Sure, some types of snow is harder to ride in than others, but how many days do you really get enough snow that it's an issue in Vancouver? A half dozen a year? That leaves a lot of winter days that are totally fine for riding.
I live in a much colder and snowier climate than NYC but I ride year round. I have studded tires to deal with the ice but many people here don't bother (though I recommend them).
Even if you don't have studded tires, the streets are plowed and clear on most days. The bike paths are plowed too. There are definitely days where it's more treacherous and you'd want to either stay home or find another way to get around, but again, that's not necessary most of the time.
We have what I'm assuming is the original design (in Minneapolis). The chains are enclosed enough that you'd have to be be pretty klutzy to get your pants greasy. i'm guessing the reason they aren't fully enclosed is just for easy of maintenance. They use chain tensioners which means you'd need a fairly large chain case to enclose the chain along the whole path.
Lots of people ride year round in similar or even colder climates than New York's. People don't stop walking when it gets cold or wet, do they? You just have to dress appropriately.
FWIW, I live in Minneapolis and also ride year round. I'm not a crazy messenger either, just a run of the mill IT guy.
But if you want to watch good movies that are at all recent, Netflix is going to leave you disappointed. Showtime is far more likely to have them. For that reason I think they can justify charging more than Netflix does.
Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore.
Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Chan Wook-Park, Jim Jarmusch, Francis Ford Coppola, Richard Linklater and the Coen Brothers are all directors whose catalogs are nearly 100% available on Netflix Streaming. When you look at the back catalog, there's Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Howard Hawkes, King Vidor, etc etc etc.
So when you say, "not much in the way of good movies", I assume you're talking about Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.
Didn't check all the directors you mentioned but for the Coen Brothers at least, the first three movies I searched for weren't available for streaming on Netflix (you could get them on DVD). Yet "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013) is available on Showtime.
I will concede that if you're content to watch old movies then Netflix might be just fine. You might even prefer it. I'd still be worried about their shrinking catalog however. Anyone can see that they have very few quality movies that are at all recent. And again, it's getting worse, not better.
So for me at least you can't say that because Netflix only charges $8.00, then Showtime's offering is too expensive. It's apples and oranges. They have very different content.
Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore. An extra $3 a month for decent movies doesn't seem like too much of a premium.
Maybe even Disney channel as well it's cost is about X2 the price of nickelodeon.
As for sports in most EU sat / cable systems / Foxtel / sky (NZ) sports is it's own add on pack.
canadian systems have pick and pay tv soon (and some older plans have theme packs where you don't have to take sports I think you can still have them if you keep them on bell sat tv)
canadian systems also let you buy the box / rent to own without the $8-$10 outlet / mirroring fees that we have in the USA.
Cable card flopped hear and systems still hit you with $6-8 outlet fees + cable card rent fees on them as well. BHN even used to bill you to rent the SDV tuner.
The problem is that sports are what most of the people who opt for something other than basic channels want. ESPN knows this and charges a fortune. The high prices aren't all the fault of the cable companies. ESPN has been what's kept even more people from cutting the cord.
Ironic that in that rebuttal he's imploring people to read his original article before passing judgement while at the same time (in that original article) he told men they should boycott the movie without ever actually having seen the movie himself.
Doubly ironic that if he had gone to see the movie, he probably would have enjoyed it like virtually everyone else has. He had assumed that a movie franchise that had appealed to men in the past wouldn't anymore because of some strong female characters and because of who was involved in coaching the actresses. He was wrong. If he was a man, he'd just admit it.
The key word here being "original" when discussing waterfall vs iterative development. Agile is not meant to deliver the original specification; it's meant to allow developers to adapt to a changing specification.
Unfortunately, it often requires the client to accept a product that was different from their original specification thanks to the dropping of features along the way.
Which is worse, not allowing a change in specifications because it puts the deadline in jeopardy or dropping some specifications to allow time for new specs that are more important to the customer to be implemented?
To me, meeting all the original specs is still failing if the end product can't be used by the customer.
Note: Fortunately the world as a whole is making substantial investments in renewable energy while the US drags its feet. Of course the problem is that we will largely have to import solutions developed elsewhere. We are wasting an opportunity for more energy independence. While renewable/nuclear energy will be produced locally, we will have to import the technology from places that were smart enough to make the investment.
