Most often diesel engines (I used to be an auto mechanic). Even passenger car diesels can take 10+ quarts. Gas engines typically take less oil but big engines can still take 5-7+.
But that's an inline engine, right? I think a model based on engine layout, displacement/cylinder, and cylinder count might be quite good at predicting the necessary oil (and will tell you when your car uses a bit too much compared to everyone else).
It's not ergnomic nor designed around the human body or everyday experiences.
It started arbitrary. Then was defined as in terms of the wavelength of radiation from krypton-86. (the meter was 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of that particular transition to match the original arbitrary metal bar)
Then they based it on the distance light travels in an arbitrary amount of time (1/299,792,458 of a second).
These were all decidedly non-human scale measurements with no actual scientific basis. Yes they used scientific references, but theyre all arbitrary references.
I didn't say it was SI units, but it's easily convertible to them. Metric isn't magic, but it's a cohesive set of legos that can be transformed easily without requiring messy arithmetic and hard to memorise scale constants.
Are you not pretending people use the modern, most-precise definitions in the day-to-day just to give yourself a stab at claiming that Metric is awful? Non-metric would face the same dilemma when trying to establish units in a way that can be scientifically replicated. The counter point is that non-metric is so bad that people don't even bother using it in this endeavor ;)
> I guarantee you you would be able to adapt without any problem.
I guess it depends on how you define "problem". It took me years (probably a decade or so) to get good at estimating measurements. I would expect that to relearn how to estimate using metric units would take a decent portion of that (though probably not all). That is a very real cost to me if we were to adopt metric units. Meanwhile, metric also confers no benefit to me (ease of conversion math is irrelevant when I carry a calculator in my pocket, and I've learned the conversions I need in everyday life). So the cost-benefit analysis of switching to metric would be negative for my usage.
But more to the point, it's fucking rude to come in here as you did and call people "uncivilized" for something as petty and meaningless as which units of measurement they use.
Metric isn't magic but as an engineer who's had to use both systems for my whole career[^1] I despise the imperial system. Factors of 3, 8, 12, 640, 5280! Fractions used in carpentry. Just centering a picture on a wall is annoying.
I will agree that a temperature interface in °C should read in increments of 0.5 in order to have roughly the same resolution as when in °C (and many don't, but that's poor UX). I don't care about 0-100 being roughly aligned to human environments - 0-100 being aligned to freezing/boiling of water is just as good a reference.
[1] of the many things that Reagan should be despised for, cancelling metrication is probably not in the top 5, maybe not top 10. I still despise him for it.
Not everything has to be political. I live in Japan and raised SUV's with max-grip tires are all the rage here. Just total, 100% useless vanity that wastes fuel for nothing.
Flexing useless crap as a status symbol is as old as time
Lots of people haul things. The US is huge compared to what most people expect. Big trucks can be a necessity depending on what you do for a living/your way of life.
The vast majority of pickups are not actually used for workmen like purposes.
In fact, as carmakers have started pivoting more towards selling them to affluent suburban households, the usable cargo volume has decreased over time despite increasing size.
> Nearly 90 percent of truck buyers said they never use their truck for business towing, as a mobile office, or as a work site. Yet nearly 40 percent said they drive their truck strictly for pleasure at least once a week.
And these are self-reported numbers: what people say about their own behaviour(s).
> Big trucks can be a necessity depending on what you do for a living/your way of life.
For something like ~90% of pick-up owners that is grocery shopping and errands. As one headline put it, most folks don't need a pick-up truck but rather a cowboy costume:
> But, as it turns out, a significant portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
People would do better to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, and use the money saved to rent a truck (or van) the few times a year they need those specific capabilities. They'd probably save money, and we'd probably have fewer dead people and children as well:
Things can be hauled just fine in an estate, saloon, or even a hatchback. European camper vans are regularly hauled by tiny Golfs or Polos with barely a litre of engine displacement and a hundred kilowatts of power.
Americans just buy much bigger vehicles than necessary.
>Big trucks can be a necessity depending on what you do for a living/your way of life.
You might have missed this part. My round bales are 1000kg, and the field gets wet. How do I move the goats? How do I pull someone out of that ditch where the sign says 15mph but every winter they slide through my fence?
Grew up in farm country and on a (hobby) cattle farm, can confirm, the best tool for between two and three[1] of those is a tractor.
Though yes obviously if you have an actual working farm, in any capacity, you need a truck that can tow trailers with decent weight on them.
