JFC....when will the political correctness stupid shit just die??
Probably never. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the circumstances. Some of it is legitimate calling to task of bad behavior. Many other bits are needless over reactions to jokes or other innocuous statements. For example it a political comedian like Bill Mahrer shows up on your college campus, lighten the fuck up and recognize a joke for what it is.
For goodness sakes...slavery ended a LONG time ago, get over it...move on.
Tell that to anyone who grew up prior to 1964. Just because slavery was officially ended in the US by the Civil War, doesn't mean everything suddenly became fair and equal or that we aren't feeling the effects of it even today. Furthermore there is still an active slave trade going on today. Just because it isn't legal doesn't mean it doesn't still happen. There are an estimated 20-70 million slaves in the world TODAY. No need to get triggered over just the term but let's not pretend it isn't a real thing.
These terms have nothing to do with slavery in any country.
That's simply not true. The terms did not appear out of thin air. They having nothing to do with specific instances of slavery but they unquestionably reference the practice. Same with references to male and female gender connector or terminals which has a clearly sexual origin for the term. Again, we don't have to get all triggered about it but you can't deny the origin of the term. That said if we have an alternative term available (and we do) do we really need to actively use ones that reference reprehensible or needlessly graphic practices?
1. How bad does Apple have to make the iPhone before people finally just stop buying so many of them?
A lot worse. Apple would really have to shit the bed with a big quality problem or security issue and even then they might still survive one bad product cycle. As long as they remain technologically competitive at a price point people are willing to pay then Apple is going to continue to sell huge numbers. They don't have to lead the pack on features and given the volumes they sell they probably couldn't. The bigger risk is that they fail to continue to improve the devices enough to convince people to "upgrade". For example I have an iPhone X but I'm not really seeing anything about the iPhone XS (or the XSmax or XR) that is a compelling reason for me to care. The XS Max and XR are bigger than I want and the XS doesn't really add much aside from a minor speed bump over what I already have.
2. When will Android manufacturers and Apple stop borrowing the worst things from eachothers designs?
Probably never. No one company is going to have a monopoly on all the good ideas or bad ones. Problem is that it's not always clear which are which in advance.
Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
A country full of gasoline powered cars is a big problem with significant disaster strikes. The only difference is the exact details of the problems.
Anyway I can charge any electric car with a generator OR with grid power. Good luck refueling a gasoline powered car with grid electricity if gasoline isn't available. If anything EVs are actually more resilient in this regard with a tiny amount of advanced planning. Generators can be powered with gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, etc. Plus if the power goes out I can (in principle) actually use my EV to power my house or equipment for a substantial period of time. Gasoline powered vehicles are generally less helpful in this regard.
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage. I get there are some technical and legal challenges but these are comparatively minor and easily overcome. My Chevy Bolt EV has a 60kWh batter which could power my house for several days in a power outage if I had a means to do connect it. I would think this would be a HUGE marketing advantage over gasoline powered cars. I'm mildly surprised Tesla hasn't worked this angle yet.
No it's like if you buy a house with a 3 rooms but when you move in you notice there are actually 4 rooms but one of them is locked and you don't have the key. When you inquire about this fourth room from the seller he says that he can open it for you a price of course.Seems kinda shady doesn't it?
No because there is no secret room like in your example. The owners of the cars signed a contract explicitly agreeing to the deal and the terms when they bought the title to the car. They were under no duress to agree to the deal so both parties were fine with it. So no it isn't shady at all.
The problem with Tesla is that obviously the price for the 75kWh battery is much higher than it needs to be if you can sell the higher battery for less money and still make a profit.
And what exactly is wrong with making a profit? If the buyer is willing to pay the extra amount then that is fine. Charge what the market will bear, same as literally every other company on the planet. If Tesla was asking too much then they would get more people refusing sales which is how it is supposed to work.
The correct solution for this would be to lower the price for the 75 kWh battery so that you can sell it at the actual manufacturing price but not at the fake made up price.
Your argument is based on the false notion that there is a causal relationship between costs and prices. The price ANY product is sold to you is a completely arbitrary decision made by the party selling the product. Generally it's a number larger than the cost but there is nothing that forces this to be the case for any given transaction. The seller can ask any price they want and if the buyer agrees to it then by definition it is a fair price as long as there is no coercion in the process - and nobody is buying a Tesla with a figurative gun to their head.
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Not unless they paid for the privilege. They agreed to the deal when they bought the car. If they didn't like that deal they can buy something else. And there is nothing preventing a technically competent person from taking control of the hardware and software if they decide to do so. This would obviously void any warranty support not required by law or contract from Tesla but they are free to make that choice.
The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable.
Unacceptable to you maybe but obviously not to the people that bought these cars. I understand your objections and I support free software too but part of freedom is having the right to make bad choices too. There is no bright line distinction between having the ability to enable/disable features remotely versus doing so by flashing firmware without a network connection by a dealer during service. It's the same action at the end of the day and the car maker isn't allowed by law to change things you didn't explicitly agree to in a contract. You didn't decide what the engine mappings were for the car you are driving now are and that's no different. You can change them yourself if you want to but the maker of your car is under no obligation to support that decision or the consequences of it. Tesla sold a vehicle with a particular feature set. You can change it if you want but Tesla is only going to support the vehicle under the terms they sold it. The buyer of the Tesla agreed to these terms at time of purchase.
But its your decision and anyone having control of anything on someone elses thing that wasn't explicitly allowed by the owner is operating malware.
It was explicitly allowed by the owner when they bought the car. You can be 100% certain that they signed a document agreeing to those terms.
If you are an iPhone user, you really don't need to upgrade every year. Every 4 to 6 years probably.
