actually, that memo says Jobs did it for proprietary competitive reasons

>The problem is that there is no "missing data" color

they should use "green screen green" and give you viewing glasses that fill in the colors to your own historical preference (e.g. rose colored? blood-soaked?). then if you point a finger with your "anhistorical" complaints, there will be 3 fingers pointing back at you!

AI's consumption superpower reminds me of birds, flying about eating worms, then flying back to the nest and regurgitating them into baby's mouth, because it's the processed nutrition they provide that valuable; their own consumption is a combination of fractional/temporary

I think the key difference (and risk) is that with AI we sometimes forget to check what got digested and what got lost along the way

"AI" is more like a bird that flies around eating worms, sometimes regurgitates the nutrition, and sometimes regurgitates a pound of bolts. Then it apologizes, flies around again, and regurgitates pebbles. It does it again but this time it regurgitates acid that vaguely appears to be the same nutritious substance. If it flies around too much it will lose it's context and begin to think it's not a bird but rather a donkey.

Most of "AI"s superpower is tricking monkeys into anthropomorphizing it. It's just a giant, complicated, expensive, environmentally destructive math computer with no capability to create novel thought. If it did have one superpower it's gaslighting and manipulation.

>Just a reminder the US military also conducts training operations around large civilian airports within the USA

that's misleading.

"The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor. In emergencies, elements of the US government would use it to evacuate the capital." Since the helicopter training flight needs to take place in proximity to the US government, and the airport serves Washington DC, they are of necessity juxtaposed.

the US military does not seek out large civilian "airports" within the USA to run training operations. In this case it's just "airport" that happens to be near where the training needs to take place.

I thought to supercool water, it needed to be completely still? am i confusing it with superheating?

I don't know much about water. I just remembered that rivers aren't freezing at all, even in harsh winters and searched a bit on the internet.

To be honest, I'm writing this comment mainly to say: what a great user handle, I smiled :-)

>energy from treated sewage

wouldn't untreated sewage, still fermenting, be warmer?

Maybe. I guess it's easier to handle in treated form though. At the point where it gets to the facility it's actually not really sewage anymore, it's just clean water, so after passing the heat pumps it's just released into a nearby lake via a small turbine (both the sewage treatment plant and the heating plant ar located above the water level of the lake).

So this lake freezes before others in the area ?

I grew up in a time and place where there were very very few African Americans, and nothing like that ever happened. It was really a pleasant place to live, the kind of place where cars stop and wave when a pedestrian steps into the street. Old New England.

>How much of that is the result of the relatively maturity of the technology?

that's a real effect though, it's not something something you throw overboard, it's the bouyancy that keeps you from sinking.

>90% of F-150s are daily driver grocery-getters

it's my impression that electric vehicles are 90% grocery getters, unless the drivers are young in which case it's takeout. what else would you use an electric for, commuting? when you commute, on the way home, you shop.

They are suggesting that most F-150s are not purchased for real truck work like hauling stuff. Instead, they are purchased by people who use them exclusively to drive on paved roads, in towns/cities, mostly carrying passengers instead of large cargo. Therefore the concern about going off-road to remote locations isn't a real concern for this market.

>They are suggesting that most F-150s are not purchased for real truck work like hauling stuff

correct, but it's in the context of the their misimpression that "truck stuff" would be the reason to buy electrics. and I'm pushing back on that saying that the people who buy groceries are the people who are buying electrics. people who "have a commercial job to do" are less likely to experiment with a new technology: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it, especially if your income depends on it"

This logic is only ever applied to trucks. The majority of HNers did not make an economically rational decision when they bought their Macbook or iPhone. Consumers buy what they like and feel like they need and can afford. They place an almost absurdly high value on convenience and not having to think about things like "oh I need to move this thing I need to go rent a truck because I only ever need to do this once every two years, making it irrational to buy one."

I have a long history of sneering at people who ceaselessly buy Apple products despite their lack of economic "efficiency" but I "have a finely calibrated sense of value" ie I'm a tightwad.

Being "economically efficient" with laptop purchases saves you a few hundred to a thousand dollars.

Being just reasonable with a car purchase saves you $25k.

These are not at all comparable to the average american.

The average new car price is $50k. Almost zero people need that. The Toyota Corolla, which is overpriced, still starts at under $25k. Considering inflation it's about 30% more expensive than the base model from the 90s, but the modern Corolla is more comparable IMO to the old Camry, who's price point it exactly matches.

