The A pillar should be narrower than 80% of drivers eye distances, allowing to see "through" it thanks to parallax. In my car it's very thick and I have to move my head from side to side whenever I'm in a curve.

This is too little, too late.

It's already become common to set up cellular hotspots where even picocell sites can't reach. It's also become common to set up phone-over-carrier-wifi where phones will connect to an org's wifi network specifically set up through an org like Ameriband where calls and texts tunnel to the carrier, but data is offloaded to the host org's corporate internet connection and thus their policies. And DAS has been around for so long that I've seen systems lifecycle, and then the lifecycled-systems go into fault due to age and requiring lifecycle again.

There's also an argument to be made that if the R&D aspects of developing both solar and wind power are somewhat open, in the sense that one's domestic materials science and manufacturing and fairly easily make domestic examples of just about every technical development that comes out of another country. An argument that it actually makes sense to let someone else go through the painful and expensive R&D to find the dead-ends, the problems, the hangups, and to then implement starting at a particular point in the process that didn't require spending all that money on the initial R&D or the dead-ends.

Likewise there's an argument to be made against widespread adoption of a particular early tech example even if one chooses to perform domestic research and development. Refine the technical aspects to a threshold where one is willing to accept particular efficiencies, lifecycle, disposal costs based on that lifecycle, etc.

Most people seem to forget that big industry doesn't usually do commodity procurement for their capital purchases. When they choose to invest in something, they want that investment to pay off. It's shortsighted to adopt solar panel A, then replace it with A.1, then with A.2, then with A.2.a, then with A.2.b, etc. It may make sense to let someone else develop and iterate the A-series, then to let them start working on the B-series, pay attention to what they come up with, then develop say, B.2.a and implement that widely. Watch them go through the C-series and D-series, then invest in D.3.m or wait until E-series is in development and hop back on the R&D bandwagon again.

Beleaguered Apple spreads programming language legs in hope of overcoming Apple Doesn't Make Serious Computers; Only Good For Games But Isn't A Gaming System' image.

I feel you need to elaborate a little further on that. The book lays out sources, equations and testable hypothesis. Interestingly it rarely suggests actual policy. Page 5 of the Motivations sections also laws out why - it is as scathing of campaigners as it is of incumbents.

That aspects are outdated 17 years after its last update does not surprise me. That it is fundamentally incorrect however...given the sources and calculations, I think you'll need a to provide a little more reasoning than "you should fee bad" (sic.).

As someone who has had a strong interest in this area for a while now, not professionally - just following along, it's been fascinating to watch almost every single prediction from the 1990s UK government advisor come true. These recommendations were, in 2015 this was put up as a web site - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. This is not a political book, the "without the hot air" bit alludes to that. This is a quantitative book with the maths to back up all assumptions and recommendations.

In it, David McKay makes comments about future energy mix. If you look at the full PDF, the idea of a cable from northern Africa to elsewhere is explored starting page 178. Bear in mind this book was written late 90s/early 2000s with the last revision being 2008 (the author has sadly passed). Generating from Morocco appears on page 181.

Thoroughly good read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the mechanics and figures behind energy transitions. Clearly some will now be outdated...but it's surprising how little. A lot of what he suggested is now unfolding.

But what I'm saying is that's all vocational. Computer science is basic information theory, patterns, HCI...all of that kind of thing. I'm a graduate of Comp. Sci myself, though in the UK from 1992. During that time we were taught a programming language as an abstract for various concepts (I was taught ADA, for instance) but it was assumed you would go and teach yourself any language you were interested in. I self-taught myself C for instance.

What you seem to be looking for isn't Computer Science grads, it's programmers. From your description I don't think you'd care if they new Huffman's Information Theory or deep graph theory, but would care if they didn't know Javascript. And this is what I mean - that's not a Computer Science thing, that's vocational

I think that's an industry fault rather than yours for instance. I think pushing Computer Science as the name but turning out average programming people is an educational failure.

I hate to be blunt, but what has any of that got to do with Computer Science? This is the problem. To quote Dijkstra - "Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes".

People wanting vocational programming degrees or courses should get them. Computer science is not about teaching Angular. And from my own observation over the years, I can clearly remember the first time I interviewed a programmer who clearly had no idea how a computer worked, or any of the theory behind one. They just knew syntax to type in - that was all. Came as a shock to me at the time, but it's decades ago now and I'm more used to it sadly.

Yeah, and those are all 20yo movies at least.

I agree completely, on all counts.

Right, and with fiber, you just using something like invisilight, where you run a whisker-thin fiber along a baseboard, or up in the corner where you wall meets the ceiling, and cover it up with just an itty bitty bit of stuff.

In other words, instead of running copper from each room back to wherever your Internet demarc sits, run fiber to each room back to your Internet demarc, and use managed fiber endpoints instead of managed wifi mesh devices.

You only need to refuel your ICE car once a week or so, and the same is true for a BEV. Even though plugging in at home is less hassle than going to a gas station, it's still not something you want to have to do every day.

Why wouldn't you want to plug the car in 'every day' if you have the ability to? Going to the gas station is dead time; you're standing there pumping.

Plugging in any sort of plugin EV is not dead time; you seat the connector and...walk away. Your involvement is done until you want to drive next, and you..unplug the connector and set it into it's holder. Or lay it on the ground out of the way.

Do you also complain about plugging in your phone at night?

Being driven by both is not some kind of third option

It kind of is. My wife's PHEV's hybrid mode will use the ICE in 'eco' mode, and use the batteries if, for example, she accelerates quickly to pass on the highway, and is always using regen braking to put power back in the batteries.

On the other hand, I had a PHEV rental a while back that was either on battery or on engine, and that's that.

'5 minutes is a threshold mark' for what?

Shit, back when I drove ICE cars, it was common to spend longer than that *in line* at the gas station, let alone pumping.

EVs are not gas cars. You lose the idea of 'stopping to get gas.' That paradigm simply does not apply.

And let me tell you, from personal experience, popping out of your car, plugging in the fast charger, popping back in, and turning the cabin climate control back on is a hell of a lot nicer than standing outside in the -45 wind chill pumping gas, even if you're just sitting there in the car for twenty minutes.