Hybrids just never really made sense to me, plug-in hybrids included. They seem like they're the worst of both worlds. They don't have the battery range for your average driver to not use fuel, so you still have the inconvenience of having to periodically stop for fuel, just less often. And you have all the complexity of an ICE, complete with all the emissions control hardware that greatly increases the failure rate, plus all the complexity of an EV on top of that.
What you lose in convenience on long trips, you more than make up for in convenience during the week. You can plug in a Tesla when you get home and never have to stop to fill up at all except when driving long distances.
Actually, the only correct response is to hang up the phone.
Employers might ask you if you have any open source code on GitHub or something, but beyond that, no legitimate employer should ask for examples of recent code unless you're a new college hire, for precisely this reason. Forget about whether they would still hire you if you say no. Any employer that even asks should be immediately disqualified from consideration.
You're talking about Cisco ain't ya? Just say it;)
No, definitely not Cisco/SysCo. I'm fairly certain the GP was talking about NetGear and NetGeer, a company founded by a guy named Sir Thomas Geer to distribute low-cost hairnets to school cafeterias across the country.
That means they are only a battery capacity factor of 2-4 away from range parity.
If you only care about range, then my 6-cylinder 2007 RAV4 has an estimated 300 miles average range, and the beefiest Tesla Model X has a 289 mile average range, so we're already roughly at parity as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, the efficiency numbers for gasoline engines get even worse when you factor in the supply chain. For every gallon of gasoline refined, it takes about 6 kWh of power to refine, plus a lot of fossil fuel power to extract and transport. That same amount of energy input would get an electric car almost half as far as the gallon of gasoline would, even before you factor in the energy in the gasoline. So your overall efficiency is likely to be more on the order of 20%.
Of course, you're moving around more weight with the EV, because they don't get lighter as they discharge, and their specific power (energy per unit weight) is only about 1/50th that of gasoline. When full, that 14-gallon tank of gasoline weighs ~87 pounds plus whatever the plastic tank weighs (15-20 pounds, typically). So assuming you get it near empty every time, it weighs on average about 44 pounds plus 15-ish. Let's call that 60 pounds.
The Tesla pack weighs 1200 pounds. And the rest of the Model X weighs about 500 pounds more than the RAV4 in question, for a total difference of a whopping 1700 pounds. If the ICE-based car weighs only 68% as much as the electric, then instead of being ~5x as efficient, the EVs are only ~3.4x as efficient. Of course, this discounts the efficiency/inefficiency of producing electricity, but that's hard to quantify.
The article said that she didn't have a sex worker profile on Facebook, not that she didn't use it. She used it, but only for her personal account. So when other people who used Facebook showed up in the same locations as her personal phone with its personal account, it (arguably correctly) connected the dots between them and her personal account.
The moral of the story is that if you're trying to hide what you're doing, don't carry a smartphone, or if you do, don't run apps that track your location.
An entire GPU computer for highly parallel tasks that uses 200W? Sweetheart, 200W isn't enough power for a single V100 coprocessor.
But why would you want one for those purposes? Sure, the V100 is interesting for machine learning because it has tensor-specific hardware as well as a general-purpose GPU, and I could easily see something like that being used during data acquisition and model construction. But for actually running the models, I would expect all of the non-tensor parts of that GPU to be massive overkill—probably by a couple of orders of magnitude power-wise.
Which doesn't address any of my points. Whether or not someone is a career politician is independent of whether or not they're actually working for the best interests of the nation.
Actually, it does. Careers in politics are inherently not in the best interest of the nation. That's why the founding fathers didn't want political parties, and why they wanted Congress to meet for only a couple of weeks per year. Working in Washington unavoidably causes politicians to become out of touch with the community that they serve, because they are never in the community that they serve. This, in turn, leads to them listening to the only voices that reach them, which are generally those of lobbyists, who by their very nature are not working in the best interests of the nation. Thus, being a career politician inevitably leads to that person working against the best interests of their constituents. It is literally baked into the job description.
There are two ways to solve that: either change the rules of Congress so that they meet virtually from their own districts or limit the number of years that people can serve in D.C. No other approach can possibly hope to make a significant dent in the corruption and graft. In all honesty, I favor the virtual meeting approach, but the only way that's going to happen is if you start by repeatedly replacing everybody who has been in office for more than a couple of years until you have a large enough number of congresspeople who aren't corrupt yet.