For that money you get a safer car than the 90s, dramatically so. You get modern infotainment, like CarPlay and AndroidAuto. You get a backup camera and bluetooth connectivity. Aircon, power windows, central locking. You get 170HP from a 2.0L 4cyl that is rather silly for a commuter car. Only 32 mpg City. This is a small family car.

But Americans do not want that. Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things. Or the same money for a stupid box on the same frame as an """SUV"""

This is not "avocado toast" or "Just get a roommate". Americans are spending absurd money on absurd vehicles for absurd reasons.

Advances in the reliability of modern cars made the car market weird. If you have any financial sense at all, new cars almost never make sense, because the 5 year old model is still excellent. That means the only people left in that market are not making decisions on financial merits. But that also means the entire market is controlled by the whims of the easily persuadeable and financially illiterate.

> Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things

Most people buying F-150s are spending way more than $50k.

But the hate big trucks get isn’t because they are expensive. I don’t care if someone spends 25, 50, or 100 thousand on their vehicle and I doubt most others do either. Trucks get hate because they are more dangerous to everyone else. A collision with a truck is 2.5x more likely to kill the driver of a car than a collision with another car. [1]

But the attacks on the “manliness” and ridiculous cost of modern trucks are more emotionally satisfying than discussions about their safety profile.

[1] https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history

I drive a Corolla (great highway mileage!) and will probably get something larger the next time I buy because it's smaller than most everything else on the road, both in terms of visibility and collisions. My person tightwad math changed after a drunk driver crossed the median and took off a mirror. If I did have children this would doubly be a concern, even if I could manage to fit the car seat and stroller in the Corolla.

As an aside the base Corolla engine for the current gen was formerly the 139HP 1.8L 2ZR-FAE and the 2L was limited to the "sporty" models but this was dropped at some point. The power figures are somewhat deceptive, it does a very good impression of a v6 under 3000RPM or so, but if you need to wind it out to merge on the highway there's not much there unlike a early 00s VTEC Honda or something.

> But Americans do not want that. Americans want to put down $50k for 80 months for a MANLY man truck for MANLY MAN things. Or the same money for a stupid box on the same frame as an """SUV"""

I’ve driven a Corolla in the last year. Despite not being particularly tall, my head is jammed against the roof. I have to put the driver’s seat all the way back, into the knees of any rear passengers.

The owner’s manual states the car should not be used to tow anything, eliminating the claim throughout this thread of “just buy a trailer when you need to move something big.

Why is it so hard to just admit that trucks and SUVs do in fact offer greater utility and convenience in most situations than small sedans? And that this utility and convenience, even if not needed all the time, is the main reason people are buying them?

I mean, your contention is that the average American, no doubt hard up for money, is so dumb they are willing to pay a 25k+ premium to feel “manly”. Does this really make sense? Economics are not people’s primary motive but they do have an impact.

Despite driving and loving the Honda Fit for 15 years, I bought a large SUV. Can you imagine no other reason for this than I am a madman?

> Why is it so hard to just admit that trucks and SUVs do in fact offer greater utility and convenience in most situations than small sedans? And that this utility and convenience, even if not needed all the time, is the main reason people are buying them?

In general I agree that they do offer a lot of comfort. This is actually a common criticism of these trucks, that they are “pavement princesses” that never haul anything more than groceries. Ironically, a lot of trucks have gotten so tall that they need a step for short people to get into, though, putting the claims of comfort into question.

Personally I think a lot of the justifications about big trucks are true but also not why people buy them. They see more convenient (sometimes; they are a bitch to park in cities). They are more comfortable. They can haul. They can go off-road. But these being true doesn’t mean that’s why most people actually buy them.

Marketing folks understand that. That’s why truck ads show manly shit like rocks being dumped into the back of the truck and off-roading around a mountain even though that’s not how they get used. Consumers are buying the feeling. Just like BMW sells sports cars but showing them whip around mountain roads rather than sitting in traffic.

It’s very much like guns. People who buy guns justify the purchases by saying they need them for self defense or home defense. But the reality is that most guns are never used for any of that and most people who buy guns would move somewhere else if there actually thought they needed them. They are bought because people like guns and find them fun to own. These are of course not mutually exclusive reasons. A gun can be fun and also quell feelings of fear about hypothetical home invasion.

> I mean, your contention is that the average American, no doubt hard up for money, is so dumb they are willing to pay a 25k+ premium to feel “manly”.

Is that actually hard to believe? Americans are notoriously terrible with money and many buy dumb stuff as status symbols when they are missing rent payments.

