wirehead

Masterful gambit, sir.

Yeah, like, we've got a fairly nice sporty-ish sedan that's approaching 300k and since we've only got one car we kinda have to be ready to buy a new one quickly, I've done some of the thought process based on our needs and where we are in life. And the thing is, I like a nice car but I'm unclear on exactly how nice of a car I would actually appreciate driving, given that I don't like to die or hurt other people, so I'm not going to go 3x the speed limit on some backroad and have never gotten a speeding ticket just that the upgrade from a 1.8L engine ecomony-ish sedan to a 2.5L engine sporty-ish sedan did feel real nice.

Meanwhile, one in-law got a Porsche so another in-law on the same side of the family had to trade in his Audi SUV for roughly the same SUV on the Porsche side and it's all some douchebag power fantasy.

But, yeah, I like seeing actual-car-persons nerd out because I know enough to get at what they are nerding out about. Joy is much funner than douchebaggery.

There's a lot about the hatred of Bambu that's just sinophobic. Which is too bad because there's plenty of completely rational reasons to avoid Bambu printers.

I have a pile of hobbies and I guess one common thread is obnoxious dude shit. And I say this as a male type person.

3D printing is a weird one because 3D printers are hella good for all kinds of stuff, from the more "femme" coded hobbies to the "dude" hobbies. But somehow the not-male people I know engage with some of the same communities as I do and for some reason I always get a lot more useful answers to my questions. There's a certain aesthetic to homebrew open source 3D printers and it's kinda industrial.

Electronics hackery is worse because it's a lot more "masc" coded. Even software stuff isn't quite as bad because at least there there's been concerted social pressure.

Photography is sad because if I work with a female model I have to go through a whole process for her to make sure that she's going to be safe during our shoot, some of which I didn't even fully realize that was part of the process for a while. And pretty much all of the semi-pro-to-pro experienced models have at least one story and sometimes Names Are Named and it's someone I've met, so I have to be constantly on guard.

Okay, so understanding that Boeing has been shipping airliners that boing instead of fly or have some bolts missing...

My dad was a frustratingly retired aerospace engineer because there was this period of the 90s where we actually did shrink the defense industry until 9/11 and the contractors started figuring out exactly how to "bribe" people. And one of his side complaints is that any aerospace engineer is probably actually good at being a general-purpose mechanical engineer, except that they've generally made the hard stuff actually safe earlier along, but nobody will hire them. His example being fully-automated-digital-engine-controls and fly-by-wire and having three redundant chains.

So, in the aftermath of the whole Toyota throttle-by-wire thing that really didn't go a whole lot of useful ways, I decided to check out his observation and I did some googling to discover a page where some big company was advertising to the auto industry at large their throttle controllers. And they talk about how they were built with "aerospace technologies" to be reliable and safe. And, looking farther along, it seems like that was not actually three redundant chains, just three threads of execution on the same processor.

Oh yeah, and generally any airplane that does have fly-by-wire and FADEC there is going to always be a set of reversion modes and people have to know about them. Obviously some aspects of this are far stricter because a car can just pull over to the side of the road... but also it needs to do that safely. Witness poor Anton Yelchin dying ignominiously because of the digital gear shifter thing on his Jeep.

But, yeah, the underlying problem is that the cultural expectation is to make cars that will go most places containing capabilities that a vehicle might never actually use in its entire service life and require the minimum amount of knowledge and basically zero knowledge above the collective cultural understanding of a car that's only mildly changed since a fully-mechanically-linked control system.

Oh yeah I feel a weird version of this, ugh. See, I'm a big fan of going places and I like complicated mechanical toys and I guess I actually know a lot of deep down details about cars especially after a year or so stint doing car-related tech things, but I'm also an environmentalist who hates cars.

So, like, goofy engine swap projects, actually racing the damn sports car, actually taking the SUV off road to see something cool, details required to engineer a V12 sports car that doesn't spin out, et al are all interesting to me but then literally everything to do with car culture seems like folks who are driving their super-fancy tuned vehicle in a traffic jam wasting gas spouting right wing BS.

As best I can tell, the touchscreen is added at the concept phase by folks who mostly know what's going to make people look at the car and want to buy it, several years before the car hits the market and well before the actual car electronics teams are involved.

