> Apple has been using the public as their QA team for last many releases.
Are you referring to the Apple Beta Software Program? Would you rather them _not_ allow people to test their beta software so more bugs make it into the public release?
> creating and developing an automated test framework is 1% trying to find the best locator, and 99% maintenance of tests that use dynamic.
This is completely true. Quality e2e tests that have good setup and cleanup and aren't flaky take focused dev work. I find myself regularly using the locator finder tool in playwright UI/debugger but I've never found any real value in using the test generator.
I could see it being valuable in a really small subset of exceedingly simple UI, probably personal-project level but even those tend to grow too complex for this.
I'm personally so happy Apple decided to finally drop this project. I hope they focus efforts on CarPlay and integrating it deeper into upcoming cars from other manufacturers.
But on top of all of that, I think we're at this point where more and more Americans are reconsidering their relationship with the concept of a "Car". It's no longer the symbol of freedom and American ingenuity that it once was. To an increasing amount of us, we see it as the second most expensive thing we'll ever buy. We see cars as a requirement of life forced upon us by the auto/gas industries and there's more talk than ever about how designing our cities around cars and parking for those cars has been exceedingly detrimental to the _people_ living in the cities. For those reasons, I say good riddance to the Apple Car.
Same, leopard was the version that just came out when I bought my first white Macbook with money I saved as a kid shoveling driveways for an entire winter (and admittedly got paid too much by neighbors to do so).
I remember being in awe as I set up that computer and that was the first computer I started writing some HTML on. All these years and 2 Macbooks later my career is in web dev and I _still_ love MacOS.
I love Pico8. The idea of starting with a small set of tools and building around those limitations I think leads to better game design and development.
Lots of negativity in the comments but I think the solutions outlined really interesting and valuable! There are some idiosyncrasies around unit testing ui that are just hard to work around. And the issues with e2e tests in the context of testing individual UI pieces are totally valid too.
The one thing that at least initially rubs me the wrong way is how the overrides work. Like I get why that's a solution to how we can inject some data, but I don't like the idea of writing test-specific code in a component just to enable tests with this tool. That being said, I've done similar things in the past when I've run out of options and this looks pretty clean, I just wonder if there's another way.
We need cheaper, smaller EVs in the US yesterday. Looking at the options China and Europe have and comparing to what we have you can really get the sense that car companies here only care about making SUVs/trucks/and _some_ crossovers electric but don’t actually care about making small cars electric because of one thing.. profit. They know they’ll make more money on the massive cars but that’s horrible for us because it further expands the need for larger parking spots, wider roads, and I won’t even get into the fatality statistics when comparing cars of different sizes.
The only thing that will force car companies to get smaller cars into the U.S. market is regulation. Then and only then will we see true EV offerings around the 20k mark
If energy just cost what it actually cost (no fossil fuel subsidies) the rest would follow. The market distortion from gas subsidies has caused this mess, we didn't get to everyone driving a 5000 pound vehicle due to the free market. We got here because of backwards laws and automaker's exploitation of said laws.
Fuel or electricity should cost what it costs. Vehicles need to be taxed according to their externalities. Heavier vehicles have more externalities. Road maintenance, pollution, traffic injuries and fatalities to name a few. I think if we did these things we'd trend back towards reasonable vehicles over time, and that would be a big net win.
A good thing to campaign for is revision of the EPA rules that exempt light trucks from certain mileage rules, or the ones that increase the allowable fuel consumption based on the wheelbase of the vehicle. This is one of the major drivers increasing the size of vehicles in the US, as I understand it.
> U.S. fossil fuel subsidies stretch across the U.S. tax code, which makes detailing their costs complex. The IMF estimates they stood at $760 billion in 2022, a figure topped only by China.
I wouldn't consider the government not taking their money a subsidy. A subsidy would be the government giving them money. There are drilling specific tax breaks but it's similar to other industry specific R&D tax breaks like agriculture and tech.
"It's like these other highly subsidized industries" doesn't make it not a subsidy. "We will tax you less than other people" is absolutely a form of subsidy.
I feel like we’re really stretching the term. People don’t normally say the government is subsidizing their income because the standard deduction exists.
Phrasing it this way also just begets that tax deductions are subsidies: “It's like these other highly subsidized industries.” Its rephrasing your conclusion rather than making some new point.
For 20k, you can deliver a certain level of EV. Features, size, performance, looks.
If there was a big enough market for that EV at 20k to make production practical, car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit.
But Americans have a lot of money and a lot of space and want big vehicles; EVs are more expensive to produce, so it’s the rich people that want EVs. And those people aren’t going to buy a little toy box.
>car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit
That might make sense if the only two options were "make nothing" and "make EVs to sell for 20k". In the presence of other options, however, the manufacturer might decide that that's not the optimal strategy. Or existing regulations, tariffs, or subsidies might be distorting the market. Automobiles are probably one of the least-free markets this side of pacemakers.
How can something as dead simple as a market not work? Things are offered for sale, and then people buy the things. As long as there are transactions, it’s working.
Now, is the market efficient / globally optimal? No. Welcome to complex reality.
Vehicle sizing for EVs is weird because the battery is a larger proportion of the weight of the vehicle, and because of that the size of the battery is more related to how much range you want to get than how big the vehicle is. If you put a 500 mile battery in a subcompact, it isn't going to weigh that different than a midsized crossover with the exact same battery in it, and it isn't going to get much better range either because it doesn't weigh much less.
At which point sacrificing interior space doesn't yield much in terms of efficiency and makes for a poor trade off. What we're probably going to see is "family cars" with a 300+ mile range and the shape of an SUV and then "commuter cars" which are small and correspondingly have a <100 mile range, because it doesn't make a ton of sense to make something which is tiny but still heavy.
What sort of regulation would force smaller cars into the market at that price point?
The small Chinese EVs are universally poor performers in terms of crash safety. You can make a lot of concessions on price when you don't particularly care about the people inside the car. Are those the regulations you're talking about?
Not sure what you mean by small? The EUV is not very large, nor the Nissan leaf. People just don't want them here. Too small, they are both used to the big SUVs, and afraid of losing in a collision to one.
I'm not afraid of "losing" in a crash. I just don't want to have my retinas blasted to shit every time I drive at night by trucks hauling their drivers' insecure masulinity.
Very cool! I think the “until you understand..” part is most important there. Like you still should be free to, but you absolutely need to understand why it’s like that in the first place.
Are you referring to the Apple Beta Software Program? Would you rather them _not_ allow people to test their beta software so more bugs make it into the public release?
reply