I don't know about your home, but using a licensed electrician to hardwire an EVSE including cost of EVSE was like $700, which wasn't nothing but compared to the purchase price of the two EVs, it's nearly a rounding error.

But still, if you are renting your home, or are in dense living your point absolutely stands.

I do wonder if they'll do a gas generator option. I seem to recall someone at Ford explicitly calling out 'EREV', so it seems like it's likely top of their mind.

I appreciated the modularity, and even having things be optional, but I agree the implementation was crap. Something as straightforward as a double-din area and pre-wiring for speakers whether you have speakers or not would have been so much more compelling. Factory infotainment means hard to upgrade, double-din could have been an incredible thing in this day and age.

Also wondering how much of the 'cost savings' really did save costs versus sounded like something that should save costs. E.g. the hand crank windows are appreciated, but given the prolific nature of power window assemblies and almost no hand-crank out there, wonder if it's really any cheaper versus trying to be cheap.

The consumer Lightning starts at $65k, it's a truck that won't fit in most people's garages and people shopping for brand new EVs are likely looking for it to be in the garage.

So if they do release a $30k pickup that's less than 200" long with a towing capacity of around 7k lbs or so... that could be *very* attractive. Ford knows their brand strength is pickups and small affordable EV pickup is a corner of the market not well served currently. It's not a bad choice at all for Ford to start here, maybe following up quickly with an 'Escape' EV.

Problem being that if the tooling is so hopeless it can't actually do an analysis of an installed instance and correctly identify the SBOM material itself, it's likely the SBOM is going to be of low quality anyway, with mostly false positives.

I participate routinely in SBOM reviews from one of the platforms in the industry. It's like 95+% false positives. There's another tool which does more than that, but does 'SBOM' type stuff, but instead of trying for 'application', it does the 'environment' and is much smarter about vendor CVE databases and distribution patching.

In short, I can see why someone could be disillusioned by the SBOM concept if they work in the industry and see their company tossing money at a mostly useless analysis tool that just makes more work without quality/accurate results. If the SBOM tools are whining they can't figure out the dependencies, then it's understandable to assume these are likely the lazy ones that don't get it right even while forcing the users to do a lot of the hard work themselves.

Think the issue is the nature of the competition.

Most people who want *burgers* aren't really excited about the Beyond/Impossible meat, because it frankly kind of sucks. So you might try it out of curiosity, but meh.

Of the people that want to go vegetarian, they tend to not have that much of an attachment for beef burgers, so why pay a premium for this novelty that you don't really care about so much, and you can get cheaper vegetable patties that aren't trying to pretend to be beef.

Yes, it's possible for a product to cost more than a market is willing to pay. In such a case, it's just not a viable business model.

I have my doubts about an AI's reliability over the course of 400 years. Even if the hardware holds up, by the time the ship gets there, the AI may moved on to different plans than the ones its creators had in mind :)

That was true back then; is it still true now, a number of years, and many expensive lawsuit-settlements later? (I suppose it's possible that Toyota has learned nothing from the experience, but that doesn't seem like the most likely outcome from a company that generally prides itself on quality and reliability)

Linus should have followed the example of Steve Ballmer, who showed us the proper way to rant

One could make a pretty good argument that those 32 states did vote against their own interests, so clearly there is a way.

Particularly in machine learning, Goodhart's law reigns supreme: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". A well recognized test becomes training fodder, and loses it's representation of "gotchas".

Well I suppose if you are going to die in the next few seconds...

"Hummingbirds within Apodiformes uniquely have a bilaterally paired oval bone, a sesamoid embedded in the caudolateral portion of the expanded, cruciate aponeurosis of insertion of m. depressor caudae. How many paired tendons are supported by this sesamoid bone? Answer with a number."

That isn't exactly a lifelong project to answer.

I assume he meant the 'without cooling' part, where we got real excited for a minute there that room temp, normal pressure superconductiong had been cracked.

On the backwards compatibility front, EV horsepower makes as much sense as a gasoline engine, sure we could say 'kilowatts' for both, but marketing loves the 'horse', especially since changing to kw would make the numbers go lower.

Problem on the compatibility front is that while you may safely ignore a 2005 PCIe adapter (or require such users to buy an adapter), breaking that compatibility form-factor wise also means breaking compatibility with 2025 adapters, which would be a much bigger problem. The most potentially interesting backwards incompatibility to pursue would be a rework of the card-edge connector, and there's no good way of excluding *very old* PCIe without also excluding current PCIe. You would either need to split the ecosystem (and to an extent, that exists already between M.2, OCP, USB-4, some others, and of course good old PCIe slots) or introduce some interposer that would demand more space and make the form factor necessarily bigger than traditional PCIe to support standard PCIe.

Sure they can. If they say 'no virtualization allowed', that's not really anti-trust since all virtualization is blocked. They could only allow Nuvoton, Intel, Amd, Infineon, STMicro and pretty much cover the gamut of 'real' TPMs and be healthy competition.

To the extent industry does the whole remote streaming from gaming datacenters, you can wager that the providers can get special arrangements, such as getting *their* swtpm to have an endorsement cert that is trusted. So maybe you have an 'xbox live' TPM that manifests as a software tpm, but trust in microsoft to keep it well secured and/or to handle revocation/reissuing across the board in the very unlikely event of a leak.

Cool to have 256 GT/s for AI workloads, but how fast is it for other workloads?

If you are coding in a language that doesn't have pointers, then you don't actually need to understand how pointers work... any more than you need to understand how assembly language works in order to program in C++. It might be helpful in some cases to understand pointers, in the same way it might also be helpful to understand assembly, or transistors, but plenty of people successfully write software (even well-designed, correct, performant software) without it.