> displayed in the corner of your vision?
Yes, because it doesn't distract me. I only see it when I consciously look at it. Things in my range of sight that flash and change are very distracting.
But that's just my opinion. Some real tests of what is safer would be nice to have.
Well, people use their computers for different things. If you have a hundred people sharing TBs of data and looking at it using massive complex home-grown analysis and modeling packages, remote X makes sense. It's the difference between shipping a few plot windows across the network vs. GB of data. (And X performance can be fine on a wired LAN when you have ping times in ms and no dropped connections. Again, depends on your own personal situation.)
Sure, this is a use case that only applies to a tiny fraction of users, but for those users it is absolutely necessary.
A subset of people like me use their desktop as primarily a terminal to connect to more powerful servers. I want to know if Wayland will let me "ssh me@oldserver-running-X xterm" and then use the remote xterm to start a bunch of programs that open their own windows. I don't want to know how it does it, only if it will work.
If the Wayland developers don't want to commit to making something like this work, that's fine. It just means Wayland isn't designed for me. If they *are* going to make it work, I would feel more comfortable is they would come and say for certain that they are committed to supplying this functionality.
This same point comes up again and again. I think that the developers at some level don't understand the question, because there never seems to be an answer that is straightforward and pitched at the level of the user. (Not that anyone *owes* me an answer. I am just making a request.)
Not true for the publisher. Editing, proofreading, design, artwork, publicity are all the same.
If Broder were Tesla's biggest fanboi, all he could have done was bury the article--any version of it would have made clear the problems. The range was short--this is undeniable at it is in Musk's graphs. The range/charge measurement is no good on very cold mornings. If these points aren't the obvious takeaways, then it is because Musk is a PR genius.
But they aren't. There are supposed phone calls with no tapes. There are routes with no GPS recorders.
We have a journalist with notes and memories with errors and a businessman with access to uncheckable logs who is also a mind reader (look at how often Musk claims to know why Broder did something).
One fact is clear and consistent from Musk's graphs: Under reasonable winter driving conditions, the actual range on the car was only 75% the estimated range, and that means the charging stations are too far apart.
In general, the first thing that happens is that the ramp splits to separate traffic between parking trucks, parking cars, and gas station traffic. Does these signs say where the charging station is? Is it a sign that you will miss if you glance in your rearview mirror to see if there is an 18-wheeler coming zooming up behind you as you pause to look at signs?
How can you be sure Broder is lying if you haven't been there in the dark yourself? There is no GPS recorder data and there is no camera footage.