Again, marketers don’t seem to have any trouble grasping that most money is spent on feelings.

So you agree, then?

For many it’s also a visible badge showing membership in a culture.

Yeah but you buy a truck and all of a sudden you have a lot of friends.

I might not move furniture regularly, but it’s reeeeal nice to be able to do so when I need to. My dishwasher broke on Christmas Eve when I was hosting so I went to the store and got another and installed it within an hour. Not doing that with my Subaru.

I’ve literally transported dishwashers in a Renault Twingo. And the „small car + trailer“ combo will always carry more than a pickup. Pickups are pure lifestyle.

To be fair, the Twingo mk3 even has the front passenger seat fold down. In van mode the interior is huge for a small car.

You live somewhere where things are tiny and close together. That’s lovely but not America. My dishwasher does not fit in your car.

A small car cannot safely transport much of a trailer, and a pickup can tow a much larger trailer.

Something tells me that dishwashers are smaller in areas where the Twingo is sold.

There's no way my piece of shit Samsung dishwasher would fit in your car. It's huge.

In a lot of smaller cars, you can fold down back row.

And if you are ok, with having trunk open, and tied down, you can transport fridges (I used reno clio, that is slightly bigger). Done that myself (not two door wide ones, one door fridge).

That's said I just found out you can hire van for 35EUR 20min away from where I live, so nowdays I just do that.

I looked it up. It does not appear to me it would be possible to fit an American dishwasher in that car in the box, seats folded down or not, based on the internal dimension and hatch width/height or door width/height. It might be possible if you take it out of the box.

It's important to note that American appliances are generally larger than European ones.

I drive a small very useful car almost every day I have moved a ton of stuff in (including a DRESSER) but it's inarguable that trucks simply have greater utility for this sort of thing. And any time I do need to move something...I just use the cheap pickup I bought so I don't even have to worry about it or spend ages trying to squeeze it in.

Most recent purchase: Christmas tree. Yeah, that wouldn't have fit in my car.

Christmas tree? Real ones are usually tied to the top of the car for transport. Artificial ones absolutely fit inside a car with the back seats folded, and possibly just across the back seat. I bought and transported my current artificial tree in my WRX years ago.

An artificial tree that can’t fit in a car would be a big tree.

Which is more convenient?

1. Let the Christmas tree farmer toss a 8’ tree in the back of my truck, tying the base to the anchors behind the cab. Very little overhang with the tailgate down. Drive away. This is what most people do.

2. Spend 15 minutes balancing the the 8’ Christmas tree on the roof of my Honda Fit with substantial overhang, precariously tying it, I guess leaving the windows down in the cold weather and praying the Highway Patrol doesn’t pull me over. This is not what most people do but I’m sure it can be done.

Lots of things “can” be done but people value convenience.

I don’t know where you live but around me I see people carry trees on top of their cars all the time at Christmas. It’s not complex. You put the tree on the car. You open the doors and tie the tree. You get in and close the doors. You don’t drive with the windows down because why would you? And why would highway patrol pull you over? I’ve never even heard of anyone getting pulled over for carrying a tree or anything else.

Is it more convenient in the back of the truck, though? Sure. I didn’t say otherwise.

I will say that buying a giant truck with poor visibility and 2.5x the kill rate of a sedan so that you can haul a tree once a year is nonsense. It’s a shitty tradeoff and a much smaller truck would do exactly the same job. But little trucks don’t sell like giant trucks because people are not actually buying them for their utility.

Do you think suggesting people who do things you don’t like are just not as enlightened and rational as you a productive way to change hearts and minds?

Of course not. Probably more than 99% of online conversations are a complete and utter waste of time. I would assume there is literally nothing anyone could say to you that would make you get rid of your truck.

With that said, you admitted with your first comment that buying these trucks is based on feelings and not rational.

“Consumers buy what they like and feel like they need and can afford. They place an almost absurdly high value on convenience and not having to think about things like "oh I need to move this thing I need to go rent a truck because I only ever need to do this once every two years, making it irrational to buy one."

It’s economically irrational for most people to live in anything but a one bedroom sublet. Why is it trucks that gets your goat?

Because a 7 bedroom McMansion is unlikely to drive over my child in a parking lot or kill my wife in a collision. The dangers of these giant trucks are not hypothetical. It’s documented that they kill drivers of cars at 2.5x the rate of cars.

In terms of pure annoyance, the McMansion is also not using 3 parking spots at the grocery store.

