Frameworks do matter in the sense that a good, well-organized, well-thought out framework will always outperform a shabby one. And the throughput matters. But having said that - it's a fine balance.
We moved one of our customers from a vanilla wordpress backend (gotta be the shittiest code organization I've ever seen) to a custom Phoenix/Elixir based backend that handles over 500M+ requests at 1/3rd the cost of competitors and 40% cheaper than their old Wordpress backend. So yeah, it really does affect the bottom line.
The problem with the OP article is that it’s a tiny toy:
> “Three tables: Publisher -> Author -> Book. Seeded with 4,215 real books from the Open Library API: Agatha Christie, Dostoevsky, Penguin Books, real data with real-world cardinality.”
What “real-world” application is that tiny? You could keep this all in RAM on a machine with say 16 MB or so of RAM (not GB!) A Raspberry Pi would be overkill.
The lesson from the article is, a framework doesn’t matter if your scale is below the mom-and-pop shop level.
I feel like the word "protocol", is just abused like it is a glorified marketing term. Kind of like how the word "hacker" was abused in everything else that had nothing to do with hacking.
MCP was just a glorified way of tool calling but generated so much hype (and it eventually died down). Now we have MPP. Which again - could have just been another tool call exposed to the agent.
Imagine you hire someone who claimed to have invented a new protocol and you're thinking of something like TCP or UDP, but all they share is just a markdown file.
"protocol" is just an agreement to communicate in a standardized way. this is a protocol. a tool call exposed to the agent is a protocol - the act of "exposing it to the agent" means you're defining a protocol.
there's nothing wrong with calling this a protocol. the problem is in hyping it up as though every protocol is going to be world-changing on the level of TCP.
I recently redesigned my blog to look like a modern RFC and I'm loving the way they've decided to render tables in their plain text, definitely gonna steal that.
On topic though, Stripe is trying to make themselves the Visa/Mastercard of crypto. They're in position to do so and it seems like Coinbase is their other half. I don't trust or like it though.
> * Offering optional paid features or premium content
This implies that a successful GET request to a resource that user already does have access to, might still return 402 instead of 200. This makes 402 basically unworkable.
I mean, I have had people unironically declare they had written compilers or exploits, which were actually just javascript or golang wrappers around the real payload, or all of the irrelevant lexer/parser/typechecker/optimizer/assembler bits.. I'm sure they were just as trivial, especially today with LLMs..
I think this started when "web3" cryptocurrency projects started using the term to pretend that something which isn't much more than a service that uses a blockchain network to move money around was actually somehow "decentralized" and that that made it more trustworthy.
> At a societal level, EVs are generally better than ICE cars.
Cite your sources, please
> cars that can automatically fix a "recall" with an over-the-air update are generally better than recalls that will wait to get fixed until an owner schedules an appointment to have the car serviced.
If a "recall" can be fixed via software, doesn't that mean just shitty software to begin with? And that usually happens only when a car is infested with tons of software - proving the exact opposite of why we need less software inside cars?
we need sources for the fact an electric motor, all other things being equal, is better than a combustion engine? If you agree that people in general value the health of their lungs that alone is sufficient reason.
It's also becoming quickly a question of geopolitical resilience, running your transport system on dinosaur juice coming from regions where people blow each other up is bad in particular if you happen to be Japanese automaker Honda
> an electric motor, all other things being equal, is better than a combustion engine?
This is not the core argument. Motors maybe superior - we can agree on that. The power source (batteries) and the environmental impact they have - that has always been the core argument. [1]
My background is global geophysical exploration, primarily for mineral resources with some dabbling in the energy domain.
For a single example, this passage:
High demand and prices are already encouraging some producers to cut corners and violate environmental and safety regulations.
For example, in China, dust released from graphite mines has damaged crops and polluted villages and drinking water. In Africa, some mine owners exploit child workers and skimp on protective equipment such as respirators. Small artisanal mines, where ores are extracted by hand, often flout laws.
is entirely emotive, intended to tug on feelings (which it does) but otherwise it has no bearing on the bulk of major mining that contributes to bulk of mineral processing.
The tonnes of nickel and cobalt we see largely comes from big mines, big trucks, formal Occ Health and Safety regulations, etc.
It also commits the usual mistake of confusing "just in time" exploration results that firm up suspected deposits with sizes and density estimates for the commodities of interest with absolute limits on what is available over the cycle of time.
