They’re both things the legacy automakers have been trying to do for 10 or 15 years, but they just couldn’t pull it off without getting all the suppliers on board.
Both result in much lighter wiring, saving money.
The steer by wire is also very cool, but I don’t know enough to say if it’s justified on regular cars or a cost saving.
Also, no one even tries to argue that he's wrong. Does one "race" trying to "help" another ever really "pay off"? Debating that question would actually be pretty interesting.
I'm sure Powell is a very nice man, and I have no issue with the idea that the other leaders aren't such great people.
But, I actually think in an ironic twist Powell's tenure may have had the most damaging effects on the US of any of these people. In my worldview, the Fed's interest rate policy was one of the main catalysts in the US shift toward extreme polarization and authoritarianism (on both sides, honestly).
I realize Powell wasn't alone in promoting this, and a lot of blame goes to Yellen, Bernanke and Greenspan. But, as a member of the Fed board since 2012, I think he's presided over the last best chance to change course and avoid a debt bomb.
Back in 2012-2016, I believe the Fed could have allowed a recession and solved a lot of the problems we now face. Same goes for 2020 (which I view as a fake recession). Fast forward to 2026, I'm not actually sure there's a way out.
HNers like to think they are experts on monetary policy. It reminds me of the average (astro)physics HN thread. A bunch of laymen talking with authority.
The current administration is looking to go after AA workarounds. There are probably some smoking guns in email discussions among UC administrators/admissions officials.
Something like 5% of the time when I pair my airpods to my apple wathc to go for a run, only one of them pairs. So, if I've actually started running, I then have to circle back to get the headphones case, unpair them, stick them back in the case and hope it then works after i close the lid for a minute.
This is a great point. It would make a lot more sense simply to require a 25-foot easement along the lines of the checkerboard for unrestricted public access or a road. That would have the effect of forcing the ranchers to move their fences back ~12 feet.
In compensation, ranchers could be given the right to create structures or rights-of-way on those same easements to connect their diagonal pieces so as to make them more useable, as long as the public has a reasonable right to access their areas.
This situation honestly makes me wonder how the ranchers even use these squares, since they face the exact same access problem, just with the opposite corners.
I understood the situation here to be that the same private owner owned all of the private squares in this particular area. I would assume that most private owners won't be interested in buying squares deep in the checkerboard for access reasons.
reply