The ozone was being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons. International efforts were able to largely phase them out, and the Ozone layer has recovered.
One of the first predictions of running out of oil was made in 1914 by the Bureau of Mines. They thought the world would run out in 10 years. There have been similar predictions since then. Why haven't they come true? Because huge sums of money have been invested in making sure we don't run out or at least to put it off as long as possible. Billions and billions have been spent on locating more oil, and figuring out how to extract the relatively small amounts of oil that are in places we already know about. Think about some the crazy stuff we do to get oil out of the ground even in the middle of the ocean.
One of the consequences has been that the price of oil has gone up over time. It's slumped back down for now, just like it did in the 90's but it rose after that and you can bet it will again. If in the early 90's you had told somebody that gas would cost almost $4.00 a gallon in a decade, they would have thought armageddon was coming.
In both the case of the ozone layer and oil supplies, the dire predictions didn't happen in large part because we did what was necessary to keep them from happening. Same thing with Y2K. A ton of money was spent updating computers and software.
And we could avoid the problems being predicted as consequences of global warming if we take action and be willing to spend some money. But for some reason, we'd rather just argue about it whether it's really a problem or not and in the meantime the solutions just get more expensive and likelihood of widespread consequences increase.
I would bet anything that she succeeded not just because of her people skills but because she was a quick study and learned what it took to be a good engineer.
Now that they mention it.. It's one our company ideals that we promote from within. I've seen a lot of good sys admins get thrust into management and fail or leave. I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks when they are unable to understand what is going on.
I don't think "promote within" is a bad policy or ideal to have. It's only bad if it becomes gospel rather than guideline. There are people with strong technical skills that can also be good managers. There is also a risk in bringing in a manager to supervise a group of technical people whose job they don't really understand.
At my company it's pretty clear who has good leadership/management skills and who doesn't. Some of them currently hold technical positions. Further, being given a supervisory role in this organization isn't necessarily a promotion. One of my employees had a subordinate a decade ago. While he wasn't a bad supervisor, he wasn't particularly good at it either and certainly didn't relish the responsibility. So he doesn't have a subordinate now and may never have one again, but he was never demoted.
I will also add this. There are some people who seem to be natural managers, but other people can *learn* those skills if they are willing and put in the effort. There are benefits and downsides to heading down the management track, but being able to be both technical and managerial opens a lot of doors.
Finally, there are plenty of times it makes sense to hire outside the company. It's one way to bring skills into the organization that are lacking or missing altogether.
To simplify, consenting to sex once does not imply consent down the road. He consented to have her eggs to be fertilized with his sperm with the express purpose of using them down the road.
So the fact that she once consented to sex with him means he can fuck her any time he chooses, even now they've split?
Just that by your logic, they made an agreement and they must never change it.
Or can they?
She's not asking him to donate more sperm. She just wants to use the eggs that were fertilized with sperm HE ALREADY DONATED which he did knowing that they would probably not be in a relationship by the time she planned to use them. It is something he already decided. It is something he already did.
If she consents to have sex with him, she consents for that instance only. It doesn't matter if they are in a relationship or not. There is no obligation for her to have sex with him again. If they were in a relationship, he might decide to leave her as a consequence. The important thing to remember is that he is free to have sex with anyone else who is willing. By not consenting to have sex with him now or in the future, she is in no way preventing him from having a sex life.
She can not have a baby with anyone else's sperm. This is the only way she can have a child that's a biological descendent. If it were possible to have somebody else's sperm fertilize these eggs then I think that he'd have every right to legally prevent her from implanting these eggs as they are. But he went in to this knowing that this would not be possible and he has to live with the consequences.
An important aspect for me is that he didn't do this with the express intent of being a traditional father. Both of them were aware that their romantic relationship may not last, though they did have a long term friendship.
He did this as a favor to her, not because they were sure they wanted to raise a kid together. So as far as the issue of property is concerned, he gave his sperm to her so that the eggs could be fertilized. It's too late to take them back now. He really was a sperm donor. He just happened to be involved with the mother at the time of the donation.
I understand that any woman who he might get involved with in the future might have some issues with this. I suppose that is true of anyone whose donated sperm. It does have the added twist that he was friends with the mother and had a short term fling with her. He thought he was doing a good thing but didn't think about the potential consequences. It's too bad.
