There’s a thing where, wearing shoes which have more paddimg, actually causes the foot to hit the ground harder, because your body is trying to find something solid to hit. So ironically, more padding causes more force to travel up your leg and causes more damage than non-padded.
I find the very flat keys cause my hands to have to re-figure out what they are aiming for, but then there is a more definite point of contact. Going back to the earlier keyboards now, they feel all squidgy.
Only thing is, the tiniest spec of a grain of something, caught under a key, disables the key. I was getting a faulty enter key, until I blasted air under it.
Indeed. I wonder if obviously other companies would be very upset with this practice. After all, I didn't pay all those streaming services just so the f****** display device could splash ads over the shows.
Yeah it was just my experience, using Python for sysadmin stuff, where I was struggling with the multiprocessing module, and through some fault of my own, still causing lockups. So I went the way of learning the basics of fork, pipes, select, and message relaying, and then I started to appreciate what a multiprocessing module was really trying to solve. Likewise, after following the route of using callbacks to handle messages from other processes, with closures, I discovered the need for call chains, and so began to appreciate why async/await were invented. But my own background is not CS, it is architectural design, where every building is a prototype (every site and client and spec is different) so the mindset is that you start by trying to understand what unique problems this building design will have, which is why they taught us to simply try ideas in order to find out why they are not working, so as to better understand the problem, and I kinda take that mindset into IT, where there are established solutions, but to understand what those solutions were trying to solve, one has to try to solve it for oneself. And of course I am then delighted when I do and then search and find that of course this problem was already discovered by pros and they already created solutions...
I think there’s a side issue: only by trying to write one’s own, does one start to understand the problem. So as a learning excercise, trying to write one’s own is really useful. And then, use a proper framework. Otherwise there’s the opposite problem of people relying on frameworks which they don’t understand.
Well, let's say you choose to value human life and suffering at $0 -- which is effectively what you do when you choose to ignore the cost because it's hard to put a precise value on those things. You could even argue this is a defensible philosophical position, although defending that position may take you places you don't want to go.
You can still put a hard cost on what it takes to treat 50,000 cases of fatal pulmonary disease. Is it rational to ignore that?
Here's what you're probably left with if you choose to value human lives, but not factor them into cost calculations: regulation, but no basis whatsoever to decide whether that regulation should be more restrictive or less restrictive.
As I said, you also have to put a value on the positives. Why do you suppose there are still many coal plants being built? My guess is that people intuitively weigh up the fact that quick expansion of energy is a way to save lives. That's an "external benefit" and if you want to measure it in lives, and reduction in human suffering, then that has to be included.
We cannot be 100% solar and wind. Or at least, I've never heard anyone claim we can. Something has to run the steel mills. Which make the steel for the wind farms. And whilst nuclear and coal have a "cost", they also have a "benefit", however one wants to measure it or make up numbers for.
Whilst I run it on bunches of drives, I also use it on single drives when I want to know all data is correct. Backups are great, but silent data corruption, which gets copied to backup, can mess everything up.
I have a neighbor who has four pit bulls. Notice I say "has" not "owns". Her adult son, who lives in the same town, is a dog fancier but can't be bothered to feed them, clean up after them, or pay for veterinary care. He just buys dogs and then dumps them on his mom, and comes over to play with them when he feels like.
This is an example of what economists call "externalized costs". The son doesn't pay the food or vet costs, so he acts like they don't exist,
Externalized costs are why the market won't eliminate coal on its own. According to a recent Scientific American article, coal particulates kill as many Americans annually as car accidents. And given the nature of the illnesses caused, that's a lot of cost, not even putting a price on human longevity or quality of life,
If all the costs of pollution were part of the purchase decision, the market would make an objectively optimal choice about continuing to use coal. But the costs are paid by someone else, so as far as the parties to the transaction are concerned they don't exist.
Ok, but one issue: the "economic" point of view tries to turn things into numbers. There was some study many decades ago trying to study the costs of an infrastructure development, and they ended up having to put a value on things like, the value to the community of an old church building. Trouble is, you could invent any number for that, and so end up with totally different conclusions about which infrastructure design to go for. Anyway, that's what the psychology prof said.
I feel that, the talk about pollution as an "external cost", falls into this sort of thinking trap. Intuitively, yes, it is something which affects everyone negatively. That's fine. But then people try to say, oh let's put a monetary cost on it.
As if making up numbers makes for a more convincing, objective, case. It doesn't. And besides, how do you put a value on the good that the coal brings? Let me make up a number for that... and depending on my worldview, let me make that a really small number or a really big number...
