This is happening across the entire league. The best NBA players are getting better younger.
That's actually happening in a lot of sports. I coach another sport (wrestling) where the average age of an Olympic champion has gotten 2-4 years younger in the last 10 years. A big part of that is access to opportunities train and compete and information that older people like myself simply didn't have access to.
My question would be WTF this article is doing on slashdot? This is definitely not news for nerds or stuff that matters. While I'm sure there are NBA fans reading slashdot, this is pretty far away from what this site is supposed to be about.
Three games a week plus practice plus daily off ice workouts in Hockey at an older age and although it was work, I got to have a minute on, two minutes off to recover. It was a whole different world than if I stopped for a break while baling hay.
The physical demands of the activity at the level you participated obviously were not enough to surpass your ability to recover. When you over-train you literally experience a decline in your ability to perform. You might be more prone to injuries but what's really happening is that your body simply cannot rebuild from the stresses faster than you are piling them on. Do this for long enough and stuff starts to break. It's not just that an activity is hard - you have to do it for an extended period of time beyond your physical capacity to recover between sessions of that activity. Most people will quit an activity or slow down long before they get to the point where over-training becomes an issue.
It's not about having a minute or two to recover. It's about being able to recover before the next day's practice. That is dependent on the intensity, frequency, and duration of your workouts or work. Everyone has a limit though few people ever really get close to theirs.
There's a reason why us 18 year old's baled the loft while the farmer and the other older guys did the driving. It would kill you soon if you did that for too many years.
That's because the capacity of an 18yo to recover from physical stresses is (generally) measurably greater than that of someone who is significantly older. I'm approaching 50 and workouts that I used to recover from in a few hours now might take me two days to recover from. Normal aging effects. It would be possible for the older guys to experience over-training if they continued to do it at a pace beyond their capacity for an extended time but more likely they would just slow to a pace they could manage.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which is relevant exactly how? Several parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause apply. Also there are numerous federal laws governing telecommunications which are not in dispute. If telecom isn't the very definition of interstate commerce I'm not sure what is.
Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...
They can try but since the telecoms are monopolies thanks to those same governments I don't think they will get very far with such tactics even if they aren't struck down in court. State governments don't amount to but a tiny percentage of the business of these companies and it's not like the governments have a lot of alternative options thanks to the fact that the big telecoms are de-facto government granted monopolies. This is a federal problem whether we like it or not.
Combat isn't a dangerous job these days with drones, body armor, and armored vehicles.
So says the anonymous coward who has never been anywhere near a real battlefield in his pathetic life. Probably played a lot of HALO though so he's bad ass and qualified to comment on how not dangerous combat is.
Pro-tip: Body armor won't save your ass from an artillery shell or a bomb. Most combat isn't done by drones. Armored vehicles aren't all that hard to kill along with their occupants.
Farmers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, and industrial workers are more likely to die on the job than an average military member.
You do realize that statement becomes wildly, ludicrously, (almost) humorously false during combat right? You know, the activity that the military is actually built and trained to do? Being in the military is mostly boring tedium but occasionally it becomes the most dangerous occupation imaginable.
BTW, its not really a very good example you know, being in the US military is NOT a particularly dangerous job, the probability of death is WAY below quite a lot of other jobs.
That depends strongly on exactly what job you are doing in the military. Desk job at the pentagon? Yeah probably pretty safe. Combat engineer stationed in rural Afganistan? Not so much. If you think it is a safe job I recommend you spend a little time hanging around a VA hospital.
Just because some jobs are more dangerous on average doesn't mean serving in the military is safe compared to my current cushy desk job.
Lumberjack (forestry worker) and Fishermen (Fisherpeople? yes, I am taking the piss) are just about as bad as it gets for common jobs. Both are much MUCH worse than being in the US military.
Not when the military is actually doing what they are hired to do. Combat has a funny way of upping the casualty count substantially in a very short time period.
It's true you need a break, but I prefer to take it when where and when I want it, not where charger station just happens to be.
Fair enough but you'll have that option sooner than you think. EV charging stations are already pretty easy to find. My little town of 6000 people has several banks of them in easy to reach locations. I've seen them at rest stops too.
Another thing is that most people these days have driving license, so it's possible to change person behind the wheel every two hours or so.
I can't speak for you but I typically want to get out of the car for a spell every 2-4 hours. Doesn't matter if I'm driving or not. Most people typically eat a meal every 4-6 hours too. I think as EVs become more common you'll see people's habits slowly adapt to fit just like they did with ICE powered vehicles.
Another important factor is that if you run out of gas (never happened to me, but it may one day) it's possible to get to the nearest station, buy a canister of fuel, travel back and refill in the field. How do you do that with electric vehicle? Take the battery with you?
