Maybe they hint at something useful, anyway.

• TIOBE gives some idea of how many jobs are out there and how many people are working in specific areas.
• PYPL gives some idea of how many newbies are starting to learn a language.

How to interpret those two numbers, of course, likely depends on the language. Swift, for example, is being learned by a lot of newbies because folks are replacing Objective-C code with Swift code, and people are being kind of forced to learn it, which pushes it artificially higher on PYPL, and pushes Objective-C artificially lower. The same is probably true for Typescript, which is #7 on PYPL and #50 on TIOBE.

In other cases, it's a hint that the language is popular among non-programmers. R is #5 on PYPL, #24 on TIOBE. It is mostly used by people for whom programming is a means to an end, rather than their primary job responsibility, e.g. people working in biotech and other non-software firms, so those jobs show up as "bioinformatics engineer" rather than "R engineer".

In still other cases, it's a hint that way more people want to learn the language than can actually get jobs using it, because programmers think it's neat, but not very many companies actually want to pay people to use it. Rust immediately springs to mind.

So I guess they try to tell us something, but it's hard to tell what they're saying without lots of additional context, so folks are unlikely to actually agree with one another about how to interpret them.

That's the thing, dealers make a lot of money on service — not just parts, but also labor. Dealers, therefore, have a perverse incentive to discourage people from buying EVs. The more they sell, the more the manufacturers will build. If they convince buyers that they really don't want an EV, then they never have to deal with them, and don't have to worry about that future loss of income.

So the answer to the original question is "No, car companies aren't sabotaging the EV transition. Car dealerships are."

For a few miles, anyway. And then they're back to being as noisy as an ICE car.

Almost half could potentially have charging just by installing it or having their apartment complex install it, statistically speaking. If you live in a place where "most people can't even get a parking spot", you should consider either A. moving or B. not having a vehicle, because charging is the least of your problems.

What the heck are you talking about? Key fob hacks happen on ICE cars all the time, and ICE cars have 24/7 tracking, etc., too. And no EV has to "approve" your trips. And no, the battery isn't an integral part of the frame. It's the floorboard. It is structural, but it is also pretty well protected against collision impacts.

To within the margin of error, ignoring the pre-Model-3 period when Teslas came with free lifetime supercharging, free charging has never really existed except when provided by specific employers to their employees. It isn't "getting less and less" common. The employers that provide it are generally still providing it, and in greater and greater quantities.

Umm... if it is doing everything an EV does (e.g. driving silently on electrical power), then you're putting strain on the grid.

So can EV chargers. Tesla temporarily deploys superchargers in certain places for big festivals, and those can either use diesel generators or giant battery packs, depending on how long it is going to be there.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This seems like an incredibly bad idea to me for multiple reasons — high fuel consumption per watt, limited amount of power availability, extra wear on the car's battery, etc.

A lot of folks like to fantasize about situations like that, but having driven across the country multiple times in an EV, that just isn't reality. The places where there are long lines outside of charging stations are basically all in areas with incredibly high EV deployment, and the superchargers are filled up by locals. The superchargers on major interstates outside of the major cities are approximately never full, with the exception of one on I-10 south of Phoenix (and I can't find that one anymore, so maybe when they opened the bigger one across the street, perhaps they ripped it out).

A few hundred bucks to bore under the sidewalk, and it will be. That's an excuse, not a reason.

Not anything about that statement is simple. Is it shared only if the user consents every time the company sends that data, or is it enough to issue a blanket consent for all future sending to a specific site? If the former, you're going to break an awful lot of things that the user might want to do. If the latter, then tapping "I agree" to a data sharing agreement once (which the user probably forgot about years ago) is still consent.

Sorry, but that phrasing absolutely is vague, and there's no way that such a simple statement could ever not be vague. A sufficiently clear explanation would be that they share location information only in an emergency or when the user has explicitly authorized them to share information with a specific external partner by establishing a link between the user's online account and that external partner. That's unambiguous, because it tells what users had to do to grant consent, which gives you at least some idea about whether they understood what they were consenting to and did so deliberately, and makes it clear that they do not share that information in response to any form of boilerplate consent.

This part raised red flags: "except in the case of emergencies or with customer consent." I'm not saying that's the wrong policy, so much as that it is so vague that it could be anywhere from a perfectly reasonable policy to an absolute privacy disaster or anything in between.

Reasonable would be a car company allowing the customer to authorize a specific third-party site to access car data (e.g. TeslaFi).

Unreasonable would be a "By using this navigation system, I consent to data sharing with [car company]'s partners" dialog with an "I agree" button that you have to tap before you can do anything with the car nav system.

Both of those would at least ostensibly count as "customer consent".

I'd hardly call $15 competitive. After the demise of Google Domains was announced, I started looking around, and discovered that Cloudflare offers domain registrations at cost (i.e. you pay the TLD registry price plus the ICANN fee). Zero markup. Unless you're getting some sort of bulk discount or credit towards hosting from some other provider, you're not likely to beat that.

For example:

• .com: $9.77
• .org: $7.50
• .net: $11.84

Even the most expensive of those is still less than the Google Domains price used to be. YMMV, obviously.

The irony is that just a few years after their lawyer made that comment, Apple renamed iTunes to Apple Music like a moron in a hurry. :-D

This. The way I interpret what they said is that they found something that should have been a P1 block-ship bug during late testing, but they decided that hitting an arbitrary release date was more important than not breaking the user experience. That right there tells me that they don't care about quality, and that we should expect these sorts of problems to happen again in the future. That's not a good look for a tech company.

I assumed the point of that bit was "with cellular turned off to prevent cell tower triangulation or cellular carrier detection," in which case the fix for the additional "Wi-Fi triangulation is still a problem" limitation is to not use that, either.

No need to go to that much trouble. Just turn on Airplane mode, use wired networking (a USB-C Ethernet adapter or Lightning Ethernet adapter), and be in a basement where GPS signals don't reach.

I'm still wondering why they can't just mail phones from Europe back to the U.S., and send them back when the 30-day limit ends and exchange them for new ones. The postage wouldn't be free, but it would still be cheaper than starting up a new development team in a different country. But maybe Apple will only allow existing side-loads to function and not new ones? If so, that probably violates EU laws, because it would also prevent removing and reinstalling while on vacation.

I assume you meant 1 cm.

One-year survival rate is also an objective metric that can be set as a goal and communicated to the public. Unlike thinness, it is a metric that customers actually *do* care about. Improving the former while harming the latter is the quickest way to kill a company.

The iPhone is already too thin. Realistically, no good can come from making it thinner. The best case scenario is that they end up with bend-gate all over again. The worst case is that the case flexing causes battery fires and people get genuinely hurt.

Now if they were making one *narrower*, that would be useful. Going back to the iPhone 5s form factor, where you could realistically use the device with one hand would be a HUGE win. But thinner? I not only would not want to buy one, but also would not want to be around anyone who did, out of fear that they would panic and accidentally injure me when their pants suddenly became ablaze.

If you want a smaller phone for when you don't want to carry around something bulky, buy an Apple Watch.

That said, I can see the joke now. "Are you lying, or is that a new iPhone in your pocket?"

Wow. Probably one out of every ten things I buy online ends up going back because there's something fundamentally wrong with it. So if you've never had to return anything, either your standards are very low or you should seriously buy a lottery ticket, because you're the luckiest person in the world.