If you use it as much as I do you'll wear it out or break it and you will certainly wear out the battery far quicker than that. 2-3 years is probably more realistic for most iPhone users to upgrade. Expecting your battery to last for 5 years is completely unrealistic no matter what kind of phone you have (they just don't have that many recharge cycles in them) so even if you do keep the phone longer than 3 years you'll likely be paying for at least one if not two battery replacements if you keep a phone that long.
Year 2: You are finally getting apps that will support your phones new features. (btw 6 months ago there was an Android competitor that is superior to your phone)
Yeah, Android fanboi's like to claim that even though it's a ridiculous argument. "Superior" is a matter of need and fit to a use case. Apple sells a lot of phones because they offer a value proposition to a lot of people which is more compelling than the Android options for them. The best phone is not necessarily the one with the biggest list of features. Other things matter just as much if not more. Usability, network effects, apps, build quality, performance, workflows, ecosystems, price, and more all matter. It's about the ENTIRE value proposition, not just comparing the length of the feature list. And yes I get that this sounds like me being an apologist for Apple but the exact same argument applies in reverse. Android phones sell in larger numbers (collectively) than iPhones precisely because their ENTIRE value proposition works better for many people - particular the price bit. The "superior" phone is the one that best meets the needs/wants of the person (and collectively people) buying it.
Plus let's not pretend that most Android phones don't slavishly copy new features from iPhones. See how many of them copied the (arguably useless) notch despite there being no technical requirement and arguably no utility to do so. There are great Android phones but having a few novel features before the iPhone gets them doesn't make it "superior" as a general proposition.
That's really unfortunate. I've always though BMW was ridiculous with things like the BMW X3 XDrive35i and so on.
At least those names convey some useful information about the build of the car to someone who cares and it's consistent from vehicle to vehicle. Good luck telling the difference between a Jeep Wrangler Sahara versus a Sport is just by the name. At least with BMW's system you can explain their naming conventions for every vehicle in their lineup in about 30 seconds which makes it better than most. I agree however that nearly all car naming systems are thoroughly idiotic and needlessly confusing.
If I want a big screen, I have an iPad mini. Why do I want to drag around a big screen when I don't need one?
"Big" is a question of perspective and use case. It's the wrong question. The question is how will you use the device and what size screen fits your preferences and needs. Your needs are probably different from mine and so what constitutes a "big" screen to you might be different. I've looked back to some of my older iPhones with 3.5" screens and they are clearly too small to be optimal for my needs. The real question is what is the biggest size screen that you can comfortably carry while still meeting your needs? THAT is the size device you should get and there is no one sized fits all answer to that question.
For me I have an iPhone X and the screen on that is just about right for my needs. It's actually the main reason I don't use an iPad because the iPad doesn't offer me anything extra that my iPhone doesn't already do so the added screen size gains me nothing useful. And for my needs a "big" screen is WAY larger than the screen of any tablet sold. (I'm typing this in front of three 28" 4K monitors which I make full use of) I had an iPhone 7s and it was the right screen size (for me) but the device was just a bit too large to comfortably handle - barely fit into pockets, easy to drop, etc. The iPhone X has the same screen size but a smaller form factor so it's just about right. Your mileage may vary of course. The only way to really know what works for you is to go hands on and try some stuff out.
Apple also says that the new phones have wider stereo sound fields than before.
More meaningless marketing drivel. "Wider sound fields" and "deeper pixels". It's like the phrase "hand crafted" which you see every restaurant using lately which sounds like it should indicate something meaningful but really is a content free phrase. A McDonalds hamburger is "hand crafted" because some minimum wage teenager put a patty between two bits of bread. Unless no humans touched the product everything is hand crafted. Companies claiming their food is "home made" is another bunch of nonsense. Unless it was actually made in a home then it is by definition NOT home made. You can't make a pixel deeper and you can't make sound wider. I understand what they are doing but that doesn't actually make it correct or honest.
At least one solar cycle or ElNino cycle whichever is bigger.
That's a completely arbitrary time scale based on nothing in particular which sort of illustrates my point. Climate scientists have been worrying about consensus when they should be worrying about definitions and standards. You don't convince people over the long run with opinions, particularly people who are disinclined to believe you.
Speculating about climate below 12 year average is moot.
There are plenty of examples of climates (particularly micro-climates) changing fairly dramatically in less than 12 years. Usually this is due to some external event. Asteroid, volcanism, etc but there are occasional exceptions to that too. While as a general proposition you are correct that we're typically talking about time scales of decades to centuries or longer, that's not universally true which is what causes the problem I'm talking about. People don't understand the difference between climate and weather and there is no bright line convention for when accumulated weather events equals a climate so it's difficult to even have a coherent conversation on the topic.
I just watched a documentary on the future of nuclear power
Oh well then you must be an expert then.;-)
Research is starting to pick up on small design reactors, molten salt cooled reactors, and melt down proof reactors. Reactors that don't use water to cool them down. Reactors that use the laws of physics to stop a melt down before it even starts. Designs for self correcting reactors.
Every single reactor design we've ever made requires substantial human oversight to operate safely. The problem with that is that humans make mistakes. Humans get greedy and cut corners on maintenance. Humans fail to anticipate disasters of a certain scale. Humans screw up the engineering. Humans don't want nuclear waste anywhere near them (and not just the hippies either) but humans also haven't agreed on a place to store said waste. The flaw with nuclear plants is the people running them and that fact alone is going to keep them from being much more than they are today regardless of their merits.
We would have had these designs in place and running 15 years ago if research hadn't ground to a halt thanks to hippie protesters.
No we really wouldn't have. Nuclear fission has some technical and social problems that no new design of reactor has fully mitigated. Not to mention that because of the regulatory requirements they are difficult to profitably operate.
Actually if you really wanted nuclear to get a second look, you would need to force fossil fuels taxed to pay for the full cost of the problems they cause. Then and only then would nuclear look like an attractive option even in the face of its flaws.
