2021年2月8日 星期一

On Tech: The auto revolution is here

Traditional automakers and tech-focused companies, like Tesla, race to rule the future of cars.

The auto revolution is here

Burton Booz

In the past few weeks, conventional cars have been put on the endangered list.

The electric carmaker Tesla turned its first full-year profit in its history. News broke that Hyundai has been negotiating with Apple to manufacture a driverless car. Start-ups like Rivian and Lucid are racing ahead with entirely novel ways to make vehicles. And General Motors said that by 2035, it would stop selling gasoline-powered cars.

"I've been writing about the auto industry for 19 years, and I've really never seen anything like this," my colleague Neal E. Boudette told me. We discussed the future of cars and whether traditional automakers or tech-focused companies, like Tesla and Apple, would rule the next generation of the roads.

Shira: Are traditional automakers, like G.M., serious about electric vehicles?

Neal: G.M. wouldn't have said that it will stop making internal combustion engines by 2035 unless it were dead serious. Ford and Volkswagen haven't committed to a deadline, but they're spending tens of billions of dollars to develop electric vehicles. These companies are convinced that there will be a tipping point that spells the death of conventional cars.

Electric vehicles, especially in the United States, are a fraction of car sales. Maybe this isn't a tipping point?

ADVERTISEMENT

The movement toward electric cars could slow down, especially if there are economic downturns or shortages of raw materials. But I don't think that there's any going back now because of climate change and governments' determination to fight it — including in China, some European countries and the United States.

Put these developments into context for us.

When I saw the G.M. news, I sat back in my chair and reflected on how revolutionary this was. G.M., for more than a century, has been producing internal combustion engine vehicles, and soon it won't be.

We're on the cusp of one of those big industrial transformations in which we shift from an old way of doing things to a completely new one, and everything will be turned upside down.

OK, wow. So who will lead this new car world? Auto companies or tech companies?

It's not either-or. The companies that succeed will need to think like the other side. Auto companies need to adapt the mind-set and expertise of tech firms, and vice versa.

ADVERTISEMENT

The marvel of Tesla is that it completely changed the concept of a car from a mechanical product to software. Instead of a car being something that was made once and didn't change much, Tesla made it like an iPhone. The braking system or transmission can be upgraded and adapted after the car is on the road.

The traditional automakers were slow to catch on, but they may turn out to be very strong competitors to this new mode. And they're good at something that Tesla still isn't: conducting the orchestra of tens of thousands of parts, and assembling them to exacting standards at a rate of 100,000 or 300,000 cars a year.

What do you make of Apple's vehicle project and its negotiations (now on hold, it seems) with Hyundai to manufacture those cars?

It shows that Apple doesn't want to do what Tesla did and build its own car factories and machinery. If it happens, it would be an interesting melding of Apple's expertise and Hyundai's manufacturing skills.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Unrelated but weird: Tesla disclosed on Monday that it bought $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin and wants to accept the cryptocurrency as payment for its cars.)

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

TIP OF THE WEEK

Making your car smarter — for cheap

While we imagine the cars of the future, The Times's consumer technology columnist Brian X. Chen suggested ways to make our vehicles of today a little more tech-savvy.

Many people, including me, still have "dumb" cars — vehicles without internet connections and touch-screens. What a novelty! I prefer a dumb car, though. Without a jumbo touch-screen in front of me while driving, I have fewer distractions. Plus, I can customize my setup to be as smart as I want it to be.

Here's what you need to add some smarts to your car for not much money:

A sturdy phone mount: Who needs an infotainment system when your phone is perfectly capable of displaying maps? You just need a place to mount your phone where you can see it without having to fumble with it. I use an iOttie mount recommended by Wirecutter, The Times's product recommendation site. It inserts into my car's never-used CD player.

A Bluetooth adapter: To wirelessly stream your playlists and podcasts from your phone to your car stereo, you need a Bluetooth connection. There are plenty of cheap Bluetooth kits that act as a wireless bridge between your phone and your stereo. The kit I use is now discontinued, but Wirecutter has plenty of newer options.

A phone charger: Beware of all of the crummy phone chargers out there, especially the ones sold at gas stations. You want a durable one that replenishes your phone battery quickly. Wirecutter recommends chargers from brands like Nekteck and Anker. If your car stereo has a USB port, you could instead plug a normal phone charging cable into that and skip buying a separate charging port for the car.

Before we go …

  • A brief glimpse at a looser Chinese internet: For a few days, an audio chatroom app called Clubhouse provided Chinese people a relatively civil and unfettered forum to discuss hot button topics including the Tiananmen Square crackdown and the country's treatment of its Uighur minority. Then the government censors came in, reported my colleagues Amy Chang Chien and Amy Qin.
  • 50 states and a tangle of vaccine priority algorithms: Formulas intended to sensibly allocate coronavirus vaccine doses throughout the United States have at times complicated delivery plans. "If these artificial allotments were scrapped," one state health official told my colleague Natasha Singer, "it would help us tremendously."
  • Not all screen time is bad: The education publication Chalkbeat writes about how teens at two Bronx homeless shelters are finding a creative outlet through playing, discussing and writing about video games.

Hugs to this

A shot-by-shot remake of an Usher music video — but at home with brooms and a dog in a wig.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年2月6日 星期六

What is “political capital” anyway?

