People that have to scrape together bus fare aren't buying EV's.
No, but they do buy old bangers of ICE cars which can work out cheaper than buses, unless they work in an LEZ. It'll be a long time, if ever, before EV equivalents to those exist.
7402 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
Indeed. When I rent a car at an airport, it's either:
- I need a cheap little runabout like a Corsa or i10 to do < 100 miles to visit family, which isn't a scenario where an expensive EV would work for me or the rental company, or
- I'm planning a long holiday drive in an unfamiliar place, where I may not speak the language, and I certainly don't want the hassle of trying to find charge points and having the right app on my phone to pay at them.
Hertz aren't dumping their EV fleet.
From one of the articles linked to: 'Approximately 20,000 EVs are to be offloaded from its US fleet throughout 2024, and the company plans to spend at least a portion of the proceeds buying internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles "to meet customer demand."'
That's something of an urban myth. The Comet failures were due to metal fatigue, the second crash was due to a crack which started at a repaired rivet hole near the small square "window" cut out for the direction finder antenna. The fuselage skin didn't have the strength to contain it.
There was another concern that the main windows, rectangular with rounded corners, were only riveted in and not glued as well which the original design intended. That wasn't a cause in any of the crashes, but the two have become conflated.
But we can see how it's viewed by politicians and much of the media in this country by the terminology used - spending on railways is often 'subsidy' whereas spending on roads is 'investment'.
Spending in infrastructure tends to be considered as "investment" in both cases, road or rail. The big difference is when it comes to running costs - rail ticket prices are subsidised from tax money, yet for motorists half the pump price of fuel is tax & duty that goes into the treasury coffers.
Apart from a few cosmetic differences, the resulting policies will be the same whichever option they choose.
This is why, all across Europe (and beyond) we're seeing big votes for extremist parties. Not, as the press would have us believe, because people are becoming more left- or right-wing, but because we're fed up with the "they're all the same" politics from the main parties, and want to deliver a large boot up their collective arses.
Very simplified view on the unions.
Based on 50-odd years experience.
creating a death spiral of intransigence, counter productive to the health of the industry affected.
And is why most people in the UK won't join a union.
you do realise most of the RMT (Mick Lynch union) members are primarily relatively low paid staff cleaners, ticket staff, etc.
According to their own figures 45% of their membership earn more than £35,000/year
Not that drivers are overpaid, a safety critical job, customer lives at stake & still massively less well paid than an MP
No argument that many MPs are overpaid for what they do, but so are train drivers. They earn twice what bus drivers do, for example, but driving a bus is a far more stressful and safety-critical job than driving a train. Trains are so automated these days that it's difficult for a driver to take a dangerous action without the automated systems halting the train & signalling the problem.
We need to get away from the idea that manual labour is unskilled and should be badly paid
Not a question of "should be", it's the usual question of supply& demand. If a job requires nothing more than a strong back there's unlikely to be a shortage of candidates, so inevitably more competition & people who accept lower wages. Unions aren't going to change that.
not to mention the zero tolerance drink and drug tests, no chance of risking a couple of pints the night before a shift as blood alcohol fail levels really low, so quite an impact on social life if you like meeting pals in the pub for a beer or 2.(& no chance of getting away with illegal recreational drugs for those so inclined,
Sounds very reasonable, the same rules should apply to anyone serving the public (yes, including MPs and civil servants).
It doesn't really change my initial argument that unions, like other powerful groups, tend to devolve to become self-serving.
There is one factor in all this that Doctorow & others seem to be missing - the users.
It all sounds very like the perennial complaints about junk food: it's unhealthy, makes you fat, messes up our high streets with litter & fast-food shops, etc. The problem is that, even if you opened up a chain of healthy-food shops and subsidised them with taxpayer money so that they were cheap, people would still go to McDonalds. Why? Because they like it.
We can sit here and complain about Google, Facebook, X and all the rest, and moan that people should realise that they're being manipulated and (ab)used, but as long as people are happy with what they get from those services, they won't change to alternatives. Even the Romans understood that with the classic approach of "bread & circuses" - giving the ordinary people free food & entertainment so that they wouldn't look too hard at the people in charge and what they were doing behind the scenes.
How do we fix that? Education is the obvious approach, but you can't force people to learn any more than you can ban stupidity.
Back to the car industry - the collapse in the 70s didn't deliver new car companies in the west, so much as open the door to competition from countries with lower wages and more committed workers.
More committed, maybe. Less unionized, certainly.
That's why unions are a double-edged sword. They start as a mutual society, genuinely trying to help their members, getting better/fairer conditions, etc. All too often, once they taste the power that they have they devolve into an organization whose main aim is to increase the power and wealth of their leaders, while demanding ever larger pay packets for ever less work for their dues-paying members, until they eventually price themselves out of the market. That's what happened in the 70s and is still happening today, with the railway unions for example.
In many ways it parallels the complaints in this article, an organization becomes so large & powerful that it stops serving its customers, and focusses on serving its leaders, until someone demands that someone (usually government) must Do Something.
Quote: "....3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or hybrid cars in 2022, compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account."
Does that also take the cars' ages into account? A 10-year-old car is probably more likely to go up in flames than a 2-year-old one, but there are few 10-year-old EVs so far.
NCAP is just crash testing, not other mechanical / electronic reliability or safety.
Not any more. There are 4 main areas (see https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained/. The 3rd and 4th areas now rely heavily on Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and other electronic assistance technologies. A car can't get a 5-star NCAP rating unless it is "well equipped with comprehensive and robust crash avoidance technology", which is why modern cars are stuffed with driver "aids" which you can't permanently disable. If they can be disabled, the car can't get a 5* rating.
and ya canna blame 'em there
Nor can you blame the cities. If they've offered tax breaks for companies to occupy an office block, and so keep the local shops and cafés in business, it's hard to fault them if the offices lie empty and the cafés close for lack of lunchtime customers.
