DC has very rapid power loss over any kind of distance. DC in the home is based on the premise that the home will be powered off the local battery.
Worth noting that this is still forced to work within the Edison system's restrictions: the power source encouraging DC must be local. Which is cool when we all have our own power storage and generation capabilities.
Conversely, she met a horse. They're pretty cool animals. If I could make a decent living with a horse, I'd probably do that instead of programming.
The Tata Nano is a fine car for someplace where life is cheap. You'd die if you tried to drive that car on an American highway. It's got no good crash resistance and not enough horsepower to operate safely in highway traffic.
For western markets, Tata offers the Jaguar product line. Considerably more expensive, but also less likely to get you killed.
My truck was actually new from the dealership. It's pretty feature-free, mostly because I really wanted a manual transmission, and they don't include features and manual transmissions in the same truck at the same time.
I've spoken with automotive engineers about the problems with the built in equipment. They pointed out that their updating and data mechanisms need to work in places that aren't well connected. Because while most tech people live in places with good over the air data accessibility, most car owners don't. Large portions of the population live in rural areas where there is no good mobile data coverage, and the cars still need to work well there.
So we'll always be better off using our smart phones, which update regularly, as opposed to depending on a built in system, which has to work well even when it can't count on regularly getting data and updates.
The thing that's important about a car isn't the in car entertainment system. It's the wheels and the engine and the bits in between that let me get to where I need to go. I need that to last a decade or more. I need it to be a good match for the way I drive. The in car computer system? Don't care. My current ride doesn't even have much of a driver facing interface, other than some indicator lights. My in car entertainment system consists of a radio and whoever is in the passenger seat. Navigation comes from my smart phone. I upgrade the smart phone every couple of years, which expands capacity.
Have you seen most engineers? I mean, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.
Another change I would like to see in Desktop Applications is that one does not have to program any UI logic (creating widgets, connecting events) at all, it just seems to be redundant. Why do we design a UI by writing *text* in 2015?
It should be possible to auto-generate a UI from the type of objects one wants to modify, from the constraints of the best practices in UI design, perhaps with a workflow definition. It's useless to have all this freedom when we always want it the same way (text boxes for text input, checkboxes for booleans, list for lists, buttons for actions) anyways. Why hasn't a library come along that does that. At least glade lets one draw UIs, producing a XML file that can then be loaded and populated by events. More work on making programming UIs trivial please.
This feature has existed for a very long time now. Microsoft Access has done exactly what you're looking for since the 90s. If you're happy just using Access apps, this should be fine for you. The flip side is that GUI designers are slower than writing code for most experienced developers. While you're wrestling Qt Designer, I'll be in the code editor manipulating the screen much more quickly.
Also, most non trivial apps will require specialized behavior at various points. That means writing code. Visual models don't work well for that. The code is easier to modify and to maintain, because it allows direct manipulation of the logic symbols, rather than manipulating an abstraction of the logic.
Seriously, we covered all of this ground in the 90s. A lot of money and programmer time was put into trying to make your vision a reality. We gave it up as a bad idea.
Learn to ride a horse? Stop trying to date her, since she's clearly not interested?
My money is on learning to ride a horse. Not to date her, she's in the past. But you might wind up a lot happier with the bond you form with your horse. And the happier you might meet a nice woman who also likes horses.
And yet, here I am in a building full of engineers, most of whom are married. Possibly your theory has holes.
So no, then. You're viewing women as just a status symbol to impress other guys. Totally not going to help your love life.
There are fewer differences between men and women than men think, but there are fewer differences between women and men than women hope.
All the poor woe is me, women are horrible crap I see is just sad and pathetic. Have you actually tried talking to women like they were people? Not a goal to be achieved or a trophy, but actual people with interests and feelings and goals of their own? I know this is a radical thought, but it works. Or at least, it worked for me: my wife of twelve years was the busty cheerleader in school.
Glad to see you're so adept at finding reasons to stay in your cage. Don't complain when your love life takes a hit.