Pretty cool. It looks like it also uses local storage - so if you navigate away and come back (or just refresh the page) all of your expressions are still there. A lot of paid productivity apps that I use don't even manage that.
A potential example that comes to mind would be you have a Studio Display in your house that you use for remote work with a beefy MacBook Pro, and then maybe a family member has a MacBook Neo that they’d like to plug into a monitor occasionally.
Tbh if you have a studio display you are probably used to most things not working with it. I get that it's apple, but the lack of a HDMI or Displayport input on the monitor is insane.
As far as I could tell, there is no passive adapter that converts Displayport to usb-c, you can only go the other way. The only way to use a non usb-c device is to use a capture card to capture the HDMI/Displayport signal and retransmit it over usb.
There are two ways to carry video signals over type-c: DisplayPort alt mode, and Thunderbolt. DP Alt mode can work in either direction with a passive adapter or cable: a monitor with a Type-C DP input can be driven by a graphics card with a regular DP output connector, because it's all DisplayPort signalling either way.
Thunderbolt encapsulates the DisplayPort data in Thunderbolt packets, so both endpoints of the link need to be full-featured Thunderbolt devices.
It's easier to justify removing stuff when it's very bulky and expensive. But a single HDMI port on the back of a desktop monitor would take up relatively no expense and space. HDMI has a fairly long life left yet, so much that even Apple backtracked on removing it from the macbooks. Which is far less of a problem since you can get a usb c to hdmi adapter but the other way is significantly harder.
Additional ports would complicate the user experience. The Studio Display has no buttons on it, but if you added additional inputs, you would also need to add a button for input switching at least. And potentially other buttons for brightness and volume settings.
It may not sound like a big deal, but I have an LG monitor that uses a remote for input switching and volume controls, and a BenQ monitor that uses buttons, and both provide a noticeably jankier experience.
The Studio Display provides a very clean user experience when paired with a Mac. You plug it in, it turns on, and all other functions (volume, brightness, colors, camera, etc) are controlled via MacOS. Personally I'm happy for Apple to optimize for that experience, at the cost of not working with non-Apple devices.
Sure, having two inputs does require some ui to switch inputs. That said, you could get the same user experience by simply only plugging one device in to a monitor even if it has multiple inputs.
If it was possible to use adapters, this problem would be much reduced, but as it is, it's pretty much impossible to plug in a desktop or game console in to the Apple monitors. And at least for me, having a joystick on the back of the screen for input switching is less problematic than a monitor which only works on some of my devices.
I honestly don’t understand how anyone has the time and energy to be a coach while working a full-time job. My kids practice three times a week, and usually have games on both Saturday and Sunday - sometimes several hours away. Just getting them to practices and games often feels exhausting to me - I can’t imagine all the planning and scheduling that goes on behind the scenes, or having to show up and actually run things all the time.
Hats off to youth coaches - you make a huge difference in kids’ lives.
except it is not, no one’s actual profession (and only job) is youth soccer coach (few exception are retired people etc). it would be impossible to make a living if this was your only job
As a father of a still very young boy who might be getting into sports later in school (who knows), reading that terrifies me. I’ve heard the same, in person, from friends who have kids on their school’s soccer team and whatnot.
Why don’t school provide transportation to games on the weekends? Seems like a massive waste of collective resources to have every family drive for hours to get to wherever games are played.
Is it an American phenomenon due to the car-centric culture?
I live in Japan, so it's not just an American phenomenon.
I think most schools provide transportation to away games. But in my city official school sports clubs don't start until high school - before that it's all private club teams.
In my kids' club, the team will provide transportation to far away games in other prefectures, or sometimes for games on school holidays when parents may be working. But it's very common for parents to have to drive their kids an hour or more to other cities within our prefecture. Carpooling is very common.
But most parents want to watch their kids' games as much as possible. Even when the team provides transportation to a game, there are a handful of parents who will make the drive separately to support the team. My son asked me to drive 3 hours to watch an upcoming big game and support the team, and of course I'm not going to say no. To be able to see how far he has progressed, and to know that he wants me there to support him, is special. But also still exhausting at times.
