In many ways, a plug-in hybrid is the worst of both worlds. When running on gasoline, it's less efficient than a normal hybrid vehicle because it's hauling around the extra weight of an unused larger battery. When running on electricity, it's less efficient than a full electric vehicle because it's hauling around the extra weight of an unused internal combustion engine and fuel tank.

However, when it comes to vehicles, many people are oddly willing to put up with a lot of inefficiencies in the name of occasional convenience or peace-of-mind. How many people drive a pickup with a huge cargo bed that only gets used a couple times a year?

Only Apple has the courage to remove the plus from their name.

The article is paywalled, but I'm 99% sure this report is saying that per capita use is down (controlling for population changes).

Cars have had computers and software for decades, they just weren't "consumer facing". Automakers know how to do tech. Many of these systems (like anti-lock brakes) are life-and-death matters. Software gets tested to extremes and only updated when absolutely necessary. Yes, that mindset doesn't mesh well with silicon valley's theory of "move fast and break things" but that is not because automakers are afraid of new ideas; they are afraid of lawsuits.

Even promising to pause AI development while continuing to work on it in secret government labs still has the beneficial effect of slowing progress since you don't also have the private sector and universities throwing all of their resources at it.

>> "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'"

This is bull. Speed cameras and redlight cameras mail out tickets without even knowing who the driver was. The owner of the car must pay the fine regardless of who was driving.

Do you expect autonomous vehicle to have robot drivers that can deliver your pizza to your door? If fat-asses need to walk down to the street and get their pizza out of a car, they are going to start wondering why they don't just go out a get their own pizza for a fraction of the cost.

>>And also about the fact that a shitbox used car that only the poors drive today has stuff in it standard that only came on luxury models back in my childhood. Power windows? Keyless entry? AC and stereo?

This is the result of globalization and concentrated ownership of industry creating economies of scale for mass-produced gadgets. These are meaningless trinkets, not real wealth. In my fathers day a single bread-winner with no education could buy a home and support a family. Now it takes both parents working with college degrees. For the next generation a home and family will be entirely out of reach for anyone not born into wealth. This is not progress, it's regression.

1) The case's lack of merit was not my opinion, it was in the official ruling:

After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was "without merit."
https://www.historyofinformati...

2) The case wasn't dropped until 1982 by which point any monopoly in mainframes was increasingly meaningless.

3) IBM was a old boys club and the board of directors did not recognize the value of the personal computer market. The team developing the PC likely did but they were not given adequate resources by the board.

4) So you admit they thought the market was not super valuable.

5) It might be one reason but certain not the main one.

>>Microsoft was created when IBM split out their software from their hardware.

An antitrust case in 1969 accused IBM of having an illegal monopoly in computers (i.e. mainframes). The case was eventually dropped due to lack of merit.

Microsoft was founded in 1975, producing BASIC interpreters & operating systems for personal computers makers like Apple, Commodore, Tandy and (eventually in 1981) IBM. IBM outsourced the PC's BASIC and PC-DOS to Microsoft because they still thought mainframes were the future and didn't want to waste any of their own programmers on it. Neither the government nor IBM "split out their software from their hardware". Hardware clone makers reproduced the IBM BIOS which allowed legal, IBM-compatible PCs to be sold and created a market for Microsoft's DOS beyond IBM's official PCs.

Startup partnerships usually have one member focusing on the technical challenges and the other focusing on the business challenges (think Jobs/Wozniak or Gates/Allen). A solo founder, even if they have skills in both areas, is spread very thin and probably can't grow the startup fast enough for most VCs to be interested.

Really? You don't think defunding libraries, demonizing librarians, banning books and ridiculing authors as "elites" discourages people from reading for fun?

Must be nice to have the time and money to see every movie with an interesting trailer. For the rest of us, reviews (either official or word-of-mouth from someone we know) is how to avoid wasting an evening and $50 on a stinker.

>> It's an industry ripe for innovation, and I suspect we will see a new player come along (probably self-driving cars?)

I have a great idea for an alternative to airlines. Imagine a self-driving car but with room to stretch out, sleep, eat, etc. To speed them up and get out of traffic, you link a bunch together and run them on their own system of tracks. Innovation!

Does this mean more than half of all flights are bought with credit card points rather than paid tickets? Kinda explains why fewer people are complaining about the continually diminishing customer service (smaller seats, worse/no food, longer waits, shrinking luggage sizes, etc) if they think that they are getting the flight for "free".