As demand increases further areas that are "known" (but not measured) get further technical inspection (magnetics, drill sampling, etc) and become new fresh reserves.
Does the article you cited cost money to read? I found a description on google scholar:
> Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries
> Reserves of cobalt and nickel used in electric-vehicle cells will not meet future demand. Refocus research to find new electrodes based on common elements such as iron and silicon, urge Kostiantyn Turcheniuk and colleagues.
I notice that the article was published in 2018. So I guess we only have to wait two more years to decide if it's right or not. Will we be out of cobalt and nickel by then? I'd be happy to take a bet with you, assuming you stand by the article you cited.
it's not a fact, it's an opinion, and just because you see it as truth doesnt mean it is. This is why the left/progressive crowd is so disliked by the conservatives - they phrase any argument from an inherent view point that they assume is self-evident.
> This is why the left/progressive crowd is so disliked by the conservatives - they phrase any argument from an inherent view point that they assume is self-evident.
the fact that a combustion vehicle inherently produces byproducts that are extremely harmful to your health and an electrical engine does not is not an opinion, it's a medical fact you can verify yourself by breathing next to a car exhaust.
Conservatives, I assumes this means American modern conservatives, dislike this because they make French postmodernists from the 70s look like evidence based scientists
> Conservatives, I assumes this means American modern conservatives, dislike this because they make French postmodernists from the 70s look like evidence based scientists
Cite your own sources that they're not. And maybe try to avoid the ten year old nonsense that's frequently floated as "evidence".
On recalls -- like the one that said that individual icons have to be slightly bigger? Yeah, shitty software.
Or the one that made Tesla annoy drivers with a smaller timeout? That was actually a safety issue --- people would turn off FSD to adjust something and then turn it back on again. Much, much less safe.
You made an assumption about something I never said and used that as the base of your argument to make a point.
I didn't say anything, I simply asked them to cite a source for that kind of a grandiose claim. If you make a claim like that without citation(s), the onus to prove it lies on the person making the said claim, not on me to disprove it.
Most people including the author think more software = premium/better. But as software engineers, we know better. That's not the case at all. More software = more control by everyone else except you. Manufacturers. Governments.
For this reason, I always avoid cars with big flashy LCD screens that are central to controlling the cars accessories like sunroof, AC and other electricals.
The other issue is support. So many models stop getting updates after 5 years. So, if there is a bug in that big screen, you have to live with it for the rest of the car's life.
Finally, there's the issue of privacy. Most manufacturers contract with analytics vendors to send your data back to them. You can't even turn it off. For example, MG (now chinese owned) has Adobe analytics embedded into their big screens. The only reason chinese love using Adobe over other vendors is because they aren't blocked in China. So that's usually a dead giveaway that your data is being sent back there.
What kind of data? You will be surprised.
1. How many people are inside the car at a given point (measuring laden weight)
2. What are your favorite spots (your home, office, restaurants, etc)
3. How many people live in your family (average laden weight over time)
4. Your favorite routes, highways
5. If you are married/have kids
6. If you're having an affair
7. Your annual income, monthly spend, estimated net worth
And a lot more data points that I can list here. Remember, they have access to additional data brokers to stitch a complete user profile about you too.
There is also the issue of longevity. Most people don't expect 20 year old laptops to keep working, but they expect 20 year old cars to keep working. The software defined vehicle is a disposable vehicle, and that means it better be cheap or someone is taking a depreciation bath.
That's because cars are fundamentally hardware products, not software products. Yes, software powers the heart of it (ECU), but it is just another "part" in a million other parts, not the main central selling point of the car.
So, if I buy an expensive hardware product for something that can significantly alter my net worth, it is not unreasonable to expect it to last a few decades.
The analogy for this would be the same as buying a property/house. Just because it has a smart home module in it, doesn't make it the central USP of the house - people invest millions into it for the location and size (area), not for the software it runs on.
However, what's happening today is software is being pushed as the central USP of the car, kind of like how they did with phones - and that's not a good thing and which enforces my belief further that we need less software inside hardware products, not more.
Gentoo works and you can build or even cross-build it yourself. The next big problem is going to be, unsurprisingly, Firefox: glean component is exceeding 3GB memory during compilation (the 32bit user address space).
