And they managed to give the kid every imaginable annoyingly on-trend and precocious quality. He's an intellectual, an artist, a scientist, and environmentalist, a bike rider, coffee shop denizen, transit rider AND is gender-flexible with his painted fingernails.
I haven't touched it in years, but Filemaker was trivial to use for simple databases that were also fairly elegant to use.
I remember thinking "Oh, I can pick up Access fairly easy" and found it fairly confounding and not nearly as easy to use as Filemaker for the same types of database.
A parent poster said that people were stuck using Filemaker because of a convoluted setup and a bunch of sunk costs, but who hasn't seen that in spades with Access?
Smartphones have a shelf life of about 3 years before performance, battery life or lack of updates render them kind of obsolete. At this point in their history, smart watches seem even more obsolescence prone.
Until either environmental regulations or advanced state of development render electronics a useful lifespan more in line with their physical wear and tear lfiespan, buyer beware and just assume it will be obsolete and unusable in 3 years or much less.
I avoid anything that relies on with "control with your phone" because I know it will end up abandoned by its maker.
But don't they need compelling products to attract consumers?
The grand bargain of Google with consumers only works when people want to use your products. Search, Gmail and Android aren't going away any time soon, but don't even those products kind of have to improve over time to keep people using them?
Maybe. Everybody knows about "Photoshopping" but it's still not easy to deny a compelling faked photo.
I think video will be harder to deny (with motion, etc, adding realism) and it will take longer for the public (over 16 years old) to grasp how possible the technology is.
There's already a plethora of porn with short, skinny and flat-chested barely-legal women dressed and acting like barely post-pubescent girls, and that's *actually* fake, or at least the 18 US xxxx notice that says they're over 18 says it ought to be fake.
I'm not sure how swapping faces does much to solve kiddie porn other than masking who the actually abused kids are, or worse, using the aforementioned skinny young porn actresses and putting real kids' faces on them.
I suspect that *this* is actually the Black Mirror aspect of this -- it will become simple to put the woman at the office, your wife's sister, the babysitter, etc, onto a matching porn physique and then vicariously enjoy watching "her" get banged.
Except these will leak out and it will become difficult to explain "it's not really me". We think exploitation via sexting pics or sex tapes is bad, it's got to be worse when it's not just a nude selfie but a realistic depiction of your wife/daughter/friend getting double-penetrated by two giants.
I think it's a chicken and egg problem. You could allow people to reduce the amount of shared links and images people see in their newsfeeds. However, the easy sharing of links and especially images has caused people to become accustomed to low-effort posting and sharing, especially of images *and* it's impossible to really know whether you only got 2 likes because nobody thought your image was worth much or because it got no visibility.
The users have basically been trained to pump out low-effort content (basically anything unwritten) and merely masking their output doesn't change much but produce empty newsfeeds.
They could get tricky and limit just re-shared images and links (shared more than once), but they probably would also need to somehow low-rank posts with just images and links and no self-typed comments.
I don't think they have anything else in the pipeline, full stop.
I think Apple have had much in the way of vision or risk-taking new product development in years. I think they have been about keeping stock prices up and other elements of basic capitalism.
If they were really risk-taking, they'd make a guess that while a dockable phone might be expensive to develop and may rob sales from some laptop or iPads, both of them are small enough sales wise that it's worth the risk.
And since they would be basically creating an entirely new type of product*, they could do pretty much anything since nothing else exists. This could mean owning the docking standards and making healthy bank on required docking peripherals or even defining a "dock" as something with nearly a laptop inside it.
* Yes, I know this isn't a wholly new idea, just like iPhones or anything else they've done isn't new, but there's something to be said for doing it and making it successful as compared to failed efforts. And to their credit, they DID have a PowerBook Duo docking setup way back when.
I'd wager 99% of never-smoker vapers use some sweet and fruity vape juice.