I'm not saying that it isn't true that companies, governments, NGOs, heavy metal bands, mean old ladies, etc. don't do stuff which ends up being a detriment to many people -- the trouble is, putting an "economic cost" on it, which, whilst it sounds like a nice objective way to make a rational argument about what a clear and sane course of action, only works if you can actually measure that stuff, and crucially, measure both the positives and the negatives.
So the simple question to a matter of externalities is, how did they measure that? How did they measure the positives and the negatives?
Not sure how to write this to address the sceptics, but public health advice for the last 50 years or so, has been wrong. The food pyramid was wrong, the advice to avoid saturated fat was wrong, the advice to exercise more and eat less was wrong, and so on. So people are fucked.
I won't try to convince anyone of this here, as my own opinion has come from dozens of books and talks by a variety of people, but crucially for me, the difference it made for me in the last ten years since I started doing this and how I've changed physically and even mentally. YMMV. Trouble is that it is very hard to do rigorous studies on something as complex as human diet and biology. Other sciences get amazing and real knowledge when they can do proper testing. And then there's the food industry itself.
So on the obesity part, people are to an extent victims of there being a lack of sound advice. And that's not to diminish personal responsibility in any way. But if you wake up in the morning and resolve to force yourself to only eat the right foods, well you will have to know what those foods really are.
Anyway, I leave this here as a possibility. If people are curious they can try to research this one themselves, and see if what's out there makes a convincing enough case for them to try eating different too, and see if it works for them.
I agree it is better to have the port you need already in the machine.
And what TB3 gives you with a hub is more flexibility. But that’s may be just me, as I have older stuff lying around, like eSATA drives and so on.
I prefer 4 TB3 ports, than one TB3 and a bunch of other ports. Just because there’s more possibilities. Even the being able to charge from either side is handy sometimes.
I only recently started looking at BSD, as Mac OS X didn't fit a particular role. After a couple of books, I'm finding it a better way to learn, as it strikes me as being cleaner. I could combine a few simple and standard tools to get a particular task going, which I didn't know was possible -- this comes after trying to read a number of posts on various boards who were also scratching their heads over how to do such and such similar thing (I don't think they were BSD people). So it feels like I'm starting to learn the UNIX philosophy, and get some useful little thing done, all within a short time of reading the books on BSD. Anyway up until then I had been thinking I should commit myself to Arch Linux so that I could start learning the system in a cleaner way, rather than grabbing some other distro VM image and spending time trying to figure out lots of different stuff going on. So it is like, I am not going to stop using Mac OS X as I love many of its desktop apps like the Omni suite. But if I'm going to go down closer to the system, then I'd rather have the cleanest and sane-as-possible environment to learn in. Which isn't to disparage Linux in any way, just that for me, I think I would have to go the Arch Linux route to learning.
The medical world seems quite conservatively minded. They get taught a lot of information in school and they don't have time to question it. And they have to take responsibility for people's lives, and make mistakes. So it is humanly difficult. And when something as public and big as public health advice which has been given out for decades, turns out to be questionable, a lot of people are going to have a problem with that on principle. Also, there's the argument that food companies became vested interests in this whole thing too. So here's the deal: I've personally been following this LCHF thing for going on ten years, and try as I might to bear in mind my own bias, I continue to be surprised at how much better I'm doing on it. The other month I went to a conference and there were about 100 doctors in the room who were interested in using LCHF with their patients (as they'd tried it themselves) but were in a quandry because there is so much resistance from various parts, that they fear they'll be disqualified from practice, yet having tried it themselves, they find it works for them, so there is something obviously not adding up. So yes you can find many people attacking LCHF, and many people making claims on it. Human health is not a solved problem, and it is hard to study, for many reasons. If one population smokes like a chimney but doesn't get much lung cancer does that mean the smoking-cancer link is bogus? If a study claims they had one group on low carb, was it actually low enough carb? If you get people to eat one food, you automatically reduce their eating of other foods, like for vegetarians, they cut out a lot of stuff, so are they better because of the veggies or because they didn't eat as much sugar anyway, or because they are more health conscious in other ways? It is complex. My own opinion is that once people go LCHF, the health effect is too large to ignore. There is something in it. YMMV.
The current president of the world heart federation came out and agreed with nina teicholz's book which exposed the hypothesis was based on fraud. The president of the world heart federation himself said it was based on flawed biased science. It's on youtube even.
