s no pressure to talk to anyone.

Well the terrifying part is that this will be commonplace in every conflict in the future.

I’ve told my Bulgarian wife that Bulgaria is the Alabama of Europe. She’s admitted she can’t even be mad about it.

A tech company is not like a bank though, its value is not just in assets but in expertise. Is the plan to layoff all the engineers or pay them less? Is the plan the company generates profit? What if it can’t compete anymore and is just a money sink? And if you’re just going to sell it for assets then how’s that different from letting the company go bankrupt?

And licensing it out to contractors? That just sounds like a huge money sink.

What does that mean exactly? Is the company expected to compete or just support existing products or be sold to other owners?

Sure but that’s not coze or cozed.

To use the word cozy as a verb. To coze or to be cozed.

My wife really likes that you can control the temperature without having to interact with anyone.

However humans may also be getting better via self driving tools such as radar cruise control. So you’d need to compare to a human with access to these tools.

The very original post I responded to says:

Please just do trains.

Which implies don’t do cars.

What government money? Aptera is privately funded. They’ve won some government grants but most of their funding is from investors. They’re not taking money away from rail projects.

And even if we went all in on rail, what are we supposed to do in the years it takes to make the transition? Keep using ICE vehicles?

Because you have to approach the two problems differently. If you want to support the expansion of railways, you’ll need political willpower.

But if you’re an individual who needs a vehicle, wouldn’t the best choice be the most efficient one available?

Why would a new company increase traffic? Like people just have extra disposable income and love going out to drive when everyone else does?

If your argument is, someone who would have bought the car would instead switch to using rail. Then there is no place in the US that has heavy traffic that can also have a new railway built for under $1b.

But the city already has highways. If we started fresh sure let’s do more rail.

My point is just, what infrastructure can you do with say <$1b? It’s a lot of money but not building a whole new railroad kind of money. You can get a few station upgrade projects, a couple of electric trains, etc.

There’s room for private funding of a new electric car company. Save the tax dollars for big infrastructure projects.

Why would you build the highway underground?

Really? So we can install thousands of miles of rail for under a billion dollars? Let’s do it!

Ok? The point is that rail development is expensive and like an order of magnitude the cost of Aptera. Ideally we could do both but they shouldn’t be put into the same bucket.

$24-48m per mile is still quite a lot. It’s just not the same scale in expense.

Is that true in California? Caltrain is costing $5.15 billion per mile.

Kind of a different scale. $5.15 billion per mile of track for Caltrain. Aptera hasn’t even broken a billion in funding.