It's just not logical that they would decide that the taste of a cigarette would be at all appealing vs. vaping, regardless of branding, trends, and pop culture.
I smoked hand-rolled cigarettes for years and could barely tolerate a factory rolled cigarette when I was an active smoker. After quitting smoking, all cigarettes are super gross. Even cannabis is pretty nasty, it's only redeeming quality that you only need 1-2 hits to get high. If you had to suck down an entire joint to get high, I'm not sure I could do it.
About the only migration path that makes sense to me for vaping->cigarettes would involve heavy/regular cannabis users who prefer smoking joints. They might be just used to inhaling burning leaves to make it worthwhile. Ironically, the heaviest cannabis smoker I know only smokes joints because he loved cigarettes and it lets him experience "smoking" (although 1 joint a day, not the 2 packs of nails he used to smoke).
But I'd also guess in an era of increasingly legalized cannabis leading to vaporizers, edibles and other below-the-radar consumption methods, that's an increasingly small number of potential joint smokers who might turn into cigarette smokers.
Asking a vaper who digs fruity flavored vape to smoke is like asking a wine cooler drinker to decide that rotgut whiskey is better. Vanishingly few would take you up on that.
Aren't we already at the point where most humans in the world aren't really worth their own consumption costs?
Why would we have billion plus humans who live in horrific poverty if they were somehow a real gold mine of economic productive ability?
Maybe it's just a question of whether or not they can be effectively put to use, but I'm kind of inclined to think that's not it, we're just overpopulated and the demand for labor isn't great enough.
I feel like most babies under a year could probably be taken care of by machines better than people, if only because the children have near zero communication ability besides crying, well known needs, and a robot would have infinite patience. Plus a robot could do all that Asian Tiger Mom shit like play Mozart and recite Shakespeare that most real parents can't be bothered to do.
It would start to be a problem later in life when the baby needed more human interaction for speech and language or emotional development, but honestly who knows, and I think we will find out in the next 50 years what children raised by a robot nanny will be like.
I'd go one step further and think that maybe even robot nannies would solve a lot of our endemic poverty problems because they could probably provide more & better stimulation and care than many impoverished parents can. We'd at least produce kids who weren't maltreated and ignored for the first 3 years of their life.
Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.
This is the real crux of the problem. People on Facebook have become militantly political, down all the usual dividing lines. People I've known for 10-20 years who never appeared to have any political opinions are now rabidly political on Facebook.
My own sense is that this grew out of Facebook enabling the easy re-sharing of links and pictures. At first it was just mostly dumb memes, but as election season hit it quickly became a way of sharing and ultimately manufacturing and reinforcing partisan outrage.
I don't think Facebook can fix this without some heavy AI analysis of submitted links and images that eliminates the ability to re-share political ones without hindering the ability to re-share non-political content. News links might be more amenable to machine analysis, but images would be touch. The only other option is just disabling re-sharing of any of them, which I think users would find an unacceptable functionality limitation.
An individual can "solve" this themselves by unfriending people who post too much political stuff, but my own sense is that means gutting even moderate-sized friend lists, rendering the entire thing kind of pointless.
I've kind of abandoned it completely myself. I'm missing out on some socialization, but mostly I think it's false socialization with people in ordinary circumstances I wouldn't keep in touch with. A loss perhaps for some old friends and family, but not enough to make it worth putting up with.
Is because it doesn't. AMD is not vulnerable to MELTDOWN and is less vulnerable to SPECTRE because they are more scrupulous and responsible than Intel, FULL STOP. There is no other reasonable way to regard the situation.
Are you really arguing that this was a deliberate case of malicious and cynical irresponsibility -- an actual moral failing -- by Intel, and that AMD is actually more moral than Intel?