So what if he wanted to take the eggs and have a kid with another woman - what would your stance be on that? The combination of the two constituent parts should surely mean that if he wants to use them without her ongoing consent he would be allowed to just as much as she does now...?
Too many people here are jumping to the conclusion that the fertilised eggs are solely the property of the woman even though they are the result of two donations - why should the mans contribution matter less in these cases?
I kind of explained that. The difference is that she never consented to have the eggs implanted in another woman, while he did consent to have the eggs implanted in her (at some point down the road).
Let's say the situation had been reversed and this guy had a medical condition that made future sperm production impossible. And just like the woman in this article, he specifically chose her genetics vs someone else's. If this woman allowed her eggs to be harvested to be fertilized with his sperm so at some point down the road he could have a biological child, not necessarily with her, then yes I would say he had the right to use them.
I'm not viewing the eggs as property whose ownership must be decided. I'm viewing this as a contract.
Another note. Apparently they only harvested 8 eggs which is not many. They could have only fertilized half with his sperm and froze the rest unfertilized but knowing that the results from unfertilized eggs aren't as good, the dude said to fertilize them all. Had he not said that, she would have had the option of having the remaining eggs fertilized by someone else.
That entirely depends on the jurisdiction - a similar case went to court in the UK back in 2000 - 2007 and the man won his case.
The woman appealed all the way to the European Court of Human Rights and lost her case completely.
The issue is that the man withdrew his permission for the embryos to be used - up to the point at which they are implanted in the woman, they are jointly owned and cannot be used without express permission of both parties. Embryos are also not legal entities, and as they are not yet part of the womans body, she does not get automatic final say over their use.
Would your argument work for you if the man was able to take the fertilized eggs and have them implanted in a surrogate who brings them to term? Surely the woman should have some say in that?
Since the legal matter is still being sorted out, I'm trying to look at it from an ethical standpoint. If she had agreed to have her eggs fertilized knowing that they might be implanted in another woman so that a friend/boyfriend could have a biological child in the future, then I think that it would be true that she already gave consent.
If you read the article, you'll find that the couple had been friends for a decade before they started dating and neither seemed to think their romantic relationship was going to be a long term one. The decision to freeze her fertilized eggs resulted from a 7 minute conversation. Even after the relationship ended, email correspondence showed that he was OK with the decision to freeze the eggs and would do it again.
It wasn't until after a later relationship of his went sour over the issue that he attempted to prevent her from using the eggs.
Given the above I look at it this way. He consented to do this as a friend to help her out, not because he wanted to raise the kids that might result. He knew that he may not be in the picture down the road. The problem is that he didn't think through the potential consequences it might have on his future relationships. That sucks for him, but in my mind it is too late to withdraw consent. If she had known he might later change his mind, she could have gone the sperm donor route instead.
So it would seem that the growth in sales of EVs is far outstripping the growth in sales of automobiles as a whole. EVs are still a small fraction of total car sales, but back in the early 1980s cellphones represented a small fraction of total phone sales. Look at what's happened since. It took a few decades but improvements in battery technology have helped make mobile phones ubiquitous.
The are sooo many industries dependent upon and investing in battery technology that the range and cost of EVs will almost certainly improve dramatically in the next 5 years and continue to improve after that.
Another thing to consider is that regardless of how you may feel about global warming, California has some very aggressive goals for emission reductions by 2050. They likely won't meet them. However, to get even close, substantial electrification of transportation (including personal vehicles) is practically required. California represents a huge market for automobiles. There will be a continued push for improvements in EVs from a number of directions.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 50 years old and looming catastrophe has been hanging over our heads my whole life
1. Various Nuclear disaster scenarios
2. Global Economic collapse
3. Climate Change
4. Various religion based end-times
5. Y2K
6. etc
Honestly, it is like we can't function without having some sort of doomsday scenario in the picture
Sure, some types of snow is harder to ride in than others, but how many days do you really get enough snow that it's an issue in Vancouver? A half dozen a year? That leaves a lot of winter days that are totally fine for riding.
I live in a much colder and snowier climate than NYC but I ride year round. I have studded tires to deal with the ice but many people here don't bother (though I recommend them).
