Flaky mess? What specific problems have you had? I've had zero issues with the UI so kinda wondering what shortcomings you're seeing.

Nope, there's no monthly fee for basic functionality, you can pay for full remote admin (vs dashboarding which is free) and for a protection service which does cloud backups and includes a device replacement service. Neither of those are required, the monthly fee goes to offset their costs for running servers in AWS or whatever cloud they are on and to provide a recurring revenue source plus it's a hardware replacement plan. Personally I've had zero reason to pay for either service, though with the zwave migration service of the protect offering I might do that in the future if my setup becomes complex enough (right now it's 3 zwave devices, so definitely NOT worth the fee).

Um, they did a paper after the Tesla semi was announced and redid their calculations based on the .35Cd that Musk mentioned, suddenly cost was the primary barrier, with a target of $150/kWh for the pack (something Tesla has already achieved based on estimates derived from model differences).

Musk has said recently that the 300 mile semi will have a 500kWh pack, based on the 167.7Wh/kg of the Model 3 that puts the pack weight at ~3.3 tons, the fuel tanks on a typical semi are about that when fueled. Even if you double that pack weight for the 500 mile semi you're still in the same range as the drivetrain with fuel for a long haul semi, I wouldn't expect significant cargo penalties vs traditional tractors.

One of the problems with "coding" and the other jobs these classes target is that you can only teach so much. Either you have a logical mind capable of a million levels of abstract thought, or you don't. I'm in IT and we have a similar problem with people with no troubleshooting skills trying to get and hold onto jobs. Either development is going to have to get simpler than it already is, or people will need to really ramp up their overall ability levels.

I imagine the simplification side of this equation is going to be in the form of (surprise) AWS proprietary, AWS-only, super-easy SDK provided, It Just Works!-level PaaS services. Getting people used to using only these services by not teaching fundamentals would be a really good way to ensure future business. I work in a development shop on the IT aide of the house and everything is "serverless" now...when coding becomes Legos even more than it is now, then anyone can code. We're seeing this in IT too -- on the Microsoft side of the house, Microsoft has discontinued all fundamentals training like the MCSA/MCSE track in favor of how-to-drive-Azure services.

The reasons for all this aren't altruistic in the least. FAANGs and Microsoft hate having to pay Seattle and San Francisco inflated salaries for developers, and they know they can only push offshoring so far - both due to public opinion and the same law of non-infinite talent. Why pay $300K for a Google SRE when you can force it down to a $50K job by flooding the market with good-enough people?

One thing I wonder is if Chinese families actually want more children. Here in the US, we've become a lot less religious, some have become better educated, and some of us have become more affluent. All these factors translate to fewer children (also, same goes for the more educated and less religious poor -- kids are expensive.) I imagine China's population has also experienced a massive increase in overall wealth given their economic expansion, so it's possible they have the same probkem.

Either way, it's pretty much a given that they'll find a solution to whatever demographic crunch they're in. They have a huge advantage over countries like Japan and European countries that simply suggest increasing the population...they can directly make it happen. It's the main advantage of having total economic control over a thriving economy...you don't have to beg and plead with people to do things. You can just use the money and policy levers you have at your disposal to make things happen. Look at how China just plowed money into infrastructure in 2008 to stave off economic problems, and we can't even get 400-odd Congresspeople to agree to invest comparatively little. China's flavor of communism appears to be working better than those tried before. They can choose economic directions, move millions of people form the countryside into cities, etc. -- so I assume population increases won't be a problem.

I get protecting trade secrets and preventing working with existing or prospective clients

Except non-competes don't accomplish either of those. The first is covered by an NDA and the second is covered by a non-solicitation agreement. I will gladly sign either of those if they are correctly crafted, but I will never again sign a non-compete unless it covers 100% of my salary and benefits for the duration of the agreement. Having been screwed by an overly broad agreement and a petty former boss once I will never put myself or my family in that kind of risk.

No executive, no matter how public the failure and how critical the infrastructure is, will care about security until they're liable for it. Execs have a whole staff that deflects problems; they never see the fallout of their decisions to not invest in security. I think one of the best ways to externalize this is to turn IT/development into a branch of engineering and use PE licensing as a way to shift blame back to executives while shielding them to a degree they'd find acceptable. Proposals like "corporate death penalties" for security violations don't work because the executive class will just call up their lobbyists and buy their way out of trouble.

Computers and connectivity have graduated from "cool toys that enhance productivity" to "critical infrastructure that the modern world can't live without." At the same time, we still let money-chasing idiots enroll in "learn DevOps in just 4 short weeks" bootcamps as their only education into this field and celebrate the lack of standardized education. The way to encourage basic education is to adopt a licensing structure that at least makes sure people have the fundamentals down. So many newbies are coming into this field with zero concept of the basics and IMO that's just going to make security issues worse over time.

I think we should just take life-safety and critical infrastructure systems and apply licensed-professional rules to them as a start. Work on licensing people by standardizing their education/experience requirements. Give licensed professionals continuing-education responsibilities, and liability that will prevent them from signing off on stupid designs. That's the balance point -- the licensed professional needs the ability to charge a premium for good work, and the system needs to be in place that encourages good design methods.

It's not that I don't expect politicians to be swayed by big corporations, it's just the fact that they're so cheap to buy that bothers me. I mean you're representing several hundred thousand to 10's of millions of people, you should cost more than a couple thousand dollars of schmoozing to have your vote swayed.

