Not only in the executive/enforcement, but in the actual impact of the regulation in practice as applied by millions in a distributed system. Regulations influence decision paths as opposed to encoding deterministic code paths.
Tesla announced they are adding it this week. Ford’s CEO expressed glee at GM removing it. There isn’t a CarPlay App Store nor downloads to get 30% from (or if there were, they’d appreciably be enabled by Apple’s platform as we aren’t in the habit of subscribing to or buying apps for our car today), and while we don’t know the licensing terms from the GM removal it sounded like privacy violations and extra subscription revenue are their motivations for dropping CarPlay. That doesn’t sound consumer friendly on the carmakers part at all. I think this field doesn’t line up with the overall thesis, squint as we might.
>Tesla Inc. is developing support for Apple Inc.’s CarPlay system in its vehicles, according to people with knowledge of the matter, working to add one of the most highly requested features by customers.
>The carmaker has started testing the capability internally, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the effort is still private.
Tesla's news is interesting. A good question to ask in this who's in control in Tesla x CarPlay relationship. The answer is obviously former (Apple can't dictate anything and Tesla gets to boss around).
That's very different from a Toyota x Apple partnership.
So no, those are two different scenarios. The era of Apple controlling the platform is gone. (Except for legacy ones)
People buy Tesla for Tesla and not because CarPlay. But CarPlay is a purchasing decision factor for other brands, which means a power imbalance exists.
So this is a classic game theory situation. You want all participants (Toyota, Honda, Ford) to cooperate (not have CarPlay) and not defect. So participants watch each others move.
If they stick together, all of them stand to win.
If one defect, in the short term they might win but in the long-term Apple will seek to commoditize the car maker.
> People buy Tesla for Tesla and not because CarPlay.
They increasingly just don't buy Tesla. Strong growth in that segment lately.
I recall though, back in 2021 we rented one as a test drive situation. The UX was so horrific I did an immediate 180 on that idea. Hard pass. Carplay might've saved that sale, their stock infotainment is trash.
I wouldn't be surprised if they go all on in Carplay Ultra near the end.
Oh, I'm aware. I have no love for Tesla. I was making an observation of what I see around me (plenty of new Teslas on the road even after Elons shenanigans)
What you describe as pro-consumer is only pro to some consumers, because they come with extra weight, size, and case compromises that every consumer would non-optionally be stuck with. I’d agree with you if we were in some no-compromise world or if there there was significant evidence that Apple wasn’t designing these phones within an inch of their pan-dimensional budget (size, weight, durability, hardware, battery life, etc) and leaving a bunch of room on the table, but that’s an unfounded and easily disproven theory.
I would be okay with being "stuck" with a replacement battery and a 3.5mm jack. That's a compromise I'd be wiling to take; but at the end of the day it's all about profit.
As PP noted, the tradeoff is vs. making things thinner and more waterproof.
I'm OK with wireless charging and using the USB port for audio or other purposes, though occasionally I want to use wired Ethernet or Thunderbolt displays at the same time as wired audio, and I also use a wired charge/audio dongle as a car adapter (though there are wireless chargers available.)
You might be willing to, but the product might be more attractive to millions out there if they didn’t have these items. You can say that is about profit but it is also about making a better product, weighed by what customers want in aggregate.
I’ve come to similar conclusions, and further realized that if you feel there’s a moment to catch your breath and finally have everything tidy and organized, possibly early sign of stagnation or decline in an area. Growth/progress is almost always urgent and overwhelming in the moment.
While I’m deeply skeptical of any attempt to define a commit message from the diff, if the context and motivation is truly captured in the Slack thread or other prior documents and available for summarization, then how many neurons are you really using on rewording what you already hashed out? Especially if someone would otherwise perhaps skip a message or write a poor one, this sounds like a great approach to get at least a first pass to further modify.
The number I’ve seen is that CarPlay specifically is in the top ~2 prios for 79% of new car shoppers in the US. I think there’s probably enough mass here, and GM doesn’t have the niche EV/SW cachet that Rivian and Tesla have despite lacking CarPlay so I don’t think this will go well for them.
I thought that too up until this GenAI moment, and now I wonder if needing to be an archaeologist will be so valuable if one can get your needs met by a quickly GenAI-written script/program.
> I thought that too up until this GenAI moment, and now I wonder if needing to be an archaeologist will be so valuable if one can get your needs met by a quickly GenAI-written script/program.
I never have actually read those books (though I read some summaries about them, interesting concepts). My understanding is the "programmer-archeologists" basically had an archive of massive quantities of very high-quality software that did pretty much anything you'd want software to do. So it made more sense to find the software you need and glue it together than write from scratch.
And given GenAI doesn't write high quality software (at least not yet, and hopefully never), I don't think that "GenAI-written script/program" would be a good replacement (though an AI archeologist might make more sense, with such an archive).
