The A320 airframe had a higher clearance under the wing allowing the re-engining. This is something Airbus did early in the A320 design - it specifically had space to accommodate ever increasing engine sizes of back in the late 80s and the very first model plane shipped with high-bypass turbofan engines. This is something which was not even remotely considered back when the 737 was designed in the 60s. The 737 was designed at a time when turbofans didn't even consider the phrase high/low bypass.

Partially true, partially false. Existing regulations were adhered to. The problem was the regulations were deficient in that they allowed the plane vendor to dictate what training was required. But ultimately it also had a shithouse design and was based on a fundamentally bad premise. Hardware sucks - fix it in software was the mantra here. The 737 needed a software fix as the airframe was no longer sufficient to fly stably with hardware alone. The A320 didn't need software fixes because it was. That was the fundamental difference.

I can't really fault Boeing here the way the GP did though. This wasn't about short term decisions. It was ultimately about survival of a company. Boeing needed something to compete with the A320, but designing a new airframe is something that takes well over a decade. You also can't say that Boeing doesn't make such investments - they do continuously. Just look at the 787 for an example.

Ultimately the issue here is the companies are out of step with each other in the design space. Boeing was first with the 737, Airbus was behind with the A320 so it stands to reason that airframe would be more suitable to a later period. FWITW the reverse happened with the 787. Boeing caused Airbus to make some serious shortcuts (though none resulted in MCAS style systems) which resulted in the A350 airframe - which is largely an A330 underneath with a fancy new name and some carbon fibre. The A350 was Airbus's panic plan. The 737MAX was Boeings.

We do define our risk tolerance. You're more than welcome to go and use a welder while staring into the arc. What we don't allow is for you to dictate your risk to others, especially when you as the subject matter expert have a duty of care for people who are clueless on the subject.

Tell me: When you step into a car, did you completely inspect it yourself? Did you check the welds so it won't fall apart? Did you inspect / test your brakes? Did you assemble the airbag yourself and are you sure you have quantified the risk of those components functioning? Or did you rely on a system of regulations that ensure a duty of care is provided to you by the manufacturer?

Funny story, while driving through Bangalore the other day I did see a restaurant called "Toxic Bar and Kitchen". This in Bangalore of all places where any westerner is already guaranteed food poisoning if staying longer than a couple of days.

Not true - the informal bit. While techincally we don't assign gender some English words carried their gender from old English / latin where words did have gender assignments. We call all seafaring vessels "she/her" as per their latin roots (navis was a feminine gender). This has zero to do with emotional attachment.
It's not just used informally, it's also used in formal / technical language to address ships as feminine.

Volatility in DRAM spot prices certainly isn't anything new; but it probably doesn't help that we've got a push by the high end vendors to move more HBM at fancy AI part margins while also being at the somewhat annoying point in the DDR4/DDR5 transition where you can still put together a pretty plausible computer with either; but you need to pick a completely different GPU to do so; rather than it being one of those where memory controllers currently support both and it's just a question of how they laid the motherboard out.

DDR4 parts were hanging around because they were only modestly less powerful and platform costs were lower; but if DDR4 prices move unexpectedly that's a lot of writing down someone is going to have to do and potentially some rapid shifts in the ratio of DDR4 to DDR5 parts.

Geeks are enthusiastic about sane solutions, not the delusions of grandeur from someone who doesn't understand that you can't achieve a massive moonshot (literally) by starting it with a budget cut (which ... literally he did).

Why though? Either a dealer offers a value adding service or they don't. If you have to pass a law to make those value added services exist then they can hardly be considered value adding or the market itself would ensure they exist.

Rivian shouldn't compete with dealers. They compete with other car companies. Either they can distribute directly or they can't. There should be no implicit requirement for them to support someone 3rd party business model. If this is bad for the consumer then the consumers will vote with their wallet and not buy a Rivian.

Legislating a business model into existance which consumers don't want / demand is not the answer.

Warranty either can be passed or can not be passed. Dealership vs vendor makes no difference in this matter. Unless you can point to me a specific law that separates the way these two are dealt with, and if you can then let's fix that retarded law instead of protecting the dying business of pointless middlemen.

By the way my last second hand car (2 years old) had the manufacturer warranty transferred to me just fine as well. I literally have no idea WTF you are talking about. But but maybe you live in Ohio and your laws were written by your sister-wife and are different than normal sane sale laws in other parts of America.

I wonder if that is what they are alluding to when they say ""People with less than a college education are creating a lot of value — and sometimes more value than people with a college education — using our product".

Depending on how finished and drop-in vs. how in need of fiddly integration and customization at the customer site for their systems 'our product' is the open roles implied by that line could range from "you could be an analyst monkey; maybe even analyst monkey II if you seem like a bright sort!" to some more intricate and visible customer facing integration project stuff(which is were some outfits probably would have a cultural preference for candidates with prestige credentials); but when c-suite says that you can create value as a user that normally isn't to be read as a statement that there are openings at their level; and if they wanted to be either more vague or differently specific they could have been.

You countered your own point. The competitors remain in place. The ability to sell to the consumer directly doesn't mean there's no competition. The fact that you can buy a Samsung SSD from Samsung's store doesn't mean Staples went out of business.

Right back at you my friend.

What would you replace it with? That new one isn't really as unrecognisable. The number of consumers who have come across say something like a Samsung T7 (which looks exactly like the picture) external SSD would be higher than those who have seen in detail an internal spinning rust HDD. Now as to whether it is internal or external, the iconography doesn't really matter for the consumer as it really is a distinction without difference. Look to the windows icon, it most closely resembles an external SCSI drive chassis that even fewer people have seen.

What would you suggest to be the most recognisable icon, also try and put your self in the minds of a dumb consumer? This is not an easy question to answer.

for example.

Of course, that one is a medical design, and wouldn't work for this purpose, but there are various industrial CT systems out there, and I'm pretty sure there have to be some that would work for this as well.

Comparing your early adoption example of AI gone wrong to what will happen in the next 5 years is asinine. I personally think AI is useless, but none the less it has changed dramatically even in just 6 months. We have precisely no experience to judge what AI will look like by the time the next Windows release comes out.

You aren't the target market. The general population are. What's the bet we go through your Slashdot history and we find nothing but declarations that no one wants a touch screen because of fingerprints, fast forward and they are common place in the IT world.

You may not want to talk to your computer, but make no mistake a large portion of the people will.

You think that protects you then you don't know much about security.