Time to build more nuclear power plants, re-open San Onofre, and extend the life of Diablo Canyon.
Got any other fantasies since that one isn't going to come to pass? Nuke plants aren't going to get built in the US any time soon so get over it. That's just the political reality of them.
Nuclear energy is both clean and reliable, especially when combined with renewables.
Nuclear energy is only clean in the sense that it doesn't produce significant carbon and particulate pollution. But it still generates substantial amounts of rather nasty waste products for which we have no proper means of disposal. Saying nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I actually agree that I'd rather we use nuclear than fossil fuels but I'm not about to get ridiculous and claim it is clean.
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.
The term for that is price gouging when it happens around the time of a natural disaster. Some price fluctuation is to be expected but there is a limit to what is appropriate.
The higher prices will: 1. Ensure the products go to those that need them the most.
Ummm... no. It goes to those who can afford them. Not everyone has an equal ability to pay and price gouging during a natural disaster is a dick move.
I like to use insurance for catastrophic coverage only.
Good for you. I'm guessing you are relatively young and healthy. I did that too when I was younger. Let me know how that works out for you when you have a family to take care of or serious health conditions and not enough income. Maybe you are wealthy enough to get away with it but most people aren't.
You see, if I know it's something I'll definitely have to pay for, I'd rather save for it and pay for it directly. Eliminate the middle man, makes it cheaper. But there's people like you who think I'm wrong.
You're only looking at it from your own selfish perspective so yes you are wrong. First off a lot of health care services are ridiculously overpriced because there is nobody to keep a lid on prices. Health care is not a market where you can expect market competition to work in your favor. Second, if you eliminate the middle man it is NOT going to get cheaper because the health care provider has all the leverage. You aren't going to go price shopping while on the way to the ER and the hospitals know that. If you don't have an insurance company or government working on your behalf then you are going to get absolutely raped financially because you have no negotiating power. Your fantasy about "cutting out the middle man" shows utter ignorance of the market forces in play and how it would work out. (spoiler - not good for you)
I wasn't necessarily trying to steer the discussion that way but I would prefer to see a sane single-payer system then the giant clusterfuck we currently have.
Sounds like we are on the same team then. Our current "system" is just absolutely batshit crazy and stupidly expensive with a lot of thoughtless ideology getting in the way of pragmatism and evidence.
If I could drop my current insurance and buy medicare instead I'd happily do so.
Medicare would be a step down from my current insurance but I'm luckier than most in that regard. That said, I think it would work just fine for my actual needs and those of most others and I think it would save our country a vast sum of money if done right.
In that I just want the insurance industry to go away.
Insurance is a useful thing. Don't be so hasty to throw the whole thing out - not that we realistically could. I'll be the first to agree that at least health insurance needs some massive overhauls but insurance and the industry that provides it in and of itself is not the problem. The problems exist because of the regulatory environment (or lack thereof) in which the insurance companies currently operate. They are simply doing exactly what I would expect them to do given the incentives of our current system. The Affordable Care Act was a substantial step in the right direction even if it was an imperfect one courtesy of the ludicrous politics going on in Washington.
We have the system we have because the insurance industry owns Washington DC.
I think it's more complicated than that. Yes, lobbying plays an important role but there also is the odd confluence of ideology (particularly on the political right) and power politics that gets in the way of trying something more sensible.
They pad the pockets of politicians on both sides of the aisle to make sure they get what they want - they outspend the NRA and compete with the defense industry for top "honor" in terms of lobbying spending - and the Affordable Care Act was their collection on their investment.
The defense industry isn't even in the top 10 in terms of lobbying dollars spent (they ranked 18th in 2017). The NRA isn't anywhere near the top of the list either - not even in the top 20 - their influence just is outsized to the amount they actually spend. The biggest spenders actually are drug companies by a pretty wide margin with insurance in second place just ahead of electronics manufacturing.
The Affordable Care Act gave a very powerful industry - the for-profit insurance industry - even more power by making us all their obligate consumers.
As opposed to letting people suffer and die without insurance? We ALL are going to need health care and that means we all need insurance in some fashing. Only in the US are we too stupid and/or too uncaring to realize that we all have to share the financial burden. If you don't like for profit insurance companies reaping the benefits then you are de-facto arguing for single payer government health care. (unless you are an an asshole who thinks poor people don't deserve health care)
You are an "obligate consumer" of health care whether you want to be or not. The sooner we get out of denial about this fact and share the cost the better off we all will be.
The vast majority of insurance is voluntary and that's a good thing.
Not when it comes to health insurance. Voluntary insurance should be for things that are voluntary. Everyone is going to need health care at some point and the best way to ensure the best care for the most people is to require everyone to pay into the pot and spread the cost. If you are a bit better off then congrats but you get to pay a bit more to help those who lack the means so we can minimize cost overall.
Actuaries are simply gamblers who are smart enough to accurately calculate the odds.
Actuaries aren't really analogous to gamblers since none of their own money is at stake typically. They are simply the ones calculating the odds for the insurance companies who are analogous to gamblers or more properly to bookmakers. However all these analogies are really somewhat flawed.
That's only a valid argument when something actually has been shown to work. Towing icebergs for drinking water is an idea that has been kicking around literally for centuries and has never worked nor has it been shown to even be economically plausible. When something is neither technically sensible nor economically viable then it is by definition a stupid idea.
You can even do it for humanitarian reasons and not make money on it
You think humanitarian activities are immune from economics? Even without the intent to make a profit no organization can lose money forever. Towing icebergs is stupidly expensive compare to already viable alternatives. Why would you do something needlessly expensive when you can accomplish the exact same goal for less and help more people in the process? Why would you tow icebergs when you could divert a river or install a desalination plant for less money? Hell, on an individual scale it is cheaper for people to just get up and move to where there is readily available water already.
