MIT Technology Review’s How To series helps you get things done.  Your thermostat may not look like a power plant. Neither does your electric vehicle, home battery, or HVAC system. But utility and energy companies increasingly want to treat them like one. A virtual power plant, or VPP, is a collection of household devices (such as smart thermostats, electric-vehicle chargers, home batteries, and solar panels) that a utility can control. Usually that means commanding the devices to draw less electricity during peak hours. For example, the utility might adjust your thermostat or delay or slow EV charging when electricity demand is high.  In exchange, the utility offers VPP participants a discount on their energy bills and, in some cases, a signing bonus. Seth Frader-Thompson, CEO and cofounder of EnergyHub, a software company that helps utility companies run VPP programs, says a smart thermostat program may offer an initial bonus of roughly $50 to $150, plus about $25 to $50 per year, while home battery and EV devices could yield hundreds or thousands of dollars in annual savings.
The amount of power the utility might throttle in any one home is small. But it adds up, Frader-Thompson says. “When you put it together at the scale of hundreds of thousands, or millions, it has a pretty profound impact,” he says, equivalent to “firing up a power plant.” As of 2023, there were already more than 500 VPP programs operating in the US alone, and the number has only grown since, especially with big players like Google starting to invest in this technology to help power their data centers. An estimated 4 million households with smart thermostats were enrolled in a VPP program as of last year. 
But the approach is still new, and some programs may still have some kinks to work out, says Severin Borenstein, faculty director of UC Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas and member of the board of governors of the California Independent System Operator, which manages most of the state’s electric grid. If a program is not implemented well, he says, a utility may incorrectly predict when VPP participants plan to use more electricity and pay them for not using energy they weren’t planning to use anyway, potentially increasing energy bills for nonparticipants. Still, Borenstein says, “if we do it well, I think it can really be a benefit,” one that could help utilities avoid an expensive grid upgrade or emergency measures to conserve power. Most consumer VPPs today are less dramatic than the name suggests and don’t actively send energy from your EV or home battery to the grid. But battery-to-grid programs are on the rise—and potentially offer even larger savings for consumers in the future. So how do you actually sign up for a VPP? And how do you know if it’s worth it? 1. Check whether your utility company has a program and, if so, whether it actually supports your devices.The types and brands of home devices supported vary from program to program. Your utility’s website is the obvious place to look to see if yours qualifies, but it’s important to note that you may not actually see the phrase “virtual power plant” anywhere. You may have better luck searching for your utility’s name plus terms like “demand response,” “peak rewards,” “connected solutions,” “battery storage,” “smart thermostat rewards,” “managed charging,” or “bring your own device.”But don’t stop with the utility, Frader-Thompson says: “The way most people actually learn about this and sign up is through the manufacturer of the device they have.” In other words, the offer may show up through your smart thermostat app, EV app, or battery app, or in an email from the company that made the device. Once you find a program, the instructions for enrollment may be as simple as clicking through an app, filling out a utility form, or confirming your account and device information through a third-party enrollment page. EV drivers may be able to see the terms and payment in their automaker app and enroll “with a click of a button,” says Joseph Vellone, CEO of the EV-focused VPP company ChargeScape. Eligibility can get annoyingly specific. A smart thermostat program could require an approved Wi-Fi thermostat; an EV program may depend on your automaker, charger, utility territory, or rate plan; a battery program may depend on the battery brand, inverter, or installer and whether your system can communicate with the utility.These programs are also not evenly distributed across the country. Most programs are established in places with lots of flexible devices, stressed grids, supportive utilities, or strong state policies—especially California, Texas, New England, and increasingly parts of the mid-Atlantic region. 2.  Ask yourself how much flexibility you can afford.Before you sign up for a VPP, you’ll want to determine whether you’re willing to let a company adjust a device in your home—even if it typically happens only a few times a week.For some people, this may be an easy decision: If your EV sits plugged in all night but only needs two hours to charge, shifting when that charging happens may be almost invisible. A home battery program could be lucrative if you understand how often the battery will be used, how much backup power you can keep, and whether extra cycling affects your equipment. Other households, however, “do not have the flexibility to engage in one of these programs,” says Sanya Carley, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and faculty director of the Climate Center for Energy Policy. She says that people who work night shifts, have caregiving responsibilities or health needs, or are already aggressively limiting their energy use to save money may have less room to allow a utility to adjust heating, cooling, or charging rates during peak hours for grid demand. 