I'm willing to buy into the idea that near monopoly status led Intel to a set of somewhat predictable moral hazards where a series of every day management decisions regarding engineering resources vs. profits led them to choose profits over resource expenditure. Product roadmaps and model changes that minimized engineering changes to allow a longer design life cycle over more iterations vs. significant redesign and re-engineering. Basically dragging out Core i5/i7 another 5 years with changes at the margins as "advancements". I suppose the car analogy is body styling changes while keeping the same chassis and powertrain. A New Chevy for 1960!
But I'm less willing to believe that Intel plotted to make a deliberately flawed product because it was cheaper and because they're evil. I suspect AMD, if given similar market share, would probably make the same decisions because ultimately they're the choices of a capitalist. I think it's the kind of set of moral hazards that all monopolist and near monopolists end up making -- Comcast's lack of infrastructure investment, GM's lack of quality, drug companies that gloss over side effects, etc. Without competitive pressure, there's little incentive to invest in a product people will buy anyway.
The problem isn't really evil people or simple morality, the problem is people motivated by profit. Lacking competition, increasing profit means cutting production costs (and probably raising prices, too).
Is the "switch" merely a short-term kludge for existing CPUs, including those designed-but-not-yet-released CPUs until new silicon without the bug can be made?
I'd almost expect this to be one of those advanced BIOS type options (like VT) that can be switched on/off there. Of course this kicks the can to hardware vendors who have to decide whether to make the default secure or fast (vendors HATE this trick!).
What I'm curious about is how many people would just decide the CPU exploit risk is less than the performance penalty and decide not enable the fix. I would imagine that there are large scale operators deciding whether they should make some subset of their systems secure and some high performance but at risk.
It doesn't even work for people who have legitimate claims. They're fairly fenced in by accepted losses and settlement amounts, and most people need to get back to living their lives or need the settlement money to get out of the hole being beat senseless and losing their jobs. Plus even the best motivated attorneys are going to advise most of them that whatever the proposed settlement amount is, it's as good as they can expect and that a trial may make it much less or none at all.
I actually think the civil claims process it the wrong place to seek to "solve" the police violence problem. The real issue is that prosecutors are basically on the same team as the police and just will not do much to prosecute cops.
I think there needs to be a completely separate court & prosecution system for law enforcement that ONLY handles police misconduct. It should have its own investigators. With this, you'd at least have a prosecution system less influenced by every day law enforcement and prosecution also trying to handle police misconduct.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of headphones in this country. We made the headphones to own.
Then the other guy came out with a three-connector headphone. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Turbo Headphones.. That's three connectors and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happenedâ"the bastards went to four connectors. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three connectors and a strip. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five connectors.
I can't figure out why carmakers and phone makers can't deliver on something as apparently simple as "remote desktop with touch screen interface". I gotta believe both current iOS & Android OS/Windowing systems can support this from a basic software feature set, maybe even with dynamic screen sizes/resolutions, too.
Just doing this would literally make using a phone in the car safer. The same idiots who will try to use Snapchat on the road will still do it, they just won't be doing and juggling a phone in their hands.
I don't get it why device makers don't make this more straightforward for carmakers to support and vice versa, why carmakers have to make it more retarded or do dumb shit like BMW's rental concept.
Is it just a plot to make car/phone integration so shitty people just leave their phones at home?
I'm inclined to agree with you, and it sounds more like "Muh business is like the government and you go to jail!".
That being said, just how bendy are the laws on corporate espionage, theft of information, etc? The problem isn't that this is basically a civil dispute between employer and employee, it's that Congress is all too willing to pass laws that criminalize these kinds of disputes and in the employer's favor.
This makes it very convenient for corporations to use the FBI as their private enforcement arm and makes threats of criminal prosecution plausible if not real, especially if the employer does a good job with keeping up with their political subscriptions, er, contributions.
Apple was rumored to be working on a car for a long time. I don't think they could actually build one, a car is a complicated thing to build and involves a lot of regulatory approvals and a massive investment in manufacturing. I'm not sure the regulatory requirements would also line up with Apple's marketing style, either.
