Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Context

Caleb James DeLisle

With the evolution of batteries, it looks as though internal combustion engines will be relegated to some pretty narrow niches - if not supplanted entirely.

But there's something about them that EVs can never really replace, and it doesn't seem to even have a name. Internal Combustion Engines are "alive" in a way that electric motors can never be.

> That's just how you perceive it, human

Don't care. It's our world, technology should exist on our terms.

Even if electric motors and batteries win every race, (video) is something they can never really do (unless through a pathetic bunch of fake technological theater).

lain

@lain@lain.com remote

@cjd so you're saying ICEs will be the "vinyl just sounds warmer" of engines

Replying to @lain@lain.com

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

I never thought of that comparison, but yes, I suppose so.

I think speakers making music on demand are already kind of dead. Vinyl may add a small bit of ritual to that process, but they can't ever have the life that a guitar or a cello has by it's very construction...

Replies

Replying to @cjd@pkteerium.xyz

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

I think it's actually a form of "user experience" issue.

Things like a wood fire require a lot of manual intervention to keep running correctly. And they give a lot of UX feedback, in the form of colors, sounds, smell, and radiation.

This is something we find very appealing - probably we have even DNA at this point that makes us like a fire when it's going well.

Engines are a little bit similar, they have a lot of failure modes - particularly early ones such as steam and simplistic oil engines. And they are continuously communicating with the user through sound/vibration.

A lot of modern equipment doesn't need that much intervention so it doesn't need to communicate very much. But when it does, it's typically super autistic (popups, error messages, warning lights, buzzers, and the like).

When we're trying to design things, we should always be aiming to communicate fluidly with the user, not only because it creates something of beauty, but because it reduces cognitive load on the user and helps them make better decisions.

One challenge we face though is standardization. The sound of an engine struggling because you're climbing a hill in the wrong gear is defacto standardized because it's endemic to the design of the engine. However, the "sound" of battery state of charge or state of health is undefined, and if you define it in your product, there's no guarantee the next person will use the same definition...