Sadly it will also burn other stuff around. If it would only eat itself, I would watch with glee. But when it eats the life-sphere and our lifesupport before, I feel less gleeful

What Slate is hyping that they'll do with small trucks.

We'll see what, if anything, actually becomes available.

Why not buy a used one?

They get used in burst cycles -- like 10 days straight at harvest time, other times not started for months. Battery cost per kwh used is very low amortized over its full lifespan, but if you only use it to 1% of its capability your costs are now 100x higher.

Now, hang a high voltage wire down from a big-ass catenary, so you don't need batteries, and it'll be cheaper upfront and in use, but nobody does that because of 1. safety 2. if everybody did it the grid would need upgrades

October to April in Saskatchewan.

Almost certainly it's energy density for long running, high load usage.

If a family car energy usage is 1x, then a light duty truck is about 1.5x, and a heavy duty truck doing hauling or towing is about 4x. A medium sized farm tractor would probably be 20x or more.

In that light, it's not hard to see how cars and light trucks could fare well with today's battery energy density, while heavy duty trucks are at the limits. For a tractor, it's not even close.

I do think we'll see smaller tractors going electric in about 10-15 years.

IMO the word "compute" is too generic here. To me, the most valuable thing that personal computers have brought us so far is the ability to communicate smoothly across (dis)abilities through digital text. Think of a blind student writing an assignment that can be read by a sighted teacher, or a sighted student and a blind teacher, with no transcriber mediating between them, and a blind writer being able to know what they're actually writing and correct it (as opposed to, say, using a typewriter blind). We should be able to do that, with a variety of assistive technologies for different disabilities, with far less computing power than we're using now. Edit to add: And indeed we did, decades ago, including in battery-powered devices. But now we're convinced that our "one device" needs to be able to do everything, thus it needs to have as much computing power as modewrn technology allows.

Edit 2 to add: I think it's important to be specific about what the computing is for. If you just need to solve a small number of equations, then yes, you can do that with a slide rule. But in the written communication case above, the computing is only useful when done with at least the speed of an early microcomputer and paired with digital storage and/or networking and a variety of I/O devices. Still, we don't strictly need our modern supercomputers for that use case, except that it's now considered weird and limiting to use anything less. Also, I bring up the written communication use case because there is a rising backlash against allowing personal computers at all in certain contexts, such as education, because of AI-based cheating. I don't want disabled people like me to lose what we've gained from personal computing in the specific use case I described above. Maybe the solution is to normalize using less than a maximally powerful, Internet-connected personal computer in such contexts.

> I might cook in a cast iron pan

And how are you heating that pan? 100 years ago it was fire (wood mostly), today it's gas or electric resistance (mostly, induction is growing though) - what will it be in 100 years?