[epistasis]

This just needs some context to make sense, and when you add in the "in robot taxis" that is on the original article, that makes a very sensical context: a vehicle that can carry people.

All language requires these sorts of assumptions; its implicit in pretty much every sentence. For most people, they will understand what is meant very quickly. Could it be better? Sure. But the question is better for whom, and with what implicit assumptions about the world?

[woodandsteel]

>All language requires these sorts of assumptions; its implicit in pretty much every sentence. For most people, they will understand what is meant very quickly.

I have a snarky saying that no matter how clear you make yourself, someone can always misunderstand you if they really want to.

[yazr]

The robo-taxi connotation is even worse.

Any robo-taxi can be programmed to drive like a grand-ma to improve battery life. The cost of a x2 battery size is easier to amortize. Its life time can be managed and optimized with ML.

And yes - it can get the greatest and latest battery chemistry.

At this stage - we just dont need a "battery miracle" or a Musk-moonshot (trade-mark?) for passenger EVs.

[zaroth]

The point of the Robotaxi use case is it presents a very high duty cycle (multiple full charges per day) but with lower maximum range constraints.

So it’s particularly well suited for a chemistry which provides slightly lower density trade-off for double the total lifetime cycles. Similarly for EV buses and trucks.

Better chemistry at lower cost benefits passenger cars but also public transit and grid storage. It’s a multi-hundred-billion if not trillion dollar market overall.

It has nothing particularly to do with “Musk-moonshot” other than Tesla hyping and accelerating the pace of EV mass adoption, which drives a virtuous cycle for battery chemistry investment.