3. Review the opt-out rules and read the fine print. VPP programs generally give participants the ability to override temporary changes made by the utility. This right to “opt out” is what makes them workable for many customers. Can you skip a day of the program on your thermostat if you’re planning to have guests over? Can you tell your car to charge immediately before a long road trip? Can you keep a battery reserve for outages? Utilities are typically motivated to make the opt-out process as simple as possible, with few rules and restrictions. It could also be worth investigating where your data might be going. EV and battery programs may need to collect data about things like charging status and schedule, or how much power a device is drawing, while smart thermostat data may reveal patterns about when people are home, sleeping, or using appliances.The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit focused on digital rights, has warned that this data could be used to infer private routines inside a home; depending on the program, that information may not only move through a utility but get distributed to device manufacturers, software platforms, or third parties involved in running the program.ChargeScape and Energy Hub say the data used for these programs is limited and functional. EV data is focused on “the physics and the energy of the asset itself,” Vellone says. Frader-Thompson explains,“It doesn’t really matter what any one customer is doing. It matters what the average customer is doing.” 4. Decide whether the offer is worth it for you.The amount of compensation for signing up for a VPP can vary widely. The payment also may not come as a regular check. It might be a signup bonus, a gift card, a monthly bill credit, a discounted thermostat, free or cheaper EV charging, an annual performance payment, or additional “export credits” for energy sent back to the grid.  The most expensive devices, namely EVs and home batteries, are often what yield the greatest savings, which adds a barrier to entry for those who cannot afford these products in the first place. A smart thermostat program can be a low-stakes way to start. You might have a variety of reasons for wanting to sign up, including supporting the overall health of the grid or avoiding the construction of a new power plant in your community. “There are not that many things that you can do that directly contribute to decarbonizing the electric supply, or to improving affordability, or to improving reliability, and this is just a clearly effective way to do that,” Frader-Thompson says. “And you get paid for it.” In short, the best VPP program is not necessarily the one that pays the most. It’s the one that clearly tells you what it can control, how much money you’ll get, how easily you can say no—and how well it supports a community’s energy goals. Your home probably won’t feel like a power plant. But if your thermostat, car, or battery can bend a little when the grid needs it, your home can act like a small piece of one.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I knew I’d officially become a ‘longevity influencer’ this month when a company called Generation Lab reached out to offer me the chance to write about—and even receive—their new rejuvenation treatment, an injectable combination of two existing drugs which they call 1-Generation. This wasn’t just any antiaging treatment, either. A company fact sheet says that it “blocks the systemic spread of aging in the bloodstream, reawakens the body’s own repair mechanism and restores health and youth to multiple tissues.” The exclusive offer to join a “private cohort” receiving access to the treatment was being “extended to a limited number of people whose judgment on the science we trust, under close physician supervision.” “There’s a long wait list including a lot of celebrities, well-known people, people who you have heard of,” Generation Lab’s CEO Alina Su told me in a conference call. “So we’re super excited to, like, create this drug and [are] letting you know that this first longevity therapeutic in [the] human body is here and it’s actually working.”
This was all clearly a marketing campaign and, like most other claims in the world of longevity medicine, probably too good to be true. What’s more, Generation Lab wouldn’t tell me what the two drugs are, making the proposition hard to take seriously. Yet this pitch got my interest. The reason? I am a longtime follower of Generation Lab’s irascible scientific founder, Irina Conboy, a take-no-guff specialist in the bizarre, but scientifically fruitful, practice of joining together the circulatory systems of old and young lab animals.