It's not that Apple doesn't have or can't hire the right talent, and they are good at supply chain management but a car is a different product than Apple knows how to make.
Tesla has shown that building cars from scratch isn't easy or easily scalable.
My guess was always Apple was looking for sideways entry to being inside cars or involved with user interfaces and controls. "Building a car" was just a design exercise to see where they could best apply their talents.
You would think they would just act as a clearinghouse, "banking" the revenue until it reached some threshold where the transaction fee was less than 1% of the payment vs. making a zillion $1 transactions.
I don't know how you actually get (or used to get...) paid from YT videos. I would have assumed it was fractions of a cent per view and that they already were smart enough not to actually pay out owed ad revenue to a video publisher until it hit some minimum amount necessary to make the transaction worthwhile.
Is biodiesel energy positive? Does it produce more available energy in terms of fuel than what goes into produce it? If it doesn't, it just seems like a short-sighted way to get farmers to produce a giant surplus.
There are some promising advances, but it seems optimistic to believe that there will be vast fleets of fully autonomous cars operating throughout the US within 5 years. Only a minority of conventional cars have anything like a self-drive mode.
Besides, Domino's is shit pizza, shittier as pizza than Taco Bell is as Mexican food.
The legions of local pizza places will still depend on stoners with aging Hondas and legions of fools with expensive cars desperate to do anything to make their car payments.
Corporations would really prefer the gig economy, with all employees coming in pre-trained and ready to work on a specific project that already has its own end date. This eliminates the costs of benefits, taxes and other longer term liabilities.
They already successfully socialized the costs of training. Their allies in the college administration racket helped make a worthless college degree a pre-requisite for employment while still sticking potential employees on a treadmill for equally expensive and worthless product certifications.
I'd like to go back to corporations doing on the job training, but this really requires corporations to view investing in "employees" as something they want.
Slashdot Mirror
And they managed to give the kid every imaginable annoyingly on-trend and precocious quality. He's an intellectual, an artist, a scientist, and environmentalist, a bike rider, coffee shop denizen, transit rider AND is gender-flexible with his painted fingernails.
I haven't touched it in years, but Filemaker was trivial to use for simple databases that were also fairly elegant to use.
I remember thinking "Oh, I can pick up Access fairly easy" and found it fairly confounding and not nearly as easy to use as Filemaker for the same types of database.
A parent poster said that people were stuck using Filemaker because of a convoluted setup and a bunch of sunk costs, but who hasn't seen that in spades with Access?
Smartphones have a shelf life of about 3 years before performance, battery life or lack of updates render them kind of obsolete. At this point in their history, smart watches seem even more obsolescence prone.
Until either environmental regulations or advanced state of development render electronics a useful lifespan more in line with their physical wear and tear lfiespan, buyer beware and just assume it will be obsolete and unusable in 3 years or much less.
I avoid anything that relies on with "control with your phone" because I know it will end up abandoned by its maker.
But don't they need compelling products to attract consumers?
The grand bargain of Google with consumers only works when people want to use your products. Search, Gmail and Android aren't going away any time soon, but don't even those products kind of have to improve over time to keep people using them?
Maybe. Everybody knows about "Photoshopping" but it's still not easy to deny a compelling faked photo.
I think video will be harder to deny (with motion, etc, adding realism) and it will take longer for the public (over 16 years old) to grasp how possible the technology is.
There's already a plethora of porn with short, skinny and flat-chested barely-legal women dressed and acting like barely post-pubescent girls, and that's *actually* fake, or at least the 18 US xxxx notice that says they're over 18 says it ought to be fake.
I'm not sure how swapping faces does much to solve kiddie porn other than masking who the actually abused kids are, or worse, using the aforementioned skinny young porn actresses and putting real kids' faces on them.
I suspect that *this* is actually the Black Mirror aspect of this -- it will become simple to put the woman at the office, your wife's sister, the babysitter, etc, onto a matching porn physique and then vicariously enjoy watching "her" get banged.
