> I think the cited weight loss comes from energy efficiency gains leading to less battery capacity needed.

So, no, the efficiency gains of electrical engines do not lead to significantly less battery capacity needed.

ETA: Internal combustion engines half a century ago had an efficiency of 20%, now they're at 40%. That cuts the fuel you need to carry in half. Electric engines are near 100%, and as I said, going from 90% to 95% efficiency cuts required battery by a bit more than 5%, so peanuts.

> In the Coupé, the engine on the front axis is 9 cm (3.5 inch) wide, the two engines on the rear axis are 8 cm wide each (<3.2 inch).

> The fully electric "Performance" model accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.1 seconds.

ETA: Images of the engine:

https://media.mercedes-benz.com/article/bebac2af-acdc-465a-9...

https://media.mercedes-benz.com/article/bebac2af-acdc-465a-9...

As a rule of thumb, if you look at something for 3 minutes and have some obvious questions, the scientists that looked at it for several years of their life in great detail might have had those same obvious questions as well.

And a tool that serves only to subvert the law (at enormous expense) does not strike me as valuable or worth supporting.

NB: I support the outcome of the 1990's crypto war (in the good old days when "crypto" meant cryptography, not crime-token), namely the right to private uncensored unrestricted communication. But a private uncensored unrestricted way of sending around money is a terrible idea, as we can see empirically.

The State Machine Replication problem in distributed computing has been studied since the 1960s or so, and indeed can be solved using Byzantine Broadcast. That has been solved for various settings:

* Permissioned (+ PKI), synchronous: SMR possible for any f (Dolev Strong 1983)

* Permissioned (no PKI), synchronous: SMR impossible if f≥n/3 (PSL 1980, FLM 1985)

* Permissioned, asynchronous setting: SMR impossible even with f=1 (FLP 1985)

* Permissioned, partially synchronous: deterministic SMR with "eventual liveness" possible if fThe theory to achieve reliable state machine replication even in the presence of byzantine failures was sorted out in the 1980s, and the practice followed in the late 1990s (PBFT (Castro Liskov 1999), byzantine Paxos, etc.)

So, just to drive the point home: the Byzantine Generals problem (more precisely: Byzantine Broadcast & SMR) was a solved problem by the late 1990s.

What Bitcoin (ie LCR + PoW) added was to do it in the permissionless setting, just as I've said. (It also increased f from n/3 to n/2, modulo "selfish mining", and while earlier solutions were consistent always, available eventually, LCR + PoW is available always, consistent eventually, which is arguably the wrong tradeoff for finance.)

> The lack of CS knowledge on this board is pretty staggering sometimes.

You don't say.

> "it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox

Although: Most Excel power users have automatic calculations disabled. Why? They want to control when full calculations. If you know that you want to change three things, you can change three things (in the correct order, which you - fair enough - must know), then calculate the rest (F9 in Excel, recalc below in Jupyter if - fair enough - your notebook is in topological order).

In Pluto, you sort of rely on your calculations being quick.

Increasingly, it tries to tie your phone number to your accounts. Fair enough, problems with fake accounts and all that, I don't like it but I understand it.

However, the prompt is invariably "Let us verify it's you. Please enter your phone number:" or something along those lines. With that, you don't verify that it's me. You just verify that someone has a phone number. It's for your protection, not for my protection. Don't patronise me.

Not sure I understand.

Adding two 32 bit integers takes you to 33 bit integers. (1111 + 1111 = 11110).

Addition doesn't care about order, so you're instantly cutting 2^33 possibilities down to 2^32. Or so is your argument. But in reality you can reach nearly all of those 2^33 numbers.

My response is this: Over time (say 20 years later) you will have gotten certain dividends, and the firm will be in a new position in terms of price and earnings. If I'm right, and the firm will not have been able to produce large profits and pay them out, then the people who bought today at today's valuation and P/E ratio will have massively overpaid for the dividends they will have gotten, and the only way they could have made capital gains to make up for it is if either the P/E ratio has increased even more, or earnings have really shot up at the end of those 20 years.

Either way, it's not sustainable. Unless, of course, people are willing to push up the P/E ratio up and up without limit. And I submit that's not going to happen indefinitely.

TL;DR: 20 years later you can see what share holders got for the price they paid 20 years ago (namely 20 yrs of dividends, plus they still have the share). If you thought the shares were cheap and you were right, you got a lot for what you paid. If the shares were overpriced, that'll have come out by then.

(I agree though that it seems to take longer than it used to take for the fundamentals to reassert themselves.)