My iPad was kept for 4.5 years, and replaced more for the hardware & pencil for sketching, and the iPhone is now nearly 3 and will keep maybe another year; iOS 11 has actually improved some things on it. Apple could... be better, but it could be a lot worse.
And I agree, these are expensive things, and it isn't the fault of the customer if they can't get software updates.
Anyone interested can check the blog of Dr Malcom Kendrick. He's been rabbitting on for about 30 episodes now on all the factors involved, and how the conventional view -- a view which is starting to be rejected by the mainstream, but the man in the street is yet to hear about it -- the conventional view became dogma but doesn't make sense. The lipid hypothesis is dead. The notion that fat clogs up the arteries like a drain clogged with lard, is dead. His very latest blog discusses the mechanical fluid forces inside the arteries, and in combination with what, might be a cause (the damage is usually seen only where these forces are greatest in the vessels, so always the same places, end so on). One thing reading his blogs is that he makes it abundantly clear that it is not a simple problem. But medicine kinda fell into a dogma about it. Anyway, yeah, the people not having breakfast, why is that? Maybe they are not going to be early, getting up early, and having time to eat breakfast. Maybe they are stressing themselves and not getting sleep. And a lot of repair happens during sleep. And Kendrick also talks about how the internal scabs in the arteries would be broken down gradually in a healthy person, but in some people this doesn't happen, so they eventually get too big and break off and cause a stroke, It is fascinating stuff. A quite entertaining blog is nothing else.
[Please] stop using terms like "computer science", it's low-grade engineering at best.
You have a point. Software is a combination of logic, planning, design, analysis, creativity, try-it-and-see, composition, original ideas, etc. -- and all to varying degrees. Perhaps there should be a new word for that. New things often borrow old forms, but at some point it's nice to have a proper name.
Anyone who knows their Latin or Greek or Sanskrit, are there any good words upoin which we could base the notion of a "code creator" ?
I seem to recall lots and lots of complaining about the loss of the spacial Finder. And Quark people all obsessed with their workflows.
Funny at the time I'd been trying Linux on a Quadra 8500, and then installed Mac OS X 10.0 and never looked back.
And it was also the time when Mac people were always complaining that Macs are so superior to PCs (I used Macs myself) but when I finally realised what a modern OS was like, I felt something of a mug -- Apple had seriously inflicted collective brain damage on its users in continuing with OS 9 for so long, whilst it fretted over whether this or that routine was reentrant or not.
I thought Disk Utility.app called on diskutil anyway to do the format. But they both (?) rely on Disk Arbitration framework to know what's going on. So just something someone forgot to update when the framework was changed...?
To attempt to forecast on luck is called gambling and is mainly wishful thinking. I attempted a forecast based upon current circumstance, nothing more. The electric trike market is likely to be the next big market due to low cost. Think people who own fossil fuel vehicles needing to travel into a city centre where they are banned, the cheapest access alternative will be the electric tricycle (motorbike would be cheaper but harder to learn). How good and sporty and all weather those designs become, well, that remains to be seen but there are some good examples out there now but mass produced ones will need to be cheap (to cover people owning an old fossil fuel vehicle and an electric tricycle, so a pretty big market and they will need to look good and perform well to pick up large numbers). Seriously, Tesla should consider it.
Well there's the rub: current circumstances. First one has to enumerate all current circumstances -- many of them which don't seem relevant, might be relevant if you looked at it from a different point of view, and ones which seem like they should be relevant, may be trumped by something else -- and then we have to remember that tomorrow, the circumstances will have changed. It is like rolling dice -- it is a completely deterministic process, but there are too many fine variables, so it appears random.
But even assuming we can forecast, consider: families travel in cars, and they're essential for many family related problems, like taking a sick child to the hospital, or driving grandma everywhere because she is too frail for other modes of transport. A large percentage of the population is old. These are people who are very concerned about accidental falls, because one fall can put them in a home for the rest of their lives. Banning travel for these people -- by taking away their current safest mode -- is never going to happen, even if we all took to teleconferencing from home offices as regular work practice. Taking away cheap transport energy from these people is denying a large chunk of the voting population a basic life necessity. By that measure it'll never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse the typos. Not typed in a MBP but on an ancient iPhone where the predictive text is so slow I turned it off :-D
There’s a thing where, wearing shoes which have more paddimg, actually causes the foot to hit the ground harder, because your body is trying to find something solid to hit. So ironically, more padding causes more force to travel up your leg and causes more damage than non-padded.
I find the very flat keys cause my hands to have to re-figure out what they are aiming for, but then there is a more definite point of contact. Going back to the earlier keyboards now, they feel all squidgy.