Except these will leak out and it will become difficult to explain "it's not really me". We think exploitation via sexting pics or sex tapes is bad, it's got to be worse when it's not just a nude selfie but a realistic depiction of your wife/daughter/friend getting double-penetrated by two giants.
I think it's a chicken and egg problem. You could allow people to reduce the amount of shared links and images people see in their newsfeeds. However, the easy sharing of links and especially images has caused people to become accustomed to low-effort posting and sharing, especially of images *and* it's impossible to really know whether you only got 2 likes because nobody thought your image was worth much or because it got no visibility.
The users have basically been trained to pump out low-effort content (basically anything unwritten) and merely masking their output doesn't change much but produce empty newsfeeds.
They could get tricky and limit just re-shared images and links (shared more than once), but they probably would also need to somehow low-rank posts with just images and links and no self-typed comments.
I don't think they have anything else in the pipeline, full stop.
I think Apple have had much in the way of vision or risk-taking new product development in years. I think they have been about keeping stock prices up and other elements of basic capitalism.
If they were really risk-taking, they'd make a guess that while a dockable phone might be expensive to develop and may rob sales from some laptop or iPads, both of them are small enough sales wise that it's worth the risk.
And since they would be basically creating an entirely new type of product*, they could do pretty much anything since nothing else exists. This could mean owning the docking standards and making healthy bank on required docking peripherals or even defining a "dock" as something with nearly a laptop inside it.
* Yes, I know this isn't a wholly new idea, just like iPhones or anything else they've done isn't new, but there's something to be said for doing it and making it successful as compared to failed efforts. And to their credit, they DID have a PowerBook Duo docking setup way back when.
This makes no sense.
I'd wager 99% of never-smoker vapers use some sweet and fruity vape juice.
It's just not logical that they would decide that the taste of a cigarette would be at all appealing vs. vaping, regardless of branding, trends, and pop culture.
I smoked hand-rolled cigarettes for years and could barely tolerate a factory rolled cigarette when I was an active smoker. After quitting smoking, all cigarettes are super gross. Even cannabis is pretty nasty, it's only redeeming quality that you only need 1-2 hits to get high. If you had to suck down an entire joint to get high, I'm not sure I could do it.
About the only migration path that makes sense to me for vaping->cigarettes would involve heavy/regular cannabis users who prefer smoking joints. They might be just used to inhaling burning leaves to make it worthwhile. Ironically, the heaviest cannabis smoker I know only smokes joints because he loved cigarettes and it lets him experience "smoking" (although 1 joint a day, not the 2 packs of nails he used to smoke).
But I'd also guess in an era of increasingly legalized cannabis leading to vaporizers, edibles and other below-the-radar consumption methods, that's an increasingly small number of potential joint smokers who might turn into cigarette smokers.
Asking a vaper who digs fruity flavored vape to smoke is like asking a wine cooler drinker to decide that rotgut whiskey is better. Vanishingly few would take you up on that.
Aren't we already at the point where most humans in the world aren't really worth their own consumption costs?
Why would we have billion plus humans who live in horrific poverty if they were somehow a real gold mine of economic productive ability?
Maybe it's just a question of whether or not they can be effectively put to use, but I'm kind of inclined to think that's not it, we're just overpopulated and the demand for labor isn't great enough.
I feel like most babies under a year could probably be taken care of by machines better than people, if only because the children have near zero communication ability besides crying, well known needs, and a robot would have infinite patience. Plus a robot could do all that Asian Tiger Mom shit like play Mozart and recite Shakespeare that most real parents can't be bothered to do.
It would start to be a problem later in life when the baby needed more human interaction for speech and language or emotional development, but honestly who knows, and I think we will find out in the next 50 years what children raised by a robot nanny will be like.
