forgetfreeman

probably because standards have slipped so far over the decades.

If you think that's wild you should see some of the stuff that gets flagged to death on the front page.

You might want to take a closer look into the current state of play on new and late model vehicle parts availability and general serviceability, because your take here appears to be a couple decades out of date. Parts are frequently difficult or impossible to source for cars that are less than 5 years old.

Ish. Traditional car manufacturers had this figured out but intentionally dropped the plot over the last couple decades because make number go up. Net result: my wife had a mouse die in a vent duct in her 2 year old SUV. We drove a dealership loaner for 8 months waiting for parts. They ended up replacing the entire dash assembly (including gauge clusters, and infotainment unit). Many (most?) modern car transmissions aren't field-serviceable because no parts are available. Any issue with the transmission means the entire unit gets replaced.

Given it's already happening I shouldn't have to hold my breath for long. Have a look at Ford's sales numbers in their bread-and-butter truck market. Volkswagen's getting replaced by Nokia on major indices in Europe. Toyota seems to see the writing on the wall and have been flirting with bringing the Hilux to North America. Across all domestic manufacturers dealer lot retention figures are through the damn roof and have been for some time now. They can't keep this shit up much longer.

Suits me. US manufacturers willingly chose to double and triple down on luxury pricing models and chose to include enough software and sensors for a moderately capable aircraft, cutting every corner they could find in terms of reliability and serviceability in the process. I gleefully await the "find out" phase of this little experiment.

Given how often parts are unavailable for new and late model "western" brands this is more like a generic worry that comes with car ownership than anything brand-specific. If anything the proliferation of brands demonstrates robust use of off-the-shelf components, which in turn suggests replacement parts should be ubiquitous.

Why should they engage with something they didnt ask for and clearly don't want? The burden of proof is on new technology, not its skeptics.

1. Not my job to do your homework for you. You advance claims, you provide proof or gtfo.

2. (and this is really the most important part) literally every claim in your list was later refuted by... wait for it... better data. So, again for the cheap seats, data plz.

Yeah, that's me. I played Lemonade Stand on an apple some software salesman hustled the local school board into buying, and understand that's the only market that "game" sold into, so it's got more in common with spreadsheet software than PacMan, and certainly isn't relevant to a discussion of popular games and gaming in the 80s.

Fair, a lot has changed in the space over the last 45 years. Take the proliferation of titles that are basically just you having a job as an example. That shit absolutely would not scan with older gaming audiences. Why it became popular is a complete mystery to me. Audience expectations for their entertainment dollar spent have definitely declined sharply.

This is a relatively recent attitude. OG gamers expected to have their hair blown back through some combination of novel game mechanics, setting, and storyline pretty much every title every time, and if a game didn't deliver it didn't sell.

Showing up with your feels is now how one counters claims backed with data. Where is your data?

Research has shown there isn't any ambiguity here. Stuff like this isn't good for adults, and is even worse for kids. So yeah, obvious child abuse.

Is it though? Self-employed individuals who've set up an umbrella business entity aren't particularly common.

Film acquisition time? You tossed it in the shopping cart while walking through the grocery store along with batteries and other random household essentials. In extremis you'd grab a few rolls off the display in the closest gas station. People literally spend more time a year getting off their phone lock screen to take a photo than you'd spend in the act of buying film. You're talking about a task with seconds-per-year levels of overhead for normal households. Professional photographers ordered theirs in bulk shipments so again the unit cost in time was functionally nil. Same with albums. Labeling and sorting were optional and at most happened one time (1) per pack of proofs and this was typically a group recreational activity for families. Dust gathers at a set rate regardless of what is occupying a given space, so it's not obvious how having a photo album increases cleaning time.

As to the claim that retention isn't insoluble, that's at best a baseless statement of faith not terribly dissimilar to someone praying a rosary. With other religious pieties there's at least some evidence (someone built a cathedral, there's a book, etc.) to support the faith. There is no evidence to date to support the idea that basic file formats are a settled matter on archival timeframes, much less retention services or storage hardware.

More accessible? Barely. Kodak disposables and Polaroid cameras were so common they were frequently used as toys by children. Also you can't claim zero marginal cost. If anything continuous data retention headaches make it more expensive (in terms of time) to take and keep photographs than any point in prior history. The costs just moved from the camera to the photo album.

I mean they're an excellent example, but this is just as true for the overwhelming majority of B2B productivity suites I've encountered. Hell, digital cameras didn't improve photography, they just killed three industries and saddled just about everyone with data retention and migration problems and that's without even getting into the social effects of ubiquitous cameras combined with social media or the surveillance state they've made possible.

One major obstacle is developers have either encountered or created entire ecosystems of problems they can't solve that get inherited whenever and wherever software is introduced. Proposing to add evergreen issues around security, data entry and retention, connectivity, vendor lock-in, and update cycles is frequently a shitty trade for whatever notional (often fictional) productivity improvement is being proposed by injecting software into a workflow.

A web accessible runtime, regardless of language of origin, is a giant security vulnerability and always has been. Despite language purists insistence to the contrary there isn't a secure language ecosystem, never has been, and all current evidence suggests there never will be.

I am shocked Dries has the gall to post anything to a public forum. Dude presided over ramming every aspect of Drupal into the ground. Out of spite I checked D.O.'s reported usage metrics the other day and it's an eyewatering 450k sites, down from ~18M individual sites at the project's peak. The entire arc of the project is a perfect case study in how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Full Disclosure: I was a core and module contributor, DUG organizer, and left the project out of disgust during the aftermath of the smallcore community implosion.

Get rid of the thing that's causing problems is both thoughtful and intelligent when the alternative is either ignore the problem or some as of yet undefined activity that is entirely outside the current scope of business. Steam isn't obligated to accommodate AI-generated games or participate in whatever currently undefined process would be required to make them palatable. That's the studios' responsibility.

Every major gaming outlet and studio has at one time or another decided to try to play chicken with their customers. This never goes well. Historically Steam has been pretty skilled at not finding a hill to die on so one would assume they'll avoid the obvious blunder of ignoring users preferences here.

"A smart person with the right access can see that", so like a store employee glancing at your choice of an analog temperature display or a telltale light? A perfectly workable solution that persists for the vast majority of the restaurant industry and every independent grocery store in the country, and has done for roughly the last century. Adding the kind of aggressively stupid failure modes that software drags into the discussion (eg. russian bot networks are attacking the ice cream) to avoid having to occasionally inspect equipment doesn't seem particularly bright.

So medically urgent the slowest delivery option available is selected? I mean, I kinda get the idea of trying to win an argument online but have some dignity yeah?

If true then y'all have something in common.

I'm pretty confident there is no failure mode industrial cooling equipment can experience that can be solved remotely. Remote monitoring and control systems on the other hand...

You noticed that too, eh?

Routine service and maintenance doesn't require net connectivity to schedule.

Marketing. The restaurant industry doesn't have less skin in the game than grocery retailers re avoiding spoilage and net connected walk-in coolers and freezers are not a thing.