Close. The real problem is carrying a cell phone with the Facebook app on it, signed in with your account, while doing things you don't want Facebook knowing about. All they have to do is correlate the GPS locations from multiple devices to detect that two people are repeatedly in the same location at the same time.
It does, but only indirectly, by eliminating anybody who wants to make politics a career. There are certain types of people who are politically driven, whose main goal is to have power. These people absolutely should not be allowed to have it. They tend to be the ones who care more about being reelected than about being effective or helping the nation. By having a party of people who run for one office, serve for two terms, and never run for office again, you eliminate all of those people.
To be fair, it doesn't cover the bats**t crazy part. Then again, some would argue that anybody willing to go into politics must by definition be bats**t crazy, which really means that the only way you'll get your wish is by replacing the election system with a random number generator, with the entire population eligible. You'd still get some people who are nuts, but they would exist in government at a rate proportional to that of the general population, rather than orders of magnitude more common as (IMO) appears to be the case currently.
Feel free to start one. The entire platform could consist of the words "None of us are lawyers or career politicians. We promise to resign after ten years or at the end of our current term, whichever is later," and that would just about be enough of a platform by itself.
Actually switching from coal to natural gas cuts the CO2 emissions in half due to the higher hydrogen to carbon ratio of methane compared to coal. So not only is it cleaner due to no soot, carbon emissions are also cut.
Fair enough. And in truth, you can have decent levels of sulfur in gasoline and diesel, too, though it's a lot easier to filter it out of gasoline, which is why the EPA requires refineries to keep the levels low (and the limits got even lower in January of this year). Liquids and gases have lots of advantages over solid hydrocarbons.:-)
Either way, the point remains that different fossil fuels have very different emissions profiles, with some emitting more CO2 per unit energy and others emitting more smog-producing particulates that contribute to a reduction of air quality.
It could (potentially) be harder to prove, though. The timing of deliveries wouldn't allow somebody to do much more than steal obviously visible property, but a later return by somebody else would allow for much more significant theft, and the fact that the driver couldn't possibly have done it in the time available would lend plausible deniability, at least until they catch the people who actually committed the thefts.
Amazon drivers pilfer customers homes while delivering.
Those are the dumb crooks. The smart crooks slip a hundred bucks cash to a delivery driver in exchange for "accidentally" not quite closing certain doors.
Ah no. You are horribly misinformed. The same things that cause air pollution also cause global warming.
Burning fossil fuels for example. It's a 1.0 correlation.
Unless you crudely lump all fossil fuels together (which doesn't really match the way these things are used), there's actually no correlation at all between the emissions that cause what we consider air pollution (ground-hugging particulates) and the emissions that cause global warming (CO2, H2O):
Burning coal causes acid rain because of its high sulfur content and high NOx emissions; natural gas contains no sulfur except for the odorant, nor does gasoline, so they produce dramatically less acid rain (particularly when combined with a modern, low-NOx gasoline engine).
Soot and other ground-clinging pollution is dramatically worse with certain types of fuels (e.g. diesel) and almost nonexistent in others (such as gasoline combustion in cars).
So if you produce 100% of your power via coal and switch to producing 100% of your power via natural gas, you've cut your sulfur emissions to zero while still producing the same amount of global warming. If you switch from diesel to gasoline, you've cut your air pollution dramatically, but you have probably made global warming worse.
Certainly. Let's be clear here. I'm not arguing that we wouldn't benefit from having multiple platforms. I'm saying that a third platform probably won't grow quickly enough to become viable unless it either A. provides transparent compatibility with an existing platform or B. provides some big benefit to users (or perhaps corporate purchasers) right off the bat.
Basically if a platform developer doesn't start out with at least the top hundred key apps (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Maps...) within a few weeks of the platform's launch, the new platform will be DOA, because consumers won't buy those phones. To get those things, the platform developer needs to be able to show something to app developers that's so much better than the competition that those app developers A. will want to own the phone themselves, and B. will therefore expect other consumers to flock to the new platform. That effectively means that the platform must be significantly better than Android and iOS in a user-impactful way before they launch it.