Your argument is like the idiots who live in Las Vegas who periodically argue that we should divert the Great Lakes so they can continue to live in an inhospitable artificial desert oasis for... reasons. Just because we can do something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Some places just aren't ever going to be comfortable places for people to live and we need to just accept that as reality and behave accordingly. If someone wants to live in a desert that's their choice but I see no reason to waste resources needlessly facilitating that questionable choice.
If Apple had allowed mice, would the iPad have gained more ground from PCs?
No because it would have allowed software makers to get lazy (in a different way) about how the device would be used. Look at styluses for an example. Software makers tended to use these as nothing more than mice when given the chance even though a stylus makes a terrible mouse. Styluses are best for drawing and only drawing and to treat them as a substitute for a mouse (or worse keyboard) is a recipe for failure. If you want a mouse get a machine designed with that in mind - aka a PC. Tablets have finger input and it's not really easy to reconcile that with mouse input. Microsoft has come closest with their Surface machines but there are problems with that they haven't yet overcome.
As it is tablets are basically supersized smartphones which creates a whole different set of lazy design decisions by software makers. They basically make a smartphone app and then don't change much for the tablet. This means that the tablet is underutilized.
Personally I think the way tablets should differentiate themselves is through pen input. They should be the ultimate note taking and document editing machines. Anywhere you would use a pad of paper you should be able to use a tablet instead. Finger input of course and keyboards when helpful but no mice.
It's a neat tool to check your mail while on the go. I give you that. But getting any sensible work done is next to impossible on them.
That's because the software for tablets by and large sucks. It's basically the same software designed for smartphone with minimal changes in most cases. Not powerful enough to replace a real PC but nothing much added over a smartphone even when it could be.
They should be great for a wide variety of tasks but the makers of these things got lazy. So they get treated as a poor mans laptop or a content consumption device but they could be more. Not to mention that the peripherals which could make using them better are almost always total afterthoughts and poorly integrated.
Tablets have had a good run, but sales have tailed off of late.
That's because they ceased making them better. Almost every tablet I've seen is nothing more than a supersized smartphone and it runs more or less the exact same software. I haven't bought an iPad because it really does nothing for me that my iPhone doesn't do competently and if I need more computing power my PC will run rings around any tablet on the market. Tablet's exist in the space between smartphones and laptops which constrains them on both sides. They aren't as portable as smartphones and they aren't as powerful as PCs. To grow further they need to do offer something which neither smartphones or PCs can easily match.
What seems to be happening is that tablets are slowly becoming low end laptops rather than their own distinct type of device. It's not clear if this is a good thing or a bad thing but it does explain why they've plateaued.
Other problems include that the accessories for tablets tend to be complete afterthoughts. The keyboards, and covers and other periferals are not well integrated. Apple introduced the Apple Pencil which functions fine but lacks software support and has no physical integration with the device. You have to carry it separately rather than sliding it into a convenient holder where it gets charged when not in use.
Plenty of places are choosing only to get rid of straws, while still selling (much bigger) plastic cups lids, and bags, so people are not doing everything in parallel that they could.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts by introducing a separate issue. Yes we should deal with the other waste streams as well but we need to start somewhere. Straws are easily the least necessary and most easily replaced component so it's a reasonable place to start. (most people can drink from a cup without a straw but a straw isn't very useful without a cup) Nobody is arguing that there aren't other sources of plastic waste that we should be working on as well. Plenty of places are already starting to do so including banning plastic bags and similar actions.
Nope. Every action has a cost, and not just monetary but also public goodwill. If you start doing trivial stuff that is not really bringing any benefit to the oceans, but you annoy the public, then you lose credit, and you'll have a harder time getting support for further regulations.
That is a ridiculous line of logic and again is a form of false dilemma. You do what is possible to do when it is possible to do it. If we as a society aren't willing to deal with something as trivial as disposable straws then we sure as hell aren't going to succeed in dealing with the big plastic waste streams. And there is nothing preventing us from addressing a variety of waste streams simultaneously. Furthermore we control our consumption of plastic straws and other disposables. We do not control China's waste streams. Ergo it makes sense to start with the waste streams we do control before worrying about the ones we don't. Little hard to convince your neighbor to clean up their act if you aren't doing everything you can to set a good example.
Zuckerberg and his team of Silicon Valley-based executives failed to foresee its malignant applications: misinformation, propaganda, rumor, hate.
I don't think that's particularly unique to Facebook executives. I'm not defending or attacking them in this case but am making a separate point. Silicon Valley companies historically have had something of a blind spot for the negative ways in which technology ends up being used sometimes. Entrepreneurs tend to be optimistic sorts of people because they kind of have to be to take the financial risks they do. They also tend to be engineers and engineers (I are one) as a general proposition tend to think about how to solve problems, not how to cause problems. So they create this great technology without really ever fully considering the unintentional negative consequences. We are trying to make the world a better place and it often never occurs to us until later that some people are asshats.
What a coincidence. Dubai also plans to implement flying taxis.
Flying taxi's != flying cars. There already are air taxis which are just airplanes and helicopters which are functioning as a taxi service. Any vehicle can be a taxi in principle - taxi is a service description not a particular vehicle design. An air taxi is not the same thing as a flying car which is a vehicle design that can both fly as well as drive on roads. Flying cars are a practical impossibility in the mass market for a variety of engineering and economic reasons, not the least of which is that we have no power source with sufficient energy density to make them simultaneously economically viable and safe. (basically we'd need Tony Stark's arc reactor)
Slashdot Mirror
JFC....when will the political correctness stupid shit just die??
Probably never. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the circumstances. Some of it is legitimate calling to task of bad behavior. Many other bits are needless over reactions to jokes or other innocuous statements. For example it a political comedian like Bill Mahrer shows up on your college campus, lighten the fuck up and recognize a joke for what it is.
For goodness sakes...slavery ended a LONG time ago, get over it...move on.