The world in question is ours but later, with direct lineage from Unix systems indicated. So I see these archaeologists as a glorified priesthood of shell scripters, grep still having bugs, and the glue being programs themselves. Not too different than many roles today.
Beyond that, it is an odd hope on your part for GenAI to never be able to write high quality software.
Zooming out, my bigger point was that this was a sci-fi book written by the person who coined the term and concept ‘Singularity’ and the series includes a malevolent murderous sentient AI virus (IIRC) and it included some reference to how programming was accomplished and yet still, given all that, there was no anticipation of even our nascent current GenAI coding capabilities.
I've yet to have my needs met by a GenAI-written script/program. Archaeologists tend to be a lot more precise in their statements, especially about what is speculation and what is not.
I mean, if you're willing to accept AI slop, that's fine. But if you're willing to accept AI slop, you'd probably be willing to accept human slop (at least if it claims to be AI) too, and then the job gets a lot easier.
We’re talking about a sci-fi scenario that presupposed a lot of things but not anything that wrote code for you to the extent that society found value in dedicated code librarians. The state of AI today has nothing to do with re-inspecting that future world in light of the last 3 years of GenAI progress.
Yes, but that’s handled by the user’s software when they access or edit the appointment. All calendaring software I know uses UTC internally like that, where the tz adjustments (including daylight savings rules - and historical too! are the responsibility of the topmost, user-facing parts of the system. I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted for saying this - am I missing something?
If you set a recurring meeting, every Friday at 10:00AM, New York time, the time in UTC varies (either 14:00 UTC or 15:00 UTC) depending on the date. Further, what is displayed depends on the viewer's location (because daylight savings times change differently based on location/date). IOW, the time of the meeting occurs on TWO UTC times, not one. You can't just store UTC and be done with it. You need the originating timezone too. In other cases you may need the date the item was created as well.
More sophisticated calendar software will take into account holidays or use offsets from month start/end. i.e. "we'll have a meeting at 9:00pm Tokyo time, every last business day of each month".
> If you set a recurring meeting, every Friday at 10:00AM, New York time, the time in UTC varies (either 14:00 UTC or 15:00 UTC) depending on the date.
> You can't just store UTC and be done with it
Right; though there are different approaches to handling this in software; one approach is to create concrete (as opposed to virtual) records for each occurrence of the recurring pattern[1] so that any other software concerned with viewing/handling those events can be given precomputed UTC values and not have to worry about local user settings or parsing recurrence patterns.
...whereas another approach, which you mentioned, is to treat those occurrences as virtual-events derived from the (local-to-the-user) recurrence pattern, which requires the software to retain full timezone info (not just UTC offset) for the pattern, which increases software complexity (not to put it down; I'm simply saying that each approach has its benefits and drawbacks).
[1] For practical reasons, systems like these only generate concrete records for, say, 1-2 years out into the future (and retain the ability to mass-update their individual occurrence times when the user's pattern specification changes).
So what you say is true - and demonstrates that my desire for UTC-only systems is unworkable... but only for this particular scenario.
Fun-fact: I have a legit copy the four specs in ISO 8601 ($500, ouch!) , and buried in ISO 8601-2:2019 section 7.3.1 there's an admission of inadequacy:
> Representations of local time of day as defined below make no provisions to prevent ambiguities in expressions that result from discontinuities in the local time scale (e.g. daylight-saving time)
...whereas if everyone used UTC everywhere all-the-time for everything (i.e. ban daylight savings time!) then this problem wouldn't exist and my original point that started this whole thread remains true :3
> one approach is to create concrete (as opposed to virtual) records for each occurrence of the recurring pattern[1] so that any other software concerned with viewing/handling those events can be given precomputed UTC values and not have to worry about local user settings or parsing recurrence patterns.
This approach assumes that concrete records can actually be computed by the time the series is created. That may not be feasible. Some countries pass their DST policy on very short notice (i.e., days or months rather than years).
There’s probably a classist risk to this (recall the uproar over the residential building in NYC that had separate entrances for different unit classes), let alone the logistics are needed at whole-airport level to support it which is difficult to retrofit.
Just build an entirely different terminal instead of shoeing it into the same building as the terminals for the plebes. Out of sight, out of mind.
The classist risk is already there with the pricing they have for first class seats. By making first class only planes, you can have economy only planes like Spirit. Then nobody would be complaining about first class since nobody would see first class. I see no downsides with this concept!
Ah, I was referring to loading the same plane from different gates, which I’ve been told exists at some airports (boarding from business/first lounge one floor above the standard gate)
That's what you would consider classist? How about a lavatory for use only for first class. How about "closing" off the first class part of the plane with a little curtain? None of this suggests to me the airlines are trying to not be classist
reply