I am worried that in most cases, the "maintenance cost" is not a cost but a ticking time bomb.

Since so much complicated software is being rammed into devices and the consumer is ever accustomed to increased ease of use and lack of mental engagement with the technology, they won't ever invest time to maintain the technology that they have in front of them, since understanding it will involve aeons of time due to the systems' complexity and/or lack of documentation. You're then at the mercy of the provider of the technology, who may or may not decide to maintain it at a whim.

I think this is particularly true in cars, where great strides have been made in engine management and "smart" sensors etc. but where the infotainment systems and general car "features" are reliant on activation by the manufacturer, or an on-going service that the manufacturer provides. If they ever decide to stop the service, a feature of the car is unusable. It's like BMW's horrible idea to "activate" features of the car based on a subscription service.

I have a 1972 Beetle that will carry on running for decades due to its simplicity; I also have a 2016 new Beetle that I suspect will have a far shorter lifespan. There are buttons on the steering wheel that won't do anything without paying VW for the privilege; Android Auto is also not enabled here in the UK without paying £200 for the privilege, and the VW garages I have been to in order to enable haven't succeeded in doing it, or believe it isn't available on the car....

It's like cloud computing for cars, which is short-sighted in future usability. This mentality has affected everything, from music and film availability, to apps and all technology, which is increasingly in every part of life.

It's insane. Everything is far far more complicated than it has ever been in human history, yet is presented as a simple service to attain, so the adoption of short-term usability grows. It isn't an improvement at all.

Cucumbers being unwrapped for display, because the plastic should not be visible.

Cucumbers being wrapped at all...

A wrapped cucumber is actually better for the environment than it's unwrapped counterpart [0] as they last longer leading to fewer deliveries and less waste

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/feat...

There are alternative approaches though? Coating it with wax?

Do you like eating wax? Rutabagas are commonly coated in paraffin wax to prevent them drying out, but no one eats raw, unpeeled rutabagas. On the other hand, cucumbers are usually eaten raw with the skin intact.

In some places maybe. In Greece, where I'm from, they're normally peeled.

It's a funny old world, isn't it, when you can't make a simple statement of fact without someone popping up and saying "not in my neck of the woods"? And their neck of the woods is half a world away probably. Joys of the internets...

That depends on what type of cucumber you have. A lot of garden varieties seem to have tougher skins that are less pleasant to eat, but the cucumbers that are sold in grocery stores in North America have tender skins. I prefer cucumbers sith tender skins, myself.

You might very well be right, but I think there's also a force of habbit behind it. Cucumber skins aren't tougher than zucchini skins (in Greece that is) and we never peel zucchinis, so we could leave the cucumber skins on, too. We just somehow... always take them off. Or almost always. I've had Greek salad with unpeeled cucumbers once or twice. But it looked a bit weird.

GUIs when we have a perfectly good command line