Only thing is, the tiniest spec of a grain of something, caught under a key, disables the key. I was getting a faulty enter key, until I blasted air under it.
Indeed. I wonder if obviously other companies would be very upset with this practice. After all, I didn't pay all those streaming services just so the f****** display device could splash ads over the shows.
Ah, I see. Thanks, I learnt something :)
Yeah it was just my experience, using Python for sysadmin stuff, where I was struggling with the multiprocessing module, and through some fault of my own, still causing lockups. So I went the way of learning the basics of fork, pipes, select, and message relaying, and then I started to appreciate what a multiprocessing module was really trying to solve. Likewise, after following the route of using callbacks to handle messages from other processes, with closures, I discovered the need for call chains, and so began to appreciate why async/await were invented. But my own background is not CS, it is architectural design, where every building is a prototype (every site and client and spec is different) so the mindset is that you start by trying to understand what unique problems this building design will have, which is why they taught us to simply try ideas in order to find out why they are not working, so as to better understand the problem, and I kinda take that mindset into IT, where there are established solutions, but to understand what those solutions were trying to solve, one has to try to solve it for oneself. And of course I am then delighted when I do and then search and find that of course this problem was already discovered by pros and they already created solutions...
I think there’s a side issue: only by trying to write one’s own, does one start to understand the problem. So as a learning excercise, trying to write one’s own is really useful. And then, use a proper framework. Otherwise there’s the opposite problem of people relying on frameworks which they don’t understand.
Users are holding it at the wrong angle.
Well, let's say you choose to value human life and suffering at $0 -- which is effectively what you do when you choose to ignore the cost because it's hard to put a precise value on those things. You could even argue this is a defensible philosophical position, although defending that position may take you places you don't want to go.
You can still put a hard cost on what it takes to treat 50,000 cases of fatal pulmonary disease. Is it rational to ignore that?
Here's what you're probably left with if you choose to value human lives, but not factor them into cost calculations: regulation, but no basis whatsoever to decide whether that regulation should be more restrictive or less restrictive.
As I said, you also have to put a value on the positives. Why do you suppose there are still many coal plants being built? My guess is that people intuitively weigh up the fact that quick expansion of energy is a way to save lives. That's an "external benefit" and if you want to measure it in lives, and reduction in human suffering, then that has to be included.
We cannot be 100% solar and wind. Or at least, I've never heard anyone claim we can. Something has to run the steel mills. Which make the steel for the wind farms. And whilst nuclear and coal have a "cost", they also have a "benefit", however one wants to measure it or make up numbers for.
Whilst I run it on bunches of drives, I also use it on single drives when I want to know all data is correct. Backups are great, but silent data corruption, which gets copied to backup, can mess everything up.
I have a neighbor who has four pit bulls. Notice I say "has" not "owns". Her adult son, who lives in the same town, is a dog fancier but can't be bothered to feed them, clean up after them, or pay for veterinary care. He just buys dogs and then dumps them on his mom, and comes over to play with them when he feels like.
This is an example of what economists call "externalized costs". The son doesn't pay the food or vet costs, so he acts like they don't exist,
Externalized costs are why the market won't eliminate coal on its own. According to a recent Scientific American article, coal particulates kill as many Americans annually as car accidents. And given the nature of the illnesses caused, that's a lot of cost, not even putting a price on human longevity or quality of life,
If all the costs of pollution were part of the purchase decision, the market would make an objectively optimal choice about continuing to use coal. But the costs are paid by someone else, so as far as the parties to the transaction are concerned they don't exist.
Ok, but one issue: the "economic" point of view tries to turn things into numbers. There was some study many decades ago trying to study the costs of an infrastructure development, and they ended up having to put a value on things like, the value to the community of an old church building. Trouble is, you could invent any number for that, and so end up with totally different conclusions about which infrastructure design to go for. Anyway, that's what the psychology prof said.
I feel that, the talk about pollution as an "external cost", falls into this sort of thinking trap. Intuitively, yes, it is something which affects everyone negatively. That's fine. But then people try to say, oh let's put a monetary cost on it.
As if making up numbers makes for a more convincing, objective, case. It doesn't. And besides, how do you put a value on the good that the coal brings? Let me make up a number for that... and depending on my worldview, let me make that a really small number or a really big number...