Of course, if a new OS lets users transparently run Android apps, the platform developer might be able to pull off a slow rolling boil. Maybe. But then the platform developer would have a different problem: convincing app developers that the native APIs provide enough of an advantage to make it worth porting their apps. Without that, the new platform would permanently remain just another Android distro, and after a few years, the platform developer would conclude that the cost of maintaining the native APIs exceeds the benefits of doing so, and subsequent devices from that manufacturer would go back to Android again.
So basically, for a new platform to be viable, it needs a new killer feature that can't be easily copied or an entirely different paradigm for interacting with the devices. And the coolest new features must work only with the native APIs (assuming it supports backwards compatibility with Android apps). Short of that, a new platform is unlikely to succeed. And if it is unlikely to succeed, there's no point in wasting the effort building it in the first place. And even if it is likely to succeeed, unless you plan to make it a closed-source project that is private to your cell phone manufacturing company, it still probably doesn't make sense to create a whole new OS and further divide the potential user base rather than add the feature to Android.
Desktop Linux? No, that's basically a running gag at this point. Linux is a decent server OS, which is why it has a big chunk of that market. And having decent UI tools for administering it is certainly useful in that regard. But even I can't justify calling it a viable desktop OS, and I say that as somebody who actively maintained a minor Linux distro for many years. As a desktop OS, its differences are definitely not sufficient to make Linux a viable third OS (at least in a form that most of us would consider to still be Linux).
At its core, the design goals of Linux are fundamentally antithetical to those of a consumer OS. Linux is based on the notion of being able to recompile things when they break. Consumer OSes require binary compatibility, from device drivers all the way up to applications. There's just no prayer of those two radically opposing camps ever reconciling their differences and creating a viable consumer OS, with the obvious exception of computers designed for web-only use (e.g. Chrome OS).
That said, it is possible that some new mobile OS might come into existence for reasons that have nothing to do with mobile devices. For example, iOS came into existence because OS X had (and still has) a reason for existing as the next evolution of Mac OS and as a bridge between the desktop and UNIX/Linux worlds. And Chrome OS and Android came into existence in part because Linux exists. And if such an OS has moderate advantages over the existing operating systems, it might take off, if only because the effort required to maintain it as a mobile OS might be small enough to be worth doing over the long term while it slowly builds momentum. For example, Windows Mobile had the best chance of anybody, because they still had to keep building Windows no matter what.
Of course, the fact that Windows Mobile still eventually failed strongly suggests that the end-user benefits must be major unless the platform provides backwards app compatibility with an existing platform.
So while the original author was trying to make a point about the Emperor Nero in a way that wouldn't get him sent to the circus even faster, that doesn't preclude a wider prophetic meaning.
Certainly true. And nothing about my statement is intended to imply that there won't be a second coming of Christ; most Christians do believe that there will be; that just isn't what Revelation, specifically, is about (except, as you say, perhaps as a secondary meaning). To that end, we shouldn't assume that the specific events listed in Revelation are harbingers of the end of the world, nor that they must necessarily happen before the end of the world, because A. the text in question was primarily intended as political rhetoric against Nero two thousand years ago, and B. there are so many more likely ways for the world to end (e.g. us nuking ourselves into oblivion).:-)
All theological discussion aside people at the period were already well aware of the possibility of a tyrannical government using control of the individual's ability to participate in the economy as a club. As a matter of fact through history governments have used such control over economic participation to pick winners and losers. For example in post reformation England Catholics were prevented from holding public office or owning property or entering certain professions. For many years illegitimate children were prevented from inheriting, and in certain churches the right to minister. And of course throughout history the members of certain ethnic groups in certain locations were prevented from entering professions such as the law or medicine.
This is certainly true. And this is why it is so important to ensure that any government that gains that much power is a government of the people, with enough limitations on its power to prevent the sorts of rampant abuse that can turn it into a force for evil.
Right now, with a President who honestly asked why we don't use nuclear weapons, we're testing those safeguards in our government to see if it can be a stabilizing force for good rather than falling victim to those who would use it to harm others. If it fails that test, there's a good chance that things will eventually get so bad that the rest of the world is forced to re-government the U.S. much as they did with Germany in World War II.
The numerical value of Nero Caesar IS 666. And Nero was the beast (metaphorically, in much the same way that today lots of folks say that Donald Trump is Hitler).
