You may or may not be aware, but all plans rack and stack somewhere in a priority list called QCI (Quality of Service Class Identifier). AT&T, for example will put at QCI 7-9 depending on your plan.
I think the mock exit door would only be interesting with the corresponding emergency slide. The only problem is that in almost all cases where the emergency slide has been deployed and used, at least some passengers have been injured beyond a minor scrape - think severe sprains and tears, a broken bone, etc.
The purpose of the slide is to 1) empty the plane _very_ quickly 2) without causing a life threatening injury. Most people are not going to be injured using it, but some will and it's not really worth the small chance your leg gets fucked up forever from being ejected the wrong way.
You need specific software that can cost thousands of dollars if obtained legally, but it's not really the bad part. Essentially anything on the CAN bus has to have it's cryptographic signature put on the ECU's whitelist of approved signatures, or it cannot be used. This can only be done with the blessing of BMW, who sells the privilege to 3rd party repair shops.
There are some hardware workarounds in some cases like spoofing auth with a 3rd party device permanently attached to the CANBUS, or desoldering and manipulating the chips used by the ECU for storage, but it's a massive hassle.
The situation you describing is the norm for everyone, including you, for most subjects. Expertise gives you greater understanding and allows for more meaningful engagement with the subject, but most people are experts very few things.
When I "dance" (sway to the beat) at a wedding, I am doing the equivalent of tapping open on the file, whereas my parter with their lifetime of dance experience can move with a level of skill that is much more meaningful and nuanced. My best friend is a chef, his daughter has a vasty deeper awareness of flavor and technique vs most kids (including mine) who are just consuming without much thought. The same goes for my colleague who is also a musician and DJ - their kids can hear a song and instantly understand all the layers of production and instrumentation, whereas most children and adults are just nodding along to the beat.
If I consider most of the things I do in my life, I am interacting with them at very shallow and superficial level versus an expert, and I would assume the same is true for you.
I totally agree about expertise in a given domain. With that being said, I would consider navigating a directory tree below the level of swaying to the beat.
I'm not expecting them to get into the nitty gritty about page alignment and DMA transfers. A directory tree is more on level with toe tapping.
Personally I always loved computers more than smartphones and really loved the freedom even windows could provide over something like android (in the sense of its interface etc.)
I feel that a lot of people my age spend a lot more time on their phones as compared to computers and maybe even using the computer just for gaming or discord or something else (just click open, the games are there in steam, play run, it runs)
I feel like it is partially tech's fault as well. Tech really wants us to not interact with things or to create a superapp to abstract everything to get a bigger portion of the cake
I personally wouldn't be surprised if with things like AI browsers, we might be coming to the point where they genuinely just convert the whole internet into just a chatbot and would interact with the computer and everything on your behalf in the same interface (most likely)
I am pretty sure that if this interface or something similar comes true then most people might not even know about things like www. or internet links in general, and we might be shocked in the same way we are right now to them not knowing what files are.
This is how it worked for me. I’ve had it in my left ear for decades, the last time I thought about it was the last time I read an article about tinnitus on hacker news.
There’s a scene about 2/3 through the first video where they show a brief clip of the robot folding and stacking a shirt. The quality and speed was roughly comparable to a 7-10 year old - slow and somewhat sloppy, but recognizably a folded shirt.
Your perception about the safety of 1970s cars is off - you are massively less likely to die or be seriously injured in a car built in 2025 than any car in any car built in the 1970s.
70s and 80s cars were built for the little "whoopsie that's a mailbox", "didn't see you merging there" and "oh golly me, this snow sure is slick, and that's a ditch right there" mishaps that are the overwhelmingly dominant form of vehicle accidents. If you didn't actually care to fix things, many accidents that would be thousands of dollars today were $0 back then because required systems remained functional (that was the whole point of those mandated 10mph bumpers).
If your want to survive hitting stopped traffic at 40mph because you were too busy shitposting in traffic, modern car all the way. Depending on the details you may very well walk away without a scratch. It's really marvelous how good they are at keeping people uninjured, or at least alive.
But the overwhelming majority of people's driving experience reflects the former accident type, not the latter, hence why people have the opinions they do. And you can't really blame them. The odds of any given person being in an injurious accident in their life are low, lower still if you avoid a few key behaviors everyone agrees are bad.
In the 70s there we about 1/4 as many cars on the road in my country compared to today, but 5 times as many road deaths.
People got killed or seriously injured all the time before improvement in safety standards. As a society having to replace 50 $1000 bumpers to save 1 person being seriously injured is a great deal.
You're basically using the outlier here to mislead about the typical/median and erroneously implying that they're more linked than they are.
40-50yr ago in the era of 10mph bumpers and whatnot the typical experience was superior because the typical driver is experiencing minor no-injury mishaps. Sliding off the road in the snow at low speed was a tow truck bill and only that, not $2k just to get the car drivable again.
Buuuuuuut, the results for the minority of drivers experiencing injurious crashes was way, way worse back then, as the people who screech about stats are happy to tell you.
What makes a car cheap to repair for the average user getting in the median or average accident and survivable for the guy who gets piss drunk and drives off a cliff are mostly tangential from each other. There's no reason we can't have both and there's no reasonable and non-malicious reason to hide or downplay the regression on this axis. Modern cars would likely perform way better than old cars if shrugging off minor accidents was not a decreased design priority due to stiffer cabins and other changes in construction.
The stuff that makes modern cars get totaled in minor hits is mostly a reflection of styling and fuel economy based choices.
The typical driver was significantly more likely to die back then. Modern cars shrug off small accidents too - you just end up with dents or scratches or other ugly but cosmetic body damage.
The thing that makes modern cars so easy to total is unibody construction. We do that to save on costs, but also because it leads to better ride quality and fuel efficiency.
Textbooks are not that distant from academic publishing in terms of the rent seeking that goes on. Textbook publishers essentially bribe academia for the right to rip off their students by providing courses with testing and academic services that are tied to a license in a new textbook that the student is required to buy.
reply