Spiderman pointing at Spiderman?
Readit NewsOK, I went looking for sources and found this[1]:
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency assumes the typical car is driven 15,000 miles (24,000 km) per year. According to the New York Times, in the 1960s and 1970s, the typical car reached its end of life around 100,000 miles (160,000 km). Due in part to manufacturing improvements, such as tighter tolerances and better anti-corrosion coatings, in 2012 the typical car was estimated to last for 200,000 miles (320,000 km) with the average car in 2024 lasting 160,545 miles according to the website Junk Car Reaper.
There are many other considerations, too. Years ago I scraped Craigslist and Autotrader, grouping cars by generation/make/model/drivetrain to be able to predict longevity based on quantity for sale versus original sales figures. If a model sold 100k per year for 10 years and only 3 were for sale in year 13, that isn't a great sign. Cheap cars will tend to have cheap owners who are more likely to skimp on maintenance, typically leading to more accrued issues and a shorter lifespan for the vehicle. Some cars are just poorly engineered, and the markets are relatively efficient in pricing resale value. The definition of "high mileage" is going to vary by who you ask. Domestics 150k, German 80k, Japanese 200k, Korean 100k. These are subjective averages (some cars like Theta engines, Darts, even late model GM 6.2s have engine failures <40k), based on when they start disappearing due to repairs being more than the vehicle is worth, but based on what I saw then and kind of observe still.
Leaning on those prior mentioned product mixes, keep in mind that Japanese manufacturers weren't in the American market 60 years ago, so market mix would be wildly different. (Multiple 400k+ mi Toyotas in my family, along with 60 year old GMs, but with aftermarket or rebuilt engines.) The cost of vehicles (and repairs) relative to prevailing wages will impact the repair vs replace balance. Trade publications like Cox/NADA/Adesa/etc. are always cited by financial blogs when mentioning consumer spending/state of economy by average age of cars on the road. Why cars get junked or totaled has shifted drastically, too. Steel bumpers were easy to replace, modern bumper covers with styrofoam backing and aluminum crumple zones, not so much. Tolerances is a vague term in that veiled PR piece on that wiki article. Machining has improved. Tech like direct injection and improved lubrication (synthetics) have done much more in terms of efficiency and longevity. In a lot of cases, manufacturers try to get more and more horsepower from the same displacement by pushing tighter engine tolerances (crank/main bearings, pistons/rings, valvetrain) and things like higher compression ratios and revs, leading to more heat and earlier failure. So while you have better initial engineering, you are closer to the point of failure. For another example, interference engines will grenade themselves if you ignore timing belt maintenance, but in the meantime, you get more horsepower by getting more air into the cylinders.
A v6 Camry or Accord is going to be have more hp, be faster,more reliable at same age, be quieter and get 3x the mpg than nearly any muscle car of the past. Unfortunately it seems that many Americans prefer giant vehicles that place more emphasis on their size (and status) than materially important factors like reliability engineering or fuel economy.
Obviously these are ancedotal examples, they can be confirmed by wasting hours reading about cars and watching mechanic review videos from people who work on them daily (I am partial to the CarCareNut on YT).
Modern cars aren't built as well.
Can you cite a source for this? There's no question that they're vastly more complex, but I would think that modern car manufacturing is far more exacting (and efficient) than in the past.
If you're saying that older cars are more repairable, I'm happy to agree with you, even without a source to back up that claim.
An easily visible one is air intakes. Many manufacturers have shifted to plastic. Peteo-engineering has advanced a lot, but they will still get brittle and break.
Interior wise, you can look at things like fabric durability-- lower deniers can be cheaper, but will wear sooner. Springs/foam in seats are another example, but this will vary across manufacturers, models and trims.
This isn't exclusive to financial engineering manufacturers like Stellantis or Nissan, either. Toyota has had issues with simple things like rust proofing (whether intentional or not) on 1st generation Tacomas leading to massive recalls and things like plastic timing guides prone to wearing out. Ford with the wet clutches having belts submersed in oil. German cars needing body off access for rear timing chain maintenance at 80k miles. Water cooled alternators (really, VW?). All types of "why?" if you follow cars once they are 3+ years old.