It's a reasonable concern. I think there will be several options eventually which will be superficially similar to what we have now. I think you'll see a fleet of charging vehicles that will come out and give you enough juice to get you to the nearest charging station. Wouldn't actually take long in most locations. Could be a truck with a big battery bank or it might carry a gas powered generator. Option 2 would be to tow the vehicle. I suspect you'll probably see tow trucks start to carry generators so they can do both tasks.
I routinely have gone from my home in Chicago without a considerable stop to Montreal, Denver, Atlanta, New York City, Boston, DC, even Gallup NM.
And we are all duly impressed by your lunacy. Personally I actually understand that road trips are not the Cannonball Run. If I need to get there faster I board an airplane. Back here among the sane people we actually stop for meals and to stretch our legs.
My college was about 400 miles from my home and I used to do that drive in one go with a single refuel on the way. Wouldn't have been a problem to stop for 30 minutes and probably would have been safer.
Me and my passengers are well aware once we're underway the day's limit is up to me.
Riiiight. I'm sure you'd leave them stranded too if they didn't take a pee break on the run.
Ever heard of over-training? Imagine doing that every week for 20 years.
Having experienced over-training personally (I used to be a D1 college athlete) I can state with confidence that very few jobs even among physically demanding ones require the sort of output that would result in over-training symptoms. Stress injuries and wear and tear yes. Extreme fatigue even. But over training requires more output than most people ever will get to even in a physically demanding job. It requires exceeding your body's ability to recover. If you are able to do a job for 20 years you are not in an over-trained condition - you would be in the hospital LONG before then. I understand where you are going with your argument and you are quite right that some jobs can take a tremendous physical toll on the body so I can see what you mean. But rarely in the form of what might be called over-training if we are being technically correct. There are exceptions of course but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
About the only people who come close who aren't poorly paid laborers are pro athletes. How many pro athletes can you think of who don't retire well before they turn 60?
Terrible analogy. Pro athletes typically retire for one of two reasons. 1) Wear and tear on the body including injuries or 2) Declining physical abilities due to age. A pro athlete is one of the very best in the world at their chosen sport and even the best and most fortunate of them aren't going to be able to play at the highest levels much beyond age 40 in any sport and some sports retirement comes much earlier. The reason is that while they might still be very good compared to you or me, their bodies simply cannot perform at the high level necessary to be among the very best in the world. They slow down physically and simply get passed by younger fresher athletes. Age does that to all of us sooner or later. In a skilled trades or other physically demanding jobs you do not need to be among the peak physical performers in the world to still be economically valuable to your company.
Not always but it certainly can be. If two things correlate strongly enough in many cases there is a causal relationship there too. You never have a causal relationship without a correlation as well. Smoking both correlates with and causes cancer. Correlation CAN indicate causation - just not always and the correlation is typically the evidence we see first. It's an indicator that further study is possibly warranted to see if a causal relationship exists. We knew there was a correlation between smoking and cancer which led us to the research to determine that yes indeed there was a causal relationship there. Causation always is correlation but correlation isn't always causation.
Many physically demanding jobs (fireman, mechanic, building trades) involve more exposure to toxic chemicals than other jobs.
There also is a notably higher risk of accidents. Frankly it's not at all surprising that physically demanding jobs result in a lower life expectancy. That's merely a confirmation of what we generally already knew or suspected. The real question is why does this relationship exist? Is it as simple as some toxic exposure and accidents or is something more subtle in play here?
I'm growing really tired of Musk's publicity stunts.
And why should we care? Lighten up. I find them fairly entertaining myself. Certainly far more than the banal advertising we get from most companies. It's nice to see someone actually show some creativity for once.
Focus on getting the Model 3 production line problems fixed dammnit
You do realize that companies have to do both right? You have to make the product AND sell it. It's not an either/or proposition.
For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.
That's true but after driving for 5-7 hours you probably are going to want to stop for more than a 10 minute splash and dash anyway. A 400 mile trip at highway speeds will take around 7 hours give or take. That's around the distance between Cleveland and Philadelphia or LA to San Francisco. I think once EVs range reaches around 400-500 miles, it's going to be hard to argue they aren't practical for long trips anymore if they can be recharged in 30-40 minutes.
Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.
This is true but unlikely to remain so for long. I give it 10-15 years before there are enough charging stations to reach a tipping point. Especially given that EV ranges are likely to continue to increase.
I've always wondered if there wouldn't be a market for range extender trailers with a motor and a gas tank for long trips in an EV. At least until the charging infrastructure reaches a critical mass. I would happily tow one behind an EV for the occasional long trip. A company like Uhaul could even rent them.
Fluttering wings hard enough to momentarily leave the ground is impressive, yes. But don't spoil it by trying to call it flying.
The first flight of the Wright Flyer was 852 feet. Not exactly an intercontinental flight and they had almost no steering control. First flights are always short. Stop being such a cynic.