I'm not saying that it isn't true that companies, governments, NGOs, heavy metal bands, mean old ladies, etc. don't do stuff which ends up being a detriment to many people -- the trouble is, putting an "economic cost" on it, which, whilst it sounds like a nice objective way to make a rational argument about what a clear and sane course of action, only works if you can actually measure that stuff, and crucially, measure both the positives and the negatives.
So the simple question to a matter of externalities is, how did they measure that? How did they measure the positives and the negatives?
And they don't have to be stupid enough to go all the way.
They just have to be stupid enough to start something which rapidly spirals out of anyone's control.
Not sure how to write this to address the sceptics, but public health advice for the last 50 years or so, has been wrong. The food pyramid was wrong, the advice to avoid saturated fat was wrong, the advice to exercise more and eat less was wrong, and so on. So people are fucked.
I won't try to convince anyone of this here, as my own opinion has come from dozens of books and talks by a variety of people, but crucially for me, the difference it made for me in the last ten years since I started doing this and how I've changed physically and even mentally. YMMV. Trouble is that it is very hard to do rigorous studies on something as complex as human diet and biology. Other sciences get amazing and real knowledge when they can do proper testing. And then there's the food industry itself.
So on the obesity part, people are to an extent victims of there being a lack of sound advice. And that's not to diminish personal responsibility in any way. But if you wake up in the morning and resolve to force yourself to only eat the right foods, well you will have to know what those foods really are.
Anyway, I leave this here as a possibility. If people are curious they can try to research this one themselves, and see if what's out there makes a convincing enough case for them to try eating different too, and see if it works for them.
I agree it is better to have the port you need already in the machine.
And what TB3 gives you with a hub is more flexibility.
But that’s may be just me, as I have older stuff lying around, like eSATA drives and so on.
I prefer 4 TB3 ports, than one TB3 and a bunch of other ports. Just because there’s more possibilities. Even the being able to charge from either side is handy sometimes.
Agreed. I get around this by sending all my communications through gmail.
I send all my private conversations through Skynet.
Because there's nobody there listening and deciding whether my life is a biological dead end.
Oh...
I only recently started looking at BSD, as Mac OS X didn't fit a particular role. After a couple of books, I'm finding it a better way to learn, as it strikes me as being cleaner. I could combine a few simple and standard tools to get a particular task going, which I didn't know was possible -- this comes after trying to read a number of posts on various boards who were also scratching their heads over how to do such and such similar thing (I don't think they were BSD people). So it feels like I'm starting to learn the UNIX philosophy, and get some useful little thing done, all within a short time of reading the books on BSD. Anyway up until then I had been thinking I should commit myself to Arch Linux so that I could start learning the system in a cleaner way, rather than grabbing some other distro VM image and spending time trying to figure out lots of different stuff going on. So it is like, I am not going to stop using Mac OS X as I love many of its desktop apps like the Omni suite. But if I'm going to go down closer to the system, then I'd rather have the cleanest and sane-as-possible environment to learn in. Which isn't to disparage Linux in any way, just that for me, I think I would have to go the Arch Linux route to learning.
The medical world seems quite conservatively minded. They get taught a lot of information in school and they don't have time to question it. And they have to take responsibility for people's lives, and make mistakes. So it is humanly difficult. And when something as public and big as public health advice which has been given out for decades, turns out to be questionable, a lot of people are going to have a problem with that on principle. Also, there's the argument that food companies became vested interests in this whole thing too. So here's the deal: I've personally been following this LCHF thing for going on ten years, and try as I might to bear in mind my own bias, I continue to be surprised at how much better I'm doing on it. The other month I went to a conference and there were about 100 doctors in the room who were interested in using LCHF with their patients (as they'd tried it themselves) but were in a quandry because there is so much resistance from various parts, that they fear they'll be disqualified from practice, yet having tried it themselves, they find it works for them, so there is something obviously not adding up. So yes you can find many people attacking LCHF, and many people making claims on it. Human health is not a solved problem, and it is hard to study, for many reasons. If one population smokes like a chimney but doesn't get much lung cancer does that mean the smoking-cancer link is bogus? If a study claims they had one group on low carb, was it actually low enough carb? If you get people to eat one food, you automatically reduce their eating of other foods, like for vegetarians, they cut out a lot of stuff, so are they better because of the veggies or because they didn't eat as much sugar anyway, or because they are more health conscious in other ways? It is complex. My own opinion is that once people go LCHF, the health effect is too large to ignore. There is something in it. YMMV.
The current president of the world heart federation came out and agreed with nina teicholz's book which exposed the hypothesis was based on fraud. The president of the world heart federation himself said it was based on flawed biased science. It's on youtube even.
