It's not pay $45 to go though, it's pay $45 for someone to take you around back and look you up based on secondary identification, and if they can't positively identify you based on that you still can't go through.
This is a system that has been in place for a long, long time. You could always say you don't have ID and they'll look you up. The change is they're now charging for it.
> And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
This is also not accurate. If you're talking about Clear, you just skip to the front of the normal line. If you're talking about Pre, those people are individually background-checked before hand, and it costs $19/yr, so it's not exactly a tophat and monocle only program. Especially since that's half the price of a one-way taxi ride to the airport, let alone the ticket. The airport self-selects for the fairly well off to begin with.
Yeah, Swift started out fairly clear and cohesive and now it's just a katamari of every language feature ever made by anyone plus a whole bunch of home-grown features too. I'm always mixed on this because in isolation the feature is neat and I like it, but the totality of Swift is becoming as overwhelming and inconsistent as C++.
Now some C functions which are indistinguishable from free Swift functions get named parameters, and you can switch on some enumerations from C, and some C objects are ref counted but other ones still need you to do it. It's going to be quite something to keep track of which library is which since there's no way to know apriori.
Yeah, Swift looks like someone started trying to port a C# syntax onto an esoteric object-orientated C-dialect (similar to Vala and GObject) then at the last moment noticed Rust 1.0 had been released, tried to patch on some Rust features, and hit release before they were done.
It's quite deceptive. Rust seems initially hard to learn, but it's a small language, so you arrive at competency faster than you might think. Swift seems initially easy to learn, but is a broad language with lots of edge-cases, so you're never quite as competent as you think you are, or need to be
Ehh I have been using Swift from the beginning and I disagree with you and the parent. Swift was "good" before the addition of property wrappers and the result builder syntax. That's when lots of the weird "features" started being bolted on.
Before that it just felt like what a modern OO language with reference and value types, type safety, some very light "not truly functional but nice to have" functional programming features, and readable, "normal", dot syntax would be like. The language was basically complete at that point for the purposes of writing UI apps with the existing Apple frameworks.
> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
> So what do people actually like about trucks? According to Edwards, the answer is counterintuitive. Truck drivers use their trucks very much like other car owners: for commuting to and from work, presumably alone. The thing that most distinguishes truck owners from those of other vehicles is their sheer love of driving. “The highest indexed use among truck owners is pleasure driving,” says Edwards. Truck drivers use their vehicles this way fully twice as often as the industry average. “This is the freedom that trucks offer,” says Edwards.
The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.
>The F-series is the best selling car family in the US. Some of them are using it for its intended purpose sure, the majority are just using it as parent said, a luxobarge.
A F550 box truck and a crew cab shortbed F150 are both F-series as well as everything in between.
If not the best selling it had better be damn close with all the different vehicles that exist under that one nameplate.
The F-150 alone has been Americas best selling vehicle for 47 years straight until getting dethroned by the RAV4 in 2024 (unless you add any of the other F-series trucks). It appears to be back on top in 2025.
one time a year or less was the suffix for each of these, many more people fall into the once a month or so category. The economical thing to do is buy a civic and rent a truck the one time a year you use it for truck things.
If your argument is that most Americans should be on public transit and save the average $500,000 they spend during their lives on private vehicles then I completely agree.
If you're saying "a less bad thing is still bad!" then your comment reads more like the "We should improve society somewhat. / Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent." meme.
The argument seems to ve that trucks are bad because people don't use them to 100% capacity all the time.
People generally buy vehicles for to fit all of their needs not 95% of them. My back seat and trunk are almost always empty and my passenger seat is mostly empty.
> A pickup truck should just be max utility, especially if you're a manufacturer making your first one
> 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
I wonder if there are any other countries in the world where the best-selling automobile is something completely impractical? Or are Americans unique in that regard?
Serious question. I can't think of any, but I'm also not familiar with car markets the world over. In Japan, for example, the best-selling car is the Honda N-BOX [1], which is an incredibly practical car.
An amendment requires 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate -- or 34 of 50 states to call for a constitutional convention (which has never been done) -- just to float an amendment.
Then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it.
I don't think you could get half of states to agree the sky is blue let alone 3/4.
[edit] The Equal Rights Amendment has been in progress since 1972 and while they somehow managed to get 3/4 of states to agree (Virginia agreed in 2020) the 7- and later 10-year deadline built into the bill had long elapsed. And 5 states later tried to rescind their ratifications which isn't really covered in the constitution in the first place.
That one says simply:
> Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.
Well you see it would free up a huge amount of money that employers are currently paying to insurers. If you take that money (by raising the Medicare premium on employees), plus the existing medicaid budget, existing medicare tax and payroll tax contributions America's healthcare system would receive over 40% more money to cover care per capita than the next leading contestant. Almost 2X the OECD average. In PPP dollars no less.
"But where would the money come from" is one of the wildest questions to ask about a system that already costs double the average. I'd say, give or take, the same place its coming from now, but like, less.
Burrys critique is that the Nvidia funding deals have them investing money in a company and getting both stock in that company and their own money back to buy the chips. They then book the chip sales in revenue but they don’t show the investment as a cost, since investments are treated separately from an accounting perspective. So it looks like they’re growing revenue organically at no cost, while that doesn’t seem logically consistent with what’s actually happening.
The truth is you can't properly account for these transactions. If they are making legitimate equity investments (ie, that an independent investor would reasonably make) it's all fine. If they are investments that don't hold water, it's fraud.
It's not that different to any type of vendor financing. Vendor financing is legit, if done legitimately.
Burry's critique is even more general than that when it comes to tech companies doing accounting fraud. It's his argument as to why "the market doesn't make sense" and his bets have failed -- which is why I'm not sure anyone would summarize it as "betting against AI growth translating into real profits as a whole"
The issue is size, SRAM is 6 transistors per bit while DRAM is 1 transistor and a capacitor. Anyone who wants density starts with DRAM. There’s never been motivation to stack.
It's not pay $45 to go though, it's pay $45 for someone to take you around back and look you up based on secondary identification, and if they can't positively identify you based on that you still can't go through.
This is a system that has been in place for a long, long time. You could always say you don't have ID and they'll look you up. The change is they're now charging for it.
> And don't get me started with all the paid express security lanes. Because of course only poor people can weaponize shoes and laptops.
This is also not accurate. If you're talking about Clear, you just skip to the front of the normal line. If you're talking about Pre, those people are individually background-checked before hand, and it costs $19/yr, so it's not exactly a tophat and monocle only program. Especially since that's half the price of a one-way taxi ride to the airport, let alone the ticket. The airport self-selects for the fairly well off to begin with.
reply