4 ms·

If capitalism were a thing, could someone market a newly made chip-free vehicle?

by smitty1e 1y ago

amelius 1y ago
Capitalism does not necessarily act in the interest of consumers, if that is what you were thinking.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  If no one buys this car, making more of them will lose money until they stop. If consumers buy the car, then it will live on. In other words, CONSUMERS do not necessarily act in the interest of consumers.
  - mdp2021 1y ago
    > consumers do not necessarily act in the interest of consumers That's what I am saying with "broken market, broken supply-demand system, non-rational and non-informed economic agents". Bad products that sell are a reality since a long time.
    - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
      Broken for whom? "Bad" according to whom? What would your goal be, then? Only "good" products are able to be sold -- according to whom will this definition of "good" be decided? I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here, but my point is that bringing value judgement into other people's decisions is not something I would regard as rational. People have their own reasons for doing things that I don't need to understand.
      - mdp2021 1y ago
        > whom? Rational agents. That quality is an abater of relativism. > What would your goal be, then Livability. That requires working systems, so that choice is still possible. In the current situation, there is in many vast territories no choice, in many areas (not just cars), and greatly suboptimal, very thin livability.
        tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
        Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents". I'd love to meet an extraterrestrial alien made of silicon. Again, livability "for whom?" Do you propose making cheap, accessible beachfront property a basic human right? Should we all live in equally-sized apartments given to us for free by the government? People do not all want the same thing.
        mdp2021 1y ago
        > Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents". Hi there. > Again, livability "for whom?" For the rational. The people who tend to dis-want electroshocking cutlery and miasmatic nail polish. > Do you propose That societies work on making citizens informed and rational, just like classic economic theory suggested and as is required for the common advantage.
      - amelius 1y ago
        If you are basing your metrics on the same bad axioms a system was built on, you will not understand the other side of the story.
  - amelius 1y ago
    This assumes that consumers have perfect information, that products never change in favor of the vendor (enshittification), limited choice of products, and ignores the power of quasi monopolies. Also ignores persuasion tactics which have great power, see The Internet.
  - ozgrakkurt 1y ago
    If your choice is to get beaten or get sick then you can’t act in your interest.
joenot443 1y ago
It's my understanding that said vehicle would be illegal to sell in most jurisdictions, so it probably wouldn't be a very lucrative endeavor.
- mdp2021 1y ago
  True, manufacturers must face very hard constraints in many territories (all new vechicles must have this and that). But there is something wrong in the product planning if there are no vehicles outside the wave of "gadgetrification" ("Look, these come with holographic glove compartment. It's for your convenience. Yes, you pay for it").
Zak 1y ago
It's probably impossible to meet modern emissions, fuel economy, and safety standards without some computer control. I haven't seen an analysis of whether regulations preclude those controls being open source and giving the car owner full access. Of course the owner could make the car noncompliant in that case, but the owner can do that on current and past cars using a wrench.
- mdp2021 1y ago
  > the owner could make the car noncompliant Real dialogue: > "Can we lower the volume of that artificial sound?" // "In the internal configuration; should we modify it, you lose the warranty". Plus, we have heard rumors of "tampering detected: degraded mode activated, contact a service office". Basically, one should avoid in general critical products shipped with kill switches (and in fact I also saw cars that had mulfunctioning kill switches and "shut down" randomly while running).
- cout 1y ago
  When we think of computers Er think of solid state digital computers. But the first fuel injected vehicles were mechanical computers. I suspect it's still very possible to do the same today, but not practical to design. Also I'm trying to think of what role the computer plays in emissions other than ensuring stoichiometry.
  - Zak 1y ago
    Ensuring stoichiometry is kind of a big deal. When the engine is cold, the mixture needs to be rich or it won't start. Engines with carburetors use a choke for that - a valve that blocks some airflow so there's more vacuum, causing the engine to suck in extra fuel. Electronic fuel injection can be much more precise about this, minimizing the amount and duration of enrichment. Changes in air pressure and temperature change the ideal air/fuel ratio. Driving over a mountain will make an engine without the ability to react to run at a suboptimal air/fuel ratio. Catalytic converters require that the ratio be kept very close to optimal to operate effectively. A small deviation for an extended period of time will result in a large increase in emissions and may even permanently damage the catalyst.

