The “Urban mining” part is the most underrated part of the electrification. Few journalists or commentators get the importance of the recycling industry for batteries. First on the geopolitical side, it means that once need are covered, material can stay in the same region, so no continuous dependance to extracting regions. Second, if we manage to do that cleanely enough, it means that the environmental cost is paid only once. Third (and probably not last), it means that used batteries are still valuable assets.

China has focused on "urban mining" in their most recently published 5 year plan so if the pattern holds western journalists will be surprised to learn about the importance of this in a decade or two, probably just after a war restricts some vital supply line.

I don't think it is such a big deal to ship old batteries from rich countries to low income countries for recycling. As long as those low income countries are (long term) friendly with the rich countries. Example: The US could ship old batteries to numerous countries in Central America that would probably be happy to have a factory with good jobs. Also: Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, etc. To be clear: I am not suggesting that rich countries use low income countries to "export their pollution". Rather, I say low income countries because the ROI for battery recycling will probably be low.

One thing that wasn't clear to me until recently (and maybe isn't widely known) is that the battery degradation is just corrosion.

So the conclusion is « buy everything even with borrowed money, but anyway it’s mostly a game of luck and even with the best strategy you’ll loose most of the time».

Not a bad model it seems, curious to test against a « I never want to die strategy », where everyone saves enough to keep playing, which is what mostly happens in real life too.

In the end, it aligns with YC and the startup model to try the all in for a project that will make you win disproportionately.

Of course you will lose a game of chance most of the time. Over a long enough timeline the chance of winning probably comes out to evenly distributed. Therefore your best bet is to play with only one other person ever so that you have a 50% win rate

The video does test against a "saver" player that keeps a buffer. They perform badly.

my takeaway was "invest everything in everything you can" instead of "all in in one project"

It is definitely a XXIst century skill to direct your attention. I am convinced that it is not only by deliberately choosing to be outside the tech bubble, reading paper books or newspapers but also by « pruning » algorithms.

Especially on YouTube that can spiral you on a rabbit hole, it can become a very powerful learning force. I have quite a few friends that became experts in niche subjects by rabbit holing themselves on these topics on YouTube, for example, a serigraphist, a carpenter on Japanese carpenting art or a ceramist.

I think the issue already existed for those who had access to the largest libraries and book stores, only Internet reduced friction, increased span of topics and added video.

Since Da Vinci, it is not possible anymore to have all the knowledge in your mind so focus and attention is the main super power.

Definitely a concept that should be diffused and discussed in France, especially in preparation of next elections for which anti-capitalist sentiment is quite high.

Really neat idea, I think it is one of the best ways to exploit the combined building and explaining capabilities of LLMs. I am currently building an app/game to explain friends and family concepts around wealth management and wealth building. Games are a great way to hide complexity while still including it in the « guide » you are making.

I’ll add that you still need the will and the care to drive it towards an useful product. AI still not magically generate useful products if you don’t ask it to do it and prune the results until it approaches what you desired to create.

Nice article, interesting to keep an open mind. On "No. 0002. Preserving problems", it can happen to people too, no need for a complex system at the size of a company. I have often noticed recognized experts keeping the root of the problem unsolved because it was justifying their position. I may even have been subject of this curse. As an expert, you may know the root cause but have no incentive to solve it and it can be harder to mobilize ressources to solve the root cause than to keep solving the superficial issue. It is management or outside help role to identify and push for solving problems at their root, but it takes time and dedication because of expertise. As most of the time, incentives explain nearly everything.

I often found the opposite can be be true, people can, for decades on end, be totally ignorant of what happens next door. When you show them the effect of their ignorance you often get something akin to the stages of grief. Definitely the anger, and with you in particular. The, 'I don't care whose fault it is, I'm not here to apportion blame' line only goes so far, especially since other managers and even the CEO might be very interested in apportioning blame. At least they are allies for the change that needs to happen

In terms of the expert observation, I've seen this happen a number of times in conjunction with "not invented here" (and probably been guilty of it myself at times) - "the commodity solution doesn't do X that we want", "yeah our in house solution doesn't do x,y,z that the commodity solution does but just a little more effort and it'll be perfect"

Spoiler: neither the commodity solution or the in-house solution will ever be perfect, and you should be really self critical of whether you're building something in-house to scratch your own itch.

If you can find a commodity solution with the right extension points that's often the best solution, failing that many times it's worth accepting the limitations, rarely it's worth investing in the totally bespoke thing (outside of your core domain/proposition).

This specific problem reminded me of Batman.