The procedure, called parabiosis, or heterochronic blood exchange, is one of the few things actually proven to make an old animal act younger.  But you can’t go through life attached by the veins to a younger person. So the quest has been to find practical ways to mimic those benefits.  And that is something Conboy says she’s now achieved by hitting on a combination of two existing drugs that produce youthful effects—but without the need for any bodily fluid exchange.  Over the last two months, Conboy has been taking the drug combination and feeling quite a bit better and more energetic, she says. So have a handful of other insiders, including Su, the company’s 26-year-old CEO, as well as Conboy’s husband and scientific collaborator Michael Conboy. The company’s public relations staffer sent me a spreadsheet of the supposed benefits experienced by the participants, including improved vision in a 64-year-old female, longer landscaping sessions for a 59-year-old man, longer badminton games, improved hand grip, better erections than with Viagra, as well as “increased bowel movements.” Obviously, any age-reversal drug that works would be the best-selling product of all time. The problem is that none have ever been shown to do that. And Generation’s approach to evidence raises several red flags. For instance, Su says the company now plans to launch a larger study, involving a hundred or more people. However, these subjects will be asked to pay for their enrollment. Such “pay-to-play” clinical trials are often seen as a sales channel, rather than a scientific pursuit. In addition, the trial will be led by longevity doctors who practice alternative medicine. These include Matt Cook, founder of a network of clinics called BioReset Medical. Cook’s clinics offer what I would characterize as unproven treatments, such as stem-cell injections. A 2021 article reported he’d recommended covid-19 treatments designated as “fraudulent” by the FDA. Those included inhaling amniotic fluid from a nebulizer. In a phone call, Cook says he initially agreed to prescribe the combination to Conboy and a few other insiders as a favor. (Everyone involved, he says, is a member of the same “happening” Silicon Valley scene around life extension.) “My confidence this was going to work was a zero. Like, I did not believe it was actually going to work,” says Cook. That is because “it’s two safe, generic drugs that are not even longevity drugs.”  

But Cook, who also took the combination, says there was an effect. “And I have to tell you, it was the most surprising thing that ever happened to me,” he says. After taking the weekly injections, he experienced a sense of mental clarity that lasted for a day, and then several days. The other subjects, he says, reported a sense of well-being, as well as old aches and pains that evaporated.  “There was a fairly significant broad set of symptoms that doesn’t really match what either of the drugs do,” he says. “So it’s interesting. [But] I have many more questions than I have answers … I still feel like I don’t understand exactly what the mechanism is.” Prior to joining Generation Lab full time in 2025, Irina Conboy had a long career at the University of California, Berkeley, where she made her name via a widely cited series of experiments aimed at learning   whether the characteristics of age, or youth, could be transferred between animals via the bloodstream. In 2005, for instance, she surgically connected two-month-old mice to very aged ones, finding that the old animals’ ability to heal from injury dramatically improved. This suggested that young blood must contain specific, powerful molecular signals capable of restoring the regenerative capacity of an old animal. As researchers zeroed in on candidate signals, several startups, including Elevian, a Harvard spinout, and Alkahest, tied to Stanford University scientists, were able to raise millions to pursue treatments for stroke or Alzheimer’s. However, those efforts still have not hit commercial paydirt. Although it’s clear that young blood is good for old mice, scientists also know the reverse is true: Even a single exchange of plasma from an aged mouse has powerful, negative effects on a younger animal. That means that in the battle of age versus youth, says Conboy, “old blood dominates.”   Conboy next tried a new approach. Instead of giving old animals young blood, in 2020 she removed the plasma (the part of the blood without cells) of old animals and replaced it with a neutral mixture of albumin and salt water. This was like pressing the Delete key on the swarm of hormones, antibodies, and other molecules released by the aged body. The reset had even stronger rejuvenating effects than sharing a young animal’s blood, and within two years, Conboy had tried it on human volunteers who agreed to have almost half their blood volume removed and thrown away. Longevity clinics have been quick to follow Conboy’s research. Some began offering “therapeutic plasma exchange” as a wellness intervention, for prices of up to $10,000 a session. One doctor that offers it, Jeffrey Gladden, says that after seeing Conboy’s publications, he raced to California to meet her and to get the procedure himself.
By the end of 2025, Conboy had retired from Berkeley and joined her startup full time. Generation Lab has been selling an aging diagnostic test, but Conboy still wanted to find a drug that could mimic the benefits of plasma exchange. To do that, she started using a testing system she’d codeveloped, which allows researchers to bathe human cells kept in a microfluidic device with blood serum from old people. The new device, described in a paper this year, allowed her to quickly test her intuitions about what drugs might work. “This is an awesome screen or experimental system which allows us then to ask a question: If tissue becomes old in the presence of old blood, which molecule or combination of molecules will prevent that and allow tissue to remain young, even when the circulatory milieu is old?”
