Agreed!

No denying that there are positives, but geopolitically we can’t have Berlin on it’s knees just because Kremlin had a Chinese cargo ship drag it’s anchor half way across the Baltic sea. That’s a no go for an independent Europe.

Had it only been Sweden, as before the eu-directive changed the order of things, the grid would have been more sufficient.

There are no lack of issues in the Swedish grid, but they are compounded by the fact that right now it tries to solve the problem of insufficient grid infrastructure in Norway, Finland and lack of power production and electricity areas in Germany. Last year when the oil power plant had to be fired for 3 days, it was because of insufficiencoes in the polish network…

In fact, by the look of it, the Swedish grid is the only grid in the area that actually works as it says on the can.

So you want Sweden to suboptimize it’s energy grid so that Germany doesn’t have to take responsibility for their own electricity needs? It’s not the solution to this problem.

And, as others are saying: there are other projects in the north of Sweden aiming to use that energy.

Aye, I agree. And given the fit-for-55 directive, that push will continue, further reducing the economic viability of nuclear. Nuclear is dead.

However, regardless of the state of nuclear in Europe, the big problem is that Germany does not produce enough energy, which spikes the energy prices in neighbouring countries. Here, electricity suddenly becomes 8 times more costly when Germany imports electricity. That is something Germany needs to address or face constant demands of building nuclear.

Well, to be frank, Sweden is Europes second largest, or largest depending on the state of things in France, electricity exporter in Europe. Sweden do not necessarily need more large scale electricity production. Specially not given the drive towards micro production that is now ongoing.

The only reason to build large scale is to accommodate AI or some other extremely energy dependant technology. They can happily build and run their own electricity network and not include the ordinary consumers, nor the taxpayers.

This time, it seems, they found the golden nugget despite being blind.

Sure, better range is always nice, if that’s the case, but I didn’t drive it enough to be able to come to that conclusion. The power usage from previous owners was as expected, though.

The problem I have with id7 is that it is bigger on the outside, smaller on the inside and not as fun to drive. Having said that, I recently got to drive a new Model3 and the changes the last 5 years has not done it any favours. Quieter, yes, but that’s about it for the positives.

I can’t come in today, I got a bad case of X… I don’t know, seems like a reason to self isolate already.

Yeah, I got that. And the point of my post was that expecting and planning for a 35% share is neither unreasonable nor impossible. The “impossible” part is on Toyota, not California.

The UK and Germany are both at about 25% EV adoption, as per news here the last days. That’s a combined market about half the size of the USA. That seems to work out rather well in terms of supply.

Unless of course, we exclude all non-american car makers in the world. And that’s the issue, isn’t it?

Norway’s 92% of cars sold in July -24 proves it is not only possible, but also realistic. It’s been done.

Volvo is Swedish but is now owned by Geely, a Chinese holding company, so it comes down to definitions.

Which is longer, but not wider than M/S Tycho Brahe which has been electrified since 2018.

If a magazine that doesn’t usually cover cars suddenly covers cars, my reaction isn’t “this must be great”. It’s “how much did that plug cost then?”

I’m just in the beginning, but my plan is to use it to evaluate policy docs. There is so much context to keep up with, so any way to load more context into the analysis will be helpful. Learning how to add excel information in the analysis will also be a big step forward.

I will have to check out Mistral:) So far Qwen2.5 14B has been the best at providing analysis of my test scenario. But i guess an even higher parameter model will have its advantages.

Thank you! Very useful. I am, again, surprised how a better way of asking questions affects the answers almost as much as using a better model.

I need to look into flash attention! And if i understand you correctly a larger model of llama3.1 would be better prepared to handle a larger context window than a smaller llama3.1 model?

Thanks! I actually picked up the concept of context window, and from there how to create a modelfile, through one of the links provided earlier and it has made a huge difference. In your experience, would a small model like llama3.2 with a bigger context window be able to provide the same output as a big modem L, like qwen2.5:14b, with a more limited window? The bigger window obviously allow more data to be taken into account, but how does the model size compare?

Thank you for your detailed answer:) it’s 20 years and 2 kids since I last tried my hand at reading code, but I’m doing my best to catch up😊 Context window is a concept I picked up from your links which has provided me much help!

The problem I keep running into with that approach is that only the last page is actually summarised and some of the texts are… Longer.