If capitalism were a thing, could someone market a newly made chip-free vehicle?

amelius 1y ago

Capitalism does not necessarily act in the interest of consumers, if that is what you were thinking.

tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
If no one buys this car, making more of them will lose money until they stop. If consumers buy the car, then it will live on. In other words, CONSUMERS do not necessarily act in the interest of consumers.
- mdp2021 1y ago
  > consumers do not necessarily act in the interest of consumers That's what I am saying with "broken market, broken supply-demand system, non-rational and non-informed economic agents". Bad products that sell are a reality since a long time.
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    Broken for whom? "Bad" according to whom? What would your goal be, then? Only "good" products are able to be sold -- according to whom will this definition of "good" be decided? I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here, but my point is that bringing value judgement into other people's decisions is not something I would regard as rational. People have their own reasons for doing things that I don't need to understand.
    - mdp2021 1y ago
      > whom? Rational agents. That quality is an abater of relativism. > What would your goal be, then Livability. That requires working systems, so that choice is still possible. In the current situation, there is in many vast territories no choice, in many areas (not just cars), and greatly suboptimal, very thin livability.
      - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
        Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents". I'd love to meet an extraterrestrial alien made of silicon. Again, livability "for whom?" Do you propose making cheap, accessible beachfront property a basic human right? Should we all live in equally-sized apartments given to us for free by the government? People do not all want the same thing.
        mdp2021 1y ago
        > Let me know when you find one of these "rational agents". Hi there. > Again, livability "for whom?" For the rational. The people who tend to dis-want electroshocking cutlery and miasmatic nail polish. > Do you propose That societies work on making citizens informed and rational, just like classic economic theory suggested and as is required for the common advantage.
    - amelius 1y ago
      If you are basing your metrics on the same bad axioms a system was built on, you will not understand the other side of the story.
- amelius 1y ago
  This assumes that consumers have perfect information, that products never change in favor of the vendor (enshittification), limited choice of products, and ignores the power of quasi monopolies. Also ignores persuasion tactics which have great power, see The Internet.
- ozgrakkurt 1y ago
  If your choice is to get beaten or get sick then you can’t act in your interest.

joenot443 1y ago

It's my understanding that said vehicle would be illegal to sell in most jurisdictions, so it probably wouldn't be a very lucrative endeavor.

mdp2021 1y ago
True, manufacturers must face very hard constraints in many territories (all new vechicles must have this and that). But there is something wrong in the product planning if there are no vehicles outside the wave of "gadgetrification" ("Look, these come with holographic glove compartment. It's for your convenience. Yes, you pay for it").

Zak 1y ago

It's probably impossible to meet modern emissions, fuel economy, and safety standards without some computer control. I haven't seen an analysis of whether regulations preclude those controls being open source and giving the car owner full access. Of course the owner could make the car noncompliant in that case, but the owner can do that on current and past cars using a wrench.

mdp2021 1y ago
> the owner could make the car noncompliant Real dialogue: > "Can we lower the volume of that artificial sound?" // "In the internal configuration; should we modify it, you lose the warranty". Plus, we have heard rumors of "tampering detected: degraded mode activated, contact a service office". Basically, one should avoid in general critical products shipped with kill switches (and in fact I also saw cars that had mulfunctioning kill switches and "shut down" randomly while running).
cout 1y ago
When we think of computers Er think of solid state digital computers. But the first fuel injected vehicles were mechanical computers. I suspect it's still very possible to do the same today, but not practical to design. Also I'm trying to think of what role the computer plays in emissions other than ensuring stoichiometry.
- Zak 1y ago
  Ensuring stoichiometry is kind of a big deal. When the engine is cold, the mixture needs to be rich or it won't start. Engines with carburetors use a choke for that - a valve that blocks some airflow so there's more vacuum, causing the engine to suck in extra fuel. Electronic fuel injection can be much more precise about this, minimizing the amount and duration of enrichment. Changes in air pressure and temperature change the ideal air/fuel ratio. Driving over a mountain will make an engine without the ability to react to run at a suboptimal air/fuel ratio. Catalytic converters require that the ratio be kept very close to optimal to operate effectively. A small deviation for an extended period of time will result in a large increase in emissions and may even permanently damage the catalyst.