Tell that to anyone who grew up prior to 1964. Just because slavery was officially ended in the US by the Civil War, doesn't mean everything suddenly became fair and equal or that we aren't feeling the effects of it even today. Furthermore there is still an active slave trade going on today. Just because it isn't legal doesn't mean it doesn't still happen. There are an estimated 20-70 million slaves in the world TODAY. No need to get triggered over just the term but let's not pretend it isn't a real thing.
These terms have nothing to do with slavery in any country.
That's simply not true. The terms did not appear out of thin air. They having nothing to do with specific instances of slavery but they unquestionably reference the practice. Same with references to male and female gender connector or terminals which has a clearly sexual origin for the term. Again, we don't have to get all triggered about it but you can't deny the origin of the term. That said if we have an alternative term available (and we do) do we really need to actively use ones that reference reprehensible or needlessly graphic practices?
1. How bad does Apple have to make the iPhone before people finally just stop buying so many of them?
A lot worse. Apple would really have to shit the bed with a big quality problem or security issue and even then they might still survive one bad product cycle. As long as they remain technologically competitive at a price point people are willing to pay then Apple is going to continue to sell huge numbers. They don't have to lead the pack on features and given the volumes they sell they probably couldn't. The bigger risk is that they fail to continue to improve the devices enough to convince people to "upgrade". For example I have an iPhone X but I'm not really seeing anything about the iPhone XS (or the XSmax or XR) that is a compelling reason for me to care. The XS Max and XR are bigger than I want and the XS doesn't really add much aside from a minor speed bump over what I already have.
2. When will Android manufacturers and Apple stop borrowing the worst things from eachothers designs?
Probably never. No one company is going to have a monopoly on all the good ideas or bad ones. Problem is that it's not always clear which are which in advance.
Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
A country full of gasoline powered cars is a big problem with significant disaster strikes. The only difference is the exact details of the problems.
Anyway I can charge any electric car with a generator OR with grid power. Good luck refueling a gasoline powered car with grid electricity if gasoline isn't available. If anything EVs are actually more resilient in this regard with a tiny amount of advanced planning. Generators can be powered with gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, etc. Plus if the power goes out I can (in principle) actually use my EV to power my house or equipment for a substantial period of time. Gasoline powered vehicles are generally less helpful in this regard.
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage. I get there are some technical and legal challenges but these are comparatively minor and easily overcome. My Chevy Bolt EV has a 60kWh batter which could power my house for several days in a power outage if I had a means to do connect it. I would think this would be a HUGE marketing advantage over gasoline powered cars. I'm mildly surprised Tesla hasn't worked this angle yet.
No it's like if you buy a house with a 3 rooms but when you move in you notice there are actually 4 rooms but one of them is locked and you don't have the key. When you inquire about this fourth room from the seller he says that he can open it for you a price of course.Seems kinda shady doesn't it?
No because there is no secret room like in your example. The owners of the cars signed a contract explicitly agreeing to the deal and the terms when they bought the title to the car. They were under no duress to agree to the deal so both parties were fine with it. So no it isn't shady at all.
The problem with Tesla is that obviously the price for the 75kWh battery is much higher than it needs to be if you can sell the higher battery for less money and still make a profit.
And what exactly is wrong with making a profit? If the buyer is willing to pay the extra amount then that is fine. Charge what the market will bear, same as literally every other company on the planet. If Tesla was asking too much then they would get more people refusing sales which is how it is supposed to work.
The correct solution for this would be to lower the price for the 75 kWh battery so that you can sell it at the actual manufacturing price but not at the fake made up price.
Your argument is based on the false notion that there is a causal relationship between costs and prices. The price ANY product is sold to you is a completely arbitrary decision made by the party selling the product. Generally it's a number larger than the cost but there is nothing that forces this to be the case for any given transaction. The seller can ask any price they want and if the buyer agrees to it then by definition it is a fair price as long as there is no coercion in the process - and nobody is buying a Tesla with a figurative gun to their head.
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Not unless they paid for the privilege. They agreed to the deal when they bought the car. If they didn't like that deal they can buy something else. And there is nothing preventing a technically competent person from taking control of the hardware and software if they decide to do so. This would obviously void any warranty support not required by law or contract from Tesla but they are free to make that choice.
The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable.
Unacceptable to you maybe but obviously not to the people that bought these cars. I understand your objections and I support free software too but part of freedom is having the right to make bad choices too. There is no bright line distinction between having the ability to enable/disable features remotely versus doing so by flashing firmware without a network connection by a dealer during service. It's the same action at the end of the day and the car maker isn't allowed by law to change things you didn't explicitly agree to in a contract. You didn't decide what the engine mappings were for the car you are driving now are and that's no different. You can change them yourself if you want to but the maker of your car is under no obligation to support that decision or the consequences of it. Tesla sold a vehicle with a particular feature set. You can change it if you want but Tesla is only going to support the vehicle under the terms they sold it. The buyer of the Tesla agreed to these terms at time of purchase.
But its your decision and anyone having control of anything on someone elses thing that wasn't explicitly allowed by the owner is operating malware.
It was explicitly allowed by the owner when they bought the car. You can be 100% certain that they signed a document agreeing to those terms.
If you are an iPhone user, you really don't need to upgrade every year. Every 4 to 6 years probably.
If you use it as much as I do you'll wear it out or break it and you will certainly wear out the battery far quicker than that. 2-3 years is probably more realistic for most iPhone users to upgrade. Expecting your battery to last for 5 years is completely unrealistic no matter what kind of phone you have (they just don't have that many recharge cycles in them) so even if you do keep the phone longer than 3 years you'll likely be paying for at least one if not two battery replacements if you keep a phone that long.
