What's really sad is that it wasn't always that way. When I was a kid, we went to Canada and Mexico all the time, and we never had passports. The passport requirement wasn't introduced for travel by land until 2009 for Canada and 2008 for Mexico (and previously, in 2007 for travel by air to Canada or Mexico). You still had to go through customs at the border, but it was nothing like what people have to deal with today.

"one of the most popular versions of MS-DOS " - I don't think so. As I remember it is was avoided like the plague until version 5 came along.

Why not just make standard EVs that are not flagship cell phones on wheels. You know, cars that people can afford. Remove the auto driving crap. No iPad screen needed. Knobs and dials, how nice. Body panels without camera and sensors so a bent panel won;t cost $10K to replace (and insurance rates won't skyrocket!). No phoning home and raping the customer's information. Things people will actually want.

Yes, I have (by way of Cocoa Beach). And I've gone about 3/4 of the way several times. I'm familiar with Florida roads and their constant state of construction....

*shrugs* I usually got reasonably close on I-95. Maybe it's a time-of-year thing.

Either way, though, when you get to the other end, unless you live in Miami or you're going to rely on public transit, you'll still need to find a way to get a rental car, but you're no longer at an airport with car rental places, so you'll end up waiting for an Uber or Lyft or cab and going a mile or so to one of the car rental places, by which time you've almost certainly lost most or all of your time savings.

And even if it takes an entire hour longer by car and you're able to avoid extra delays that wipe out those savings, the cost is still exorbitant. Driving will cost you $20 in fuel for everyone in your party, versus $75 per person for the train. For a family of 3, that means the train costs 1100% as much as driving. That's a *huge* cost difference for such a small time savings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed that 4,600 people are riding it every day (which likely means about 150 people per train), but that's probably not even close to being commercially viable. They've already had to massively scale back their ridership projections because people aren't taking it nearly as often as they expected, which is likely because the cost is way too high for the amount of time saved.

And in spite of those high prices, the company is still losing money — on the order of $250 million per year, which makes the shortfall somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred dollars per ticket by my back-of-the-envelope math. And they are already $4B in debt.

I fully expect them to go bankrupt. I hope I'm wrong, but I definitely wouldn't buy their bonds. :-)

Because if they sell it we'll see what was behind the curtain. Better to burn it than to reveal the wizard.

That's an evolutionary just so story and while cute they are usually bunk.

You can fuck with plants in a lot of ways which would kill animals, especially vertebrates very dead. Sometimes pants end up with double the DNA for example. That's simply not survivable for animals, but it gives a lot more latitude to have more DNA.

Vine eh? That's a very small blast from the distant past! Want vine long dead before the rise of TikTok?

No, I do not.

I find it to be the case that as long as their apps keep working. When the OS is too old, some apps cannot be updated and stop working. Any streaming app for example just stops working if the version is too old. For some phones, the OS cannot be updated anymore.

The key thing you said is “As long as it just works". I can assure you that some apps stop working if they are not updated especially if there is an online component. Also apps stop working with prior versions of the OS if it is too old.

Again what happens is "Hey this app stopped working. Oh, it needs an update. Oh the latest version does not work with my version of the OS. I need to update the OS. My OS can’t be updated anymore?! Well, crap."

It has happened with a friend who had an ancient smart phone. Everything would have been fine except that he could no longer use any 3rd party messaging apps. They required him to replace his phone as the Android was so out of date, it was not supported by any of them.

When you are found guilty of willfully violating a trademark, the next time you apply for a trademark the courts will require extra review with far less benefit of the doubt as to any possible violations than if you had just started from a place of compliance.

E.g. if you name your search engine Noogle you can't just change it to Noodle and re-apply even though it probably would have been acceptable if you had started with Noodle, because now you have demonstrated that you weren't acting in good faith to come up with a unique, non-confusing trademark.

I feel like EU regulations are going to be similar. Apple claims they were just looking out for consumers, not trying to defend a monopoly. The EU gave them the benefit of the doubt and wrote rules which allowed Apple to protect their users while ensuring more competition---and Apple used the rules to explicitly suppress competition without any benefit to consumers. I think these bad faith "compliance" actions by Apple are going to bring down the ban hammer hard. I can't for the life of me understand why Tim Apple would approve this course of action. This is clearly going to be far more harmful to Apple than simply complying.

Coal is one of the most expensive sources of power now.

The Coal lobby has been promising "Clean Coal!" since George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.

They've had 25 years to implement their solution, this rule gives them another 8 years to put up or shut up...errr down. Considering coal usage has dropped by about 30% in the last 15 years and is only 15% of the remainder it's not unreasonable to give 8 years to install this magical equipment that they've been promising or for utilities to replace the lying industry with a real working product.

It very much had the feeling of "oh noe teh EW".

he's in favor of anticompetitive behavior at the expense of customers for some sick reason, probably cognitive dissonance.

I think some people fundamentally support this sort of thing because they believe that one day eith enough hard work, they'' get to be the ones raking in heaps cash by screwing over people like they are now.