I would imagine if there is oil in the electric motors that is “lifetime” but test really probably 300k miles, so if you drive the car into the ground, you probably would want to service that at some point, assuming they are serviceable without destruction.
The only significant oil is for the reduction gearbox, but as it doesn't change gears the wear is very low. First change will pull out some metal I'd guess, quality of machining dependent. Every 60000km/2Y, 1-2 litres.
Batteries may be immersed in a high dielectric thermal fluid, which will experience some breakdown but over a long time period, more than 10Y.
TBH the president should primarily be relying on trusted, competent advisors that they’ve surrounded themselves with. They can’t possibly be experts in enough areas to make unilateral decisions.
I won’t claim the A/B test is a good one, but I can say I canceled my blazer EV reservation when they announced it wouldn’t support carplay or android auto.
It's called penal labor, and it was and remains widespread around the world. (And, yes, Brazilian law requires mandatory labor for all prisoners.) It wasn't until the middle to late 20th century that countries began to reform penal labor. But it's complicated. Without penal labor you can't force prisoners to, e.g., do laundry or mop floors. Even mandatory community service is a form of penal labor, and you can still find that in some Western European countries.
The norm now is to require a wage for mandatory labor, but of course often it's just a pittance. (Only 6 US states have uncompensated labor.) But even when you require minimum wage, many criminals owe restitution, so it could be and is taken away again.
Many US states have penal labor systems just like in Europe, that is nominally opt out, mandatory wages, etc, but at the end of the day it's always open to accusations of coercion and claims of "slavery".
The rhetoric around the 13th Amendment is exactly why we're in the situation we are now politically. Everything is equivocated to maximize rhetorical impact. Every unethical thing a politician does is "corruption", so when you get open and egregious corruption as with Trump, people can't discriminate and assume it's all the same.
Was penal labor abused to roll back the clock on abolition? Yes. Is penal labor abused today? Yes. But calling it slavery, drawing parallels to chattel slavery, is just irresponsible.
> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 13th amendment specifically mentions penal labor as an exempt form of slavery.
Take your criticism to the authors of the 13th amendment, not the people who bothered to read it.
Setting aside textual analysis and how commas are used in the constitution, the point is that people claim not just that slavery is allowed, but that mandatory penal labor is slavery, and implicitly the same slavery that was ostensibly abolished.
So do you agree or not agree that mandatory penal slavery is an extension of 19th century and earlier American slavery. Because that's what the movement and rhetoric are saying. And removing the Exception Clause won't change the rhetoric, because the entire point is to argue "things haven't changed".
It's the same rhetoric that equivocates "wage slavery". All those things can, of course, fall under a literal definition of slavery. Just like all forms of misbehavior by politicians can be called corruption. We can say, well, Trump isn't doing anything every other politician hasn't done. Which can be literally true. But I choose not to play semantic games like that, because those semantic games are at least as likely to be used to excuse abuses as they are to prevent them. If you want reform, pursue reform. Note that many states have removed their state constitutional Exceptions Clauses which by itself resulted in zero changes to the status quo, because when you play semantic games there's always room to redefine things on-the-fly, or to find another semantic loophole. Every court knew what the Exceptions Clause actual, contextual meaning was, and can just as well redefine slavery or non-slavery to exclude or include penal labor. Semantic games don't change the real world, except insofar as they promote cynicism, confusion, and disengagement from substantive issues.
"Around the world, at least eleven million people are imprisoned, either pre-trial or following conviction. Most sentenced prisoners will work while in custody...
...
Most countries’ legal systems, however, carve out an exception for prisoner-workers, permitting the state to require them to work—sometimes for no pay, but typically for very low rates of pay.
There are, even so, multiple potential benefits to prison work. For example, ICPR’s recent research indicated that prisoners who could not work (when prison regimes around the world were restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic) reported many negative consequences, including to their mental and physical wellbeing. At the minimum, work may mitigate some harmful impacts of imprisonment. At best, it may increase prisoners’ prospects of successful reintegration into society, potentially also benefitting society by reducing recidivism."
The question isn’t whether prisoners work in other countries which I’m confident you know and dodged.
The question is whether the prisons in Brazil are private, and are allowed to sell prison labor FOR A PROFIT, incentivizing both greater incarceration rates, and disincentivizing release.
The answer is no, I’m not aware of ANY other country that allows a private organization to profit off the labor if people imprisoned by the state. At least not any country we would consider 1st world.
It’s absolutely absurd to suggest the current situation is beneficial to anyone but the ruling class and anyone claiming otherwise has never been to prison, never had a relative or friend who has been to prison, or is literally a psychopath who lacks basic human empathy.
Your comment stated: "And does Brazil have their own 13th amendment that allows them to use prison labor as their modern slave workforce?"