Even if you don't have studded tires, the streets are plowed and clear on most days. The bike paths are plowed too. There are definitely days where it's more treacherous and you'd want to either stay home or find another way to get around, but again, that's not necessary most of the time.
We have what I'm assuming is the original design (in Minneapolis). The chains are enclosed enough that you'd have to be be pretty klutzy to get your pants greasy. i'm guessing the reason they aren't fully enclosed is just for easy of maintenance. They use chain tensioners which means you'd need a fairly large chain case to enclose the chain along the whole path.
Lots of people ride year round in similar or even colder climates than New York's. People don't stop walking when it gets cold or wet, do they? You just have to dress appropriately.
FWIW, I live in Minneapolis and also ride year round. I'm not a crazy messenger either, just a run of the mill IT guy.
Don't you think they would have just manipulated the data to show what they wanted in the first place?
The only "Avengers" movies I see on Netflix are the cartoon versions. So yeah, as I said before, Netflix has lots of kid centered content.
The Godfather came out in 1972. I've seen it already.
But if you want to watch good movies that are at all recent, Netflix is going to leave you disappointed. Showtime is far more likely to have them. For that reason I think they can justify charging more than Netflix does.
Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Chan Wook-Park, Jim Jarmusch, Francis Ford Coppola, Richard Linklater and the Coen Brothers are all directors whose catalogs are nearly 100% available on Netflix Streaming. When you look at the back catalog, there's Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Howard Hawkes, King Vidor, etc etc etc.
So when you say, "not much in the way of good movies", I assume you're talking about Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.
Didn't check all the directors you mentioned but for the Coen Brothers at least, the first three movies I searched for weren't available for streaming on Netflix (you could get them on DVD). Yet "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013) is available on Showtime.
I will concede that if you're content to watch old movies then Netflix might be just fine. You might even prefer it. I'd still be worried about their shrinking catalog however. Anyone can see that they have very few quality movies that are at all recent. And again, it's getting worse, not better.
So for me at least you can't say that because Netflix only charges $8.00, then Showtime's offering is too expensive. It's apples and oranges. They have very different content.
Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore. An extra $3 a month for decent movies doesn't seem like too much of a premium.
Sports needs to be in it's own HBO like package.
Maybe even Disney channel as well it's cost is about X2 the price of nickelodeon.
As for sports in most EU sat / cable systems / Foxtel / sky (NZ) sports is it's own add on pack.
canadian systems have pick and pay tv soon (and some older plans have theme packs where you don't have to take sports I think you can still have them if you keep them on bell sat tv)
canadian systems also let you buy the box / rent to own without the $8-$10 outlet / mirroring fees that we have in the USA.
Cable card flopped hear and systems still hit you with $6-8 outlet fees + cable card rent fees on them as well. BHN even used to bill you to rent the SDV tuner.
The problem is that sports are what most of the people who opt for something other than basic channels want. ESPN knows this and charges a fortune. The high prices aren't all the fault of the cable companies. ESPN has been what's kept even more people from cutting the cord.
Python doesn't force you to declare variables but running pylint on your source files will notify you of common errors that declaration helps avoid.
For example, pylint will tell you when you've attempted to access a variable that never has had anything assigned to it.
Oh, and Aaron Clarey has a rebuttal video about this mess, which is being ignored as it doesn't fit narrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ironic that in that rebuttal he's imploring people to read his original article before passing judgement while at the same time (in that original article) he told men they should boycott the movie without ever actually having seen the movie himself.
Doubly ironic that if he had gone to see the movie, he probably would have enjoyed it like virtually everyone else has. He had assumed that a movie franchise that had appealed to men in the past wouldn't anymore because of some strong female characters and because of who was involved in coaching the actresses. He was wrong. If he was a man, he'd just admit it.
met the original specifications
The key word here being "original" when discussing waterfall vs iterative development. Agile is not meant to deliver the original specification; it's meant to allow developers to adapt to a changing specification.
Unfortunately, it often requires the client to accept a product that was different from their original specification thanks to the dropping of features along the way.
Which is worse, not allowing a change in specifications because it puts the deadline in jeopardy or dropping some specifications to allow time for new specs that are more important to the customer to be implemented?