I mean if you have already adult kids (or no kids at all) you have lot of spare time, my kid's head coach is 68yo, so he has time to train them twice a week (sometimes accompanied his similar aged friend), he also goes with them to matches (not that often 1-2 a month) while giving lectures at university, third training a week is made by some regular IT guy in his 30s with own small kid(s), but he does it only once a week for 1-2 hours, so certainly doable.
Btw. this is in Central Europe, my kid can go to training by himself with tram/bus. As for the matches, I accompany him if it is in our city, but if it's outside the city then he can either join coach(es), they usually ride kids or not participate in match. We don't have car so can't drive him there. Though soon kid will have to move to higher age league, so not sure what club we will find eventually, the one they are cooperating with is outside the city with like 1+ hour commute one way by public transport, so will certainly look into something closer.
TLDR if my kids were already adult I would have also lot of spare time and teaching/helping kids it's sure more fullfiling than doomscrolling at home. Though I am lazy person, but I was in recent years thinking about helping people instead of doing my work for money, the issue is I don't like most of the people, who need help.
For buyers today that may actually mean less depreciation as six cylinder engines become harder and harder to find. But yeah I'm sure automakers can see the writing on the wall.
The logical, socially-conscious side of my brain can't wait to see 6 cylinder engines go the way of the v8. Four cylinders and a hybrid system ought to be able to generate enough torque for just about anyone (except maybe heavy-duty hauling?). And the future is of course BEV.
But have to admit there is a part of me that would really love to drive something like the BMW M340i [1]. And the gas mileage (26/33 MPG) isn't even too bad.
That's probably the reason - we only need dressage horses and pure bloods now that the real draft horse is getting put to pasture.
These are no longer workhorses.
Six cylinders are the smoothest engines out there.
Honda used to have a 1L 6 cylinder engine for their bikes - the Gold wing has a 6 cylinder still.
The perimeter of the piston goes down in relation to its area (& multiplied by BMEP) when the radius goes up - looking at you Africa Twin.
The perimeter is where the unburnt fuel lives and gets caught up in the emission rules. So fewer larger cylinders is better according to EPA - 500cc each, maybe.
If we're only going to have hobby vehicles with internal combustion, then a six cylinder or doubling up to a v-12 makes sense.
They're toys for the weekend, not to put a 100k miles on it.
It is awesome. Incredible power. Silky smooth on highway. Sounds like a beast on start up. I regularly get 36/37 mpg on a long drive.
I prefer the sound of the B58 in the m340 over the S58 in the m3 but they are quite different engines. And way different power. But straight-six throughout.
Still think one of the best engine sounds out there is the s54 in the 2001-2006 m3
I've owned a handful of BMWs (no S54 though) but I'm partial so the sound of the S62 V8. The turbo 6 generations were truly a remarkable change for BMW in terms of power, though.
At the moment, I have a Boxster, and the flat 6 somehow feels smoother than any I6 I've owned. I've done some research and sure enough, the inline 6 is (mathematically) smoother than an inline 6. The only way I can explain the fact that the boxer feels smoother is because it's mounted low and behind me, away from steering components? Whereas in my I6 cars, with the engine in front, you feel it through the front subframe and steering a bit.
Funny. I also have a Boxster. 2014 981 S. I love natural aspiration 6 cylinder cars.
Smoother in what sense? My Boxster is stick so the shifting experience is very different. The flat-6 is a remarkable sound - intoxicating. Especially purely naturally aspirated though I don’t hate the sound of the turbo 3.x variations in various Porsches. BMW ZF is great but it’s not the same.
Otherwise, yes - the handling in Boxster is so different compared to the m340. It just feels like it’s on rails around corners. No body roll. And for me peak way up in RPM means my highway merges are an absolute blast / symphony.
Yeah, mine's the same (2013 981 S 6MT). As you know, they're geared to the moon, and taking a surprising amount of rowing to get the most out of the powerband, so often I'll merge onto the freeway and just be hanging out in 3rd at 70 as I look for my spot in traffic and you don't even know you're not in 6th. Turbine smooth.
Even 4 cylinders and a turbo (like my GLI) are plenty fun. I’m tire grip limited as it is, but it probably keeps me out of trouble, as tempting as something with more pep is.
Yup I imagine the vast majority of car "enthusiasts" out there wouldn't be able to beat the Golf R Nurburgring lap record of 7:47 [1] in any car of their choosing. And more power would probably only serve to increase their odds of crashing.
> it baffles me that Dodge created a Charger in EV form and Toyota hasn’t made even an EV Corolla or Camry
Dodge's Charger EV has been a sales flop [1] and pretty much universally panned by critics as something that nobody asked for.
The Camry and Corolla were the best-selling sedan and compact sedan of 2025 [2]. I think this shows that Toyota is listening to what Corolla and Camry drivers want - something inexpensive and reliable to get them to and from work every day without issue.
Some day Toyota will make an EV sedan. I think their 2026 bZ Woodland [3] shows that they are starting to figure out how make compelling EVs. And Toyota's EV strategy seems pretty reasonable to me overall - their delays to develop a decent EV don't seem to put them under threat from any legacy automakers. They are being threatened by Chinese EV makers, but so is Tesla - so even a huge head start likely wouldn't have benefited Toyota much either in that regard.
> The long term value of a car is only really relevant if one is constantly cycling through cars and needs the trade-in/resale value.
Depreciation is based on real-world qualities of a vehicle that determine how desireable it is to own over time. Toyotas tend to depreciate slower than Mercedes-Benz, for example, because maintenance and repair costs tend to be lower. For someone looking to buy a car new and drive it for 10+ years, they are probably going to be drawn to car models that have a reputation for reliability and thus hold their value. Even if you don't care about the resale value of a car, you probably do care about the underlying factors driving that resale price.
With EVs the factors driving depreciation are concerns about rapid tech obsolescence, battery degredation and replacement costs, incentives and new price cuts, and charging infrastructure. You also hear stories about Tesla drivers waiting 6+ months for a replacement part, Rivians being totaled because of a dent in a rear quarter panel, etc. These are all reasonable things for a buyer to be concerned with, in my opinion.
But I agree that if you are ok with all of the above in a used EV (range and charging speed may not matter if you have a place to charge at home, for example), there are good deals to be found.
I would point out a subtlety here: deprecation is based on perceived value, and this perception tracks much more closely with the glacial knowledge of the larger public than it does with that of an informed individual.
Battery degradation is extremely overrepresented in the minds of the public for example and based mostly on the performance of early entrants like the original Nissan Leaf. Since then, chemistries and management systems have progressed dramatically and rendered it a moot point — most EVs made in the past several years will have their batteries outlast the useful life of the vehicle. In the case the Ariya, Nissan appears to have overcorrected for the Leaf's reputation to such an extreme that they can be fast charged to 100% for many dozens of cycles and still show no capacity loss.
This is a gap in knowledge that smart buyers who are willing to do a little bit of research can exploit and get much more car for their money than would otherwise be possible.
I don't understand why this is grey, this is exactly correct. Depreciation is good actually ignores the realities of why a car's value is tanking in the first place. The only time high depreciation is good for you as a buyer is if you think the market is mispricing cars and they're actually far more valuable than the cost they're being sold for. But best keep that secret because the market will be quick to correct once it's discovered.
Unfortunately there is a double standard at play. When people see a sloppy email from a powerful person, they think “they must be so busy that they don’t have time to check grammar”. But when it comes from a low-level employee they think “oh they must be careless or uneducated”.
except it's sort of true and a reasonable assumption to make? Just as when a master painter makes something that looks "sloppy" to the layman, one immediately assumes there is some deep artistry behind it as opposed to poor technique, whereas when a child does it, one does not extend the same charitable attitude.
Sure I think there's some truth the that. You've gotta learn the rules first to know when it's ok break the rules. Somebody with a lot of experience should be able to judge how their message will be received, and what amount of effort is "good enough". Whereas someone with less workspace experience may lack such judgement, and is probably better off erring on the side of "too good" rather than "not good enough".
But it's definitely also very much tied to status, power, and privilege. The same people who have no qualms about firing off a sloppy email to their subordinates often spend a lot more effort on emails to their bosses. But even this discrepancy is justified, I think, given that a manager represents their subordinates to the higher ups. And the potential consequences of a bad impression or misunderstanding are more severe when communicating up the chain of command.
reply