I'd go one step further and think that maybe even robot nannies would solve a lot of our endemic poverty problems because they could probably provide more & better stimulation and care than many impoverished parents can. We'd at least produce kids who weren't maltreated and ignored for the first 3 years of their life.
Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.
This is the real crux of the problem. People on Facebook have become militantly political, down all the usual dividing lines. People I've known for 10-20 years who never appeared to have any political opinions are now rabidly political on Facebook.
My own sense is that this grew out of Facebook enabling the easy re-sharing of links and pictures. At first it was just mostly dumb memes, but as election season hit it quickly became a way of sharing and ultimately manufacturing and reinforcing partisan outrage.
I don't think Facebook can fix this without some heavy AI analysis of submitted links and images that eliminates the ability to re-share political ones without hindering the ability to re-share non-political content. News links might be more amenable to machine analysis, but images would be touch. The only other option is just disabling re-sharing of any of them, which I think users would find an unacceptable functionality limitation.
An individual can "solve" this themselves by unfriending people who post too much political stuff, but my own sense is that means gutting even moderate-sized friend lists, rendering the entire thing kind of pointless.
I've kind of abandoned it completely myself. I'm missing out on some socialization, but mostly I think it's false socialization with people in ordinary circumstances I wouldn't keep in touch with. A loss perhaps for some old friends and family, but not enough to make it worth putting up with.
Is because it doesn't. AMD is not vulnerable to MELTDOWN and is less vulnerable to SPECTRE because they are more scrupulous and responsible than Intel, FULL STOP. There is no other reasonable way to regard the situation.
Are you really arguing that this was a deliberate case of malicious and cynical irresponsibility -- an actual moral failing -- by Intel, and that AMD is actually more moral than Intel?
I'm willing to buy into the idea that near monopoly status led Intel to a set of somewhat predictable moral hazards where a series of every day management decisions regarding engineering resources vs. profits led them to choose profits over resource expenditure. Product roadmaps and model changes that minimized engineering changes to allow a longer design life cycle over more iterations vs. significant redesign and re-engineering. Basically dragging out Core i5/i7 another 5 years with changes at the margins as "advancements". I suppose the car analogy is body styling changes while keeping the same chassis and powertrain. A New Chevy for 1960!
But I'm less willing to believe that Intel plotted to make a deliberately flawed product because it was cheaper and because they're evil. I suspect AMD, if given similar market share, would probably make the same decisions because ultimately they're the choices of a capitalist. I think it's the kind of set of moral hazards that all monopolist and near monopolists end up making -- Comcast's lack of infrastructure investment, GM's lack of quality, drug companies that gloss over side effects, etc. Without competitive pressure, there's little incentive to invest in a product people will buy anyway.
The problem isn't really evil people or simple morality, the problem is people motivated by profit. Lacking competition, increasing profit means cutting production costs (and probably raising prices, too).
Is the "switch" merely a short-term kludge for existing CPUs, including those designed-but-not-yet-released CPUs until new silicon without the bug can be made?
I'd almost expect this to be one of those advanced BIOS type options (like VT) that can be switched on/off there. Of course this kicks the can to hardware vendors who have to decide whether to make the default secure or fast (vendors HATE this trick!).
What I'm curious about is how many people would just decide the CPU exploit risk is less than the performance penalty and decide not enable the fix. I would imagine that there are large scale operators deciding whether they should make some subset of their systems secure and some high performance but at risk.
It doesn't even work for people who have legitimate claims. They're fairly fenced in by accepted losses and settlement amounts, and most people need to get back to living their lives or need the settlement money to get out of the hole being beat senseless and losing their jobs. Plus even the best motivated attorneys are going to advise most of them that whatever the proposed settlement amount is, it's as good as they can expect and that a trial may make it much less or none at all.
I actually think the civil claims process it the wrong place to seek to "solve" the police violence problem. The real issue is that prosecutors are basically on the same team as the police and just will not do much to prosecute cops.