An minivan will transport almost anything a normal person would want to move, while being more practical the other 99% of the time, but of course they have the wrong image.

A number of my whitewater paddling friends really like their minivans. There are still at least a couple of models available but they have largely gone out of fashion.

Personally I have a mid-size SUV but if you regularly need to transport around a lot of people, minivans seem more practical in general than a lot of the big SUVs.

At that point that’s just a truck with a slightly different shape. I don’t see any anti-truck argument that doesn’t apply to mid sized and larger SUVs

The anti truck sentiment is directed largely at the ever-growing full size trucks. SUVs get less hate because the market for the absurdly huge SUVs is much smaller than the market for reasonably sized (by American standards) SUVs.

I don’t think smaller trucks get the same level of hate.

I absolutely use the capacity of my mid-size SUV quite often for a variety of purposes. Don't need anything bigger or the towing capacity of a full-size truck. And, given where I live, renting for a weekend would be very inconvenient. Sure, I could use a smaller hatchback/SUV day to day but I'm not going to own two vehicles at this point (though I used to own a two-seater as well) which some folks would probably also object to.

You pick a reasonable compromise and arguably a full-size truck is overkill for many but a Mazda Miata is probably too small for a lot of people even if it largely works for a lot of day to day stuff.

I own a small/mid-size SUV (and a van) so I’m not judging your car choice, but why would you not be able to rent a truck in Boston? Home Depot, Lowe’s, U-Haul, and more all rent trucks.

I don't live in Boston--about 60 to 90 minutes outside.

So, sure, I could pay for a delivery or rent something from Lowe's if I needed to for a specific purpose but I routinely use my mid-size SUV for weekend trips, transporting a canoe, picking up construction supplies, and the like. I need a vehicle in any case and it makes sense to own a somewhat larger one than I really need day to day to run to the grocery store, especially given that parking isn't an issue and my gas mileage really isn't bad.

If one actually lives in a city (which I don't), renting a vehicle can actually be something of a hassle on a weekend based on what I saw people go through when I was in a ski house after school.

If it’s a regular thing, yeah, renting becomes massively inconvenient because of the frequency. I misunderstood your comment to mean that even a 1-time rental would be extremely inconvenient somehow.

I don't need to transport 8 people around and I can always get mulch or gravel delivered. But, yeah, it's not uncommon for me to want to easily stuff a mid-size SUV's worth of stuff into my vehicle for a weekend or longer trip. I could probably do it with a somewhat smaller vehicle but why? The longer drives are probably when I need to do so anyway.

I did also have a smaller car as well when I did more shorter regular local drives but I really don't do those much any longer other than very local drives to the grocery store or nearby hiking trails.

With sliding doors and different seat configuration. But, sure, just the same thing. But it's fine that you just don't like larger vehicles.

The roof?

Not sure how. The people I know with minivans have roof racks.

A minivan has a roof, which solves a lot of the issues with trucks

Where I live (Vancouver Island) there's been somewhat of a Renaissance of the minivan-as-adventure-vehicle.

Lots of imported Delicas but also a fair few of those Mercedes Sprinter 4x4s.

I wish my minivan was 2 inches higher and all wheel drive. I’m not sure how much I’d want to adventure in my front wheel drive low clearance van.

It’s a great vehicle for most practical cases, though it is not very fuel efficient.

A lot of standard SUVs don't have particularly great ground clearance relative to Jeep Wranglers and the like. Though that doesn't really matter unless you're going off-road in Death Valley and the like. The current Toyota Sienna (which has improved a lot) is better than my Honda Passport in terms on gas mileage.

Yeah. I don’t really need or want high ground clearance. But I would like enough that parking at a curb doesn’t risk dragging the front bumper. My van (Odyssey) is low enough that I’ve scraped on a few unexpectedly tall curbs and I would be pretty uncomfortable with anything resembling off-road. I wouldn’t drive my van anywhere I wouldn’t drive a Civic.

> The current Toyota Sienna … gas mileage.

Better mileage and optional all wheel drive were the only things I preferred about the Sienna. But while I don’t like the mileage the Odyssey gets, I also don’t actually drive far very often so it doesn’t matter much. I put less than 10k miles on my car every year.

I was actually surprised when I looked at what the current Siennas get. I have a friend with a, now, quite old Sienna who was really surprised at how high the mileage of my relatively new Honda Passport was. And the current hybrid Sienna is a fair bit better.

you are allowed to say the language name now, tho right? or is he still prowling about?