To me, meeting all the original specs is still failing if the end product can't be used by the customer.
Note: Fortunately the world as a whole is making substantial investments in renewable energy while the US drags its feet. Of course the problem is that we will largely have to import solutions developed elsewhere. We are wasting an opportunity for more energy independence. While renewable/nuclear energy will be produced locally, we will have to import the technology from places that were smart enough to make the investment.
The ozone was being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons. International efforts were able to largely phase them out, and the Ozone layer has recovered.
One of the first predictions of running out of oil was made in 1914 by the Bureau of Mines. They thought the world would run out in 10 years. There have been similar predictions since then. Why haven't they come true? Because huge sums of money have been invested in making sure we don't run out or at least to put it off as long as possible. Billions and billions have been spent on locating more oil, and figuring out how to extract the relatively small amounts of oil that are in places we already know about. Think about some the crazy stuff we do to get oil out of the ground even in the middle of the ocean.
One of the consequences has been that the price of oil has gone up over time. It's slumped back down for now, just like it did in the 90's but it rose after that and you can bet it will again. If in the early 90's you had told somebody that gas would cost almost $4.00 a gallon in a decade, they would have thought armageddon was coming.
In both the case of the ozone layer and oil supplies, the dire predictions didn't happen in large part because we did what was necessary to keep them from happening. Same thing with Y2K. A ton of money was spent updating computers and software.
And we could avoid the problems being predicted as consequences of global warming if we take action and be willing to spend some money. But for some reason, we'd rather just argue about it whether it's really a problem or not and in the meantime the solutions just get more expensive and likelihood of widespread consequences increase.
I would bet anything that she succeeded not just because of her people skills but because she was a quick study and learned what it took to be a good engineer.
Now that they mention it.. It's one our company ideals that we promote from within. I've seen a lot of good sys admins get thrust into management and fail or leave. I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks when they are unable to understand what is going on.
I don't think "promote within" is a bad policy or ideal to have. It's only bad if it becomes gospel rather than guideline. There are people with strong technical skills that can also be good managers. There is also a risk in bringing in a manager to supervise a group of technical people whose job they don't really understand.
At my company it's pretty clear who has good leadership/management skills and who doesn't. Some of them currently hold technical positions. Further, being given a supervisory role in this organization isn't necessarily a promotion. One of my employees had a subordinate a decade ago. While he wasn't a bad supervisor, he wasn't particularly good at it either and certainly didn't relish the responsibility. So he doesn't have a subordinate now and may never have one again, but he was never demoted.
I will also add this. There are some people who seem to be natural managers, but other people can *learn* those skills if they are willing and put in the effort. There are benefits and downsides to heading down the management track, but being able to be both technical and managerial opens a lot of doors.
Finally, there are plenty of times it makes sense to hire outside the company. It's one way to bring skills into the organization that are lacking or missing altogether.
To simplify, consenting to sex once does not imply consent down the road. He consented to have her eggs to be fertilized with his sperm with the express purpose of using them down the road.
So the fact that she once consented to sex with him means he can fuck her any time he chooses, even now they've split?
Just that by your logic, they made an agreement and they must never change it.
Or can they?
She's not asking him to donate more sperm. She just wants to use the eggs that were fertilized with sperm HE ALREADY DONATED which he did knowing that they would probably not be in a relationship by the time she planned to use them. It is something he already decided. It is something he already did.
If she consents to have sex with him, she consents for that instance only. It doesn't matter if they are in a relationship or not. There is no obligation for her to have sex with him again. If they were in a relationship, he might decide to leave her as a consequence. The important thing to remember is that he is free to have sex with anyone else who is willing. By not consenting to have sex with him now or in the future, she is in no way preventing him from having a sex life.
She can not have a baby with anyone else's sperm. This is the only way she can have a child that's a biological descendent. If it were possible to have somebody else's sperm fertilize these eggs then I think that he'd have every right to legally prevent her from implanting these eggs as they are. But he went in to this knowing that this would not be possible and he has to live with the consequences.
Yours is just not a relevant analogy.
An important aspect for me is that he didn't do this with the express intent of being a traditional father. Both of them were aware that their romantic relationship may not last, though they did have a long term friendship.