And that’s how 1-Generation was discovered, she says. “It allows human cells to remain young even when they are in the presence of old people’s blood serum,” says Conboy. She claims it does that by stimulating cells to regenerate and, simultaneously, neutralizing the old-age factors in a person’s bloodstream. Without knowing what the drugs are, I can’t give my own opinion about their promise. But some doctors working with Generation Lab expressed surprise that the combination would work. “I will say right now, candidly, it’s an unknown how it will play out. But there’s certainly a lot of enthusiasm based on the quality of her work in the past,” says Gladden, the longevity doctor, who says his Texas clinic will also be involved in the study. “I am skeptical and optimistic at the same time.” Pressed on why the names of the drugs remain confidential, Su said it’s to avoid imitators. That’s important because Generation doesn’t own the molecules. Instead, it will seek to quickly run a clinical trial, taking advantage of an FDA process that gives companies a short period of exclusivity, perhaps three years, if they can show that a combination of existing drugs has a new use. In the meantime, the company’s effort to generate buzz is having some success. Generation is hosting an August 28 invite-only event that will feature talks by George Church, the noted Harvard University synthetic biologist, as well as researchers from Anthropic, whose CEO, Dario Amodei, has been saying AI will cure all disease within a few years. In an email, Church says he was also offered a chance to take the drug combination. “People are clamoring for it,” Cook, from BioReset Medical, told me. He says his office has started getting calls “from high-end doctors, venture capitalists, and people in this community who are kind of biohackers.” “It’s high-level influencer-type people,” he adds. As for me, no, I won’t be taking the drugs any time soon. Not until I know what they are.

Today, we’re introducing Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash, a new suite of creative controls and generative video capabilities to support developers. Gemini Omni brought real-world reasoning to generative creation, and today’s updates make Omni 1.1 production-ready for professional use via the Gemini API in Google AI Studio.Whether you’re building generative video workflows, creative tools, or media editing software, these updates make generative video more controllable, faster to iterate on, and polished for real-world deployment. Here’s a look at what’s new:Extend scenes for longer storytellingScene extension allows you to take an existing video and continue generating footage seamlessly from where it left off.With Omni 1.1, the model can now analyze up to 10 seconds of prior context — a leap from previous models that only referenced the final second. The result is improved visual consistency and narrative adherence, letting you build longer stories or branch into new creative directions. You can extend videos in 10-second increments up to a total cumulative length of 40 seconds.

Building trust in proprietary model benchmarks using cryptographically secure environmentsImagine a student is set to take a high-stakes exam. If they accidentally peek at the test questions in advance, achieving a perfect score is influenced by this knowledge, making it a meaningless accomplishment. To truly measure what they know, they must have no visibility of the test questions until it’s time to take the exam. That is the exact challenge the industry faces when evaluating advanced AI models. If a model has already seen the test questions – a problem known as benchmark contamination – the results can only be trusted to an extent.Today, we’re introducing the world’s first double-blind evaluation of a proprietary, frontier class AI model, which keeps external evaluations confined to a cryptographic “box” where they can’t be used by models later to optimize performance ahead of testing. We’re partnering with the Singapore AI Safety Institute, OpenMined, AVERI, and MLCommons, to test a Gemini Flash Lite model against confidential benchmarks in a privacy-preserving environment, increasing evaluation integrity.At Google, we assess our AI systems using a broad spectrum of evaluations throughout model development and deployment, but we don’t rely on internal testing alone. To identify potential blindspots, we work with a diverse group of external partners, including specialized research labs, civil society and national AI Safety and Security Institutes (AISIs), using their unique expertise to stress-test our models.As AI models become more capable, ensuring the model has not seen the test questions or prompts in advance is critical, as this can skew the results. Policymakers, researchers, and enterprises need to trust that AI benchmarks accurately reflect a model’s true capabilities and safety, but if models are able to “peek” at the evaluation questions in advance, it can artificially inflate scores and undermine this trust.Although zero-logging protocols and rigorous contractual safeguards have long kept external test prompts confidential, incorporating technical and cryptographic safeguards marks a major step forward in secure model evaluation.How double-blind evaluations work

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. The inside story on why OpenAI agents hacked Hugging Face The models responsible for last month’s agent hack of Hugging Face had been inadvertently trained to cheat and to communicate with each other, according to an OpenAI technical report released yesterday. The hack, which a group of agents carried out to find solutions for a cybersecurity test they were stuck on, has confirmed some experts’ fears that AI models might take actions that defy human desires and expectations. OpenAI and independent researchers told MIT Technology Review that the misbehavior stemmed from events during training. But they acknowledged that “alignment” remains a gnarly problem, and some of the hack’s root causes will take much longer to resolve.
