upstream @ upstream @beehaw.org

Posts

2

Comments

236

Joined

2 yr. ago

On the same line 😈

Never said they weren’t.

But when you put a flyer under someone’s windshield wiper saying you are purposely letting air out of their tires for driving a big gas guzzler, heating up the planet, and polluting the local environment with their exhaust - and it’s an EV, right?

Weight doesn’t matter so much to pedestrians btw. Front end design and hood design is much more important.

Lots of new cars now actually have a deployable hood that lifts (next to the windshield if you hit / are about to hit a pedestrian.

This allows for a more cushioned landing.

Doesn’t help if the vehicle is so tall you get smooshed in the grill, though.

Increases tire width also helps stopping quicker in many circumstances, but yes, definitely, added weight makes it harder to stop in conditions with reduced grip like rain and snow.

What we need is better safety systems - ie. automated driving as an end goal.

Kids and bicyclists will still be at risk due to their own behavior, but autonomous driving will still be able to perceive quicker and be more consistent in reducing speed around observable high risk “actors” in the environment.

Not saying any of this is an argument for unnecessarily big and heavy cars, but at the moment there is only two electric station wagons in the market. So if you want a bigger trunk than a sedan can offer, but not an SUV you can choose between the Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo or the MG 5.

Not much to choose from sadly.

The Audi A6 Avant is coming, so is the ID.7 wagon, but they’re still at least a year out, if not 1.5.

And the Nio ET5 wagon is coming out right about now as well.

And this will bring the total amount of electric wagons up to 5, three of which comes from VAG.

In the meantime there’s a boatload of huge electric SUV’s that offer no advantage over a wagon except maybe roof height since batteries eat up some underfloor space.

That might be copyright though? The McD M.

Cars have always been a subscription model, albeit in quotes.

You want to drive somewhere? You’ll need fuel.

Have driven a certain amount of miles? You’ll need to service your car.

Driven even more? Replace tires.

Brakes.

Fossil cars was a money printing machine.

That’s why the margin on sales are so low, the dealerships and manufacturers make it up over the lifetime of the car.

Electric cars threatens that model and we see manufacturers scrambling for more ways to make money so they have a leg to stand on when service costs drop.

In the meantime Audi e-tron owners seems to have little issue paying $5-600 for an “inspection” and another $4-500 (in total) for service items, including replacing a “leakage canister” (IIRC).

And best of all. When your car is old enough you come back for more.

It’s not like car manufacturers can twist our arm and make us go all in on subscriptions.

It’s happening because people are ok with putting their money down that way.

If we weren’t it would all be a failed experiment and everything would go back to normal.

The funny thing is how some manufacturers actually offer value added services as a subscription, while others - looking at you BMW and Toyota - are trying to de-content the car to put things on subscription instead.

I’m fine with value added services, less so with seat-heaters as a service.

That’s the kind of thing that - down the line - ends up with “oh sorry, we turned the server off so you can’t ever have heated seats again”, or in the meantime “server was down so heated seats didn’t work for two weeks in the middle of winter”.

People’s acting careers have been killed by less.

I’m a naughty programmer. What are the signs of that?

Didn’t expect anything else, but thanks for the civil response :)

You are still assuming a lot of things:

1. That deflated tires don’t get damaged either. Look up how tires are built.
2. That everyone gets a sticker under the window and all four tires deflated.
3. Apparently it has to be “catastrophical” to be bad.
4. The only thing you are taking away from society is someone’s time.

IMO as long as you are messing with someone else’s property you are not “protesting”, you are a vandal.

However good you might find their intentions it’s not much better than blowing up mailboxes or slashing tires.

And whether or not you want to see it I strongly believe that point four is the most important part.

What happens to the people who couldn’t be treated at the hospital in time because their surgeon was left stranded with flat tires?

Sure, he could have just called a cab/Uber, but what happens when everyone in the neighborhood does?

Someone else could step in? Sure, but again it suddenly might be more than one that’s affected.

I’m not trying to argue that everyone has a job that society will miss if they are stuck at home for a few hours, but do you think that the people running around deflating tires do any kind of legwork to figure out if they should?

There was a “protest” like this in Oslo, Norway, recently, targeted at fossil gas guzzlers. However the “protesters” failed to discern between electric SUV’s and fossil SUV’s even though most of the electric ones carry special license plates.

At the end of it I guess it all boils down to what kind of ethics you apply. While I can agree with the viewpoint I wholeheartedly disagree with the method and form.