He did this as a favor to her, not because they were sure they wanted to raise a kid together. So as far as the issue of property is concerned, he gave his sperm to her so that the eggs could be fertilized. It's too late to take them back now. He really was a sperm donor. He just happened to be involved with the mother at the time of the donation.
I understand that any woman who he might get involved with in the future might have some issues with this. I suppose that is true of anyone whose donated sperm. It does have the added twist that he was friends with the mother and had a short term fling with her. He thought he was doing a good thing but didn't think about the potential consequences. It's too bad.
So what if he wanted to take the eggs and have a kid with another woman - what would your stance be on that? The combination of the two constituent parts should surely mean that if he wants to use them without her ongoing consent he would be allowed to just as much as she does now...?
Too many people here are jumping to the conclusion that the fertilised eggs are solely the property of the woman even though they are the result of two donations - why should the mans contribution matter less in these cases?
I kind of explained that. The difference is that she never consented to have the eggs implanted in another woman, while he did consent to have the eggs implanted in her (at some point down the road).
Let's say the situation had been reversed and this guy had a medical condition that made future sperm production impossible. And just like the woman in this article, he specifically chose her genetics vs someone else's. If this woman allowed her eggs to be harvested to be fertilized with his sperm so at some point down the road he could have a biological child, not necessarily with her, then yes I would say he had the right to use them.
I'm not viewing the eggs as property whose ownership must be decided. I'm viewing this as a contract.
Another note. Apparently they only harvested 8 eggs which is not many. They could have only fertilized half with his sperm and froze the rest unfertilized but knowing that the results from unfertilized eggs aren't as good, the dude said to fertilize them all. Had he not said that, she would have had the option of having the remaining eggs fertilized by someone else.
That entirely depends on the jurisdiction - a similar case went to court in the UK back in 2000 - 2007 and the man won his case.
The woman appealed all the way to the European Court of Human Rights and lost her case completely.
The issue is that the man withdrew his permission for the embryos to be used - up to the point at which they are implanted in the woman, they are jointly owned and cannot be used without express permission of both parties. Embryos are also not legal entities, and as they are not yet part of the womans body, she does not get automatic final say over their use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Would your argument work for you if the man was able to take the fertilized eggs and have them implanted in a surrogate who brings them to term? Surely the woman should have some say in that?
Since the legal matter is still being sorted out, I'm trying to look at it from an ethical standpoint. If she had agreed to have her eggs fertilized knowing that they might be implanted in another woman so that a friend/boyfriend could have a biological child in the future, then I think that it would be true that she already gave consent.
If you read the article, you'll find that the couple had been friends for a decade before they started dating and neither seemed to think their romantic relationship was going to be a long term one. The decision to freeze her fertilized eggs resulted from a 7 minute conversation. Even after the relationship ended, email correspondence showed that he was OK with the decision to freeze the eggs and would do it again.
It wasn't until after a later relationship of his went sour over the issue that he attempted to prevent her from using the eggs.
Given the above I look at it this way. He consented to do this as a friend to help her out, not because he wanted to raise the kids that might result. He knew that he may not be in the picture down the road. The problem is that he didn't think through the potential consequences it might have on his future relationships. That sucks for him, but in my mind it is too late to withdraw consent. If she had known he might later change his mind, she could have gone the sperm donor route instead.
by your own article (US sales):
number of EVs sold in 2010 - 2011: 17,500
number of EVs sold in 2014: 123,000
Growth rate: 600%
By comparison overall car sales:
2011: 12,778,000
2014: 16,500,000
Growth rate: 29%
So it would seem that the growth in sales of EVs is far outstripping the growth in sales of automobiles as a whole. EVs are still a small fraction of total car sales, but back in the early 1980s cellphones represented a small fraction of total phone sales. Look at what's happened since. It took a few decades but improvements in battery technology have helped make mobile phones ubiquitous.
The are sooo many industries dependent upon and investing in battery technology that the range and cost of EVs will almost certainly improve dramatically in the next 5 years and continue to improve after that.
Another thing to consider is that regardless of how you may feel about global warming, California has some very aggressive goals for emission reductions by 2050. They likely won't meet them. However, to get even close, substantial electrification of transportation (including personal vehicles) is practically required. California represents a huge market for automobiles. There will be a continued push for improvements in EVs from a number of directions.