Most of the criticisms that come from the right are solvable problems, such as lack of chargers, electricity coming from dirty sources, or lithium mining. We pretty much know how to solve all those at this point. Just a matter of doing it.
Criticisms that come from the left tend to be more fundamental. Things like car-based cities being too spread out, infrastructure costs spiraling out of control, or having the average person operate a 2 ton vehicle at speeds over 60mph and expecting this to be safe. None of those are specific to EVs, and are only solvable by looking at different transportation options.
You know how every politcal poll has a few percent of responses that don’t make any sense? Like a person who identifies as atheist, but also says the church should play a greater role in government?
Sometimes, random downvotes are like that. Don’t get too worked up about it.
Yeah, and it comes up a lot when people say EVs aren’t paying their fair share and should have increased registration costs. The biggest hit on road maintenance is big trucks, and it’s not even close. We are all subsidizing this industry.
No. If you’re thinking Moore’s Law, all that says is that semiconductors would double their number of transistors every 2 years (or so) for a given price point. This is basically making a really big package while keeping the price the same.
BTW, that price limit is one that isn’t really talked about, but it’s in Moore’s original paper (unlike things people usually bring up, like clock rates or single threaded speed), and it skewers Moore’s Law dead. If you take the price of the old 8086, adjust for inflation, and double its transistors every 2 years since, there’s nothing that comes close to the numbers you get. IIRC, it’s about an order of magnitude too few transistors for CPUs on offer at that price.
As of yet, quantum computers need exotic cooling. Perhaps there will be some clever way around that, but it may not be solvable. That would keep it forever out of reach of common home or office use.
“Boycotts” are large scale campaign. Nobody cares if a few odd people don’t buy a product; it’s en-mass or it’s just belly aching. You’re making a distinction that does not exist.
If your cynicism needs feeding, then know that the reason is that they expanded trademark protection in the courts, and they just don’t need to extend copyright anymore. They don’t need to pick this fight. Doubly so when they’ve allienated the party that controls the House due to their spat with DeSantis.
Right–the AAA studios will just consider if they should use Unreal or an in-house engine. They’ll put it all in a big spreadsheet and come to a conclusion.
Indie devs that are on Unity are going to get hurt by this scheme. They’ll also get hurt if you don’t buy their games because they’re in Unity. The choices here aren’t great.
The one thing is Unreal seems to have been preferred for a while now, anyway. Unity was already losing market share, and is now only going to accelerate that.
You joke, but the ES121 screwdriver has an open source firmware. I think it’s running an STM32F10x (based on the file listings in the firmware). People have gotten Doom to run on an STM32F429, so it’s not that far fetched.
Especially when Disney has been going through a bunch of bullshit against DeSantis. His petty fight against the company also means the party that controls the House will be actively working against them just because they can.
That definitely happens with trademarks. In fact, they’re designed that way. You get to keep it as long as you’re using it.
Trademarks can also become so widespread that they become generic, and then the company is in danger of losing it. Kleenex, for example. This is something of a “victim of your own success” problem.
I wish there was a better mechanism for this on copyright and patents. There’s no good reason that a 30 year old video game that isn’t being actively developed should still be in copyright. Patent trolls who figure they can make more money by suing people than by licensing out the tech should be shut down.