So, yeah, car UI/UX sucks right now because we're seeing all of the things added to cars a few years ago in response to Tesla and implemented by people who think that just because they programmed a random car-focused microcontroller back in the day that this means that they understand all of the layers involved in a modern Linux or Android or Windows embedded car electronics unit including layer 8 of the OSI stack (meaning: interfacing with humans)

But, yah, dono. I don't actually have my own car. My spouse got a Mazda a bunch of years ago now and it has actually a pretty good touchscreen interface with physical controls such that if you want to dig into stuff, you can touchscreen but all of the common stuff is switches and knobs. The generation before that had way way too many buttons and it was just gag-me-with-a-spoon. The generation after that removed the touchscreen because the leadership at Mazda decided people were just not to be trusted with a touchscreen and I feel like they went a little too far in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, in airplane cockpit design, they put great pains into having you be able to navigate by touch where necessary such that all of the knobs are differently textured or shaped. And, as I said, I don't actually have my own car, but I have to say that if I did have a car, I'd want it to be designed like that.

My suspicion is that it's because the shots are called by people who worked their way up doing automotive electronics. As in the microcontrollers inside of engine control units. So UX is kinda foreign.

I mean, even there, the marketplace of electric cars has expanded. For a while, it was the only car, then the only good car, now I see a lot of people buying fancy brand new not-Tesla cars that don't seem to have the drawbacks of the earlier not-Tesla electric cars.

One of the problems with the automaking industry is that there's a lot of stuff where you buy a very expensive machine and have a very expensive setup for said expensive machine (molds, templates, whatnot) and then the cost for almost everything else (materials, person-hours, etc) is lost in the noise.

Scaling up and down a car assembly line is hard so an automaker really wants to plan this out really really well such that the design is done at exactly the right time for the big switchover, you have a constant staffing level for the line, all of the machines are working roughly at their optimum capacity, and you've got enough spare cars so everybody can go to the lot and get a car of their choice fast enough to satisfy whatever impulse caused them to want a new one.

So I guess mayyyyybe possibly they are working to get ahead of the seasonality of car buying but I'm betting that what really happened is that they screwed up their planning, possibly because some chunk of the potential buying population doesn't want a Tesla anymore.

We, the people who all roughly simultaneously chose the same name at roughly the same time only to engage in endless wars over who gets it on a new site, actually exist in a diverse multi-gendered animal-loving book-reading population, of which I am only one example, merely the member of our tribe who happened to nab it here. I've actually talked with other Wireheads and the similarities are interesting.

All I know is that it somehow appeared in my brain before I read the Niven book that introduced it to me. And, also, at this point in history, I find Niven and many people who operated in his orbit deeply disgusting and disturbing examples of humanity, so it's good that I came up with it on my own.

The web is the way it is because TBL put out a feeler and looked at the sorts of things people were playing with around him and managed to assemble enough of them into the solid core that everybody else glommed stuff onto, and then was able to serve as a reasonable steward for enough of it for a long enough time period that it solidified into something reasonable useful.

But not perfect. [shrugs in fediverse]

Part of why it's not perfect is because TBL was an academic person of privilege and so he's never had to actually viscerally feel the sorts of struggle that most of the world feels. And he's spent the past 35 years being fawned over.

For whatever reason, TBL has smacked face-first into "linked data" formerly known as RDF repeatedly for decades now. I mostly understand what's going on there and it kinda makes sense and I've even written some code that uses linked data and I've been generally following along as it goes.

There was RDF and a version of RSS that was based on it, but then a more approachable thing ended up actually being the real RSS and instead of RDF-styled tagging, the formerly influential startup Technorati and the still vaguely popular photo site Flickr got everybody tagging because that was something people could grasp.

If you think back to the dream of a "What would a Semantic Google look like" that folks were going on about a bunch of years ago and fast-forward to today with all of the AI-generated search result abuses and whatnot, you realize that if they had succeeded at it, the web might actually been a worse place.

These days, ActivityPub is actually a proper constrained system that fits into the RDF thing that TBL has been face-smaking into. It's actually got arcs in ways that Technorati/Flickr/et al tags don't. So I guess we can call this progress, but I don't know what percentage of people, even folks who care deeply about the Fediverse, actually grok the complete concept. Either way, the fediverse has pushed forward the "linked data" dream more than anything TBL has done. And part of this is that the successful fediverse apps have been grounded in being practical forward steps for people looking to jump off of a train moving in the wrong direction.

So, dono, I guess you could see a Fediverse refactor such that the data, which is already linked data anyways, ends up getting stored using Solid mechanisms with a decentralized concept of identity and Pods, et al. And if they were actually practical people, showing up with patches would be a great way to get people onboarded because there's at least a few things there that might be useful.

But, in the end, it's not that they are failing at being practical people who can deliver a useful solution, it's that I don't think they can really conceive of the important bits well enough to spend a lot of energy thinking they are making a better world when they are actually paving the way to make it even worse than had they sat around having fancy cocktails and bemoaning the state of the world and not tried to make Solid happen.