Year 2: You are finally getting apps that will support your phones new features. (btw 6 months ago there was an Android competitor that is superior to your phone)
Yeah, Android fanboi's like to claim that even though it's a ridiculous argument. "Superior" is a matter of need and fit to a use case. Apple sells a lot of phones because they offer a value proposition to a lot of people which is more compelling than the Android options for them. The best phone is not necessarily the one with the biggest list of features. Other things matter just as much if not more. Usability, network effects, apps, build quality, performance, workflows, ecosystems, price, and more all matter. It's about the ENTIRE value proposition, not just comparing the length of the feature list. And yes I get that this sounds like me being an apologist for Apple but the exact same argument applies in reverse. Android phones sell in larger numbers (collectively) than iPhones precisely because their ENTIRE value proposition works better for many people - particular the price bit. The "superior" phone is the one that best meets the needs/wants of the person (and collectively people) buying it.
Plus let's not pretend that most Android phones don't slavishly copy new features from iPhones. See how many of them copied the (arguably useless) notch despite there being no technical requirement and arguably no utility to do so. There are great Android phones but having a few novel features before the iPhone gets them doesn't make it "superior" as a general proposition.
That's really unfortunate. I've always though BMW was ridiculous with things like the BMW X3 XDrive35i and so on.
At least those names convey some useful information about the build of the car to someone who cares and it's consistent from vehicle to vehicle. Good luck telling the difference between a Jeep Wrangler Sahara versus a Sport is just by the name. At least with BMW's system you can explain their naming conventions for every vehicle in their lineup in about 30 seconds which makes it better than most. I agree however that nearly all car naming systems are thoroughly idiotic and needlessly confusing.
If I want a big screen, I have an iPad mini. Why do I want to drag around a big screen when I don't need one?
"Big" is a question of perspective and use case. It's the wrong question. The question is how will you use the device and what size screen fits your preferences and needs. Your needs are probably different from mine and so what constitutes a "big" screen to you might be different. I've looked back to some of my older iPhones with 3.5" screens and they are clearly too small to be optimal for my needs. The real question is what is the biggest size screen that you can comfortably carry while still meeting your needs? THAT is the size device you should get and there is no one sized fits all answer to that question.
For me I have an iPhone X and the screen on that is just about right for my needs. It's actually the main reason I don't use an iPad because the iPad doesn't offer me anything extra that my iPhone doesn't already do so the added screen size gains me nothing useful. And for my needs a "big" screen is WAY larger than the screen of any tablet sold. (I'm typing this in front of three 28" 4K monitors which I make full use of) I had an iPhone 7s and it was the right screen size (for me) but the device was just a bit too large to comfortably handle - barely fit into pockets, easy to drop, etc. The iPhone X has the same screen size but a smaller form factor so it's just about right. Your mileage may vary of course. The only way to really know what works for you is to go hands on and try some stuff out.
Apple also says that the new phones have wider stereo sound fields than before.
More meaningless marketing drivel. "Wider sound fields" and "deeper pixels". It's like the phrase "hand crafted" which you see every restaurant using lately which sounds like it should indicate something meaningful but really is a content free phrase. A McDonalds hamburger is "hand crafted" because some minimum wage teenager put a patty between two bits of bread. Unless no humans touched the product everything is hand crafted. Companies claiming their food is "home made" is another bunch of nonsense. Unless it was actually made in a home then it is by definition NOT home made. You can't make a pixel deeper and you can't make sound wider. I understand what they are doing but that doesn't actually make it correct or honest.
At least one solar cycle or ElNino cycle whichever is bigger.
That's a completely arbitrary time scale based on nothing in particular which sort of illustrates my point. Climate scientists have been worrying about consensus when they should be worrying about definitions and standards. You don't convince people over the long run with opinions, particularly people who are disinclined to believe you.
Speculating about climate below 12 year average is moot.
There are plenty of examples of climates (particularly micro-climates) changing fairly dramatically in less than 12 years. Usually this is due to some external event. Asteroid, volcanism, etc but there are occasional exceptions to that too. While as a general proposition you are correct that we're typically talking about time scales of decades to centuries or longer, that's not universally true which is what causes the problem I'm talking about. People don't understand the difference between climate and weather and there is no bright line convention for when accumulated weather events equals a climate so it's difficult to even have a coherent conversation on the topic.
I just watched a documentary on the future of nuclear power
Oh well then you must be an expert then. ;-)
Research is starting to pick up on small design reactors, molten salt cooled reactors, and melt down proof reactors. Reactors that don't use water to cool them down. Reactors that use the laws of physics to stop a melt down before it even starts. Designs for self correcting reactors.
Every single reactor design we've ever made requires substantial human oversight to operate safely. The problem with that is that humans make mistakes. Humans get greedy and cut corners on maintenance. Humans fail to anticipate disasters of a certain scale. Humans screw up the engineering. Humans don't want nuclear waste anywhere near them (and not just the hippies either) but humans also haven't agreed on a place to store said waste. The flaw with nuclear plants is the people running them and that fact alone is going to keep them from being much more than they are today regardless of their merits.
We would have had these designs in place and running 15 years ago if research hadn't ground to a halt thanks to hippie protesters.
No we really wouldn't have. Nuclear fission has some technical and social problems that no new design of reactor has fully mitigated. Not to mention that because of the regulatory requirements they are difficult to profitably operate.
Actually if you really wanted nuclear to get a second look, you would need to force fossil fuels taxed to pay for the full cost of the problems they cause. Then and only then would nuclear look like an attractive option even in the face of its flaws.
Time to build more nuclear power plants, re-open San Onofre, and extend the life of Diablo Canyon.
Got any other fantasies since that one isn't going to come to pass? Nuke plants aren't going to get built in the US any time soon so get over it. That's just the political reality of them.
Nuclear energy is both clean and reliable, especially when combined with renewables.