Reframing a bad metaphor.
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

Listen to professional political observers and politicians long enough and you'll eventually hear someone use the term "political capital." It's a metaphor for the resources a party or politician has to pursue an agenda. For example, here's Politico in January 2009, a week before Barack Obama took office:

President George W. Bush often speaks about his style of political leadership, especially the theory of political capital. How he acquired and spent political capital to his advantage — but then lost it irretrievably — defines his legacy. Bush understood that the formal powers of the Oval Office alone do not make an effective president. Presidents acquire a sheen, a popularity that gives them clout in office. And a president who has clout can get things done. For Bush, this informal power, or political capital, had a "use it or lose it" quality. What good was popularity if you were not going to do anything with it? Political capital not put to use would waste away.

In this telling, "political capital" is finite. When you spend it, you lose it, and if you spend it on the wrong things, you can't get it back. But that doesn't make any sense.

Actual "capital" isn't spent; it is invested. The point is to get a return on that investment by directing capital to some productive use. The point of capital, in other words, is to produce more capital.

If we're going to use the metaphor of "capital" in politics, then we should move away from thinking of it as a finite resource to spend as carefully as possible. Instead, we should think of political capital as all of the resources you have to make productive investments for your political party.

If those resources are slight, then you'll want to invest carefully. But if you're entering office with the wind at your back, with a popular mandate and a legislative majority, then you should invest as much as possible, in everything that might be promising. And if those investments pay off — if your policies work and are popular — then you'll move forward with even more capital than you had.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

For my Tuesday column, I put on my Washington political pundit hat and argued that the reason there isn't any bipartisanship in Congress is Republicans don't want it.

If Republicans were serious about compromise, they would look for ways to either honor that request or to compensate for its exclusion with a concession: larger checks, more unemployment insurance or money for the expanded child tax credit. Instead, Republicans have taken state aid off the table in addition to slashing or eliminating all other assistance. This is a bipartisan proposal only in the sense that if it passed, Democrats would have voted for it.

And for my Friday column, I looked at Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and the forgiving relationship between the extreme right and the mainstream of the Republican Party.

What's distinctive right now isn't the fact that someone like Greene exists but that no one has emerged to play the role of [William] Buckley. A longtime Republican leader like Mitch McConnell can try — he denounced Greene's "loony lies and conspiracy theories" as a "cancer" on the party — but after he served four years as an ally to Donald Trump, his words aren't worth much.

Now Reading

Molly Ball on the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election in Time magazine.

Minkah Makalani on Cedric Robinson and his theorizing on the origins of race in the Boston Review.

Not a piece to read but a podcast to listen to: Matthew Sitman and Sam Adler-Bell of the podcast "Know Your Enemy" speak to Sarah Marshall and Michael Hobbes of the "You're Wrong About" podcast to discuss the history of moral panics in America.

Manisha Sinha makes the case for a Third Reconstruction in the New York Review of Books.

Peter Beinart on the right to self-determination in Jewish Currents.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback
If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to your friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

I recently developed and scanned some sheet film from last summer, when I went around Charlottesville, Va., with my Crown Graphic taking photos of protests like I was some press photographer in a 1940s studio film. Here is one of the bunch. It's not my favorite, but it is probably the most representative (and is well composed, for what it's worth).

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Eating: Collard Greens With Smoked Turkey and Jalapeños

Like any good Southerner, I love collard greens and look for any opportunity to eat them. If I'm making them as a side dish, I'll do something simple — a sauté and braise with onions, garlic and chili flakes. But if I'm making them as a meal — to serve with cornbread or grits and maybe a poached egg — then I turn to this recipe from Asha Gomez's "My Two Souths." Other than the jalapeños — which are seeded so that they add flavor but not too much heat — this is a pretty traditional recipe. My modifications are to swap the ham hocks for smoked turkey wings, use all collard greens instead of a mix of varieties and use stock instead of water. One other thing: Don't skimp on the vinegar; it is an essential part of the flavor profile.

You can make this vegetarian by swapping out chicken stock for vegetable stock or water, omitting the ham hocks and adding smoked paprika if you need that hint of smokiness. You can make it vegan by doing all of the above and not using butter.

You can do this in a Dutch oven on the stove or in an Instant Pot. If the latter, reduce the stock to just 1 cup, and pressure cook for 30 minutes, allowing the pressure to release naturally.

Ingredients

  • 2 tablespoons unsalted butter
  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1 large onion, diced
  • 4 garlic cloves, finely chopped
  • 2 large jalapeños, seeded and finely chopped
  • 1 pound smoked turkey wings
  • 2 pounds collard greens, stemmed, washed and sliced in a ¼-inch chiffonade
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt
  • 1 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
  • 3 tablespoons molasses
  • ½ cup rice wine vinegar
  • 3 cups chicken or vegetable stock (or 1 cup if you're doing this in a pressure cooker)

Directions

Heat a large Dutch oven over medium heat and melt the butter with the olive oil.

Add the onion, garlic and jalapeño. Cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are translucent, about 5 minutes. Add the smoked turkey wings, greens, salt, nutmeg, cane syrup and vinegar; stir well.

Add 3 cups of water and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and cover. Simmer for about 2 hours until tender. After the greens have finished cooking, whether on the stove or in the Instant Pot, remove the turkey wings. Let cool for a few minutes, remove the meat from the bones, dice, and add back in. Serve however you like, although my favorite preparation is over creamy grits with a poached egg on top.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018