The problem with that plan is that the only people who care about freedom and control, by and large, are the people who have the technical knowledge to make Android do what they want. Unless and until you can convince the average grandparent to care about that issue, it won't be a sufficiently fundamental problem worthy of a separate OS... and if you can get Android to give you the functionality already, then it still won't be a sufficiently fundamental problem even if you convince everyone to care.
No, the sorts of problems that are sufficient are the sorts of things that drive fundamental shifts in the way we interact with the device. Palm's multi-processing UI wasn't enough to get their ecosystem started. So think of a problem that's bigger/more complex than that, and you might be approaching something plausible.
The point is, unless there's a reason for users to switch, they won't, which means the new OS has to solve some fundamental user problem that the old OSes can't readily solve.
Slashdot Mirror
Hybrids just never really made sense to me, plug-in hybrids included. They seem like they're the worst of both worlds. They don't have the battery range for your average driver to not use fuel, so you still have the inconvenience of having to periodically stop for fuel, just less often. And you have all the complexity of an ICE, complete with all the emissions control hardware that greatly increases the failure rate, plus all the complexity of an EV on top of that.
What you lose in convenience on long trips, you more than make up for in convenience during the week. You can plug in a Tesla when you get home and never have to stop to fill up at all except when driving long distances.
Actually, the only correct response is to hang up the phone.
Employers might ask you if you have any open source code on GitHub or something, but beyond that, no legitimate employer should ask for examples of recent code unless you're a new college hire, for precisely this reason. Forget about whether they would still hire you if you say no. Any employer that even asks should be immediately disqualified from consideration.
No, definitely not Cisco/SysCo. I'm fairly certain the GP was talking about NetGear and NetGeer, a company founded by a guy named Sir Thomas Geer to distribute low-cost hairnets to school cafeterias across the country.
[Quickly creates the Wikipedia entry... annnnnd done!]
If you only care about range, then my 6-cylinder 2007 RAV4 has an estimated 300 miles average range, and the beefiest Tesla Model X has a 289 mile average range, so we're already roughly at parity as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, the efficiency numbers for gasoline engines get even worse when you factor in the supply chain. For every gallon of gasoline refined, it takes about 6 kWh of power to refine, plus a lot of fossil fuel power to extract and transport. That same amount of energy input would get an electric car almost half as far as the gallon of gasoline would, even before you factor in the energy in the gasoline. So your overall efficiency is likely to be more on the order of 20%.
Of course, you're moving around more weight with the EV, because they don't get lighter as they discharge, and their specific power (energy per unit weight) is only about 1/50th that of gasoline. When full, that 14-gallon tank of gasoline weighs ~87 pounds plus whatever the plastic tank weighs (15-20 pounds, typically). So assuming you get it near empty every time, it weighs on average about 44 pounds plus 15-ish. Let's call that 60 pounds.
The Tesla pack weighs 1200 pounds. And the rest of the Model X weighs about 500 pounds more than the RAV4 in question, for a total difference of a whopping 1700 pounds. If the ICE-based car weighs only 68% as much as the electric, then instead of being ~5x as efficient, the EVs are only ~3.4x as efficient. Of course, this discounts the efficiency/inefficiency of producing electricity, but that's hard to quantify.
Inadequate language, indeed. Case in point.
The article said that she didn't have a sex worker profile on Facebook, not that she didn't use it. She used it, but only for her personal account. So when other people who used Facebook showed up in the same locations as her personal phone with its personal account, it (arguably correctly) connected the dots between them and her personal account.
The moral of the story is that if you're trying to hide what you're doing, don't carry a smartphone, or if you do, don't run apps that track your location.
But why would you want one for those purposes? Sure, the V100 is interesting for machine learning because it has tensor-specific hardware as well as a general-purpose GPU, and I could easily see something like that being used during data acquisition and model construction. But for actually running the models, I would expect all of the non-tensor parts of that GPU to be massive overkill—probably by a couple of orders of magnitude power-wise.
Actually, it does. Careers in politics are inherently not in the best interest of the nation. That's why the founding fathers didn't want political parties, and why they wanted Congress to meet for only a couple of weeks per year. Working in Washington unavoidably causes politicians to become out of touch with the community that they serve, because they are never in the community that they serve. This, in turn, leads to them listening to the only voices that reach them, which are generally those of lobbyists, who by their very nature are not working in the best interests of the nation. Thus, being a career politician inevitably leads to that person working against the best interests of their constituents. It is literally baked into the job description.