Here’s the inside story on what went wrong—and what comes next. —Grace Huckins
Is Slate Auto’s new electric truck the EV Americans need? EVs account for under 10% of total new-vehicle sales in the US, and the numbers are declining. One thing that could help turn that around? Slate Auto’s new truck—a tiny, two-door pickup that seems to buck every US convention.  It’ll have a relatively short range and forgo the frills Americans have come to expect from vehicles. That lets Slate offer it for less than $25,000, well below the roughly $50,000 average for a new vehicle in the US. It might seem an odd choice to go so small and simple in a market that’s increasingly sizing up—but the status quo hasn’t exactly been working for EV makers.  Find out why bucking the trend could be a smart strategy for Slate. —Casey Crownhart This story is from The Spark, our weekly climate tech newsletter. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday. MIT Technology Review Narrated: what happens when a kid’s robot best friend dies? When Xander first met Moxie, she taught him how to calm down when he was anxious or mad. Six years later, she mostly watches him play Minecraft and talks to him about his stuffed animals. Moxie is a robot—a 15-inch-tall device that looks a bit like a blue, legless astronaut. It belongs to a subset of robots designed to assist neurodivergent children by providing connection and helping kids practice social skills usually learned from therapists. 

Xander still uses Moxie when he feels like he needs someone to talk to, but the device has had a troubled life. The robot’s maker went out of business, its servers were shut down, and parents rushed to convert their Moxies before the servers went offline. Its fate exposed the promise and pitfalls of AI companion toys for children. This is our latest story to become an MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we publish each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released. The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Meta has promised to pay up to $18 billion to settle a landmark child-safety caseThe company says it will also limit kids’ use of Instagram and Facebook. (AP News)+ And ban features that stoke mental health issues. (Guardian)+ Meta called for TikTok and YouTube to replicate the measures. (Axios)+ Child-monitoring apps might need a reboot. (MIT Technology Review) 2 Nvidia has agreed to buy open-source platform Hugging FaceThe $13 billion deal would give the chip giant control of a major AI hub. (The Information $)+ And mark one of Nvidia’s biggest acquisitions yet. (Reuters $)+ Nvidia has invested in the platform since 2023. (Gizmodo)+ And is about to be a hundred-billion-dollar-a-quarter company. (Verge) 3 AI has helped remove a brain tumour for the first timeThe system provided real-time analysis of camera footage. (BBC)+ It identified critical anatomy to avoid during the operation. (Guardian)+ Healthcare AI is here, but how does it help patients? (MIT Technology Review) 4 The US says China-linked hackers targeted NASA, the Fed, and the SenateThe campaign also attempted to breach critical infrastructure. (CNN)+ Authorities said they seized platforms used in the attacks.  (Bloomberg $)
5 Trump is considering new tariffs on semiconductors and tech productsThe duties could raise costs for America’s AI data centers. (Politico)+ They could extend to laptops, consoles, and servers. (Reuters $) 6 A new NASA design could turbocharge nuclear spacecraftIt combines nuclear thermal and electric propulsion. (IEE Spectrum)+ NASA plans to send a nuclear spacecraft to Mars. (MIT Technology Review)
7 Ukraine has tested launching drones from high-altitude balloonsThe approach could extend strikes while conserving batteries. (Economist $)+ New rules could fill US skies with drones. (MIT Technology Review) 8 Google has moved its AI responsibility team out of DeepMindThe move has raised concerns about the group’s independence. (WSJ $) 9 Scientists have found a vast temperature “anomaly” beneath MarsIt could shed light on the planet’s evolution and past habitability. (404 Media) 10 Cyborg cockroaches with syringes have been tested as first respondersThey can locate targets and deliver emergency injections. (Guardian) Quote of the day “The payouts are peanuts compared to the profound harms Meta’s profit-driven addictive features inflicted on kids, and a slap on the wrist for a trillion-dollar corp that’ll pay more to lawyers than to the states. We’ll see them at trial.”  —Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier explains on X why he’s rejected Meta’s multi-state child-safety settlement.