I have noticed truck ownership patterns vary with region, which may be why some people bristle at the notion that vanity-driven truck ownership is common. It's extremely common in the Midwest, city suburbs are full of people who bought an expensive truck either because that's the purchase that'll get them positive attention from their peers at work or in their friend group (and because other options for show-off cars might get them ribbing instead of kudos) or for aspirations they'll never fulfill ("yeah, I'll totally tow a boat to the lake every weekend! Maybe I'll even buy a fifth-wheel camper!" then they end up doing it like twice a year and never buy the camper). It's less common in (at least large parts of) the Northeast. The "I have a nice car people may comment positively on or otherwise approve of" purchases here swing more Volvo and Audi and such, even out in what the locals consider the "country" (it's... not, LOL).
[1] Where are the goats being hauled? Just on your property, between fields? To somewhere farther away? On roads? How far on roads? Truck still might be the wrong tool, or at least not better.
If you are really a farmer then I would expect you to have more sense than defending all the people who drive to their office job in their massive trucks.
Yes people on farms need big vehicles. We're not talking about them.
My mother has rheumatics and she was looking at an SUV for her back. It gets more difficult for old people to climb into a tiny car- and for old people a car is a lifeline.
Lots of big cars are driven by small old ladies and it has nothing to do with vanity.
Right, but seeing trucks obviously not set up for towing or hauling is becoming more common nowadays. With the level of luxury trims available on some trucks now, it's obvious that they aren't a necessity anymore.
This is on top of trucks prioritizing 4 door models and taking bites out of the truck bed
Same trend here in NZ. People buying utes/trucks just because they want, not because they need. They're not as big as the American F150s etc, more a Toyota Hilux or Ford Ranger.
And they're often driven by reckless road ragers, often modified with uncertified suspension, bush lights turned on at night blinding oncoming traffic, and wheels extending past the fender flares. These vehicles are often financed to the hilt, so spending money on certifying the modifications is out of the picture, so a lot of these are not legal to drive on the roads.
Remember that the US is it's own market with different regulations and has a complicated history with imports, so no Hilux. Though it does look like the Ranger is externally the same between NZ and US. I'm not counting maybe 1mm as different.
I am somewhat familiar with a Ute since I've seen Subaru Bajas before. Not old enough to see Subaru Brats around or El Caminos.
It does seem like those people are emulating Americans though a lot of those mods are passable without certification, and it's up to a cop to pull over people using bush lights (they probably won't).
My comment wasn't necessarily to talk about model parity across markets - more to highlight the growing trend of people buying large utility vehicles with a tray as a fashion statement (for lack of a better term) than for its utility.
> "a lot of those mods are passable without certification"
Not true. Besides the bush lights, any changes in suspension and wheel size require a certification, with a LVVTA cert plate attached to the vehicle.
There is definitely a case of double standards with police enforcement. 'Boy racers' with modified coupes and sedans - typically lowered, with larger wheels - get way police scrutiny compared to utes with obviously illegal modifications like colored lights, and wheels jutting out past the fenders.
Tacoma is longer and wider by about 100mm. The Tacoma shares a platform with the Prado, no 2 door/2 seat option (anymore), no chassis cab, no diesel. Heard that it uses C channel frame, while the Hilux is fully boxed, so the payload is significantly better on the Hilux.
Sell sheet for the Tacoma vs the Hilux on Wikipedia states that there's an increased focus on ride quality over the Hilux, which was developed for the US market.
Lots of people haul things everywhere. Driving a truck as your main vehicle because you haul something twice a month is ridiculously wasteful, of money foremost.
I have a small trailer, rent a bigger one or van when needed.
As someone who does not own an F150 (or any truck), I find myself frequently wishing I had a truck, and either borrowing a friend with a truck, renting a truck, or doing some really unsafe things with my hatchback while muttering with my wife that our next car with be a truck.
If we had a truck, what % of the time would we be using it for things that can only be done with a truck? Very little, since it would also be our daily driver, but even if just 1% of the time, it's 100% worth having a truck over some sedan (or a hatchback!)
As someone who until last year has only had (mostly sports) cars or motorbikes, I now have a ute and it’s awesome to be able to do ‘ute stuff’ with it. Carrying toolboxes, transporting large/heavy/dirty cargo, collecting firewood, going off-roading and camping. I use it way more than I thought I would.
Likewise with my Jeep Gladiator. I traveled, hauled and camped with it more than I ever expected.
The bed is only 5 feet long but I'm thinking of taking out part of the back seat for even more room .
I also used 4x4 in 4H mode more than I thought on bad roads even though I didn't go truly off-road that much so no need for 4L. I did take advantage of the higher wheel clearance and the more rugged suspension and the 8-speed manual shifting is useful going down mountain roads.
Tbh as someone who does not drive or own a car regularly, I get by renting those U Haul vans (not trucks). It’s not expensive and it’s a hell of a lot more useful than a truck for doing the random heavy odd job.
