They (Elon) gambled they could reduce the price of the rest of the truck enough to make an “affordable” BEV by radical changing how it was built - turns out that wasn’t possible.

Ford gambled they could build a BEV truck like an F150 and make it affordable enough to attract their normal buyers. Turns out that wasn’t possible.

I’m not sure I see why one failure was better than the other.

Perhaps you should be taking his keys instead. Though tire rotation is just an economic decision (I haven’t had a car that could have its tires rotated in decades) not a safety decision. Just means tire will need replacing sooner.

No, this is a long-term thing. In high school the minivan I drove to violin practice crapped its engine onto the freeway because it apparently hadn’t had an oil change in years.

When you bought a BEV and need to recharge on a road trip. And have the car prepare the battery for charging. And make sure the charging station will be working and available when you arrive.

I guess they were all written by teenagers.

"Found a Way to Date my Cat" seems to predict romantasy...

The iPhone 1 only allowed web bookmarks. They aren’t as capable as real apps in dozens of ways. The fact that lots of Apps are just glorified web site browsers doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of apps that aren’t, and some that couldn’t be done with a web site at all.

It's not that apps should be websites, but that you should be able to load apps as freely as websites.

There are very good reasons, starting with the fact that there was no good mobile app experience before Apple created one. And they created one that was half the cost of the terrible stores that existed before.

And they created the hardware and software to make all this possible.

None of that explains why the owner of an Apple device can't install alternative app stores, nor the bundling of their own app store.

Apple never claimed to be an open ecosystem that allowed users to install anything they liked without interference.

Sure, I acknowledge an open ecosystem is at least not something Apple advertises nor what any reasonable consumer believes Apple to be advertising.

My point is that "users installing anything they like" is, or ought to be, a legal right. It's an intrinsic part of ownership of a general-purpose personal computing device.

Actually, from 2007 (first iPhone) to 2008 (the App Store), they kind of did.

Apple made it perfectly clear that iDevices would be a walled garden when they released the SDK for third party applications.

That’s retconning at its best - there was no support for 3rd party apps then, just websites.

That's the point, in the beginning there were not supposed to be native apps, just web apps, some of them advertised in Apple site but not otherwise privileged.

The point is that customers who bought an iDevice knew in advance that they were buying into a walled garden ecosystem with a web browser.

It was Google that lied to the public about Android being an "open" ecosystem that allowed you to do anything you liked without interference.

No amount of "they did it first", "they did it better" entitles them to monopolistic behavior.

Cost of settlement is not proportional to work required.

It's still absurd, because justice in this case doesn't come from equating these financial costs, this is an unfair system that privileges those with big pockets.

What’s the alternative? Which system would allow people to sue for $10 if the work required to do that is worth significantly more?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49878075 a system of fairness, not a system of exploitation

Only if you believe it is their fiduciary duty to remove him, and that is a long stretch unlikely to make it though the lawsuits.

What was the abuse?

Seems like they need to remove any of the Red genes?