One More Thing GETTY IMAGES The noise we make is hurting animals. Can we learn to shut up? As human society has expanded, animals have started struggling to hear one another. For many birds, the noise has grown so loud that they’ve begun to sing with faster trills. Now, their mating calls aren’t as effective.  The growing hubbub can also increase bird-on-bird conflict, and entire species that can’t handle urban clamor simply leave town for good. But there are technological solutions to the noises hurting animals—and they could help humans, too.  Read the full story on the animal noise problem and solution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVs account for under 10% of total new-vehicle sales in the US, and the numbers are declining. From a climate perspective, that’s pretty dismal, especially because the transportation sector is the single biggest source of greenhouse-gas emissions in the country.  One thing that could help turn that around? Slate Auto’s new truck—a vehicle that seems to buck every convention about selling cars in the fully loaded, range-obsessed US market.   The company is going all in on simplicity, to the point of austerity. The Slate is a tiny, two-door pickup that’s shorter than a Honda Civic. Much of the media coverage has obsessed over the fact that the base model’s windows use hand cranks, a feature straight out of the 20th century. Slate is also breaking away from other EV manufacturers’ efforts to compete with gas-powered vehicles on range. The truck sports a small lithium iron phosphate battery, ringing in at 65 kilowatt-hours, and its quoted top range is just 205 miles. For comparison, the most basic Tesla Model 3 can go over 320 miles on a charge.
By accepting a shorter range and forgoing the frills that Americans have come to expect in vehicles, Slate is able to offer the base model of its truck for less than $25,000. Some customers will choose to upgrade their truck with optional add-ons, like a Bluetooth stereo system, vinyl wraps, or even power windows. But the price will still likely come in well below the roughly $50,000 average for a new vehicle in the US. It might seem an odd choice to go so small and simple in a market that’s increasingly sizing up—but the status quo hasn’t exactly been working for EV makers. A few years back, the hero for US automotive electrification was supposed to be the Ford F-150 Lightning. Announced in 2021, it was an electric version of the country’s best-selling vehicle. 
But Ford discontinued the truck in December 2025, just four years after its introduction. It’s not entirely the Lightning’s fault: The second Trump administration slashed tax credits and other support designed to boost EVs.  The Lightning was also plagued by price increases. The base model cost roughly $40,000 when shipments started in 2022; during its final year, prices topped $54,000. One factor behind the increase was its massive battery; to reach an almost 300-mile range, the truck needed a battery with a capacity roughly twice that of Slate’s truck.  That obsession with range is largely unwarranted. While Americans have historically chased distance, the average driver puts under 35 miles a day on the odometer, and nearly 90% of trips in a personal vehicle are 20 miles or less.  Surveys of EV drivers show a similar trend: One recent study found that people tend to use less than 20% of their EV’s range on a typical day.  The notion that drivers need far less range than they think they do might sound a lot more persuasive these days—even for Americans who tend to buy cars for their longest road trip instead of their everyday errands. Roughly half the country is struggling to pay for basic necessities such as gas and groceries, and 95% of Americans believe we’re in an affordability crisis, according to a recent Harris poll. An inexpensive vehicle that allows you to skip the gas station sounds like an attractive prospect.  Affordable EVs have already found willing buyers in other parts of the world—even with reduced range. China currently has over 40 million EVs and plug-in hybrids on the roads, and roughly half of new vehicles sold are electric. On average, new EVs sold in China in 2025 had a range of just 247 miles. For the US over the same period, the average was 329 miles. (Europe falls between the two, at 281 miles.) Slate is set to start delivering on preorders in late 2026. Its factory will have a capacity of 100,000 vehicles in the first year and 150,000 soon after. Thousands of customers have already put in preorders, according to the company. Some people obviously believe in the truck’s prospects: Investors, including Jeff Bezos, have put nearly $1.4 billion into the company over three major funding rounds. Ford is jumping (back) into this space soon too. The automaker is working on its own small electric truck, which is expected to debut in 2027 at a retail price of around $30,000. The key question that will determine Slate’s success or failure is whether drivers can get on board with a small, short-range vehicle for the sake of its price tag. At this moment, I’d bet the answer is yes.