Cars are harsh environments with heat, moisture and vibrations. Automotive electronics are considered heavy duty compared to consumer electronics, but are still rated for about 8,000-10,000 hours of operation.
One way to think about it is that temperatures inside a car left in the Arizona heat can easily reach 160. Inside the engine bay, they can easily reach 200F.
Now, if you leave your consumer electronics inside a car every day during the summer, you can expect a significant proportion to fail. For instance, your lithium batteries in your laptop are going to have a bad time if you operate them over 113 and they will start getting damaged when operated over 100.
But you expect your computer modules to take it, and they have been built in such a way to take it, as well as all the vibrations, moisture, and temperature swings of a car. You can leave your car in the street in the summer, walk back into it after it's been sitting in the sun, and apart from needing a steering wheel cover you can start the car and drive away, with all your modules working. And you can do this for a decade. It's pretty amazing. How many people have gotten the "phone is too hot to operate message" when leaving their phone in the car in the summer, but their infotainment screens continue to work? It's happened to me all the time.
If you drive 2 hours a day on weekdays and one hour on weekends, so 12 hours per week, then that is 6240 hours of operation in a decade, so expect your car electronics modules to start dying around year 13 of use, and by year 16 of use, you are past the point for which these modules have been rated.
The infotainment screens will last 7-10 years.
Sensors in the engine bay will last 5-10 years.
The problem is that people expect their cars to last 20 or 30 years, and they should be able to, but cars weighed down with electronics are going to last only about 10 years. That's a huge problem for people who will get saddled with massive depreciation. If you paid $70K for that car, you are going to lose it all over 10 years, that's $7K depreciation per year (on average) but of course it is front loaded as you will lose 40% of that in the first 3 years.
So the software defined car, is going to radically change the economics of car ownership, and how much automakers can charge for cars, or equivalently it will dramatically shrink the pool of people who can use a car.
Now, you may think "I will escape this and just lease the car", but that is just a financing arrangement does not allow you to escape depreciation, as you pay for the depreciation in your lease cost. You can say "I will escape this and take an uber or taxi" but here, too, the depreciation costs will be passed onto you as a customer. You may think "the automaker only cares about the first buyer" but the first buyer is the one that absorbs the vast majority of the depreciation. There is no escape.
I don't think people have internalized the financial horror that is the software-defined car. The average age of a car on the road is now 14 years. You are talking about transitioning to cars that will only last 10 years. It's going to completely shock both automakers and car buyers.
What will happen to your iphone-defined dash in 10 years, when iPhones use completely new protocols and are not usable with your car anymore? It's one thing when it was just infotainment, and people could install more modern aftermarket units, but when the entire thing is integrated into the dash and controls critical functionality, then this will turn into a nightmare.
The older modules were more durable, but even those start to fail after that much use. In the past, you could go to a junkyard and pull a new module, but now everything is vin-locked to the car, so you need to buy a new module from the manufacturer, but oops, they are no longer selling them. Now what do you do? It's a real problem.
Some shops try to reverse engineer the modules and create clones, and that works a little bit, but it's a real problem. But that was for modules made in the early 2000s.
Now fast forward to today where the electronics is completely different and much less durable. You have basically PC motherboards being inserted into cars. I think people have not yet understood the implications of this in terms of their car's durability.
I've been talking to a guy with a 2007 Volvo and the upper electronics module failed -- it's in the rear-view mirror. Now, you can still drive that car, but he pulled one from a junkyard and tried to replace his -- now the CEM wont recognize the module. OK, with Volvo, you can crack the CEM pin and get it to accept the new module since the reverse engineering community has managed to figure that out.
But with modern cars? With the "software defined vehicle"? You are S.O.L.
When a mechanical part fails, you can fabricate a new part, and aftermarket vendors come and make replacement parts. But with software? The vendor isn't releasing the code. You can't make a replacement.
Both the governments and the manufacturer benefit from you driving a newer vehicle instead of keeping your old car running. Topics like environmental impact safety etc. are higher priority compared to repair-ability. Additionally most people don't care.
Additionally there is the issue of licensing and regulation around the hardware and software of a vehicle. The regulation in my country is written around "type approval" and this means you can not change the car significantly beyond what is approved during the car "type approval" process.
On top of that this market is ripe for abuse of planned obsolescence as the product is very technically complex and there is no real regulation against it.