I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match
It should be more than a hunch. Tesla is really a battery/power company and should be regarded as such. Yes they are trying to sell cars because they need to develop the market for their real products. Same thing with their roof and battery pack products. They have the unenviable task of trying to both build a market and build a company. I think their purchase of SolarCity is more than a financing play. I think it really speaks to their real goals which are more about electric power technology rather than any specific product.
In a sense it is like several other companies in that their core business isn't what you probably know them best for. Honda is really an engine company but they make products like cars and lawn equipment to sell their engines. Apple is really a software company but they make cool hardware to sell their software. Anheuser-Busch is (well, was) really an entertainment company (they own amusement parks) which uses alcohol as a key product to provide that entertainment.
Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Bear in mind the gigafactory is a partnership with Panasonic and Panasonic is the one doing much of the heavy lifting there since they are the largest battery maker in the world. Tesla probably couldn't use it as collateral because they don't own it (Panasonic financed the majority of it) and Panasonic probably wouldn't agree to allow it to be used in such a fashion.
Zerolemon makes replacement batteries and cases for some phones which replace the stock battery and the original rear of the phone.
That's cool (albeit rather inelegant since the beauty of a case is that you can remove it) but it won't matter unless Apple or Samsung or Google do it. And really they just would have to make the interface and let the aftermarket do its thing. But I doubt it will ever happen. And it would need to be more than just a battery.
"But I felt that tariffs were not the right approach there, and I showed him some more analytical kinds of things to demonstrate why."
Yeah and Trump is just all about being analytical instead of shoot from the hip reactionary. The guy has the attention span shorter than my puppy and has to have pretty pictures in his presentations to hold his attention. Analytical isn't going to convince him of anything. Flattery might...
I would love to have a case that has a large battery. Should not be that hard to make. Just see that it fits into the usb slot and that would be it. (Sure a hole for the camera's and what not.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone. Have a dedicated connection on the back rather than adding a bulky pass through USB on the bottom. And have the case do more than just be a second battery. Why not have an upgraded camera? Or a 3.5mm headphone jack? Or an ethernet port? Or better speakers? Or scientific equipment? The list is endless. Then you can have the compact simple base phone if you want but if you want additional features you add them via the case. Since most people put a case on their phone anyway why not make it more than an afterthought in the device design?
Why do many people buy a new phone? Because their battery does not last for a whole day anymore.
Sometimes that happens. Having a bigger battery won't solve that problem and you can already pay to have the battery replaced. People buy a new phone for a variety of reasons and a degrading battery is only one of them. In my case it's usually some combination of new features I want and the fact I've worn out my old one since it is almost always near me and used heavily. I'm not a guy who has to have the latest and greatest but I do put a lot of figurative mileage on my smartphones and I'm not the only one.
So if you buy a new phone that you can use first for three days, then for 2 and then even for 1, you have sold less phones over time.
Oh I won't deny that some amount of planned obsolescence probably goes into the figuring by the handset makers. But this is ultimately a self defeating strategy because eventually someone will bring out a better product to gain marketshare.
Well most phones have these buttons: Power on, Volume up, Volume down, Back, Home and programs. The first five are a must to have.
Disagree. The iPhone X does not have a back or home or programs button and after many months of use I can say they aren't necessary. Fine to have but not required and I haven't found myself wanting them. I agree that power, volume up/down are mandatory and probably mute as well though there might be a way to roll that into the volume buttons. More buttons are fine but my point is that the minimum required is actually quite minimal.
Waterproof and replaceable are not at odds end.
Strictly speaking you are correct but they are VERY difficult to package together in a user serviceable form while maintaining a factory level of performance. Frankly I'm not surprised the phone makers don't want the warranty and tech support hassles that would come with them. I run a small electronics manufacturing company for my day job and I've dealt with this sort of problem first hand. Even with trained technicians water sealing can be challenging in the field. I have some sympathy for companies like Apple and Samsung not wanting that particular headache. That said I'm all for products that can be serviced whenever possible so I have mixed feelings here.
The reason for the non replacable battery is just so that you buy a new phone when the battery gets old. It's all a scam.
No that is not the only reason and you are letting your preferences blind your objectivity. There are unquestionable advantages to having a non-serviceable battery. It allows for a more compact device, it makes it easier to weatherproof, it reduces cost to manufacture, it eliminates a lot of warranty costs, it reduces the number of failure modes, it is simpler to design, and the list goes on. You may or may not care about any of these but all of them are very real and quantifiable advantages. As you point out there are downsides too (planned obsolescence not the least of them) but as I said before it's not obviously a one sided argument. Plus you can have the battery replaced by the manufacturer in a lot of cases. Sure it's pricey but it's usually cheaper than a new phone if you like what you have.