Can't be more than 1% at this point. The cleanest cars on the road, and the only rough terrain they face is climbing kerbs to bypass queues in traffic.
It's wild to see all these people clowning on truck owners... and then say they are going to buy two 5090's for local AI even though they know it's less efficient than a cloud and don't necessarily need the privacy aspect of it... but want to do it just "cuz" . The hypocrisy here is amazing.
Specifically, oil cooled Porsches take that much, because they have to fill the oil cooler at the front and the lines that lead to the engine at the back.
I've owned and driven V8 engine powered vehicles since the 1970's and have never owned one that used more than 7 qts of oil for an oil change. Most use 5 qts plus a filter. That is why oil is sold in 5 qt jugs. That's all that most vehicles need. Of course my vehicles are all model year 2015 or earlier.
I checked specs with different manufacturers and find that the V8 engines that need 10 qts of motor oil are the heavier duty trucks typically with a diesel engine. Checking specs shows that most gasoline V8s require 6 qts, some require 7-8 quarts, and the larger diesel trucks require 10 qts, sometimes up to 11 qts depending on the engine.
10 qts of motor oil takes up a lot of space and that is at a premium in most engine compartments. The oil pan would need to be deep and trucks are the only vehicles that have that much room between the engine block and the crossmembers/differentials.
I guess I should've qualified my comment with a note about those vehicles being American-made V8s. Diesel engines tend to have higher lubrication requirements thus they have larger oil pans. I see that those BMW engines you listed are gassers so I took a look at their specs to see why they would need such large oil reservoirs.
Twin turbos. Mounted in the engine valley. High heat in that configuration and high oil consumption as a result - up to 1 qt/1000 miles. [0]
That's crazy. I can drive my V8 powered, non-turbo engine Bronco 10000 miles between oil changes using full synthetic oil without needing to add a full quart of oil and it has more than 330k miles on the odometer.
I see now why those BMWs may need a huge oil pan. It is an attempt to compensate for the consequences of design decisions that they knew would create problems. Those engines only need a 10 qt reservoir because they would burn through a smaller volume so fast that no one would buy the vehicle because it required them to check the oil every day and to carry oil so that there was less chance of destroying the engine due to running it low.
I was not aware of BMW engines having such huge reservoirs and now that I am I can be glad that I have never considered owing one.
I didn't look at Toyota or other foreign manufacturers who also built V8 engines. Maybe I should educate myself.
these BMW twin turbos are marvels of engineering, 567 horsepowers. The best engine BMW has ever made.
This engine allows you to have a huge family hauler (BMW X7) and drive like a BMW M3 like you stole it. Imagine hauling 3 kids and ski gear for 5 people up the twisty mountain road in the Sierras.
and by the way on the highway, X7 M60i gets you 21 mpg on the road. Amazing feat by the German engineers.
and I never had do top off the oil, just change oil every 7500 miles. Zero oil leaks. All of the notorious BMW V8 twin turbo issues were related to the early design and were solved in N63TU in 2014. The engines are rock solid, but the car has other weak parts (transfer case and front diff)
>All of the notorious BMW V8 twin turbo issues were related to the early design and were solved in N63TU in 2014.
That's great! It sounds like the early engine had lots of problems but BMW iterated until they solved them, and ended up having a high performance engine for those who stuck with the brand. I know that I have been burned buying the first year model of a vehicle and then having to absorb all the downtime for things that I felt they could've addressed before sending them out to dealerships. 21 mpg on the road from an engine like that is pretty impressive. Like I mentioned, I have never considered owning a BMW but it sounds like they are solid vehicles, after all the usual iterations, just like the other manufacturers. Enjoy the drives!
In particular you can still get used Optane SSDs on eBay, although they’re fairly pricey. (not the bogus m.2 ones that are slower than a halfway decent consumer NVMe)
LLMs tend to care for sequential bandwidth more than random access. From that perspective, Optane probably doesn't offer much of an advantage vs other NVMe drives even from the same era while losing out greatly to newer drives with faster busses to fill. There could be something special to this particular instance but https://github.com/argonautlabsai/deltafin/blob/main/k3-publ... and the overall tok/s numbers seem to suggest it's just the sequential that's playing in.
Most desktops and mini-PCs can read simultaneously from only 2 internal M.2 SSDs, 1 of which is PCIe 5.0 and the other is PCIe 4.0.
They may have more M.2 sockets but usually except for the first all the others share the same PCIe 4.0 path.
Those 2 M.2 SSDs have a theoretical maximum aggregated throughput of 24 GByte/s, but what is achievable in practice is typically only slightly above 20 GB/s.
