[citation required]

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine stupidity.

For the people we are talking about, $20,000 IS a little bit of money. Welcome to the world of income disparity. A few people with too much money and not enough to spend it on driving up prices for everyone else.

Is this finally the year of Linux on the desktop?
Is anyone here old enough to remember that joke?

Batteries are too expensive because they are too big; supposedly to deal with Americans' range anxiety (a situation mostly created by big oil propaganda). American EVs are big, heavy SUVs and crossovers with giant batteries for long range despite the fact that many people just need to commute back and forth to work. It's almost impossible to find a small, light commuter EV in the US (or even a commuter gas-powered car for that matter). European and Asian carmakers have no problem producing affordable compact and subcompact EVs.

In many ways, a plug-in hybrid is the worst of both worlds. When running on gasoline, it's less efficient than a normal hybrid vehicle because it's hauling around the extra weight of an unused larger battery. When running on electricity, it's less efficient than a full electric vehicle because it's hauling around the extra weight of an unused internal combustion engine and fuel tank.

However, when it comes to vehicles, many people are oddly willing to put up with a lot of inefficiencies in the name of occasional convenience or peace-of-mind. How many people drive a pickup with a huge cargo bed that only gets used a couple times a year?

Only Apple has the courage to remove the plus from their name.

The article is paywalled, but I'm 99% sure this report is saying that per capita use is down (controlling for population changes).

Cars have had computers and software for decades, they just weren't "consumer facing". Automakers know how to do tech. Many of these systems (like anti-lock brakes) are life-and-death matters. Software gets tested to extremes and only updated when absolutely necessary. Yes, that mindset doesn't mesh well with silicon valley's theory of "move fast and break things" but that is not because automakers are afraid of new ideas; they are afraid of lawsuits.

Even promising to pause AI development while continuing to work on it in secret government labs still has the beneficial effect of slowing progress since you don't also have the private sector and universities throwing all of their resources at it.

>> "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'"

This is bull. Speed cameras and redlight cameras mail out tickets without even knowing who the driver was. The owner of the car must pay the fine regardless of who was driving.

I'd love to know how many of the 320M users are forced to use it because the bean counters saw "Teams messaging" as a free line item with their Office360 subscriptions and decided to make everyone use it instead of practically any other team messaging/interactive platform on the planet.

Do you expect autonomous vehicle to have robot drivers that can deliver your pizza to your door? If fat-asses need to walk down to the street and get their pizza out of a car, they are going to start wondering why they don't just go out a get their own pizza for a fraction of the cost.

>>And also about the fact that a shitbox used car that only the poors drive today has stuff in it standard that only came on luxury models back in my childhood. Power windows? Keyless entry? AC and stereo?

This is the result of globalization and concentrated ownership of industry creating economies of scale for mass-produced gadgets. These are meaningless trinkets, not real wealth. In my fathers day a single bread-winner with no education could buy a home and support a family. Now it takes both parents working with college degrees. For the next generation a home and family will be entirely out of reach for anyone not born into wealth. This is not progress, it's regression.

1) The case's lack of merit was not my opinion, it was in the official ruling:

After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was "without merit."
https://www.historyofinformati...

2) The case wasn't dropped until 1982 by which point any monopoly in mainframes was increasingly meaningless.

3) IBM was a old boys club and the board of directors did not recognize the value of the personal computer market. The team developing the PC likely did but they were not given adequate resources by the board.

4) So you admit they thought the market was not super valuable.

5) It might be one reason but certain not the main one.