Maybe I am the exception, but none this is what I want in a smarthphone.
Fair enough. I have similar opinions about what I'd ideally like in a phone that differ from what I can generally buy.
I want standard physical buttons
I have no idea what you regard as "standard" buttons.
I want a good front facing camera, I want a good speaker. I want a replacable battery. I want a longer battery life. I want a headphone socket. I want an easy to replace glass screen.
All reasonable but the question becomes what engineering trade offs are you willing to make to get them? None of that comes without trade offs. For example I don't care much about the front camera but I'd like a MUCH better rear camera and a bigger battery. I'm willing to live with a thicker phone to get them. I don't care about the glass screen replacement because that is what insurance is for and if you make it easy to replace you also make it hard to waterproof. I'm not trying to sway you in a direction but just to suggest that design decisions always come at the expense of something else.
The size of the screen is not what is the most important.
I think you are definitely in the minority in this opinion. Based on what sells best it seems clear that screen size is one of if not the most important considerations for a majority of smartphone buyers.
What's wrong with a traditional top and bottom bezel?
It takes up space that could be otherwise put to good use and makes the device larger. It's something you have because you must, not because it is desirable.
takes up what, 1/4 of an inch on phones that have already gotten too massive? It's as if they're manufacturing a solution to a problem nobody has.
Are you seriously arguing that the size of some smartphones doesn't present a problem? Gotta disagree with you there. I had an iPhone 7+ and it was too large to handle comfortably but the iPhone X has basically the same size screen but is notably smaller. A lot of that had to do with all the useless extra bezels. In principle the ideal is no bezel at all. This is technically challenging for some good reasons but it's a reasonable thing to target.
"Damn, if only the screen extended a half cm in both directions, this phone would be even more awesome!"
I know you are being sarcastic and I get your point but actually yes, I'd prefer the extra screen real estate over a bezel. Not a deal breaker of course but given the choice I doubt you'd take the bezel if it could be done without loss of function.
I'm quite happy with my 2017 era smartphone with removable battery, dual SIM, headphone jack, sdcard, fm radio and possibly other features Tim Cook decided I didn't need.
I think you are also happy living in a world where you can troll people about devices that don't exist.
For illogical reasons, the "flagship" phones seem headed in the direction of form over function.
I think form over function is in the rear view mirror. I have an iPhone X and while it's a good device overall, some of the hardware design decisions are baffling. Starting with Apple's pursuit of thin at all costs. I would MUCH rather have a phone twice as thick with a bigger battery and a better camera both of which are largely precluded by making each device thinner than the last. They removed the TouchID for FaceID but there are a lot of circumstances where TouchID works better and it would have been nice to still have it even if relocated. The notch seems to me to be pure marketing BS with little actual utility. I don't personally care about the 3.5mm jack but many do and Apple provided no option for pass through connections in their Lightning interface so you can plug in your headphones or plug in power but not both at the same time.
Give me a larger, replaceable battery, not some phone that's hard to not drop.
I don't care about a the fact that the battery is built in but I think there is a better solution. Most of my complaints could have been solved if Apple provided an well designed expansion interface for cases. Think about a battery case with variants for stuff like better speakers or a 3.5mm jack or TouchID or cameras or other add ons would solve a lot of problems. Honestly I think Apple (and others) are leaving money on the table by ignoring cases as a tightly integrated expansion device rather than the afterthought they treat it as today. Keep the built in battery but make an option for cases to provide features missing.
I don't want a phone which makes it hard to not "fat finger" an unintentional/undisired change due to touching a screen edge,
The iPhone X screen goes pretty close to the edge of the device and in every day use the lack of a bezel hasn't proven to be a real world problem for me. I understand the concern but my take is try it before judging. For me at least the smaller form factor while maximizing screen size turned out to be a huge win. Your mileage may vary of course but I suspect you will find it to be less of an issue than you fear.
Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.
People declare others to be their "enemies" for all sorts of idiotic and irrational reasons. Tribalism not the least among them. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make harming them a justifiable activity. I could not disagree more with your statement as it stands. There is nothing "noble" about harming anyone. Sometimes it is necessary and occasionally it is just. But noble? No.
Slashdot Mirror
By the same token, Tom Brady is pushing past 40 and still making it to Super Bowls.
Performance enhancing drugs are a marvelous thing. Maybe he's clean but I doubt it.
This is happening across the entire league. The best NBA players are getting better younger.
That's actually happening in a lot of sports. I coach another sport (wrestling) where the average age of an Olympic champion has gotten 2-4 years younger in the last 10 years. A big part of that is access to opportunities train and compete and information that older people like myself simply didn't have access to.
My question would be WTF this article is doing on slashdot? This is definitely not news for nerds or stuff that matters. While I'm sure there are NBA fans reading slashdot, this is pretty far away from what this site is supposed to be about.