This is why I drive an old car and a simple modern car, most modern smart tv's with wheels strapped to them will become bricked the moment the manufacturer doesn't support them anymore (after the 10year lifespan).
In my experience, it does actually work. Tesla model s had an issue with the flash memory endurance, and the NHTSA made them replace it. Which they did, and upgraded the 3G modem to LTE while they were at it. My 2013 Model S is still going strong, still gets software updates.
They forced them to replace it because it was recognized as a manufacturing/design defect. This is a very different scenario from "normal wear" replacement.
Additionally the Tesla model S is still in production with only a facelift. Therefore the parts that are produced are not unavailable (or not supplied).
I think you can't replace/upgrade the flash and modem yourself without the assistance of a Tesla dealer.
>>I imagine there could be regulation to force vendors keeping their old cars repairable.
Yes, but what does that mean in practice? That Manufacturer has to keep making parts for 20 years after production ends? How does that help if your entire infotainment system runs on Google's AOSS system and google just pulls the plug on it or the built-in modem stops connecting to the internet because your country decided to switch off all 3G networks(which is a real problem happening everywhere). Is the car "working" but with all apps and satnav completely blank still functional or does it need "repair" - if so, what does that repair even look like?
As a basic example - I have a 2020 Volvo XC60 with Sensus OS - all the maps are preloaded on the internal drive and they will continue working until the hardware breaks - they might get outdated but they will work. But I drove a new Volvo XC60 with AOSS and I was in the area without any signal coverage - in that case all the maps were just blank, the middle of the driver display was blank, it literally looked broken because nothing would load and the screens didn't have a good fallback for such a scenario.....which will inevitably happen to all these cars, either because they lose connectivity or because google/volvo decide to stop supporting them on their network.
You mean, ensuring repairability would be hard? I bet. And exceptions could be made where a change of technology makes aspects of the car non-functional (3G vanishing). On the other hand, the choice of contractors/suppliers, contracts with those entities, and so on would work differently with a repairability law in place.
AI in a box, look at the signals coming in, look at the signals going out. emulated and clone them.. you have a acceptable and a reject state button.
Blackbox blackboxed car.
Cars with (double) DIN units are ok. When the built in GPS is missing half the roads in your area or Carplay/android auto stops working you can just buy a new headunit for a few hundred dollars. But cars with everything "integrated" aren't ageing as gracefully and it's not easy to upgrade the built in systems. 20 years old is fine, 10 years maybe not.
I own a 2019 VW egolf. It does not work as intended and its only 7 years old.
When they shut down 3g nobody thought about what it would do to "smart cars" that only had 3g modems.
Mine lost the ability to update and is now stuck with an out of date map, no remote start or preheating, no ability to check charge levels remotely, and a ton of bugs that will never be fixed.
When the software stops being supported it basically ruins the car for many purposes. For example, as someone who lives in a cold climate the ability to remotely preheat the cabin and turn on defrosters is an absolute necessity of most folks.
VW doesnt care to fix the issue so owners are stuck, forever.
Yeah but those were primitive (as in simple, more reliable) and hardened electronics, and you had tons of knobs to set most important things directly even if the screen would die completely.
Now its just a tablet glued to some annoying location and no physical controls. Do you expect a tablet to last 20 years battery notwithstanding, the touch to be perfectly sensitive for so long? Most people don't, for good reasons.
It's not only bug fixing. It's what happens to phones too: updates for a fixed number of years.
I don't see the point to pay a premium for a new car (it's not a tool for my work) so I always buy second hand. My Citroën C3 from 2016 never upgraded to the new backward incompatible Android auto from the late 2010s. I bought it in 2020 and I wasn't able to connect to it with my phone from 2019 which came with the new Android auto. BTW iPhones could connect. Last time I checked was 2024.
This particular problem is not important because I put my phone in a holder close to my wheel and I get a better navigator than my car could ever be with its 3 colors LCD panel, but cars can last much more than phones and stopping support at any time during their lifetime could be a problem. I understand that supporting a 2016 car in 2036 could be a problem too, so just give us the mechanical part with the firmware of engine, brakes etc and the usual knobs and buttons. Each passenger has a personal infotainment system in their hands and spend their time liking at it with earpieces in their ears. No need to duplicate that in the car.
