> Both have to end at some point. Why?

I had cable from 1999 to 2003, but then I moved and I didn't see the point of getting it. Before that I just had regular TV and after 2003, I would just watch stuff on the internet. Cable seemed expensive and unnecessary.

The argument that the model 3 won't sell well, I'm doubtful. EVs with a range over 200 miles and a sub 40K price are not widely available yet. I would not be surprised if the model 3 and the chevy bolt end up with really strong sales. 200 miles on a charge is a game changer.

If the computer is infinitely fast, maybe it also has infinite memory so instead of garbage collection you could just leak everything.

People are betting on the success of the Model 3 and probably also the solar shingles. Neither of which are crazy bets, but still they are bets. My guess is that the Model 3 will be a success. I'd put that about a 70% chance based on the quality/popularity of the Model S and the large number of pre-orders.

Your point that the LEAF is "ugly" is an opinion. It is not a fact. I personally like the looks of it. I own a LEAF and I agree with what you are saying about the range. The range is fine for me in town, but I can't take the car out of town. My wife and I also have a Toyota Highlander because we have a large family and often need a car with third row seating. So we are covered when it comes to long trips and mostly needed the LEAF as a car to get around town. And for that purpose, its awesome.

Two quick things. There are some improvements to lithium ion batteries that are coming which should reduce or eliminate the loss of capacity over time. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... Second is that the cost of Lithium Ion batteries goes down over time. Its going down a bit faster because of the Gigafactory. The battery in my LEAF would cost $5K to replace today, but I'm betting that it will cost $3K to replace by the time I need to replace it.

Maybe they cared about other issues more than they cared about energy?

I've been writing Mac and iOS apps with Objective-C for a long time. One of my favorite things about Objective-C is the ability to use C and C++ APIs easily from within my app. Why is Swift even needed at all? What about it is actually better than Objective-C from the standpoint of someone who is already highly proficient in Objective-C and C++?

YouTube was a separate company that Google acquired.

PDAs like the Newton and Palm were great. They had two very obvious barriers that held them back. The first one was they weren't merged with a smart phone. I was a Newton developer and had conversations with people inside and outside of Apple about the need to merge the Newton with a smartphone. The second was lack of internet connectivity. I worked on some projects that involved using a cellular modem with the Newton. At the time it was very slow and very expensive. Just running our (brief) demo cost about $5 worth of data. In the case of the Newton specifically, I think there were looming security problems that would have been a nightmare if it had moved forward and had internet connectivity widely merged with it. The programming model made it easy to access any data on the device and even the internals of other applications. My main point, though, is that it was pretty obvious the kinds of super cool things you could do with PDAs if they had ubiquitous network access and integration with a phone. It isn't clear what technical limitations are in Smart Watches that prevent them from being significantly more useful. Perhaps the Apple Watch will be more useful if Siri becomes more useful and AirPods ever ship? I don't know. Its not that the watch isn't good, it is just that we haven't figured out what compelling use cases exist yet.

I haven't used Visual studio for any real work since 2008, but as I recall their debugger was fantastic for debugging C++. The other aspects of it were kinda "meh", but the debugger was freaking amazing. (And I'm a Mac/Linux guy who uses either Xcode or Makefiles most of the time.)

I read recently that trees and woody plants evolved a long long time before bacteria evolved that could digest the wood. If the coal and oil deposits were created in an environment without that bacteria, then when we run out of oil, we will have very little oil left and more won't be made even if you waited millions of years. Imagine if a future intelligent species (likely not mammalian species either) examines the fossil record of its time and learns that we lived hundreds of millions of years ago in a time of free oxygen, followed by the vast majority of oil suddenly being missing in the fossil record, followed by a period of only anaerobic life, and then a whole second story of evolution. Those creatures will freak the fuck out if they find evidence that we had a culture in the fossil record. They might even find evidence of human technology that is more advanced than theirs. I wonder if they would wonder why we didn't industrialize with nuclear power? They almost certainly will find evidence of nuclear technologies. They will wonder why we killed ourselves.

While I agree that is true and while I agree that life actually put it into the resevoirs you are talking about, *our species* evolved after the coal and oil resevoirs were created. I would mention that life was common on earth prior to the introduction of free oxygen in the atmosphere. The "natural state" does not involve O2 in the atmosphere.

It's like they don't know how to encrypt things.