No, it has those. I vaguely remembered it having better copy/cut/paste, but perhaps I'm confusing it with something else.
There's an interview with Bill Joy from 1984 that details what was lost - multiple windows mainly. http://xahlee.info/comp/interview_with_bill_joy.html "vi would have multiple windows, and I might have put in some programmability"
If you look into the command sequences for VT52 and VT100, you will see that VT100 was not an evolution from the VT52. It was a completely different terminal, not even sharing the same form (the VT52 did not have a separate keyboard). It did have a VT52 mode and understood some of the commands of the older terminal in VT100 mode, but the structure of the command set was completely different.
Agreed, I really meant that it was an evolution in the sense that it was the next step, not a direct technical update. I never had much chance to play with a real VT52, most of my experience was VT100/102/13x and the VT2xx series. The VT52 escape sequences were much simpler than the ANSI ones, and the VT2xx ones with <CSI> prefixes extended that even further, especially the colour ones on the VT240.
VT100 ... was that it was the first commonly available terminal that implemented the ANSI X3.64 terminal specification
I rather think it was the other way around. X3.64 dates from 1979, the VT100 was publicly released at least a year before that.
As far as I am aware, VMS did not have a terminal abstraction layer like termcap/curses (and I'm certain that RSX-11M didn't)
I think that VMS eventually got termcap, when they got POSIX certification, but certainly things like the EDT editor didn't have any terminal independence. The escape sequences were hardcoded into it, on VMS as with RSX. VMS got a certain level of terminal independence when the Text Processing Utility (TPU) was added in the mid-80s. That was essentially a language for writing editors, and it came with EVE, an EDT-lookalike written in TPU. I remember getting it mostly working on a Wyse terminal that had non-ANSI cursor positioning sequences, but the non-VT100 keyboard meant that many of the EDT sequences that were coded into my fingers' muscle menu couldn't be used, so it was more of an academic exercise than a practical one.
Yes, the article missed out much of the 1970s and early 80s changes.
One of the very useful UI changes from the 70s was the standardisation of ANSI escape sequences, for cursor control and screen positioning. The archetypal embodiment of those is the DEC VT100 from 1978, an update to the previous VT52, and almost every terminal and terminal emulator today still has a "VT100 mode". Even early DOS-based PC terminal emulators offered that for cursor positioning and basic line-oriented graphics.
Before CDE came along, Sun had introduced the NeWS network-capable windowing system based on Display PostScript in the late 80s, and it was MIT's Project Athena that gave birth to X-Windows in the early 80s. I had a Sun desktop that had both NeWS and X installed (adding X required another 100MB of disk space, so it was usually NFS-mounted from a server!). X-Windows had (still has) the advantage of being usable even on slow connections, although initial display takes a while over a 9600bps modem once the window is open it can be remarkably responsive.
Sun developed OPEN LOOK as a UI standard, while other competing industry players designed Motif which was the more successful of the two. It was adopted by DEC for DECWindows, and many of the elements from it will be, as you say, familiar to anyone using today's MS Windows. Unfortunately that also seems to have led to a proliferation of UI designs whose main aim is NOT to be like Windows, which hardly helps simplification & standardisation. Most of the current Linux window managers are derivatives (at least in look and feel) of those early kits.
If someone's not even aware there is a standard, then the tools they build won't follow it.
I think https://xkcd.com/927/ is the appropriate comment here...
As for "But its influence never reached one part of the software world: the Linux (and Unix) shell", I think that's a little unfair. The shell was never intended to be much of a UI component, it was primarily a way to let users run programs and (if required) chain them together. UI design, if it was considered at all, was assumed to be the under remit of the program designer. The addition of getopts to the Unix standard definition did add some degree of standardisation to shells, but they were never really intended to be the sort of rich command interface provided by things like DEC's DCL. That too has changed, with bash, tcsh, csh, fish, zsh, ksh, etc. See the XKCD above...
Now do you understand what proprietary means?
I do. Do you? It means that it has an owner, who has the right to decide what other people can, and cannot, do with it.
I was making the rather tongue in cheek point that, as the article points out, the Linux kernel is in good shape because Linus acts as a fairly strict owner who decides, proprietorially, what changes are allowed (often in very colourful language). The code may be freely available, but the official kernel effectively only gets the changes that Linus permits.
presumably having landed on an incline and rolling/tipping over?
It was targeting an incline of about 15° (inside a crater, IIRC), which is why they knew the landing would be tricky. It was supposed to let the downslope gear touch first, before a sort of "controlled topple" to allow the upslope gear to make contact. See the diagram at https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-missions/jaxa-slim-spacecraft. So, yes, it may have toppled backwards, or rolled. Hopefully the telemetry & photos will clarify.
When I was at Uni we had 100KB storage for each engineering student's project. Fortunately, each year the computer centre allocated 200 new accounts for that year's intake, but there were rarely more than 160 new students so the last 30-40 were unused. Since they conveniently used a simple algorithm-generated initial password, it wasn't difficult to grab a few spare accounts to store games, etc. in. Having more than 3 was considered to be greedy, though :-)
And when people realise that calling the "helpline" is only going to get them a useless bot, they stop calling. The bosses then look at those metrics and conclude that automating the call centre has greatly improved product quality and customer satisfaction, since so few people call.
Then the company goes bust, because all those unhappy customers take their business elsewhere, so there is a bright side.
because I'm in that contract I have fuck all choice but to accept it.
Why did you accept a contract that allowed that? Did you perhaps not read the small print, or just assume it didn't apply to you?
I'm not saying that the contract is fair or reasonable, but if people keep blindly accepting them there's not much incentive for the companies to offer better ones.