At what point do you find it is ok to do bad things to random strangers in some weird hope to do something good?

It’s not a “trolley problem”, you’re not killing one person and saving five, you are simply putting unnecessary hardship into people’s lives because you don’t like what they drive.

Do you honestly expect someone to go “oh no, not again, well I better go buy a different car”?

So a single person driving a 7 seater Volvo XC90 passes muster, but a family of four with the five seater doesn’t?

This is a horrible form of protest because it is likely to cause property damage as most people are completely blind and oblivious and will drive on their now deflated tires for a bit before realizing something is wrong.

That will likely ruin the tire and possibly also damage the rim.

Second, you have no idea who you hurt and the repercussions of it.

There’s no immediate “big car = bad person” logic that’s valid.

If you want to protest in a meaningful manner you should support politicians who want to increase taxes for fossil fuels.

There’s a reason the average engine size (and thus vehicle size) is lower in Europe, and it’s not small streets and parking spaces.

Obviously since giant cars never took off here we didn’t scale things to fit, but that’s a chicken and egg thing.

At least it sounds like you learned a lot from it :)

I guess going forward people will be sending [exes] on X using the X app, and subscribing to X’s and unsubscribing to ex’s?

Not a name that’s easy to verbalize.

What are you doing?

I’m X-ing about the new …

Short live X?

Hence why I asked the question ;)

Doesn’t make it a much better proposal as ARM Windows is (still) severely limited/unsupported.

“We need to be inflation winners”

Actual line from the C-level strategy meeting at my company.

I’m fairly certain we’re not alone.

Next; let’s talk about how recessions are made….

Step one: Create random package that does something trivial that’s done often.

Step two: Start making PR’s to lots of open source projects replacing a number of lines of code with your new package.

Step three: Work hard to get your package into another package that’s used by many.

Step four: Update your CV to reflect that you build software that thousands of companies depend upon.

Step five: Profit from the stupid incentives created by companies hiring people that pad their CV’s by making redundant software and push them into everything they can to make sure everyday is dependency hell.

Sounds like an esoteric thing to do.

To begin with; Teams isn’t a very friendly thing to run in the first place.

Then you want to run a virtualized windows instance, multiple maybe even, so that you can run Teams in these instances?

Would that be x64 windows? Virtualized, running on Rosetta, on an ARM CPU?

I guess if your only goal is to find out, sure.

But if you want to virtualize windows, why start with a mac?

I know someone who took a CPU out of the socket with the system “running” and then put it back in and resumed operations.

Sure, it can be done. But everyone else will just unplug the power and be done with it.

In the meantime I can wholeheartedly recommend Apple Silicon, but Microsoft’s software is still the worst stuff that I run on my mac.

Also, you can just use Teams from the browser if you don’t need any integrated features.

Pretty picture you’re painting, but the cost/benefit of this is completely unreasonable even if it worked as advertised.

In any scenario where it’s less than advertised the economics of it gets even worse.

So, no, this is entirely stupid/foolish.

I’m always wary when someone talks loudly about architecture.

I’m not saying it’s not important, by all means, but in my 10 years as a professional developer I’ve found that the people who are most devoted to preaching architecture don’t contribute to good architecture.

I’ve only met a few persons that fit that bill, so obviously nothing statistical, but the experience has left me wary when people start to become loud about it.

I’m not saying this is you, but if everyone is pushing back it might just be that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Architecture can be many things.

However, there are individuals who believe that the only way is that one way they read about in a book once, or even worse, they’ve read it multiple times and it’s their Bible. Maybe they’ve read multiple books by the same author and has basically adopted someone else’s viewpoints without any critical thinking.

Exposing yourself to different architectural strategies, viewpoints on architecture from multiple people.

And remember that all architecture serves a point. It is the job of the architect, and the team, to build an architecture that solves the needs of the project.

“Clean code”, whatever that is interpreted as, is probably not one of them.

“Good test-ability”, modularity, multi-platform, performance, package-size, internationalization, accessibility, etc. might on the other hand be needs and goals that can be used to guide the project architecture.

Uncle Bob’s layer cake probably isn’t.

If you want better takes than mine on criticisms of Uncle Bob’s Clean Code I suggest to Google it. It might cause you to re-think some things as well.

Not that one, though.

I suppose most of the ones on this chart except English:

https://cdn.britannica.com/90/1990-050-53E1AB05/Derivation-languages-Germanic-Proto-Germanic.jpg

And, yes, I completely forgot that English is a Germanic language.

See also; https://imgur.com/a/ODYWxzn