It seems like there are a lot of regressions that probably result from cost cutting, while others may exist to simply drive service revenue.
vgeek commented on Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization” (2025) [video] youtube.com/watch?v=l-kZG... · Posted by u/cdrnsf
Flock (YC17)
vgeek commented on AI "swarms" could distort democracy mpg.de/26044163/ai-swarms... · Posted by u/wjSgoWPm5bWAhXB
They're even here. Lots of very suspicious comments from accounts created <90 days and many accounts created after 2024ish tend to also align similarly, but with farmed karma.
vgeek commented on Thoma Bravo doles out hard truths about software pay ft.com/content/2dd141c5-5... · Posted by u/hhs
vgeek commented on Meta made scam ads harder to find instead of removing them sherwood.news/tech/rather... · Posted by u/wtcactus
Gavin Belson would never suggest scrubbing negative mentions of Hooli from the internet.
vgeek commented on Google is dead. Where do we go now? circusscientist.com/2025/... · Posted by u/tomjuggler
Chegg’s decline is a concrete example of how AI search is changing the web
There’s been a lot of debate about whether Google’s AI Overviews and tools like ChatGPT are actually harming publishers. One publicly traded company’s timeline is worth looking at: Chegg.
What happened (with sources):
2021: Chegg launched Uversity, a platform for educators to share academic content. (Wikipedia)
2023: ChatGPT emerged as a serious competitor in homework help. Chegg responded by launching CheggMate, its own AI product built on OpenAI’s models. (Wikipedia)
Late 2024: Chegg reported accelerating subscriber declines, widely attributed to users shifting to free AI tools instead of paid study platforms. (WSJ, company filings)
Feb 2025: Chegg sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews reduced traffic to Chegg by answering questions directly in search results, harming acquisition and revenue. (Search Engine Land, Reuters)
May 2025: Chegg laid off ~22% of its workforce (≈248 employees), citing competitive pressure from AI and changes in search behavior. (Reuters)
Oct 2025: Chegg announced another round of layoffs (~45%, ≈388 employees), explicitly referencing “the new realities of AI” and reduced traffic from Google to content publishers. (Reuters / SF Chronicle)
What the data suggests (more broadly):
Independent studies show that when Google AI Overviews appear, users are significantly less likely to click through to external sites.
“Zero-click” searches (where users get answers directly on the results page) have increased, especially for informational and educational queries.
The impact isn’t uniform — some publishers report minimal effects — but content that answers how-to, homework, or factual queries appears most exposed.
Why this matters:
Chegg isn’t a small blog or SEO-driven site. It’s a public company with audited financials, legal disclosures, and incentives not to exaggerate under scrutiny. Its filings and lawsuit don’t claim AI is “bad” — they claim that traffic flows are structurally changing.
This doesn’t prove AI search is “killing the web,” but it does show:
AI answers are substituting clicks, not just competing for them.
Entire business models built on informational content are under pressure.
“Build better content” may not be sufficient when answers are synthesized upstream.
Curious how others here see it:
Is this a temporary transition problem?
Or are we watching the unbundling of the open web’s traffic economy in real time?
The educational and informational queries were always the least valuable from a monetization standpoint. Chegg Answers could rank for these low competition (also low commercial intent) terms-- think queries like phrases from textbooks students would be querying. There is virtually 0 way (for people besides Chegg) to monetize these types of queries. Now Google can answer these queries directly, albeit with the assumption it costs them slightly more to serve these AI responses than a search query.
AI overviews are breaking the implicit "contract" for informational sites-- "we will create content to rank on Google with the expectation of monetization via display ads, mailing list growth and/or sales commissions of some sort." If these sites now lose 90% of their traffic, they simply go extinct. We have already seen the destruction of the old web era sites and the walled gardens being built. How many new sites, at the same frequency as 15 years ago, 1) get built and 2) get visibility without relying on one of the fickle walled gardens for an audience?
Google will probably figure out a way to monetize these informational queries by building better profiles of users. Or most likely, they start slipping in commercially biased responses-- either natively or disclosed, but probably based on all user conversations instead of the current one.
vgeek commented on Google Reveals the Top Searches of 2025 searchenginejournal.com/g... · Posted by u/gnabgib
Top searched term is Gemini and Deepseek is also in top 10, but no GPT or Claude?
This guy sounds like another "everything sucks but I got mine and everyone else should figure out how to get theirs". I get the struggle but I didn't really see him demonstrate empathy for others in his situation.