Nuclear energy is only clean in the sense that it doesn't produce significant carbon and particulate pollution. But it still generates substantial amounts of rather nasty waste products for which we have no proper means of disposal. Saying nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I actually agree that I'd rather we use nuclear than fossil fuels but I'm not about to get ridiculous and claim it is clean.
One thing is for sure is you're never going to get idiots stop confusing weather with climate.
True but here's the thing. If you string enough weather events together it becomes climate. If the weather tomorrow is 70F and sunny, that is weather. If the weather for most of the next 500 days is 70F and sunny, that's climate. (also that's San Diego) If the accumulated weather events change enough to be statistically different than previous patterns then that is climate change. The only question is what number of accumulated weather events does it take to make a climate and what magnitude over what time period constitutes climate change? The problem is that there is no simple sound bite answers to those questions so idiots keep arguing about it because there is no standard definition in play.
Obvious solution: Raise prices.
The term for that is price gouging when it happens around the time of a natural disaster. Some price fluctuation is to be expected but there is a limit to what is appropriate.
The higher prices will: 1. Ensure the products go to those that need them the most.
Ummm... no. It goes to those who can afford them. Not everyone has an equal ability to pay and price gouging during a natural disaster is a dick move.
You want to know my problem with people like you?
I don't recall asking so no.
I like to use insurance for catastrophic coverage only.
Good for you. I'm guessing you are relatively young and healthy. I did that too when I was younger. Let me know how that works out for you when you have a family to take care of or serious health conditions and not enough income. Maybe you are wealthy enough to get away with it but most people aren't.
You see, if I know it's something I'll definitely have to pay for, I'd rather save for it and pay for it directly. Eliminate the middle man, makes it cheaper. But there's people like you who think I'm wrong.
You're only looking at it from your own selfish perspective so yes you are wrong. First off a lot of health care services are ridiculously overpriced because there is nobody to keep a lid on prices. Health care is not a market where you can expect market competition to work in your favor. Second, if you eliminate the middle man it is NOT going to get cheaper because the health care provider has all the leverage. You aren't going to go price shopping while on the way to the ER and the hospitals know that. If you don't have an insurance company or government working on your behalf then you are going to get absolutely raped financially because you have no negotiating power. Your fantasy about "cutting out the middle man" shows utter ignorance of the market forces in play and how it would work out. (spoiler - not good for you)
I wasn't necessarily trying to steer the discussion that way but I would prefer to see a sane single-payer system then the giant clusterfuck we currently have.
Sounds like we are on the same team then. Our current "system" is just absolutely batshit crazy and stupidly expensive with a lot of thoughtless ideology getting in the way of pragmatism and evidence.
If I could drop my current insurance and buy medicare instead I'd happily do so.
Medicare would be a step down from my current insurance but I'm luckier than most in that regard. That said, I think it would work just fine for my actual needs and those of most others and I think it would save our country a vast sum of money if done right.
In that I just want the insurance industry to go away.
Insurance is a useful thing. Don't be so hasty to throw the whole thing out - not that we realistically could. I'll be the first to agree that at least health insurance needs some massive overhauls but insurance and the industry that provides it in and of itself is not the problem. The problems exist because of the regulatory environment (or lack thereof) in which the insurance companies currently operate. They are simply doing exactly what I would expect them to do given the incentives of our current system. The Affordable Care Act was a substantial step in the right direction even if it was an imperfect one courtesy of the ludicrous politics going on in Washington.
We have the system we have because the insurance industry owns Washington DC.
I think it's more complicated than that. Yes, lobbying plays an important role but there also is the odd confluence of ideology (particularly on the political right) and power politics that gets in the way of trying something more sensible.
They pad the pockets of politicians on both sides of the aisle to make sure they get what they want - they outspend the NRA and compete with the defense industry for top "honor" in terms of lobbying spending - and the Affordable Care Act was their collection on their investment.
The defense industry isn't even in the top 10 in terms of lobbying dollars spent (they ranked 18th in 2017). The NRA isn't anywhere near the top of the list either - not even in the top 20 - their influence just is outsized to the amount they actually spend. The biggest spenders actually are drug companies by a pretty wide margin with insurance in second place just ahead of electronics manufacturing.
The Affordable Care Act gave a very powerful industry - the for-profit insurance industry - even more power by making us all their obligate consumers.
As opposed to letting people suffer and die without insurance? We ALL are going to need health care and that means we all need insurance in some fashing. Only in the US are we too stupid and/or too uncaring to realize that we all have to share the financial burden. If you don't like for profit insurance companies reaping the benefits then you are de-facto arguing for single payer government health care. (unless you are an an asshole who thinks poor people don't deserve health care)
You are an "obligate consumer" of health care whether you want to be or not. The sooner we get out of denial about this fact and share the cost the better off we all will be.
The vast majority of insurance is voluntary and that's a good thing.
Not when it comes to health insurance. Voluntary insurance should be for things that are voluntary. Everyone is going to need health care at some point and the best way to ensure the best care for the most people is to require everyone to pay into the pot and spread the cost. If you are a bit better off then congrats but you get to pay a bit more to help those who lack the means so we can minimize cost overall.
Actuaries are simply gamblers who are smart enough to accurately calculate the odds.
Actuaries aren't really analogous to gamblers since none of their own money is at stake typically. They are simply the ones calculating the odds for the insurance companies who are analogous to gamblers or more properly to bookmakers. However all these analogies are really somewhat flawed.
--It's only stupid if it doesn't work.
That's only a valid argument when something actually has been shown to work. Towing icebergs for drinking water is an idea that has been kicking around literally for centuries and has never worked nor has it been shown to even be economically plausible. When something is neither technically sensible nor economically viable then it is by definition a stupid idea.