I'm past 130k km now so I'll be looking for another second hand car a few years from now. I'm afraid that it will be from the middle of the worst period of the car dashboards. Maybe I'll be partially saved by looking at a low price point.
I don't understand how they can get away with this even. Imagine if they discover a root exploit in whatever old version of Android they're running.
Now if there's no update, people can just hack your car via the internet or Bluetooth. While your infotainment can't access the ICU usually, they're connected via Canbus which has zero provisions for security, and taking over your whole car is usually quite easy from this point, as many have demonstrated.
And even if there's a fix, you have to drive to the service center who might not even update your car for free.
I'm just surprised how this hasn't ended in disaster already.
> Finally, there's the issue of privacy. Most manufacturers contract with analytics vendors to send your data back to them. You can't even turn it off.
You absolutely can. Pull the fuse of the cellular modem aka "telematics unit" or even completely remove it. Some vehicles don't have a separate fuse, in which case you will need to physically unplug the modem. Do your research and don't buy any car where this can't be done more or less painlessly.
Yeah unless its integrated into another module. Or you remove or unplug it, and suddenly it throws an annoying error because a module is missing. Or even your car goes into limp mode because of some kind of weird cascade failure.
There might be some cars this works on now, but it's going to be harder and harder to do over time as things get more integrated, and the more they realize they want that sweet location data money.
Well thats a nice theory but do you yourself give guarantee to all models that they will keep working after such potentially destructive 'hack' ? I don't think so. Its trivial for manufacturer to make it stop working because of ie some security blah and just having a big warning on the screen to go to the repair shop.
So a typical internet advice - don't listen to it uncritically, or not at all.
It doesn't have to be that way though. There's a bigger scam in the tech industry in general that says the path we're on is the only path we can be on.
More software doesn't have to mean less value for the customer. More software doesn't have to mean your tools and devices are spyware machines. That's just the lie we've been told.
Exactly! There's vastly more software available for Linux than there is for Windows and the Linux experience is vastly superior. It's a real-world example of "more software == better".
I was told by a car dealer service guy that if the touch screen went on the blink, the car would be totaled. (Since replacing it cost more than the car was worth.)
I've often thought the touch screen should be replaced by a socket that accepts an iPad, and put the auto custom software on that. Why reinvent the hardware?
Because you can choose to leave your phone at home and are travel everywhere by car if you don't want to be tracked. But you can't leave your car at home and travel anywhere.
It is true that we don't need cars sending telemetry to track us since there is a conveniently placed identification number on the front and rear of the car, the number plate (used by government), but this is physically broadcasted and that limits its reach.
So why should the manufacturer of my car have access (and the right to sell) a lot of my personal data like location, weight, age indefinitely just because I own a product manufactured by them?
It is an unnecessary overreach on very sensitive data and I can't really opt out (if buying a modern car) since all manufacturers are doing it.
Yes I also carried a phone everywhere the last 20years, but that doesn't make the tracking right (also on phone I think we should be tracked less).
I understand and agree in general, but the root issue is in the laws and what's permitted to companies. Giving your data to car manufacturers and 3rd parties should be mandated to be disabled by default by law and only enabled with proper informed consent.
My car does not have a cellular modem in it, and my phone runs GrapheneOS. I use airplane mode extensively and rotate SIMs regularly. Data brokers aren't getting any anything from me.
Funny that you say that because of all the big tech companies, Apple has the best track record at fighting for consumer privacy. And you certainly cannot say that for any of the car makers that currently have an EV lineup.
Apple has a terrible reputation if you don't cherrypick news. Most of their 'security' stuff is PR work. Its just that rest of competition is even worse.
The power of a tablet is far more than is required for an infotainment system. Make a standard, like we used to have for radios and regulate everything to expose all the controls via a standard connection. Standard parts for replacing and sizes for fitting.
The only way we can have nice things is by regulating. I don't want proprietary tyres either.
That's why I have a dumb car, but added a tablet with maps and can bus connection (OBD-II) via bluetooth. All in my control. The OBD-II adapter is not visible. Did cost my about 50€.
I thought more software meant I could write a little Lua and get the seat in the second preset position when I pressed the key fob in a particular way...