I think there needs to be a completely separate court & prosecution system for law enforcement that ONLY handles police misconduct. It should have its own investigators. With this, you'd at least have a prosecution system less influenced by every day law enforcement and prosecution also trying to handle police misconduct.
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of headphones in this country. We made the headphones to own.
Then the other guy came out with a three-connector headphone. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Turbo Headphones.. That's three connectors and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happenedâ"the bastards went to four connectors. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three connectors and a strip. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five connectors.
Pro tip: Just draw the Renault logo on a cardboard box. It's cheaper, and it runs and drives just like the same thing, and it's cheaper.
I can't figure out why carmakers and phone makers can't deliver on something as apparently simple as "remote desktop with touch screen interface". I gotta believe both current iOS & Android OS/Windowing systems can support this from a basic software feature set, maybe even with dynamic screen sizes/resolutions, too.
Just doing this would literally make using a phone in the car safer. The same idiots who will try to use Snapchat on the road will still do it, they just won't be doing and juggling a phone in their hands.
I don't get it why device makers don't make this more straightforward for carmakers to support and vice versa, why carmakers have to make it more retarded or do dumb shit like BMW's rental concept.
Is it just a plot to make car/phone integration so shitty people just leave their phones at home?
I'm inclined to agree with you, and it sounds more like "Muh business is like the government and you go to jail!".
That being said, just how bendy are the laws on corporate espionage, theft of information, etc? The problem isn't that this is basically a civil dispute between employer and employee, it's that Congress is all too willing to pass laws that criminalize these kinds of disputes and in the employer's favor.
This makes it very convenient for corporations to use the FBI as their private enforcement arm and makes threats of criminal prosecution plausible if not real, especially if the employer does a good job with keeping up with their political subscriptions, er, contributions.
Apple was rumored to be working on a car for a long time. I don't think they could actually build one, a car is a complicated thing to build and involves a lot of regulatory approvals and a massive investment in manufacturing. I'm not sure the regulatory requirements would also line up with Apple's marketing style, either.
It's not that Apple doesn't have or can't hire the right talent, and they are good at supply chain management but a car is a different product than Apple knows how to make.
Tesla has shown that building cars from scratch isn't easy or easily scalable.
My guess was always Apple was looking for sideways entry to being inside cars or involved with user interfaces and controls. "Building a car" was just a design exercise to see where they could best apply their talents.
You would think they would just act as a clearinghouse, "banking" the revenue until it reached some threshold where the transaction fee was less than 1% of the payment vs. making a zillion $1 transactions.
I don't know how you actually get (or used to get...) paid from YT videos. I would have assumed it was fractions of a cent per view and that they already were smart enough not to actually pay out owed ad revenue to a video publisher until it hit some minimum amount necessary to make the transaction worthwhile.
Is biodiesel energy positive? Does it produce more available energy in terms of fuel than what goes into produce it? If it doesn't, it just seems like a short-sighted way to get farmers to produce a giant surplus.
There are some promising advances, but it seems optimistic to believe that there will be vast fleets of fully autonomous cars operating throughout the US within 5 years. Only a minority of conventional cars have anything like a self-drive mode.
Besides, Domino's is shit pizza, shittier as pizza than Taco Bell is as Mexican food.
The legions of local pizza places will still depend on stoners with aging Hondas and legions of fools with expensive cars desperate to do anything to make their car payments.
Corporations would really prefer the gig economy, with all employees coming in pre-trained and ready to work on a specific project that already has its own end date. This eliminates the costs of benefits, taxes and other longer term liabilities.
They already successfully socialized the costs of training. Their allies in the college administration racket helped make a worthless college degree a pre-requisite for employment while still sticking potential employees on a treadmill for equally expensive and worthless product certifications.
I'd like to go back to corporations doing on the job training, but this really requires corporations to view investing in "employees" as something they want.
She's probably right about Jethro Tull.