You can even do it for humanitarian reasons and not make money on it
You think humanitarian activities are immune from economics? Even without the intent to make a profit no organization can lose money forever. Towing icebergs is stupidly expensive compare to already viable alternatives. Why would you do something needlessly expensive when you can accomplish the exact same goal for less and help more people in the process? Why would you tow icebergs when you could divert a river or install a desalination plant for less money? Hell, on an individual scale it is cheaper for people to just get up and move to where there is readily available water already.
Your argument is like the idiots who live in Las Vegas who periodically argue that we should divert the Great Lakes so they can continue to live in an inhospitable artificial desert oasis for... reasons. Just because we can do something doesn't automatically make it a good idea. Some places just aren't ever going to be comfortable places for people to live and we need to just accept that as reality and behave accordingly. If someone wants to live in a desert that's their choice but I see no reason to waste resources needlessly facilitating that questionable choice.
If Apple had allowed mice, would the iPad have gained more ground from PCs?
No because it would have allowed software makers to get lazy (in a different way) about how the device would be used. Look at styluses for an example. Software makers tended to use these as nothing more than mice when given the chance even though a stylus makes a terrible mouse. Styluses are best for drawing and only drawing and to treat them as a substitute for a mouse (or worse keyboard) is a recipe for failure. If you want a mouse get a machine designed with that in mind - aka a PC. Tablets have finger input and it's not really easy to reconcile that with mouse input. Microsoft has come closest with their Surface machines but there are problems with that they haven't yet overcome.
As it is tablets are basically supersized smartphones which creates a whole different set of lazy design decisions by software makers. They basically make a smartphone app and then don't change much for the tablet. This means that the tablet is underutilized.
Personally I think the way tablets should differentiate themselves is through pen input. They should be the ultimate note taking and document editing machines. Anywhere you would use a pad of paper you should be able to use a tablet instead. Finger input of course and keyboards when helpful but no mice.
It's a neat tool to check your mail while on the go. I give you that. But getting any sensible work done is next to impossible on them.
That's because the software for tablets by and large sucks. It's basically the same software designed for smartphone with minimal changes in most cases. Not powerful enough to replace a real PC but nothing much added over a smartphone even when it could be.
They should be great for a wide variety of tasks but the makers of these things got lazy. So they get treated as a poor mans laptop or a content consumption device but they could be more. Not to mention that the peripherals which could make using them better are almost always total afterthoughts and poorly integrated.
Tablets have had a good run, but sales have tailed off of late.
That's because they ceased making them better. Almost every tablet I've seen is nothing more than a supersized smartphone and it runs more or less the exact same software. I haven't bought an iPad because it really does nothing for me that my iPhone doesn't do competently and if I need more computing power my PC will run rings around any tablet on the market. Tablet's exist in the space between smartphones and laptops which constrains them on both sides. They aren't as portable as smartphones and they aren't as powerful as PCs. To grow further they need to do offer something which neither smartphones or PCs can easily match.
What seems to be happening is that tablets are slowly becoming low end laptops rather than their own distinct type of device. It's not clear if this is a good thing or a bad thing but it does explain why they've plateaued.
Other problems include that the accessories for tablets tend to be complete afterthoughts. The keyboards, and covers and other periferals are not well integrated. Apple introduced the Apple Pencil which functions fine but lacks software support and has no physical integration with the device. You have to carry it separately rather than sliding it into a convenient holder where it gets charged when not in use.
Plenty of places are choosing only to get rid of straws, while still selling (much bigger) plastic cups lids, and bags, so people are not doing everything in parallel that they could.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts by introducing a separate issue. Yes we should deal with the other waste streams as well but we need to start somewhere. Straws are easily the least necessary and most easily replaced component so it's a reasonable place to start. (most people can drink from a cup without a straw but a straw isn't very useful without a cup) Nobody is arguing that there aren't other sources of plastic waste that we should be working on as well. Plenty of places are already starting to do so including banning plastic bags and similar actions.
Nope. Every action has a cost, and not just monetary but also public goodwill. If you start doing trivial stuff that is not really bringing any benefit to the oceans, but you annoy the public, then you lose credit, and you'll have a harder time getting support for further regulations.
That is a ridiculous line of logic and again is a form of false dilemma. You do what is possible to do when it is possible to do it. If we as a society aren't willing to deal with something as trivial as disposable straws then we sure as hell aren't going to succeed in dealing with the big plastic waste streams. And there is nothing preventing us from addressing a variety of waste streams simultaneously. Furthermore we control our consumption of plastic straws and other disposables. We do not control China's waste streams. Ergo it makes sense to start with the waste streams we do control before worrying about the ones we don't. Little hard to convince your neighbor to clean up their act if you aren't doing everything you can to set a good example.
Zuckerberg and his team of Silicon Valley-based executives failed to foresee its malignant applications: misinformation, propaganda, rumor, hate.
I don't think that's particularly unique to Facebook executives. I'm not defending or attacking them in this case but am making a separate point. Silicon Valley companies historically have had something of a blind spot for the negative ways in which technology ends up being used sometimes. Entrepreneurs tend to be optimistic sorts of people because they kind of have to be to take the financial risks they do. They also tend to be engineers and engineers (I are one) as a general proposition tend to think about how to solve problems, not how to cause problems. So they create this great technology without really ever fully considering the unintentional negative consequences. We are trying to make the world a better place and it often never occurs to us until later that some people are asshats.
What a coincidence. Dubai also plans to implement flying taxis.
Flying taxi's != flying cars. There already are air taxis which are just airplanes and helicopters which are functioning as a taxi service. Any vehicle can be a taxi in principle - taxi is a service description not a particular vehicle design. An air taxi is not the same thing as a flying car which is a vehicle design that can both fly as well as drive on roads. Flying cars are a practical impossibility in the mass market for a variety of engineering and economic reasons, not the least of which is that we have no power source with sufficient energy density to make them simultaneously economically viable and safe. (basically we'd need Tony Stark's arc reactor)