There are two ways to solve that: either change the rules of Congress so that they meet virtually from their own districts or limit the number of years that people can serve in D.C. No other approach can possibly hope to make a significant dent in the corruption and graft. In all honesty, I favor the virtual meeting approach, but the only way that's going to happen is if you start by repeatedly replacing everybody who has been in office for more than a couple of years until you have a large enough number of congresspeople who aren't corrupt yet.
Close. The real problem is carrying a cell phone with the Facebook app on it, signed in with your account, while doing things you don't want Facebook knowing about. All they have to do is correlate the GPS locations from multiple devices to detect that two people are repeatedly in the same location at the same time.
Ooh. I've seen this one. Spoiler: An ICBM comes up through the floor of their house.
Give us a few minutes.
It does, but only indirectly, by eliminating anybody who wants to make politics a career. There are certain types of people who are politically driven, whose main goal is to have power. These people absolutely should not be allowed to have it. They tend to be the ones who care more about being reelected than about being effective or helping the nation. By having a party of people who run for one office, serve for two terms, and never run for office again, you eliminate all of those people.
To be fair, it doesn't cover the bats**t crazy part. Then again, some would argue that anybody willing to go into politics must by definition be bats**t crazy, which really means that the only way you'll get your wish is by replacing the election system with a random number generator, with the entire population eligible. You'd still get some people who are nuts, but they would exist in government at a rate proportional to that of the general population, rather than orders of magnitude more common as (IMO) appears to be the case currently.
Feel free to start one. The entire platform could consist of the words "None of us are lawyers or career politicians. We promise to resign after ten years or at the end of our current term, whichever is later," and that would just about be enough of a platform by itself.
Fair enough. And in truth, you can have decent levels of sulfur in gasoline and diesel, too, though it's a lot easier to filter it out of gasoline, which is why the EPA requires refineries to keep the levels low (and the limits got even lower in January of this year). Liquids and gases have lots of advantages over solid hydrocarbons. :-)
Either way, the point remains that different fossil fuels have very different emissions profiles, with some emitting more CO2 per unit energy and others emitting more smog-producing particulates that contribute to a reduction of air quality.
It could (potentially) be harder to prove, though. The timing of deliveries wouldn't allow somebody to do much more than steal obviously visible property, but a later return by somebody else would allow for much more significant theft, and the fact that the driver couldn't possibly have done it in the time available would lend plausible deniability, at least until they catch the people who actually committed the thefts.
Those are the dumb crooks. The smart crooks slip a hundred bucks cash to a delivery driver in exchange for "accidentally" not quite closing certain doors.
Air pollution is unrelated to global warming.
Ah no. You are horribly misinformed. The same things that cause air pollution also cause global warming.
Burning fossil fuels for example. It's a 1.0 correlation.
Unless you crudely lump all fossil fuels together (which doesn't really match the way these things are used), there's actually no correlation at all between the emissions that cause what we consider air pollution (ground-hugging particulates) and the emissions that cause global warming (CO2, H2O):
So if you produce 100% of your power via coal and switch to producing 100% of your power via natural gas, you've cut your sulfur emissions to zero while still producing the same amount of global warming. If you switch from diesel to gasoline, you've cut your air pollution dramatically, but you have probably made global warming worse.
Careful or the authors of the paper will flip you the bird.
Certainly. Let's be clear here. I'm not arguing that we wouldn't benefit from having multiple platforms. I'm saying that a third platform probably won't grow quickly enough to become viable unless it either A. provides transparent compatibility with an existing platform or B. provides some big benefit to users (or perhaps corporate purchasers) right off the bat.
Basically if a platform developer doesn't start out with at least the top hundred key apps (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Maps...) within a few weeks of the platform's launch, the new platform will be DOA, because consumers won't buy those phones. To get those things, the platform developer needs to be able to show something to app developers that's so much better than the competition that those app developers A. will want to own the phone themselves, and B. will therefore expect other consumers to flock to the new platform. That effectively means that the platform must be significantly better than Android and iOS in a user-impactful way before they launch it.
