> We suspect that perfect jailbreak resistance is not currently possible for any model provider. Every safeguard used in the industry is vulnerable to non-universal jailbreaks (which can elicit some cyber information in specific circumstances), and it is likely that universal jailbreaks will eventually be found in the future.

Laying the groundwork to limit access to high capability models

> hasn't facilitated any increase in xenophobia that I'm aware of

My friends in Europe describe the situation differently

Where would they be located?

Social unrest is not usually a hallmark of a functioning society.

Social unrest is how equality and functional societies were obtained.

A society needs to allow that unrest first. Both directly allow it, but also the type of thinking that would cause it.

Alright so let's obtain that society

Touché

But your argument implies society was dysfunctional, and unrest made it functional.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing here

One in every wheel

I am speculating but here might be reasons axial flux motors have advantage over radial flux motors:

1) torque: torque = applied force x length of the lever. Because the radial flux rotor must fit inside the stator, therefore radius << motor outside diameter. With the axial flux motor, the rotor is adjacent to the stator, therefore radius < motor outside diameter. Axial rotor radius > radial rotor radius.

2) space efficiency: in a radial flux motor you have 1 rotor, the coils arranged so that one end of the coil's magnetic field is useful to work on the rotor, the other end is not used. In an axial flux motor, (1) pancake rotor at each end of the coils, total (2) rotors, the coils can act on a rotor at each end. There is no free lunch here, to do useful work you still must provide more energy to the coil, but you can get the most from the space.

There must be someone here with a better handle on the electromagnetism, please correct me where I err.

Think of the motor as a barrel and you can decide whether you put the magnets covering the barrel walls or covering the top and bottom, and your goal is to have the most magnet surface. At short barrel lengths, you get more magnet surface if you cover the top and bottom instead of the walls.

The area of the top+bottom is (2 * pi * radius * radius)

The area of the wall is (2 * pi * radius * length)

For them to have equal magnet area, you need length to be equal to the radius, which is bad. That makes your motor really thick. In the axial design, you can make the motor thin and still have the same magnet area as before, so your motor now weighs a lot less.

If you want a visual of how significant this size difference is, this image shows the sizes of the two motor types in relation to each other at equal strength because the axial motor no longer needs any of the barrel length: https://imgur.com/qwe3tuH

No, it means the motor is smaller and it can be put into the wheel

It doesn't make that a good idea. Armature losses are proportional to torque squared - doesn't matter if it is radial or axial design. That's why all the EVs today have gear boxes with ratios like 13:1. Get rid of that gearbox and the steady-state losses go up with the square of that ratio. Then there are the issues of sprung mass, and where to put the mechanical brakes.

>gear boxes with ratios like 13:1.

you add planetary gears

>sprung mass

you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same.

what you gain is more space for a bigger battery, torque vectoring, no loss on diff and CVs

> you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same.

You would get to delete about half the mass of the half-shaft but otherwise you are cramming a lot of stuff into the wheel volume and it all has to survive living out there. Now your HV wiring and any cooling connections to the motor have to flex with the movements of the suspension and probably need guarding against rocks and other road debris. I think all EVs now have the drive electronics tightly coupled to the motors - now that either has to be separated or made compact enough to fit and rugged enough to survive a much higher vibration regime. We do have small amounts of electronics on hub assemblies today (I'm thinking of electronic parking brakes) so there is some precedent but that circuitry is much less challenging than an inverter handling 100s of kW.

>no loss on diff

I doubt there's much loss from differentials in EVs. They don't have the bevel gear of diffs used in longitudinal layout ICE vehicles and mostly the gears in a diff don't move relative to one another (unless you are doing donuts!), so the whole cage mostly acts like a solid gear giving whatever final ratio.

YASA claims their integrated brake/wheel motor is lighter than comparable (supercar) disc brake systems.

Do they claim enough reliability and peak power capability to delete the mechanical brakes? I know Brembo is working on electric brakes that would eliminate the hydraulic circuits and pistons. I don't know what they plan to do to make sure the electrical side is as robust as the split-diagonal brake system we've been using for 60 years or so.

Having four wheel motors solves any issues that compromise a single unit, but I don't think they've answered how they would mitigate potential system issues that might bring them all down at once.

Yeah that's exactly what the words say, thanks for parsing it for me.

No, it's hand waving because it doesn't explain how or why. That's what "hand waving" means.

aren't there other issues with having the motor in the wheels? Unsprung mass, plus the wheels can get pretty banged around?

You could add a short drive shaft behind the springs to put the motor on the car body. That'd give you some additional advantage of moving much of the brake weight off of the wheel as well.

Tbh it did a pretty good job

Came here for this, thank you for providing a link

Edit.... Video doesn't seem to explain very well either

Kids are absolutely using chat for calculator tasks.

There was a meme going around last week where a child saw a phone calculator app and remarked "wow there's an AI just for math".

Generalizing, they're using chat for everything else, like search. Actually reading a source is not on their radar.

This is frightening. A whole generation that will not, and can not, think. At all. "Do it for me."

If you want to get rich quick there's a huge lesson here: sell to children early. If you can get 5-year-olds hooked on your product and growing up thinking it's the only way to do things, they will give you a huge amount of money later in life. Such as paying ChatGPT to be a calculator.

It's less likely to be accurate, it's slower, and far less efficient as a bonus.

Underrated film from the perspective of social critique.