Maybe that's because software that we use every day (websites, saas, etc) generally get better over time and it's still relatively cheap. Meanwhile cars still rely on things like an archaic check engine light rather than just tell you what's wrong with the car and an infotainment system that's worse than a circa 2012 iPad.
People feel that cars haven't really improved much in practical terms over the last 20 years. At least to the layman, they don't feel smoother, safer, more comfortable to drive. They just got more expensive, more cameras and crap like auto-start that no one asked for.
So at least the hope is to take some of the best parts of modern software manufacturing and apply it to the car. Tesla did this and is why it was the first successful car company that's been started in the past 50 years or so.
Auto start is pretty much universally hated especially since it's ubiquitous and can usually only be turned off for a single ride. But cool, I'm glad you like it.
Cameras and electronics make the car much more expensive to repair.
But I'm confused, are you pro-technology in car or are you one of those that say "this exact level of technology is perfect, any more or less would be bad". I see this weird tech hater sentiment. For instance some are worried about technology taking blue collar jobs but if you suggest removing technology to create more jobs, they would be against that. Consider how many jobs the washing machine has taken. We could create millions of manual clothes washers if we got rid of them!
>>Auto start is pretty much universally hated especially since it's ubiquitous and can usually only be turned off for a single ride.
Which I absolutely don't understand. It's a fantastic technology and I wish I could retro-fit them to some of my older cars too, it's literally fantastic. Like, who likes sitting in standstill traffic and listening to their 4 cylinder rambler working when they are just standing still???? Even in my V8 LR3 I wish the engine would just shut off when in traffic, it's extra noise that's not needed or welcome inside the cabin. Especially since the advent of integrated starter generators, all the old arguments against it, how it's slow to start or how it wears out the starter motor have literally disappeared. But you still see people rabidly complain about it on forums, for no reason that I can see anywhere, other than "I just don't like it".
Great. Leave it on. I want it off, and I want it to stay off when turned off.
The start delay is not a big deal in traffic that's stop-and-go. But I have a poor-visibility situation at the end of my street, for which the only solution is "move away". There was a light indicating if a car was approaching over the hill, but when it was damaged the city didn't replace it. So when I hit the accelerator, I need the car to go right then. Not half a second or a full second later, when there might be a car that wasn't visible before coming at me.
In a 2023 Mercedes it is most assuredly not instantaneous. Maybe it's just their implementation that's unpredictable. But that's the car my wife owns, so it's the one I've tried it on.
Still, keep using it if you like it. I don't hate that it exists. I hate that I can't turn it off and leave it off.
Yeah I'm just saying try it in a car where it works well. In my XC60 it's paired with an electric motor on the rear axle so even with the engine off the car accelerates from standstill like an EV - instantaneously and with plenty of torque.
The key word there is disappeared which means engineering effort was put into vehicle design to make it a non issue. more robust/new starter design, more expensive battery tech required, simulations to validate no carbon buildup and real world testing, software calibration to make sure if engine is too cold or turbo too hot doesn't auto stop. All driving up costs to consumer thus consumers would liek to have something for that added cost. For many rural drivers a typical commute may be 15 miles with 2-3 stoplights and 1-2 lights. this effectively negates the fuel benefitsand often is annoying when coming to a stop at a stopsign to have car turn off momentarily for no benefit and possibly detriment to fuel economy if the ratio of stop sign initiated auto stops is higher than stop and sit at a stop light. I do appreciate personally the moments of quiet when not moving but is it worth it the added cost to my vehicle ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>often is annoying when coming to a stop at a stopsign to have car turn off momentarily for no benefit
The benefit is that it's nice an quiet. I don't care about the fuel saving.
>>it worth it the added cost to my vehicle
I'm not sure what that cost is, even if there is one. My XC60 got rid of the starter motor and just uses then ISG which it would have to have anyway being a plug in hybrid. The engine obviously has to start and stop at any moment to allow EV running too, so that engineering had to be done anyway.
But I had one of the early S/S systems in a 2013 Nissan Qashqai and I never had any issues with it in my 7 years of ownership, not entirely sure if it added anything to the price of the vehicle as the previous model year with the same engine but no S/S cost exactly the same.
As users we should also know better. All too often software is used to remove functionality from your things, or add unwanted ones. Even just adding ads. It's used as bait and switch and can make the thing you bought unfit for the job.
