I won't let it go to my head. I promise. Probably.

Anyways tho for an actual opinion:

This thread is a bit of a mess and I would caution taking anything being said (except by me, the absolute authority) without a large grain of salt - however mostly people aren't contradicting each other, it's just a hugely complex topic that quickly devolves into semantic-adjacent arguments about how we should be comparing battery chemistries (on market / in lab / cross-chemistry) and what degree we should be considering the "soft factors"; things like the number of recharge cycles, robustness of the cells to damage, cost of manufacturing and/or recycling the cells, etc.

Sodium batteries are a big deal, and as far as I've seen we're finally at the point where they're starting to become market viable, but they're still a largely unproven technology. Arguing that battery tech hasn't improved in the last decade is obviously wrong, but it's also not wrong to say that there hasn't been any dramatic improvement in the technology in the last decade. None of the many "miracle battery tech" announcements that promise to have double-or-better the capacity of lithium chemistries has panned out, we've just been making slow gains across many chemistries and those cumulative 10% improvements to battery life year-over-year are finally starting to add up to where the average consumer can really notice them.