Three games a week plus practice plus daily off ice workouts in Hockey at an older age and although it was work, I got to have a minute on, two minutes off to recover. It was a whole different world than if I stopped for a break while baling hay.
The physical demands of the activity at the level you participated obviously were not enough to surpass your ability to recover. When you over-train you literally experience a decline in your ability to perform. You might be more prone to injuries but what's really happening is that your body simply cannot rebuild from the stresses faster than you are piling them on. Do this for long enough and stuff starts to break. It's not just that an activity is hard - you have to do it for an extended period of time beyond your physical capacity to recover between sessions of that activity. Most people will quit an activity or slow down long before they get to the point where over-training becomes an issue.
It's not about having a minute or two to recover. It's about being able to recover before the next day's practice. That is dependent on the intensity, frequency, and duration of your workouts or work. Everyone has a limit though few people ever really get close to theirs.
There's a reason why us 18 year old's baled the loft while the farmer and the other older guys did the driving. It would kill you soon if you did that for too many years.
That's because the capacity of an 18yo to recover from physical stresses is (generally) measurably greater than that of someone who is significantly older. I'm approaching 50 and workouts that I used to recover from in a few hours now might take me two days to recover from. Normal aging effects. It would be possible for the older guys to experience over-training if they continued to do it at a pace beyond their capacity for an extended time but more likely they would just slow to a pace they could manage.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which is relevant exactly how? Several parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause apply. Also there are numerous federal laws governing telecommunications which are not in dispute. If telecom isn't the very definition of interstate commerce I'm not sure what is.
Let a few states pass laws that say they will not do business with ISPs that are not Neutral and problem solved...
They can try but since the telecoms are monopolies thanks to those same governments I don't think they will get very far with such tactics even if they aren't struck down in court. State governments don't amount to but a tiny percentage of the business of these companies and it's not like the governments have a lot of alternative options thanks to the fact that the big telecoms are de-facto government granted monopolies. This is a federal problem whether we like it or not.
Combat isn't a dangerous job these days with drones, body armor, and armored vehicles.
So says the anonymous coward who has never been anywhere near a real battlefield in his pathetic life. Probably played a lot of HALO though so he's bad ass and qualified to comment on how not dangerous combat is.
Pro-tip: Body armor won't save your ass from an artillery shell or a bomb. Most combat isn't done by drones. Armored vehicles aren't all that hard to kill along with their occupants.
Farmers, truck drivers, taxi drivers, and industrial workers are more likely to die on the job than an average military member.
You do realize that statement becomes wildly, ludicrously, (almost) humorously false during combat right? You know, the activity that the military is actually built and trained to do? Being in the military is mostly boring tedium but occasionally it becomes the most dangerous occupation imaginable.
BTW, its not really a very good example you know, being in the US military is NOT a particularly dangerous job, the probability of death is WAY below quite a lot of other jobs.
That depends strongly on exactly what job you are doing in the military. Desk job at the pentagon? Yeah probably pretty safe. Combat engineer stationed in rural Afganistan? Not so much. If you think it is a safe job I recommend you spend a little time hanging around a VA hospital.
Just because some jobs are more dangerous on average doesn't mean serving in the military is safe compared to my current cushy desk job.
Lumberjack (forestry worker) and Fishermen (Fisherpeople? yes, I am taking the piss) are just about as bad as it gets for common jobs.
Both are much MUCH worse than being in the US military.
Not when the military is actually doing what they are hired to do. Combat has a funny way of upping the casualty count substantially in a very short time period.
It's true you need a break, but I prefer to take it when where and when I want it, not where charger station just happens to be.
Fair enough but you'll have that option sooner than you think. EV charging stations are already pretty easy to find. My little town of 6000 people has several banks of them in easy to reach locations. I've seen them at rest stops too.
Another thing is that most people these days have driving license, so it's possible to change person behind the wheel every two hours or so.
I can't speak for you but I typically want to get out of the car for a spell every 2-4 hours. Doesn't matter if I'm driving or not. Most people typically eat a meal every 4-6 hours too. I think as EVs become more common you'll see people's habits slowly adapt to fit just like they did with ICE powered vehicles.
Another important factor is that if you run out of gas (never happened to me, but it may one day) it's possible to get to the nearest station, buy a canister of fuel, travel back and refill in the field. How do you do that with electric vehicle? Take the battery with you?
It's a reasonable concern. I think there will be several options eventually which will be superficially similar to what we have now. I think you'll see a fleet of charging vehicles that will come out and give you enough juice to get you to the nearest charging station. Wouldn't actually take long in most locations. Could be a truck with a big battery bank or it might carry a gas powered generator. Option 2 would be to tow the vehicle. I suspect you'll probably see tow trucks start to carry generators so they can do both tasks.