I live in metro NYC and it's expensive. California, especially a 75 mile radius around San Francisco, is a mind-boggling whole new level of expensive. Just like metro NY, they're not making any new land so there's only so many places to expand. Even with that, I'm not locked into a bidding war for a tiny 3 bedroom house with no property going for over $2M, just so my commute's less than 2 hours each way. Bring this kind of money and this willingness to pay crazy money into any real estate market and it'll go nuts.

Austin's not exactly a sleepy little town, but one thing it has (not necessarily a good one either) is the ability to expand hundreds of miles in any direction. Traffic will suck and it'll become a massive sprawly mess as people buy $2M mansions on 3 acre lots (and pay $2000/year in property tax) with their SV tech bubble money...just look at metros like DFW or Atlanta with few natural boundaries. So I'm sure they can absorb the population -- not sure they'll like the result.

Where I live, during the height of COVID and even a little bit today, houses are going for crazy amounts because people still want to live in NY but don't need to live in NYC anymore. Same goes for people living close to the city moving further out -- if you have to do a horrible commute 2 days a week instead of 5, suddenly living 1.5 hours away isn't awful anymore. The prices are crazy because people literally are trading $2M apartments (and I think a lot of residents who don't have retirement savings are seeing this as their one golden opportunity to move to North Carolina or Florida or whatever.) I imagine something similar is happening in Austin...a sleepy cow town suburb suddenly becomes super-hot real estate because it's near Tesla's headquarters.

"Often, unions do not look out for the health of the company."

Maybe so, but "the health of the company" would be a lot healthier if the executives weren't getting paid 300 times what the average worker is getting. A unionized workforce would force companies to share at least some of their profits with employees in the form of better wages or conditions. I think that's what modern unions need to push back against more than anything...the main reason everything is so lopsided economically today is because we've internalized the idea that CEOs deserve $100M salaries and god-like treatment, and that the workers just have to sit back and deal with it.

"Companies know they need to keep employees happy."

Skilled or unskilled, I have never worked in an environment where the company cared whether I was happy. Outside of magical chocolate factory FAANG employers with insane profit margins, I can't think of a place that says "let's prioritize raises/benefits/better working conditions over a bonus for us!" At least with the cold war/mutually assured destruction scenario in place, both sides have to at least come to a compromise.

Yes, it's 100% a good thing. It's the only way you get pushback against a much more powerful force. I would much rather work in an environment where labor and management are at least honest with each other that they're working toward different goals. It's better than pretending they're all on the same team. Even if I were in management, I'd be happier knowing that there were only certain levers I could pull with the workforce...it'd make the hard task of managing humans easier.

This is the story that has to come out, but employers hold too many of the cards now. People who say they can negotiate an amazing deal on their own aren't the wheeler-dealers they think they are. Even highly skilled labor faces the threat of offshoring.

I've never worked in a union environment, but I know how much goof they've done for the average worker over the years. The problem is that people are fed a constant diet of anti-union propaganda -- telling them that if they just work harder they can be just like the executives. It's not going to happen for 99.9% of people.

I've also heard the argument from the employer side that goes something like, "Oh, we care about you and your well-being so much. We love having open and honest discussions with each and every one of you. If you run off and join the union, we won't be able to talk freely anymore. Wouldn't that be awful?"

I think that's a total BS argument. Keep things equitable by driving just enough of a wedge between labor and management...employers use that "happy family" thing to walk all over people, not give them raises that keep up with inflation, and get rid of people whenever they feel like it. Having employees take back some of the power in the relationship is required...the wealth divide is too big now for employers to care out of the goodness of their hearts; they can just declare bankruptcy and retire whenever they feel like it.

A unionization vote in Alabama would never work. People are much more conservative and dead-set against unions for the most part. These people are already primed by employers to hate the idea of unions. I've heard lots of arguments..."Oh, I can't shine as bright if I'm dragged down by my coworkers!" "Unions are for unskilled people, look at me, I'm brilliant at my job!" "If only I work just that much harder, I'll be just like my boss/the plant owner/Jeff Bezos! All these liberals are dragging me down!"

I hope one of the unionization drives succeeds -- because otherwise the owner class is going to take this as a sign that they've completely won and can do whatever they want to their workforce. Companies have spent decades trying to create a "one big happy family" culture to distract employees from the fact that they're not getting compensated fairly while the executives get to keep the difference. If I had to pick between the big happy family and some animosity between labor and management, I'd pick the animosity. Having a workforce the executives are slightly afraid of is a good thing. It doesn't have to be intimidation or slashing tires or whatever...just a subtle reminder every now and then that the bosses don't hold all the cards.

Anyone who votes against a union is not voting their self-interest. Is it really realistic that average workers are just temporarily embarrassed billionaires who will rise above all the other dummies just by putting in more unpaid work? Or would the average worker be better off with sane work rules, fair compensation and enough job security to not have to plan life in 6-month increments? Part of the reason the US was so prosperous in the 50s/60s was that more middle class households had good jobs, good compensation and the ability to buy houses/cars/education without taking on massive amounts of debt. Unions (and manufacturing work) helped make that happen...and could again. We need jobs for everyone regardless of skill that allow them to live reasonably well...factory employment used to do that. I graduated high school in the early 90s, and some of my classmates went right to an auto plant or similar -- versus today's situation where high school grads can string together 3 or 4 minimum wage jobs and that's about it.