... sadly for the Americans, the rest of the world now knows they can't count on a US based provider for this kind of thing any more.

It was uncomfortable enough relying so heavily on American software back when it couldn't be switched off remotely on the say so of an idiot. Today it's an intolerable risk.

That could well be a chicken-and-egg problem. Are the buyers buying what's available because it's available, or are the manufacturers making it because the buyers actually asked for it? I'm not aware of any Equinox driver anywhere who ever complained about it not being tall enough (or it being short enough to make it unnecessarily difficult to run over small people) yet Chevy raised the hood anyways.

The other problem is that the auto manufacturers see a distorted picture of car buyers. New cars are too expensive for a large fraction of all drivers; many drivers won't ever buy a brand new car. New car dealers are selling to people with more money, and making decisions around what those more affluent people might want in their cars - or more so are telling such people what they should want.

A lot of the buzz I've seen about AI generated code has been along the lines of "you don't need to be a developer." Several people I know have talked about "I created an app and I don't know how to code." In that use case, it's not clear at all those people would know how to supervise an entry level coder.

At what point will we run out of space to put all those satellites, particularly into stationary earth orbit? And who manages traffic congestion? Next, let's worry about what happens if one satellite has a catastrophic accident (or is knocked out by an ASAT), and all-of-a-sudden, that orbit starts loading up with junk?

Enquiring minds want to know! (Particularly so I can short SpaceX stock...)

In all this vibe coding/agentic development/loop coding, HOW DO YOU KNOW the AI is doing something fundamentally wrong?

One does not negate the other.

That said, my own current work car is a 2025 Chevy Equinox. I previously had a 2021 Equinox. The 2025 pushed the top of the hood up a good 3-4 inches compared to the previous, and changed a few other functional angles as well. The goal was evidently the "truckification" of a small crossover SUV. The result was terrible. Sight lines are dramatically worse out of the front of the vehicle. Short people can disappear in front of the hood now that it is that much taller. This is even worse on actual trucks; Chevy Silverado full-sized pickups are leaving dealer lots with hoods that are 5 feet off the ground for no functional reason.

It is fair to point out that such collisions shouldn't happen often at normal driving speed. However you're overlooking other places where collisions do happen often between vehicles and pedestrians; namely parking lots and driveways. While the new cars have far more mandatory cameras to help drivers spot obstacles, they don't prevent every situation. Car manufacturers should be taken to the woodshed over this awful decision, and it's not just the American auto makers.

Ever wonder why so many new pickups pull backwards into parking spots? I had a new Silverado recently as a rental and I believe I discovered why. Those new trucks don't have forward facing cameras, but they do have backup cameras. They sit so high the driver can't easily see the lines or obstacles in front while attempting to park but when backing up the camera shows what's coming up behind. Terrible, terrible decisions.

That implies that the software was actually good to begin with. Outlook never had that characteristic, unless your criteria for "good" includes good for passing viruses.

My work phone is an iPhone, and we're required to use Outlook for work email. On average outlook gets patched twice a week for iPhone. The biggest flaw in it though has been there for years and clearly won't get patched.

Namely, Outlook for iPhone always defaults to reply all for emails with multiple recipients. It doesn't matter how long the list is, it will reply all unless you go out of your way to reply only to the sender. This has catastrophic consequences at large companies.

It is not uncommon to have email threads at my employer with dozens, or even over 100, recipients. When one goes out with any ambiguity we quickly see who on the list is reading it on their iPhone (vs their laptop) as they inevitably will end up doing a reply all without meaning to.

Apparently Microsoft sees this as a feature, even though they don't force this feature upon us in Windows.

But the evidence is clear from this incident: What people "can do" and what people "actually do" are VERY different things.

I'm sure I'll get flamed, but this is why C (and other languages that don't provide mechanisms to BOUND the length of a string) are actively dangerous in The Real World. Look at the massive effort and time to mitigate this VERY COMMON AND WELL UNDERSTOOD vulnerability.

Boeing and Airbus? I'm OK with that.

Well, we should certainly be able to distinguish between 'policy that has value for the community at large' and 'policy that supports a single stakeholder's objective (even when that's the stakeholder with the gold)'. So I don't disagree with you.

"When everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/...

See https://www.iso.org/standard/7... And for the history of COBOL language standardization, see the table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Programming languages managed buy ISO committees change slowly. That's a FEATURE. I worked a bit on the Ada standard. Each proposed change was carefully weighed for its impact on existing code, as well as the value for new code. The standard was updated roughly every 10 years.

Sorry I don't have moderator points for parent! +1 interesting