I routinely have gone from my home in Chicago without a considerable stop to Montreal, Denver, Atlanta, New York City, Boston, DC, even Gallup NM.
And we are all duly impressed by your lunacy. Personally I actually understand that road trips are not the Cannonball Run. If I need to get there faster I board an airplane. Back here among the sane people we actually stop for meals and to stretch our legs.
My college was about 400 miles from my home and I used to do that drive in one go with a single refuel on the way. Wouldn't have been a problem to stop for 30 minutes and probably would have been safer.
Me and my passengers are well aware once we're underway the day's limit is up to me.
Riiiight. I'm sure you'd leave them stranded too if they didn't take a pee break on the run.
Those who exercise heavily, such as lots of running and weight lifting, even as just a hobby, also tend to die early.
I'm sure you tell yourself that every time you need an excuse to not go to the gym too.
Ever heard of over-training? Imagine doing that every week for 20 years.
Having experienced over-training personally (I used to be a D1 college athlete) I can state with confidence that very few jobs even among physically demanding ones require the sort of output that would result in over-training symptoms. Stress injuries and wear and tear yes. Extreme fatigue even. But over training requires more output than most people ever will get to even in a physically demanding job. It requires exceeding your body's ability to recover. If you are able to do a job for 20 years you are not in an over-trained condition - you would be in the hospital LONG before then. I understand where you are going with your argument and you are quite right that some jobs can take a tremendous physical toll on the body so I can see what you mean. But rarely in the form of what might be called over-training if we are being technically correct. There are exceptions of course but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
About the only people who come close who aren't poorly paid laborers are pro athletes. How many pro athletes can you think of who don't retire well before they turn 60?
Terrible analogy. Pro athletes typically retire for one of two reasons. 1) Wear and tear on the body including injuries or 2) Declining physical abilities due to age. A pro athlete is one of the very best in the world at their chosen sport and even the best and most fortunate of them aren't going to be able to play at the highest levels much beyond age 40 in any sport and some sports retirement comes much earlier. The reason is that while they might still be very good compared to you or me, their bodies simply cannot perform at the high level necessary to be among the very best in the world. They slow down physically and simply get passed by younger fresher athletes. Age does that to all of us sooner or later. In a skilled trades or other physically demanding jobs you do not need to be among the peak physical performers in the world to still be economically valuable to your company.
Correlation isn't causation.
Not always but it certainly can be. If two things correlate strongly enough in many cases there is a causal relationship there too. You never have a causal relationship without a correlation as well. Smoking both correlates with and causes cancer. Correlation CAN indicate causation - just not always and the correlation is typically the evidence we see first. It's an indicator that further study is possibly warranted to see if a causal relationship exists. We knew there was a correlation between smoking and cancer which led us to the research to determine that yes indeed there was a causal relationship there. Causation always is correlation but correlation isn't always causation.
Many physically demanding jobs (fireman, mechanic, building trades) involve more exposure to toxic chemicals than other jobs.
There also is a notably higher risk of accidents. Frankly it's not at all surprising that physically demanding jobs result in a lower life expectancy. That's merely a confirmation of what we generally already knew or suspected. The real question is why does this relationship exist? Is it as simple as some toxic exposure and accidents or is something more subtle in play here?
I'm growing really tired of Musk's publicity stunts.
And why should we care? Lighten up. I find them fairly entertaining myself. Certainly far more than the banal advertising we get from most companies. It's nice to see someone actually show some creativity for once.
Focus on getting the Model 3 production line problems fixed dammnit
You do realize that companies have to do both right? You have to make the product AND sell it. It's not an either/or proposition.
For an electric car, even availing itself of tesla supercharger network, you will have to contend with a more inconvenient stop along the way.
That's true but after driving for 5-7 hours you probably are going to want to stop for more than a 10 minute splash and dash anyway. A 400 mile trip at highway speeds will take around 7 hours give or take. That's around the distance between Cleveland and Philadelphia or LA to San Francisco. I think once EVs range reaches around 400-500 miles, it's going to be hard to argue they aren't practical for long trips anymore if they can be recharged in 30-40 minutes.
Now this may be worth it in exchange for commuter experience of never having to stop for gas as you charge at home overnight, but we have to be honest that for long distance trips, ICE has both a capacity and refuel advantage still yet.
This is true but unlikely to remain so for long. I give it 10-15 years before there are enough charging stations to reach a tipping point. Especially given that EV ranges are likely to continue to increase.
I've always wondered if there wouldn't be a market for range extender trailers with a motor and a gas tank for long trips in an EV. At least until the charging infrastructure reaches a critical mass. I would happily tow one behind an EV for the occasional long trip. A company like Uhaul could even rent them.
