That's the cynical answer.

The actual reason that EV cars often look strange is because the designers are trying to make them as aerodynamic as possible in order to extend their range.

As battery power density becomes more adequate, maximizing aerodynamic efficiency will become less of a priority, so in the future you can expect designs that make efficiency tradeoffs in order to get a better look.

Raising minimum wage *past a certain point* won't help anyone. If you've ever done basic calculus you will have come across the concept of oprimization - in the abstract for instance, finding where the derivative of a function that's some sort of concave-down curve crosses zero.

The minimum wage will be like that. If you graphed the spending power of the minimum wage people (their income minus their expenses) it will probably be some kind of curve. Starting from zero, the graph will slope upwards, until you hit a peak, and then it will slope downwards as the increased labour cost exceeds the benefit of higher wages.

We are probably somewhere to the left of this optimal point. The increase LA is making probably will move people closer to the optimal point. Increasing the minimum wage to $100/hr will move you to a point far to the right of the point at which the first derivative of the graph crosses zero.

Most farms are highly mechanised and the cost of labour makes up only a tiny part of the cost. (My dad's ex's family are farmers, and farms employ a tiny fraction of the number of people than they did even just 40 years ago).

That assumes 100% of the cost of a product is labour costs.

In reality this is not true. In your example, the wage might go from $60/day to $120/day, but the product will go from $60 before to $80 after. Competition will mean many businesses take lower profits rather than pass on the entire price increase, and virtually no products are 100% labour cost. While wages cannot be raised infinitely, there will be an optimal point, and I suspect we are well below that optimal point as other cities have already demonstrated.

Only if 100% of that product's cost is labour.

In reality this is rarely true, and competition means that businesses often can't pass on all of the cost increase - what it'll mean is businesses will make a little less profit, prices will increase by less than the increase in the minimum wage, and more people will have some sort of disposable income they can now spend on discretionary items. So sales increase.

Certainly you can't raise wages infinitely, and at some point you'll hit a peak, but I suspect we are a long way below that peak.

There's an easy fix for that -- move to India where you can enjoy extremely cheap goods and services.

(or if that doesn't sound like an appealing option to you, ask yourself why it is you find it preferable to live in the USA despite the higher cost of living)

Fiber is amply fast.

The bottleneck is the cavalier attitude of web designers to network resources. You do not need to load 25 different URLs (DNS lookups, plus autoplay video and all the usual clickbait junk) to show me a weather forecast. Or a Slashdot article, for that matter...

...laura

Sure, in 2015, it wouldn't be so hard for Microsoft to include an SSH client with their OS? I can't think of any other OS that doesn't come with one pre-installed.

Now that it's known to be possible, the drug cartels don't even need to buy or steal the recipe. If necessary, they could just hire some genetic engineers to independently re-discover how to do it.

It seems like there might be a a way to solve this particular problem more cheaply. How much extra safety could be provided without upgrading any track? If we accept (for the sake of this thread) that this was a case of operator error, it seems like that accidents like this could be avoided by installing onto each train a speed governor linked to a GPS receiver and a known-speed-limits database. While that wouldn't handle all the possible issues that PTC would, I doubt that would cost anywhere near as much as upgrading thousands of miles of track. That might be a reasonable safeguard to install in the short term while waiting for a more comprehensive solution to be funded and installed.

hoi-polloi means "the masses; the common people". That's quite a radical position you're taking there. ;)

An interesting side-effect of this might be that more full-serve gas-pumping jobs are created (outside of NJ of course). All those self-driving trucks aren't going to be able to pump their own gas...

In practice, though, the self-driving vehicles are simply going to have to be able to see the orange cones, understand what they are and what they mean, and react appropriately. Blind drivers (human or otherwise) are not going to be tolerated on public roadways.

Who is going to do any of this when they're almost certain to be caught and put into prison?

In either case, the tricky part isn't stopping the truck or getting to the goods; the tricky part is getting away with the goods, without being identified and captured.

Robberies depend on anonymity to work. A truck full of two-way digital communications devices and sensors continuously recording its environment makes anonymity quite a bit more difficult to maintain than than the eyewitness testimony of a single (probably quite rattled) human driver with a CB radio.

A railroad that has tracks that go everywhere, can share the tracks with automobiles, and has multiple lanes of tracks on every route so that the faster vehicles can pass slower ones (at any time or place, no less -- try that with a traditional train ;))

Certainly it's less fuel-efficient (because the vehicles are shorter, so there's more weight-overhead per vehicle), but the additional flexibility may make up for that. Getting your goods from point A to point B on a train is great, but somewhat less great if you actually need them transported from point C to point D and have to first load them onto trucks, then onto the train, then back onto trucks again to accomplish that.