Replying to undo an incorrect (-1) moderation. I'm surprised this got modded down by the way, at the very least this is "interesting".
Mod down was correct. GP is plagiarized from an earlier comment which deserves the +1 instead.
Don't forget they're trying to hit impossible price points with terrible economies of scale. Any feature that's not directly visible to the consumer (like quality software engineering) is a non-starter.
I take trips with my buddies each year where we fly to a big airport and drive around 1500-2000 miles round trip from there into rural areas on back roads.
We are a great cross-section of providers with Tmo, ATT, Sprint and VZW. I was the only one with service for the entire trip the last two times (NE states and NW states). ATT was next best. Sprint was the worst and Tmo was next.
My family takes a ~3000 mile road trip every summer. I've only been out of service once or twice in 7 years and those were in rural areas of Alabama or Oklahoma (IIRC).
I wouldn't give up VZW for anything.
The flying car has been the stuff of science fiction for generations. If the CEO can find a way to make a flying car that the average person can buy and use for their normal work. They think they will earn a place in history like Henry Ford. As a flying car would be recognized and used for hundreds of years. Unlike say a Relational Database system, so if they did a good job, they will get as much history fan fair as Nikolaus Otto (One of the inventors of the internal combustion engine)
Well to call it a flying car I think it should meet the following criteria.
1. Be able to fit on a standard 1 lane road and inside a 1 car garage and parking spot.
2. It should be able by its own power park in such garage.
3. It should be able to carry at least 2 people. (Bonus points for side by side)
4. It should fly for at least 100 miles without a refill.
5. Flight speeds should exceed 60 mph
6. It should be fully covered to protest
7. Driving controls should be simple and straight forward.
8. Fuel economy should be similar to that of an automobile.
9. Enough safety procedures to not make it risky drive.
About 50% of the population has below average intelligence. So these jobs for things that Robots can and Cant do will be reserved for the people who are smart, creative and fit enough to perform such tasks. That leaves the other group of people who are not. Granted you can say Darwinism and ignore the plight of these people, but history has shone us, that things can get very violent when these people are left out to die. Even the Basic Income has its problems, where these people will live a life where there is little they can do to improve it, because while they may want to do more in life, society will not let them, because the economics made by man will not allow it. Why bother having him mow the lawn for an extra $50 a week. Where the robot will do it for free. And you don't need to feel sorry for him, because his basic needs are set, and he is just trying to make some extra bucks for luxuries.
A lot of these economies are also suffering from a aging workforce where the number of young people are not taking over the older employees jobs, because they are not enough of them to do so. This in the short term is good for a countries economy having a labor force filled with skilled workers who do not have much overhead with children, so they can use their money to buy things, and take risks that wouldn't be wise if you are younger and have a mortgage and car payments and are a couple months away from being broke without your job. These older people have their homes paid off, so they can spend of more stuff and take financial risks which normally will be rewarding.
However in the long term they will die out and not be able to replace the workforce, and if ignored for too long, that workforce that does come in, will not have any cross training from the previous generation and make the same mistakes over again.
We have been wasting time for generations, social media is the newest form, but how far away is it, from water cooler talk, or going out during lunch and getting a bit tipsy.
The computer scientist in me loves functional languages, the MBA in me doesn't.
Functional languages makes very tight code. Which for the programmer and the computer scientist is great. Less coding, a solid routine with little effort.
However it makes it difficult to maintain a program over a life time. As it is always near one feature away from a full rewrite, vs just slapping some if conditional in the code which while inelegant, is easy to code, easy to see the change, and easier to test.
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama