You're not paying $1,000 for a cut down Android when you buy a Comma Four.
What you're buying is an entry ticket to Comma-land — where dozens of car models are supported, pre-made harnesses are just a buy button away, and everything is open source.
If George had chosen to go the closed source route, you might be paying $200 for a locked-down device and $200 every month for a mandatory subscription.
Which one makes you feel better? Comma as a business needs to be able to pay their employees.
I want them to improve the product meaningfully beyond lane keeping, which besides lane changing (partially), it's the only thing it's capable of because they willingly choose not to extend the system to use more visibility.
Humans walk to Burger King (not just McDonalds), provide payment, and wait for a cashier to provide them a hamburger. Everyone knows humans aren't capable of "hunting" with a "bow and arrow."
You are taking the official, "please don't panic" story from CDC and trying to force it down everyone's throats while claiming it's as basic a fact of biology as chromosomes and the mitochondria. It's not. This is a contested area of animal behavior, not a microscopic process.
Are you persistent in being dense because you want somebody to engage with and correct you, or are you genuinely trying to get people infected?
Ticks don't exclusively hunt via questing. Some will actively pursue hosts if needed. The lone star tick is especially known for this: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/3/478
> In contrast to D. variabilis, A. americanum is regarded as a hunter tick, which will walk/crawl rapidly across many meters when attracted by host odors. This behavior enhances its host range since these ticks do not have to wait for a passing host.
I do suppose there are some analogies to be had if we talk about OS/2...
i.e. that was supposed to be more of a partnership versus a normal vendor agreement...
However my understanding is that there was a lot more org cultural friction; A big one being IBM's insistence on early versions of OS/2 supporting the 286 (as well as similar rigid bureaucratic support requirements) on top of the way IBM did 'Process Management' on developers as far as using LOC to measure productivity.
While I am a huge proponent of .NET, I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft...
But I've also worked at orgs that have run the gamut between 'too conservative' and 'a little bold/reckless' in engineering practices. Microsoft was able to iterate way faster and decided to tackle backward compatibility in different ways. They got tired of the bureaucracy of IBM, and I'll use Raymond Chen's story of a coffee maker to example the type of bureaucracy and how ironically simple it was to avoid; https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20220426-00/?p=10...
reply