My iPad was kept for 4.5 years, and replaced more for the hardware & pencil for sketching, and the iPhone is now nearly 3 and will keep maybe another year; iOS 11 has actually improved some things on it. Apple could... be better, but it could be a lot worse.
And I agree, these are expensive things, and it isn't the fault of the customer if they can't get software updates.
Sorry about the fifteen million typos in that post. :-(
Anyone interested can check the blog of Dr Malcom Kendrick. He's been rabbitting on for about 30 episodes now on all the factors involved, and how the conventional view -- a view which is starting to be rejected by the mainstream, but the man in the street is yet to hear about it -- the conventional view became dogma but doesn't make sense. The lipid hypothesis is dead. The notion that fat clogs up the arteries like a drain clogged with lard, is dead. His very latest blog discusses the mechanical fluid forces inside the arteries, and in combination with what, might be a cause (the damage is usually seen only where these forces are greatest in the vessels, so always the same places, end so on). One thing reading his blogs is that he makes it abundantly clear that it is not a simple problem. But medicine kinda fell into a dogma about it. Anyway, yeah, the people not having breakfast, why is that? Maybe they are not going to be early, getting up early, and having time to eat breakfast. Maybe they are stressing themselves and not getting sleep. And a lot of repair happens during sleep. And Kendrick also talks about how the internal scabs in the arteries would be broken down gradually in a healthy person, but in some people this doesn't happen, so they eventually get too big and break off and cause a stroke, It is fascinating stuff. A quite entertaining blog is nothing else.
[Please] stop using terms like "computer science", it's low-grade engineering at best.
You have a point. Software is a combination of logic, planning, design, analysis, creativity, try-it-and-see, composition, original ideas, etc. -- and all to varying degrees. Perhaps there should be a new word for that. New things often borrow old forms, but at some point it's nice to have a proper name.
Anyone who knows their Latin or Greek or Sanskrit, are there any good words upoin which we could base the notion of a "code creator" ?
I seem to recall lots and lots of complaining about the loss of the spacial Finder. And Quark people all obsessed with their workflows.
Funny at the time I'd been trying Linux on a Quadra 8500, and then installed Mac OS X 10.0 and never looked back.
And it was also the time when Mac people were always complaining that Macs are so superior to PCs (I used Macs myself) but when I finally realised what a modern OS was like, I felt something of a mug -- Apple had seriously inflicted collective brain damage on its users in continuing with OS 9 for so long, whilst it fretted over whether this or that routine was reentrant or not.
At least now I can say I prefer Unix to Windows.
I thought Disk Utility.app called on diskutil anyway to do the format. But they both (?) rely on Disk Arbitration framework to know what's going on. So just something someone forgot to update when the framework was changed...?
Yes, and it’s an ever ongoing problem, how to balance the power of corporations with the power of individuals and with the power of majority opinions.
I think a significant percentage of people want self driving cars.
To attempt to forecast on luck is called gambling and is mainly wishful thinking. I attempted a forecast based upon current circumstance, nothing more. The electric trike market is likely to be the next big market due to low cost. Think people who own fossil fuel vehicles needing to travel into a city centre where they are banned, the cheapest access alternative will be the electric tricycle (motorbike would be cheaper but harder to learn). How good and sporty and all weather those designs become, well, that remains to be seen but there are some good examples out there now but mass produced ones will need to be cheap (to cover people owning an old fossil fuel vehicle and an electric tricycle, so a pretty big market and they will need to look good and perform well to pick up large numbers). Seriously, Tesla should consider it.
Well there's the rub: current circumstances. First one has to enumerate all current circumstances -- many of them which don't seem relevant, might be relevant if you looked at it from a different point of view, and ones which seem like they should be relevant, may be trumped by something else -- and then we have to remember that tomorrow, the circumstances will have changed. It is like rolling dice -- it is a completely deterministic process, but there are too many fine variables, so it appears random.
But even assuming we can forecast, consider: families travel in cars, and they're essential for many family related problems, like taking a sick child to the hospital, or driving grandma everywhere because she is too frail for other modes of transport. A large percentage of the population is old. These are people who are very concerned about accidental falls, because one fall can put them in a home for the rest of their lives. Banning travel for these people -- by taking away their current safest mode -- is never going to happen, even if we all took to teleconferencing from home offices as regular work practice. Taking away cheap transport energy from these people is denying a large chunk of the voting population a basic life necessity. By that measure it'll never happen.
In one sense, trying every conceivable possibility, is indeed kinda the definition of relying on blind luck.