Google also abuses the standards-making process through Chrome.

They didn't. And the files were sealed.

Trump pardoned all the J6 terrorists via autopen. Get fucked, poser.

Right, they want them dependent on the applications, and providing the OS is no longer necessary to accomplish that.

You are helping to engineer your own demise. Not sure what else you should do really, but definitely don't get smug.

Really no. The wealthy get most of the money. The wealthy spend less of the money. When the poor get it, it's spent about five times before it comes to rest in a tax dodge. When the wealthy get it, it's spent only about twice. What we need is for the wealthy to spend money like they pretend they do, in order to create jobs like they pretend they do.

Apple goes with simple brutalist complying with China.

And Microsoft themself is now acting to make that dependence on Windows go away, with web-based versions of their applications. I think they can see that Windows' time is limited. Maintaining an OS is a big thankless job that they don't need to do, and they're not any good at it so it's not like they deserve thanks anyway.

It holds a legal and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Tim Cook rather famously told off an Apple shareholder who asked him to commit to pursuing only programs that would be profitable, saying, "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI."

That's just one small example by a powerful CEO after a shareholder initiative was shot down 98-2, but most companies spend money on things that reduce profits or are not profitable. Look at the sprawling HQs with fancy buildings that are set up by so many companies when they could have gone with simple brutalist architecture. There are companies that pay well because it promotes long-term stability even at the expense of short-term profits.

I get that these big companies don't deserve blind trust, but understanding what their obligations are is much more helpful than oversimplifications.

"DEATH TO PEDOPHILES!" they chant... "BUT NOT THE ORANGE MESSIAH CHILD RAPIST, HE'S SPECIAL!"

There was a Sonnax fix for my ZF5HP42A valve body problems too. It didn't work.

Security is not a boolean.

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.