Of course, if a new OS lets users transparently run Android apps, the platform developer might be able to pull off a slow rolling boil. Maybe. But then the platform developer would have a different problem: convincing app developers that the native APIs provide enough of an advantage to make it worth porting their apps. Without that, the new platform would permanently remain just another Android distro, and after a few years, the platform developer would conclude that the cost of maintaining the native APIs exceeds the benefits of doing so, and subsequent devices from that manufacturer would go back to Android again.
So basically, for a new platform to be viable, it needs a new killer feature that can't be easily copied or an entirely different paradigm for interacting with the devices. And the coolest new features must work only with the native APIs (assuming it supports backwards compatibility with Android apps). Short of that, a new platform is unlikely to succeed. And if it is unlikely to succeed, there's no point in wasting the effort building it in the first place. And even if it is likely to succeeed, unless you plan to make it a closed-source project that is private to your cell phone manufacturing company, it still probably doesn't make sense to create a whole new OS and further divide the potential user base rather than add the feature to Android.
Desktop Linux? No, that's basically a running gag at this point. Linux is a decent server OS, which is why it has a big chunk of that market. And having decent UI tools for administering it is certainly useful in that regard. But even I can't justify calling it a viable desktop OS, and I say that as somebody who actively maintained a minor Linux distro for many years. As a desktop OS, its differences are definitely not sufficient to make Linux a viable third OS (at least in a form that most of us would consider to still be Linux) .
At its core, the design goals of Linux are fundamentally antithetical to those of a consumer OS. Linux is based on the notion of being able to recompile things when they break. Consumer OSes require binary compatibility, from device drivers all the way up to applications. There's just no prayer of those two radically opposing camps ever reconciling their differences and creating a viable consumer OS, with the obvious exception of computers designed for web-only use (e.g. Chrome OS).
That said, it is possible that some new mobile OS might come into existence for reasons that have nothing to do with mobile devices. For example, iOS came into existence because OS X had (and still has) a reason for existing as the next evolution of Mac OS and as a bridge between the desktop and UNIX/Linux worlds. And Chrome OS and Android came into existence in part because Linux exists. And if such an OS has moderate advantages over the existing operating systems, it might take off, if only because the effort required to maintain it as a mobile OS might be small enough to be worth doing over the long term while it slowly builds momentum. For example, Windows Mobile had the best chance of anybody, because they still had to keep building Windows no matter what.
Of course, the fact that Windows Mobile still eventually failed strongly suggests that the end-user benefits must be major unless the platform provides backwards app compatibility with an existing platform.
Certainly true. And nothing about my statement is intended to imply that there won't be a second coming of Christ; most Christians do believe that there will be; that just isn't what Revelation, specifically, is about (except, as you say, perhaps as a secondary meaning). To that end, we shouldn't assume that the specific events listed in Revelation are harbingers of the end of the world, nor that they must necessarily happen before the end of the world, because A. the text in question was primarily intended as political rhetoric against Nero two thousand years ago, and B. there are so many more likely ways for the world to end (e.g. us nuking ourselves into oblivion). :-)
This is certainly true. And this is why it is so important to ensure that any government that gains that much power is a government of the people, with enough limitations on its power to prevent the sorts of rampant abuse that can turn it into a force for evil.
Right now, with a President who honestly asked why we don't use nuclear weapons, we're testing those safeguards in our government to see if it can be a stabilizing force for good rather than falling victim to those who would use it to harm others. If it fails that test, there's a good chance that things will eventually get so bad that the rest of the world is forced to re-government the U.S. much as they did with Germany in World War II.
Let us hope that our government passes the test.
The numerical value of Nero Caesar IS 666. And Nero was the beast (metaphorically, in much the same way that today lots of folks say that Donald Trump is Hitler).
The problem with that plan is that the only people who care about freedom and control, by and large, are the people who have the technical knowledge to make Android do what they want. Unless and until you can convince the average grandparent to care about that issue, it won't be a sufficiently fundamental problem worthy of a separate OS... and if you can get Android to give you the functionality already, then it still won't be a sufficiently fundamental problem even if you convince everyone to care.
No, the sorts of problems that are sufficient are the sorts of things that drive fundamental shifts in the way we interact with the device. Palm's multi-processing UI wasn't enough to get their ecosystem started. So think of a problem that's bigger/more complex than that, and you might be approaching something plausible.
The point is, unless there's a reason for users to switch, they won't, which means the new OS has to solve some fundamental user problem that the old OSes can't readily solve.