Car software comes with so many locks and it's intentionally made to not be serviceable by the user in any way. You can't tweak it, replace it, take one from another car. It's your car, the hardware part that does the same job is yours, but the software that replaces it isn't.
And at the end of the day almost no buyer buys a car for future promised software features. They buy it for existing features and new good ones are just welcome. If anything, the software is just used as an excuse to deliver a half baked product and have it bake over the years in the owner's hands, so at the end of the ownership maybe it's what was promised in the first place.
> Car software comes with so many locks and it's intentionally made to not be serviceable by the user in any way. You can't tweak it, replace it, take one from another car. It's your car, the hardware part that does the same job is yours, but the software that replaces it isn't.
Telling that to normies would usually give me blanks stares and "nothing to hide" or "don't care" arguments.
My "but your situation my change" and "gov can turn bad" arguments never hit. People are terrible at projecting themselves. That's why climate change is so hard to fight. It's too far and abstract.
Humans need to feel concrete and awful pain to realize their mistake and learn.
But I'm hoping the Trump situation is going to cause that. Now that the US is at the brink of dictatorship (some might argue it's already there), maybe American citizens will realize that putting their entire life on a centralized platform, having non encrypted communications and spying devices everywhere is a terrible idea.
I'm not very optimistic though.
And even if they do, in 3 generations, they will have forgotten. I have no idea how to fix this.
> More software = more control by everyone else except you. Manufacturers. Governments.
Also more unreliability, because software engineers often aren't real engineers.
> The other issue is support. So many models stop getting updates after 5 years. So, if there is a bug in that big screen, you have to live with it for the rest of the car's life.
The problem here is (probably) the internet, which gives management an excuse to slack on QA. If there was no chance to ever update the software, they'd probably do a better job. But now with the internet, they can say they'll just fix it in a patch later, but then never actually get around to doing that.
There ought to be a law that says car software may only be shipped on console-style non-flash ROM carts.
You just casually threw in these claims without backing them up, when it has been proven that the Sony model (and even the others) you listed outperformed the Airpods pro in those exact departments at the time of its launch.
My comment literally also says "Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better."
I also have "etc" in my first sentence, which may include such things as: a stylish aluminum exterior, bells and whistles such as spatial audio, a more seamless bluetooth connecting experience with Apple devices, and so forth. These do not matter for everyone, but some people clearly care about that.
It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?
> It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?
Sorry, this is not the case at all, I am just trying to understand the justification for your original comment on the justification of the price (and quality).
First off, $150 more isn't a small amount to be considered "in-line" with the others. That's roughly 40% more.
The difference is also Apple neither has the audio legacy of those companies nor the quality of those products to warrant that kind of premium. To Apple, it is just another market they can go after, but a lot of those companies built their entire foundations on audio. You are not going to convince me Apple is in the same category as the company that invented the Walkman and CDs.
Also, if you look into the teardown videos, it's really a cheap driver from China - all plastic, not even using aluminium for the basket, just literally hard-glued onto the body. It's not repairable nor eco-friendly. It's anti-consumer. Sony uses Aluminium housing for their drivers and they are the cheapest in the lot.
Ex studio tech here. Legacy doesn't cover contracted manufacturing.
I'm not defending apple here, but using chinese drivers (which I assume is a synonym for poor quality) is fine so long as they are binned for performance, and matched/tuned to housing. I'm assuming the mic inside the ear cup is there to do dynamic EQ.
Also the drivers are screwed into a solid aluminium housing, so they aren't glued.
NS10s which are the standard reference mixing speakers were chosen not because they were high quality, but because they were average. If you could get your mix to sound good on those, it'd sound great anywhere.
So yeah, they are expensive. Would I buy them? probably not. I'm reasonably happy with my plantronic jobbies. Are they perfect? no, are they comfortable? yes. Is the active noise cancelling actually effective? also no, but then ANC is only really useful for a small subset of noises types. (even on Sonys. )
This argument is valid if journalism was actually journalism instead of just ripping off trending stories from HN and Reddit and rehashing it with sloppy AI and calling it a day and putting in 4 lines of text buried inside 400 ads.
I don't like the state of journalism either but you realize this is a vicious cycle, no? People not paying for news (by buying newspaper, or more importantly paying for classified ads) leading to low quality online reporting leading to people not wanting to pay for online news.