A typical tractor for large aircraft weighs up to 54 tonnes (119,000 pounds) and has a drawbar pull of 334 kN (75,000 lbf).
For comparison the weight of an M1 Abrams main battle tank is around 62 metric tons.
Fluttering wings hard enough to momentarily leave the ground is impressive, yes. But don't spoil it by trying to call it flying.
The first flight of the Wright Flyer was 852 feet. Not exactly an intercontinental flight and they had almost no steering control. First flights are always short. Stop being such a cynic.
I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match
It should be more than a hunch. Tesla is really a battery/power company and should be regarded as such. Yes they are trying to sell cars because they need to develop the market for their real products. Same thing with their roof and battery pack products. They have the unenviable task of trying to both build a market and build a company. I think their purchase of SolarCity is more than a financing play. I think it really speaks to their real goals which are more about electric power technology rather than any specific product.
In a sense it is like several other companies in that their core business isn't what you probably know them best for. Honda is really an engine company but they make products like cars and lawn equipment to sell their engines. Apple is really a software company but they make cool hardware to sell their software. Anheuser-Busch is (well, was) really an entertainment company (they own amusement parks) which uses alcohol as a key product to provide that entertainment.
Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Bear in mind the gigafactory is a partnership with Panasonic and Panasonic is the one doing much of the heavy lifting there since they are the largest battery maker in the world. Tesla probably couldn't use it as collateral because they don't own it (Panasonic financed the majority of it) and Panasonic probably wouldn't agree to allow it to be used in such a fashion.
Zerolemon makes replacement batteries and cases for some phones which replace the stock battery and the original rear of the phone.
That's cool (albeit rather inelegant since the beauty of a case is that you can remove it) but it won't matter unless Apple or Samsung or Google do it. And really they just would have to make the interface and let the aftermarket do its thing. But I doubt it will ever happen. And it would need to be more than just a battery.
"But I felt that tariffs were not the right approach there, and I showed him some more analytical kinds of things to demonstrate why."
Yeah and Trump is just all about being analytical instead of shoot from the hip reactionary. The guy has the attention span shorter than my puppy and has to have pretty pictures in his presentations to hold his attention. Analytical isn't going to convince him of anything. Flattery might...
I would love to have a case that has a large battery. Should not be that hard to make. Just see that it fits into the usb slot and that would be it. (Sure a hole for the camera's and what not.
Those sorts of cases already exist but I don't think they go far enough. What I'm suggesting is something more deeply integrated into the smartphone. Have a dedicated connection on the back rather than adding a bulky pass through USB on the bottom. And have the case do more than just be a second battery. Why not have an upgraded camera? Or a 3.5mm headphone jack? Or an ethernet port? Or better speakers? Or scientific equipment? The list is endless. Then you can have the compact simple base phone if you want but if you want additional features you add them via the case. Since most people put a case on their phone anyway why not make it more than an afterthought in the device design?
Why do many people buy a new phone? Because their battery does not last for a whole day anymore.
Sometimes that happens. Having a bigger battery won't solve that problem and you can already pay to have the battery replaced. People buy a new phone for a variety of reasons and a degrading battery is only one of them. In my case it's usually some combination of new features I want and the fact I've worn out my old one since it is almost always near me and used heavily. I'm not a guy who has to have the latest and greatest but I do put a lot of figurative mileage on my smartphones and I'm not the only one.
So if you buy a new phone that you can use first for three days, then for 2 and then even for 1, you have sold less phones over time.
Oh I won't deny that some amount of planned obsolescence probably goes into the figuring by the handset makers. But this is ultimately a self defeating strategy because eventually someone will bring out a better product to gain marketshare.
Well most phones have these buttons: Power on, Volume up, Volume down, Back, Home and programs. The first five are a must to have.
Disagree. The iPhone X does not have a back or home or programs button and after many months of use I can say they aren't necessary. Fine to have but not required and I haven't found myself wanting them. I agree that power, volume up/down are mandatory and probably mute as well though there might be a way to roll that into the volume buttons. More buttons are fine but my point is that the minimum required is actually quite minimal.
Waterproof and replaceable are not at odds end.
Strictly speaking you are correct but they are VERY difficult to package together in a user serviceable form while maintaining a factory level of performance. Frankly I'm not surprised the phone makers don't want the warranty and tech support hassles that would come with them. I run a small electronics manufacturing company for my day job and I've dealt with this sort of problem first hand. Even with trained technicians water sealing can be challenging in the field. I have some sympathy for companies like Apple and Samsung not wanting that particular headache. That said I'm all for products that can be serviced whenever possible so I have mixed feelings here.
The reason for the non replacable battery is just so that you buy a new phone when the battery gets old. It's all a scam.
