https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47603657#47610348

In that case, go on claiming rocket engineering m4d ch0pz.

As is obvious, I was anti-nuclear myself (and still am, to a degree, but not related to fear of radiation). Looking back, it's clear to me, that there was little scientific understanding, but much fear, of the danger of radiation in the anti-nuclear movement. The books catastrophizing nuclear meltdowns and nuclear war certainly didn't help. The interesting aspect, to me, is, that the effects of radiation are correctly and quite graphically described in the books, but overly exaggerated in proportion and scale.

Being against nuclear power provides a shared identity, a sense of righteousness and there are other strong groupthink effects. Putting things into context gets really hard when everybody is either constantly reinforcing your biases or, alternatively, obviously shilling for the nuclear industry (which I also did see a lot of!).

It seems to me that the anti-nuclear movement is currently dying off. The recent protests against transports of used-up nuclear fuel have been rather small. Since Germany decided to phase out nuclear energy, there hasn't been much of a reason to protest against it and attention has shifted to other matters.

SIM cards have always been secure elements that the provider trusts. With an eSIM, you can already own that secure element and the provider can provision it with their application. You can even have the applications from multiple providers on the same physical secure element.

The major advantage is now that the expensive and time-consuming part of provisioning a new mobile service (sending out a physical SIM card) can be replaced with a few standardized API calls. This is cheaper (which makes the extra cost some providers charge for an eSIM look quite silly) and a lot quicker, which enables new business models for short-lived cell connection services.

A world where all cell service providers offered eSIMs would be slightly nicer. But manufacturers removing the option of swapping the secure element is very annoying at the same time.

Also: Amoxicillin is better than its reputation. Three doctors might literally recommend four different antibiotic dosages and schedules. Double-check everything; your doctor might be at the end of a 12-hour shift and is just as human as you. Lyme is very common and best treated early.

Edit: Fixed formating

I have an unusual EV made by a relatively small company of which only a handful got to private customers, so if I want to fix something, I have to reverse-engineer it first. Most of the time, I will find out that the components used in my vehicle were also used in other cars.

Regarding the difference between EVs and ICEVs, only the powertrain components are relevant and between those, some are more exchangeable and some are less so.

As with ICEVs, most manufacturers have "platforms" that are shared between multiple makes/models. Having shared components with other vehicles of the same platform is the rule rather than the exception.

In the cars I have seen, the whole battery often only fits that specific model, sometimes also for other cars within the same platform. The modules that make up the battery are often exchangeable with other cars made by the same company/group. The cells that make up the modules are almost always generic, but very hard to replace. The battery management system is usually specific to the battery.

I don't know about the current state, but for early EVs the motor and inverter (which converts battery DC to AC for the motor) were often made by external suppliers. Especially EV variants of otherwise ICE-based vehicles like the Fiat e500, VW Golf/Jetta, and some french cars all use the same motor and inverter made by Bosch. If an inverter is connected to a different type of motor, it needs to be tuned for it which is not trivial.

Onboard Chargers (OBCs), that convert AC line voltage from AC chargers to battery voltage are often quite generic and developed and manufactured by suppliers. They are almost always interchangeable within the same platform, but I haven't yet seen completely unrelated OEMs use the same OBC. The same applies to fast charging communications equipment, which is often integrated into the OBC.

DC/DC converters (the alternator equivalent) are rarely separate components anymore and often integrated into either the OBC or the inverter.

Voltage-wise, all these components are often surprisingly flexible and can be used with much lower voltages than their maximum rated voltage.

Other components like contactors and connectors are very generic and I haven't yet seen one that only one OEM would use. There are likely exceptions to this. Often, the base components like the OBC or the inverter are almost identical, only using other (also generic) connectors.

While technically all these components could be replaced in the "old school" style, almost all of them require either coding the components to the specific vehicle, or flashing an OEM-specific firmware. While the former is only doable with OEM-specific software (that is far too expensive for both indiviuals and most independent workshops), I haven't yet seen any example of the latter, at least not for swapping components between unrelated platforms.

As of now, there are almost no "official" aftermarket replacements for these major components. I don't know of any major supplier that will directly sell parts in small quantities and OEMs likely won't sell you as an individual replacement parts either. For DIY repairs, finding used parts from wrecked cars and coding them with cracked software or having it done in an authorized workshop (if even possible) often seems to be the only option so far. Also, everyone will discourage you from working on your EV for "electrical safety" reasons (actually, it's more profitable if they do the work). Working on an EV is quite safe, if done right (which is not hard).

Most of these limitations do not only apply to EVs, but to almost all modern cars. Often, the necessary work of reverse-engineering and cracking software has already been done for ICEVs for tuning purposes.

Of course people still do it. But the threat that you might be forced to tear down your home at any moment just to be homeless really is not that much fun.

Edit: Oh, and a parked trailer is a building as well, of course. Just that tearing it down is a lot easier

You are always limited to their opinionated decisions on what your deployment should look like* (or risk losing support), but at the same time, the support you actually get is next to none.

If I can't fix it myself, it ain't gonna be fixed.

At this point, I don't know what we are paying for anyways.

*As an example, more recent versions of RHEL only allow the use of NetworkManager for permanent network configuration. In a production hypervisor system, NM is completely unsuitable in my opinion. It's full of footguns and that will bite us at some point

"Telemetry shows people aren't using this (privacy / internet freedom related) feature, so we can just remove it"

I want to be able to write extensions that can do whatever the hell I want. It's my computer and it's my Browser. If necessary, I would enable it in the about:config. But there should be an option to allow me to do that.

https://github.com/mozilla/libdweb/issues/109#issuecomment-5...

DNS and DLNA is managed on a Raspberry Pi B+ dangling with a USB cable from the Fritz!Box

This is only due to the failure (and unwillingness) of Mozilla to build a truly modular, expandable browser.

Mozilla isn't even trying to compete with Google anymore at this point. They are only implementing new features into Firefox that Google has first built into Chrome (and firing developers working on features that could actually set Firefox apart from Chrome). Also, they are quick to implement most "features" Google implements, no matter how user-unfriendly it may be.

An example for this is Mozilla implementing Manifest V3:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/11/manifest-v3-open-web-p...