It is an interesting view point. The core issue is journalists have just become middle-men in a free information era and demanding money for it. Like I said, what's to stop me (or someone) to simply write a crawler/agent that just gathers data on a bunch of sites where information is curated (like X, HN, Reddit) and presenting it to me in a readable format? I think people see this and hence the reluctance to pay. The average Joe gets his news from social media (Facebook / Instagram / X / etc.) and doesn't think any online news journal is worth paying $20/month for.
It only proves my point - if journalists really added value - like reporting on something that you can't just find out by browsing social media, maybe they would have a chance. But, what we see and have is only just sloppy reporting.
Not all information is out there for free, monetarily and in terms of personal liberty. News articles frequently quote "sources inside" some three letter agencies or major corporations who will face consequences if they speak to the public under their real names, and will be rightfully dismissed if spoken anonymously without a journalist being able to ascertain their identity. There is also information that is only spread behind closed doors — trade shows, conferences, sometimes even governmental meetings — where the participants may not want the public to know what they are doing. Then there is the investigative digging, knowing who to ask questions and what questions to ask…
I understand you may think all journalism is just reddit and twitter compilations but it was not always the case. Most people, you likely included, do not even know what they are missing out when their local journalism collapses (again, due to loss of newspaper sell and classified ad revenues) and leaves everyone in the dark about what is going on in local politics.
> News articles frequently quote "sources inside" some three letter agencies or major corporations who will face consequences if they speak to the public under their real names, and will be rightfully dismissed if spoken anonymously without a journalist being able to ascertain their identity. There is also information that is only spread behind closed doors — trade shows, conferences, sometimes even governmental meetings
Your argument just revolves around the edge cases of journalism and that's exactly my point. Many of the so-called "news" sites aren't that. They are just scraping off content on the internet and slapping ads over them. So many clones of Mashable, for instance.
>Most people, you likely included, do not even know what they are missing out when their local journalism collapses (again, due to loss of newspaper sell and classified ad revenues)
While there is some merit to this argument, not always. Most of what we read today are just the opinions of the news, rather than the actual news itself. The people giving their opinions on the news aren't even qualified in the subject matter to begin with. So, strictly speaking, if a news organization collapses - it's just survival of the fittest. It's a free market and if you don't add value, people will just move on.
I never understand this type of comment. People don't pay for news so newspapers (which by the way have pay walls) are forced to degrade their service. It seems strange to me. If I have a restaurant and people don't want to pay for my food, making even worse food with worse service doesn't seem a good solution. If I write books and people don't buy them, writing worse books doesn't make my sales better. Why journalists are different? They sell a service for money like all the others, but for some reason they have a special status and it's totally understandable that they respond to bad sales with a worse product. And actually, somehow it's our fault as customers. For some reason we should keep buying newspapers even if we don't think it's worth to save them from themselves.
Using your analogy, if every restaurant in town had a problem where most people wanted to come in and get food for free (and it was an expectation in the industry) and people refused to go in and pay, everyone would be upset they could no longer go out to eat when there were none left. If nobody is interested in paying for their meal, you can't be shocked the ingredient and chef quality drops in turn.
> if every restaurant in town had a problem where most people wanted to come in and get food for free (and it was an expectation in the industry)
Then the industry itself would not be very sustainable, wouldn't it? In that case, I would expect the industry to radically change or to disappear like many other industries whose expectations were made unsustainable by tech progress. For some reason, we're incredibly excited of it happening to coding, music, art, but not to journalism. Journalism must survive in its current form at all costs.
Think of these like the Google cloud or AWS certifications. A few companies that specialize in them will want you to have them. But for the rest of the industry, your ability to ace the technical interview will matter more.
It is fraud. But these parties are protected by OnlyFans themselves. Similar to how dating apps promote (and actually lot of them enforce) fake accounts with fake pictures because it boosts everything - engagement and revenue. So they always turn a blind eye.
Last week, I used a dating app where they used a fake profile tailored specifically for me, using a married woman's photo. I deleted the app. Every app in this space is scummy and the people at the top running these are just trash. That's the real reason.
We moved one of our customers from a vanilla wordpress backend (gotta be the shittiest code organization I've ever seen) to a custom Phoenix/Elixir based backend that handles over 500M+ requests at 1/3rd the cost of competitors and 40% cheaper than their old Wordpress backend. So yeah, it really does affect the bottom line.