LLVM started as a university project. It wasn't until after Apple hired Chris Lattner and shipped a GLSL stack that other people started contributing in significant amounts. Chris offered LLVM to the FSF before Apple hired him, but they didn't want it. Clang (the C/C++/Objective-C front end, which is the bit most people think of as LLVM) was created in-house at Apple and open sourced, as was libc++. Now, there are about as many Google employees working on LLVM and Clang and a lot of people from elsewhere, so if Apple decided to take their ball and go home we'd still have an actively developed UIUC-licensed compiler.
But if you want to look at other work Apple has financed, take a look at the MAC framework in FreeBSD. There are a few other examples, but that's a nice big subsystem that was entirely developed with funding from Apple.
More importantly: there have been simulator tests of inexperienced pilots (people with no flying experience and people who have private licenses for small planes) trying to land a commercial airliner, being talked through what to do by people over the radio. In no cases did the plane land in a way that would have resulted in most of the passengers surviving. I don't find this surprising. Having flown light aircraft and gliders, landing one is sufficiently different from the other that you have to remember what you're flying, and big jets are a lot different from both.
In contrast, while autoland isn't perfect, if a plane is coming in with an incapacitated pilot then ATC is going to clear a simple approach path and ensure that there's a lot of space around the runway and emergency vehicles on standby. You've got a much higher chance of autoland getting you safely down than a random passenger, unless there happens to be an off-duty airline pilot in the back, or an air force pilot who's used to flying large bombers or transport planes.
A friend explained it like this. Two people go out to dinner. One says, "I feel like eating Italian tonight." The other says, "I want to eat Anthrax and broken glass." Now, compromise so both are happy.
Stay in, order a pizza, and let one of them season his with anthrax and broken glass. The problem in the USA is that the story is more like one says 'Italian is the only food that people should be allowed to eat' and the other says 'no, everyone should be force-fed broken glass'.
No idea when it's going to start washing means you have no idea when to go in and move them to the dryer
This assumes that you have a separate dryer, which assumes that you have space for a washer and a dryer...
And if you're going to quote a $500 refrigerator (with a link that doesn't work) as a 'basic refrigerator', then I know that we're living in completely different worlds. When I moved house 3 years ago, I bought a new fridge and spent about 15% of that, including delivery.
Not holding a charge mean wasting energy at the end. It is like drilling a giant hole into a hydroelectric dam at the end.
NiFe batteries self discharge at a rate of 20-30% per month. If they're fully charged, during the day, they'll lose under 0.5% of their charge by the time you start charging them again, which seems a pretty adequate loss - you'll lose more than that in the charging and discharging of pretty much any battery type. Remember, we're talking about very short-term energy storage here.
Bitcoin is backed by the agreement of people that use bitcoin that it has a certain value. This value tends to change as more people use bitcoin, as there are only so many of them.
That is not backing. Backing requires responsibility. If all of the people who accept bitcoin today suddenly stop tomorrow, who will enforce their guarantee? No one has made legally binding promises to exchange Bitcoins for anything in the future.
The U.S. Dollar is similarly backed by the agreement of the people that it has a certain value. However, that value may change because an outside authority has the power to print more of such money, thus diluting what your current money is worth. Therefore, the U.S. Dollar is an investment vehicle guaranteed to lose value over time in relation to any fixed commodity.
The US Dollar is backed by two guarantees in US law, deriving from Constitution. One is that the US Government will accept them in payment for taxes. The other is that the US Government will, via its legal apparatus, allow any debts held between US citizens to be settled by US Dollars.
This is what gives the US Dollar its value. A large organisation (a government, with a big military) promises to accept them as payment. They can print more, but the rate at which they can do this is limited because they need to maintain the value of new treasury bonds. Since 1960, the rate of inflation of US Dollars has mostly stayed in the 3-5% range (two big peaks over 10%, in the mid '70s and early '80s) and so someone accepting US dollars can be fairly confident that if they spend them again in a few weeks they'll have approximately the same value and even if they keep them for a year or two without investing them they won't lose much.
In contrast, bitcoins can gain or lose 50% of their value overnight. This makes them irrelevant as a currency. How do I price my goods or services in bitcoins when the value is totally unpredictable? It's popular among speculators, because they can make a lot of money if they make good guesses, and the increasing number of speculators keeps driving the price up. If a better game comes out, the value of bitcoins will plummet. And the lower limit on their value is 0, because there is nothing backing them.
The government does not "back" the dollar at all. If you give them a dollar, they will give you nothing in return, but another dollar.
You appear not to understand the concept of backing a currency.
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.