No that is not the only reason and you are letting your preferences blind your objectivity. There are unquestionable advantages to having a non-serviceable battery. It allows for a more compact device, it makes it easier to weatherproof, it reduces cost to manufacture, it eliminates a lot of warranty costs, it reduces the number of failure modes, it is simpler to design, and the list goes on. You may or may not care about any of these but all of them are very real and quantifiable advantages. As you point out there are downsides too (planned obsolescence not the least of them) but as I said before it's not obviously a one sided argument. Plus you can have the battery replaced by the manufacturer in a lot of cases. Sure it's pricey but it's usually cheaper than a new phone if you like what you have.
Maybe I am the exception, but none this is what I want in a smarthphone.
Fair enough. I have similar opinions about what I'd ideally like in a phone that differ from what I can generally buy.
I want standard physical buttons
I have no idea what you regard as "standard" buttons.
I want a good front facing camera, I want a good speaker. I want a replacable battery. I want a longer battery life. I want a headphone socket. I want an easy to replace glass screen.
All reasonable but the question becomes what engineering trade offs are you willing to make to get them? None of that comes without trade offs. For example I don't care much about the front camera but I'd like a MUCH better rear camera and a bigger battery. I'm willing to live with a thicker phone to get them. I don't care about the glass screen replacement because that is what insurance is for and if you make it easy to replace you also make it hard to waterproof. I'm not trying to sway you in a direction but just to suggest that design decisions always come at the expense of something else.
The size of the screen is not what is the most important.
I think you are definitely in the minority in this opinion. Based on what sells best it seems clear that screen size is one of if not the most important considerations for a majority of smartphone buyers.
What's wrong with a traditional top and bottom bezel?
It takes up space that could be otherwise put to good use and makes the device larger. It's something you have because you must, not because it is desirable.
takes up what, 1/4 of an inch on phones that have already gotten too massive? It's as if they're manufacturing a solution to a problem nobody has.
Are you seriously arguing that the size of some smartphones doesn't present a problem? Gotta disagree with you there. I had an iPhone 7+ and it was too large to handle comfortably but the iPhone X has basically the same size screen but is notably smaller. A lot of that had to do with all the useless extra bezels. In principle the ideal is no bezel at all. This is technically challenging for some good reasons but it's a reasonable thing to target.
"Damn, if only the screen extended a half cm in both directions, this phone would be even more awesome!"
I know you are being sarcastic and I get your point but actually yes, I'd prefer the extra screen real estate over a bezel. Not a deal breaker of course but given the choice I doubt you'd take the bezel if it could be done without loss of function.
I'm quite happy with my 2017 era smartphone with removable battery, dual SIM, headphone jack, sdcard, fm radio and possibly other features Tim Cook decided I didn't need.
I think you are also happy living in a world where you can troll people about devices that don't exist.
For illogical reasons, the "flagship" phones seem headed in the direction of form over function.
I think form over function is in the rear view mirror. I have an iPhone X and while it's a good device overall, some of the hardware design decisions are baffling. Starting with Apple's pursuit of thin at all costs. I would MUCH rather have a phone twice as thick with a bigger battery and a better camera both of which are largely precluded by making each device thinner than the last. They removed the TouchID for FaceID but there are a lot of circumstances where TouchID works better and it would have been nice to still have it even if relocated. The notch seems to me to be pure marketing BS with little actual utility. I don't personally care about the 3.5mm jack but many do and Apple provided no option for pass through connections in their Lightning interface so you can plug in your headphones or plug in power but not both at the same time.
Give me a larger, replaceable battery, not some phone that's hard to not drop.
I don't care about a the fact that the battery is built in but I think there is a better solution. Most of my complaints could have been solved if Apple provided an well designed expansion interface for cases. Think about a battery case with variants for stuff like better speakers or a 3.5mm jack or TouchID or cameras or other add ons would solve a lot of problems. Honestly I think Apple (and others) are leaving money on the table by ignoring cases as a tightly integrated expansion device rather than the afterthought they treat it as today. Keep the built in battery but make an option for cases to provide features missing.
I don't want a phone which makes it hard to not "fat finger" an unintentional/undisired change due to touching a screen edge,
The iPhone X screen goes pretty close to the edge of the device and in every day use the lack of a bezel hasn't proven to be a real world problem for me. I understand the concern but my take is try it before judging. For me at least the smaller form factor while maximizing screen size turned out to be a huge win. Your mileage may vary of course but I suspect you will find it to be less of an issue than you fear.
Harming one's legitimate enemies is not only not evil, but perfectly just and, indeed, noble.
People declare others to be their "enemies" for all sorts of idiotic and irrational reasons. Tribalism not the least among them. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make harming them a justifiable activity. I could not disagree more with your statement as it stands. There is nothing "noble" about harming anyone. Sometimes it is necessary and occasionally it is just. But noble? No.