The article I linked states: "Most countries’ legal systems, however, carve out an exception for prisoner-workers, permitting the state to require them to work..."
So my quote directly answers your original concern.
Your new concern is about private prisons. Here's a new quote from the article which addresses your new concern:
"Involvement by non-public entities in prison work can take many forms. In most countries including all three of Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United States, for-profit companies operate entire prisons (or provide services within prisons) under government contract. Similarly, the operators of both public and private prisons in all three countries contract with buyers, equipping prison workshops and using prisoner labour to produce goods and services which go on to be sold beyond the prison."
(p. 15, emphasis mine)
So no, the US system doesn't seem to be especially unusual, according to this article.
You're welcome to decry this practice as inhumane, btw. I just don't think it is some sort of skeleton key which will help us understand every aspect of US politics.
Good? The amount of just flat out wrong information the average LLM spits out makes it unfit for education IMO. I can’t imagine asking teachers to have to personally vet every single lesson plan to ensure an AI wasn’t hallucinating when producing the content.
I agree, but there's also teachers who give out wrong information too. Often it's when the teacher doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic and are just repeating what they've heard (or misheard) and they will typically compound the issue by not allowing curious questioning.
There's also the issue that modern teachers are more like exam coaches rather than trying to actually teach kids.
Teachers earned their titles, they had to prove repeatedly that they are fit for a job that includes proving that you can learn things, that you have a logical thinking, that you are a decent enough person and that you have developped the social skills to lead a bunch of volcanic young people, taking the best paths to their grow and benefit.
AI is just the weird guy that sneaked its way in, without any reference. That is know to lie often in a very convincing way, specially when it does not have an answer, and that can be persuaded to include a lot of weird random ideas or fake facts in their classes.
Frontier LLMs with Internet search are different beasts than what you're describing as an average LLM. In 5 years I don't think you're going to be able to get away from LLMs if you care about correctness, and we're already to the point where if a calculation matters I want an LLM to check my math.
I'm not talking about future capabilities, I'm saying it will cease to be arguable within 5 years. We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this directly, and it cannot wait until after they graduate high school. I'm not saying give up doing things by hand, but also everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math. It's not one or the other, it has to be both.
> We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this
This was the same argument made for smartphones in schools.
> it cannot wait until after they graduate high school
I have a strong opinion about technology in early education. The evidence is more mixed for high-school students—I don’t have a view there.
If the argument is no AI in elementary or middle school, and controller introduction in high school, I could get on board with that as long as the solution is being developed by the state and not one of the AI companies or tech giants.
> everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math
Most people don’t need to know advanced math. Our problem, currently, is college students being unable to do basic math. Or hold attention through a book.
> it has to be both
Why? AI isn’t a mature technology. I’m not convinced someone who was chatting with ChatGPT in 2023 is more productive with AI, today, than someone who started building agentic workflows into their processes six months ago.
I'm curious, how do you envision this development happening? You're (presumably) calling for all school boards to ban any AI developed anything in classrooms like NY just did.
Are you expecting public universities to perhaps carry out studies first?
For reference, I think putting a tablet with an AI in front of kids to talk to is a silly boogeyman most people seem to be talking about in this thread. My vision was always teacher tooling that would greatly expand the teachers ability to develop individualized curriculum and test a kids progress in a classroom etc. But calling for such blanket bans means we can't even test any of this..anywhere.
Idk. I don’t have a great solution. But I also don’t think kids being slightly less familiar with AI at schools is a real problem.
> how do you envision this development happening?
Literally two classrooms I’ve seen in the Bronx in the last 6 months. Tablets are cheaper than teachers.
> My vision was always teacher tooling
I like this. I support it. I don’t support putting it in front of kids. Given how corrupt our AI leadership is right now, erring on the side of caution seems prudent.
> calling for such blanket bans means we can't even test any of this
No? We still have AI everywhere. We can still do controlled studies.
>> Given how corrupt our AI leadership is right now, erring on the side of caution seems prudent.
None of the headline grabbing CEO's have any official education relationships. This seems like a "I saw some bad headlines" vibey reaction.
>>No? We still have AI everywhere. We can still do controlled studies.
Not in schools we can't, where Teacher productivity has slumped. Teachers are spending more time doing admin work, and less time with kids. Meanwhile, rich parents who send their kids to Private schools can experiment ASAP (this ban doesn't affect them), and get any and all productivity enhancements. Shouldn't the government be creating some space for experimentation? Shouldn't it be the onus of the banning party to create this space?
>I'm not talking about future capabilities, I'm saying it will cease to be arguable within 5 years
So... talking about future capabilities.
>Kids are going to need to engage with this directly
Just to get this straight: are you the kind of person to give your 1st grader a calculator and say "just use this. you won't ever have to add numbers by hand anyway"? So much metaphors of AI go around calculators, but this is a problems we solved decades ago.
>everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math
We have so much complaints over the application of math as is. Now you're arguing that it's useful again because we can offload it to an AI?
> Just to get this straight: are you the kind of person to give your 1st grader a calculator
I think banning smartphone/computer use before 3rd grade in the classroom sounds like a good idea.
Math is incredibly useful. I think the biggest problem with math is that people don't understand how to apply it, it's not that applications are hard to find. AI actually explains how to apply it very directly. I can never remember how to calculate compound interest, an AI can do it instantly.
Mamdani's banning teachers from using AI to grade assignments.
> So... talking about future capabilities.
No, I'm talking about current capabilities. The studies that prove that current AI is better at grading assignments than humans will take at least a year, if not several.
The question is if we change what assignments teachers give, or if we accept that grading is a task best done by computers. If we change the assignments that teachers give, I don't know what that looks like. Regardless, there's going to be a lot of experimentation going on. Banning AI doesn't help.
> I'm not saying give up doing things by hand, but also everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math.
I started secondary school (British closest equivalent to highschool) in autumn 1995. One of the teachers opined that they liked Apple's computers "but no point teaching them because they'd be bankrupt soon". Took a while for the school to replace the RISC OS machines with Windows.
By 2000, when I started my A-levels (UK has two years between secondary school and university for this qualification), Windows and MacOS had changed so much as to make any lessons from the start of secondary school, on RISC OS, irrelevant.
Five years later, 2005/06, I noticed while using my laptop to record my final year of university lectures (I was on a four year course), that most of us in the lecture hall had gone from pen and paper in the first year to laptops in the final year.
Five more, 2010, smartphones had no mice, and the on-screen keyboards were significantly different from physical keyboards. Multitasking was a very different experience compared to a desktop or laptop OS. Social media was replacing "never tell anyone on the internet your real name" with "tell everyone on the internet even the most banal details about your life".
Five more, 2015, and smartphones and apps were shifting from exceptions to expectations.
Five more, 2020, we're walking into rooms and telling the always-listening microphone to adjust the lights or play some music, and using the now-free video calls we'd come to expect as a minimum requirement of any chat service to get us through the isolation of the pandemic.
Two years later, 2022, people started cheating on their homework with an AI which knew more than they did, even despite how bad early AI was at maths in particular.
Four years later, 2026, the AI isn't just helping kids cheat, it is solving (a limited subset of) previously unsolved maths problems at research level.
Even last year, 2025, when it was "merely" doing well on Olympiad-type challenges, I didn't even understand the questions. My A-levels included maths and further maths, which isn't a boast because I didn't follow this up with a maths degree, but it should give a sense of how much further ahead of mandatory schooling AI already was even last year.
If they were using a two year old gpt-4o type model, I'd agree. But now I'm not sure this is a problem. Now digital tools in general are known to be harmful in learning.
There's good teachers and bad teachers, there's good AI implementations and bad ones. This bans all of them.
I'm not particularly worried, meaningful experimentation will continue in private schools. I just hope public schools can learn from that and open it back up when it's mature.
> They chose to base their enterprise on the work of others, only to pull the ladder up behind them.
This is literally why BSD exists in the first place. To allow companies compete freedom with the code, including freedom to not release changes.
I hate to break it to you: basically every commercial storage vendor on the planet bases their appliances on either BSD or Linux and not a single one is sharing their proprietary code with you. There’s nothing shameful about it, they built a company to make money.
> This is literally why BSD exists in the first place. To allow companies compete freedom with the code, including freedom to not release changes.
I would phrase it slightly differently. BSD licensing exists to allow everyone complete freedom with the code, not just businesses. It is a gift to the commons without restriction on who may use it or for what, which is why I love BSD (and other permissive licenses).
> but if you think the people selling lettuce at farmers markets or farm stands have any verified food safety or food handling expertise, they don't.
I don’t think they have the oversight corporate farmers do. But I also don’t think they put immigrants into the field for 12 hour days with no breaks and no bathroom.
There’s something to be said for a farmer who doesn’t pass explosive diarrhea onto the crops he sells me as food….
Sarah Taber has given some interesting talks about this - the short version is there is probably a fair amount of outbreaks caused by small farms, they just don't have the reach to be detected.
Yes, one side wants radical things like universal healthcare, collective bargaining, a ban on citizens united.
The other wants to eliminate women’s suffrage, revoke citizenship because of skin color, and destroy pesky hindrances to business like the FCC, EPA, and protected federal lands.
We’re talking about the memory shortage that exists for all of us because AMAZON and all the other hyperscalers locked it down with long term commitments for huge purchases?
Pardon my skepticism that amazon is facing the same shortage that billy trying to build his first pc is facing…
reply