Of all the things I wish I had gotten when my father died, his 1962 Chevy C10 with the 292 and 4 speed is at the absolute top. I would have updated from points to electronic ignition, though.

The ZF 8 has a 150k km planned lifespan and is known for valve body problems causing it to drop into limp mode.

I had enough fun with ZF when I had a ZF5. I don't need 3 more problems than I had with that one.

They have been for decades really, it's just least common in OTR hauling because in that application the manual gearbox still has an efficiency advantage. They are probably most common for construction equipment because the automatic gearbox offers tangible advantages there. There's a promotional video from Allison which is pretty easy to find whose tagline is something like "continuous power" about how the benefits of their transmissions which are able to make shifts under full power, which is true; the heavy ones are full planetary gear designs and they are as convenient and reliable as the day is long. These gearboxes also don't conveniently feature more than six speeds, but on the plus side, Allison tends to give two overdrives on highway use transmissions.

The problem with consumer-level automatic transmissions continues to be reliability. A lot of the modern many-speed automatic transmissions have only a single-gear limp mode which is only suitable for getting them onto a trailer, where older transmissions often used to have two-speed limp mode, and some of the new transmissions cannot limp at all without a functioning TCM. I see that as a big drawback. Belt-driven CVTs are also infamously fragile, yet also dominant in low-end vehicles.

Those time frames are sufficiently different that you really cannot draw any conclusions from them alone, but the writing is clearly on the wall for manual transmissions in Europe as well, they're just a bit behind the curve. ICEVs themselves are going away, and are likely to stop being sold sooner in Europe than the USA, so they may well catch up.

Well, it isn't for a whole lot of reasons. Zeroth, "utopia" means nowhere and it's a thought experiment. First and foremost though, the "I" in "I'm" — utopia is supposed to be a type of society and not just a state of being for a single person. It's working for you now so you are happy now. But you being able to replace all those people now somehow hasn't made you wonder if you are going to be replaced.

Another reason which is (now that I make the comparison) actually equally important is that AI is based on unsustainable resource consumption, which means that it's fundamentally not post-scarcity.

Maybe you should ask an AI what some of these words you're using mean. It seems to be making you dumber already, though, so it would probably be healthier to look them up for yourself instead of asking a LLM and having it tell you that you are a very smart boy.

That's a particularly sad little straw man even for Slashdot.

What we know for sure already is that AI use is correlated with impaired knowledge accumulation and transfer. It's poisoning its own well.

It's not treason unless you do it for the purpose of harming your country or aiding an adversary. This is "only" sharing confidential and potentially classified material out of scope, which is also serious but doesn't call for anyone to be hung by the neck until dead.

Dear child rape enthusiasts still supporting Donald Trump, please die immediately. Thank you.

Yeah, but you support trump, so we know you don't actually care about sexual anything. You're pro child rape.

It was a nice theory but it didn't pan out.

The design you're talking about is 250 years old. It's antique. Notably, the technology of legal language has come very far since. The constitution leaves many questions unanswered to the extent that today any fucking video game EULA is at least ten times more determinate.

It's not productive to use "retard" as an insult.

I propose using "rapeublican" instead.

It's a pragmatic FINANCIAL decision. Five of the top funders of the Linux foundation are hawking LLMs. Linus is typically compromised by the usual capitalistic conflict of interest.

Instead we eventually hired someone who has only read Hitler's book to run our country

We already have, from a leadership perspective anyway

Of course he does. Corporations have made him wealthy. Wealthy people can afford not to have human-centric principles.