If you have 1 or 2 USB 4 / Thunderbolt 4 ports, the aggregated throughput can be increased with external SSDs, like in TFA.
With 2 internal SSDs and 2 fast external SSDs, a higher throughput than in TFA is possible.
Probably not. Each read here is a whole 17.5 MB expert file, so the time per read is set by the drive's throughput, not its access latency — 17.5 MB at 7 GB/s is ~2.5 ms, which is what we measure at queue depth 1 on the SN8100s.
What actually moves the barrier is how fast the slowest of 16 concurrent whole-file reads completes: more drives on direct ports, stable tail behaviour under load, and scheduling. Our ladder shows even that with diminishing returns (one drive ≈52% of four, three ≈90%).
When you have heterogeneous SSDs, e.g. you mix PCIe 5.0, PCIe 4.0 and Thunderbolt interfaces, you can obtain a greater throughput by managing in software the distribution of data, than by using RAID0.
RAID0 works fine only when all the interfaces have the same speed.
If one SSD is twice faster than the other, in order to achieve maximal throughput, you must take care to place the data in such a way so that you will need to read twice more data from the twice faster SSD.
In general, you must distribute the data so that the amounts read from each SSD are proportional with the throughputs of the SSDs.
One could write a modified RAID0 device driver, which would use unequal stripes, with widths proportional with the SSD throughputs, but I am not aware of any such already existing RAID0 driver.
This would not work with HDDs, because the time to seek between 2 partitions of the same device would cause abysmal performance, but on SSDs this should work fine, even if some SSD controllers might still have a lower throughput when reading non-sequential pages.
I worked on the VMware monitor team back in 2007-2008, which probably put my employee number way in the 1000s. Ole Agesen, Carl Waldspurger, and other early folks were still there.
Back then "kvm" meant a remote keyboard/video/mouse device. Linux kvm was announced in 2006, and released in 2007, and required hardware virtualization, which was first released with AMD Pacifica in 2006. Back then VMware's binary translation was locked up in patents, so in the free software world we had Xen, colinux, and other hacks.
Ha. For quite a while it was very small team and had to be for that kind of brain surgery, I have no idea how large it finally grew. Founders Mendel Rosenblum and Ed Bugnion in the early days. I remember when we hired Ole, Carl, Keith Adams, and Ganesh Venkitachalam. And we hired Steve Herrod to run the monitor team, and relieve Mendel from doing that. I was not in the loop on hiring those developers, no reason to be. Except I remember interviewing Steve and Diane talking to me before the interview to be clear I was there to help sell joining VMware to Steve. I did not need to be convinced hard to do that :-) I'm sure I'm missing other key early monitor folks but those memories are fading...
There's an interesting comparison to HyperCard, which didn't have the intellectual scaffolding of Xanadu, but just worked, even on a typical Mac of the day with 1MB of RAM.
Until the stack got too large, or one forgot the ID of the card one wanted to link to or the search text which would allow one to make it a target, &c.
HyperCard was _amazing_ (and I still have my copy of _The Manhole: Where Alice would have gone if Alice had HyperCard_ which was the predecessor for _Myst_) and it kills me that we lost MacBasic:
and that HyperCard was such a mess of licensing that one had to use the "magic" word, or a command to enable Developer Mode and that it took so long to be developed/released:
(though one wonders what would have happen if it had instead been a NeXT product)
and then of course that the various alternatives had such tortured histories and of course the infamous "rug pull" when Live Code went closed source --- is there a viable free/opensource implementation which is nicer and more usable than Decker?
For those of us who have just been using Emacs, rather than following its recent evolution, "ts-mode" refers to a mode which uses tree-sitter for parsing, highlighting etc.
To translate to Rust, it would have been "we missed a single line Rust check"...
This is a bug involving intersecting concerns and a deficit of cross-domain knowledge. It probably would have been the same in Lisp or assembly language.
I think https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48766436 is a practical answer. A marker that can't be forged (without explicitly malicious code being written), which is needed by the "yield to suspend/shutdown" function.
Missing the "wipe key from memory" means you don't have the marker, and trying to continue the suspend/shutdown will fail to compile, because you don't have the marker.
Water is pretty fungible, so while it might not be that alfalfa fields in the Arizona and southern California desert are irrigated from a residential pipe, it's the same water either way. Whether the water arrives at the field/datacenter via municipal pipe or irrigation canal doesn't seem relevant, except that a municipal pipe probably could supply most datacenters' needs, while desert alfalfa has a whole different scale of usage.
But if your point is that no one would farm alfalfa in the desert and use water that would otherwise be available for residential use, you are quite wrong.
reply