Wouldn't be the first or the last time that a car has a different build out for different locales - as differences go, that's pretty minor.

Ok but that doesn’t really solve the problem in Europe.

I mean we can also change laws again in europe (in favour of that) - but we could also keep it as a separate module. So the LTE chip only gets used for an emergency call and nothing else. No remote control.

Unlikely to happen, but possible (not 100% safe, but good enough).

If you don't turn on the LTE chip, it can take a while to get registered or a network in order to perform an emergency call. If the LTE module is turned on (the same applies for mobile phones) the network operator will know your coarse location because of the LTE specification itself. Furthermore, all communication equipment is legally required to support Lawful Interception; and LTE is no exception to this.

Yes, that is sadly true, but they have that data via smartphones anyway.

But remote controlling the car is something different.

Ok but if you change the laws then you don’t need a different build.

Was my sentence that unclear? I constructed it as a OR. Either change the laws (my favourite solution as I don't like enforced modification of my car) - or use a technical solution to just meet the law.

Physical controls are worth it for me. Having a press to talk button, track advance and volume controls on my steering wheel is a pretty nice quality of life feature. I could do without a screen if the car has that.

That is an amazing use of the technology, and for sure something that should result in a pretty successful company - but not enough to bet the entire VC ecosystem on.

I think anyone saying AI has no use is being willfully ignorant, but like every hype cycle before it since mobile (the last big paradigm shift), IMO it's going to result in a few useful applications and not the paradigm shift promised.

This button exists in your browser settings.

Allowing multiple versions of a library to run simultaneously is a design decision - there are definitely shortfalls to allowing this (increased code size, a relative nightmare to audit, increased tendency towards downstream dependencies opening vulnerability potential). Culturally with bundler it tends not to be an issue since the inability to run multiple versions of packages tends to reduce the number of secondary dependencies to only pretty core libraries, and encourages permissive version requirements for gems.

Do you mind sharing some details? This doesn't match my experiences at all really - while I think running into messes with NPM is sometimes a little overstated, the number of times I've needed to do something drastic like `rm -rf node_modules` is not insignificant and I've never had to do anything at all like that with Bundler.

The only problem I can really think of is working through issues when two gems require different irreconcilable versions of a library, and that's more of a fundamental ruby issue / design choice than a problem with bundler itself.

The biggest issue was with using older versions of ruby or older versions of the bundler itself.

We had to pin our bundler to a specific version and it caused all sorts of issues when installing gems.

I have had to use older versions of npm on unsupported nodejs. There was no pinning, or guard rails with upgrading. I have borked the entire npm install doing that because the later npm wanted to use newer syntax that was not backwards compatible.

What you and I describe is not a bundler or npm problem so much that the software we are working on requires an outdated version of ruby and nodejs.

I agree with the the other comment though — npm has more problems even when with the latest version. Like Nodejs, it is flawed by design.

I wouldn't say "very" for me but it's definitely not as smooth as your average webpage. This is pretty edge casey use of HTML / CSS though, it's not surprising that browsers wouldn't optimize for it since this is more of a stunt than the best way to achieve this output.

This is cool! I really wish the authour formatted their HTML more nicely though - it's fine through the inspector but this is the sort of thing where I instinctively reached for "View Source" and with the whitespace stripped it's basically unreadable.

The HTML is just a div per "artwork" the css is the only interesting part. Much better to just: Right click, inspect element. To see the magic behind each piece.

It has imports + many divs. Would still be easier to read not all on a single line.

Google did this early on with android - originally the Google devices (Nexus) were lower end, and high end devices were left to other manufacturers. They've flipped around recently, but I think the Nexus line was a decent enough idea at the time.

The Nexus devices were initially badly designed high end devices, starting with the Nexus One, which was among the first smartphones with an OLED screen but had too little internal storage to be useful. There was no intentional strategy there to build a bad product, just bad product designers making bad design choices.

Nexus was supposed to be reference platform with a harmless quirk or two, not necessarily low or high end. The idea was everyone builds for Nexus and apps run everywhere.

Maybe "lower end" isn't quite accurate, but the point I was getting across was that Google wasn't competing for the high end market.

But they were though, they just weren't good at it yet

I mean, Apple does have a procurement process. If you're selling at the large team / department level or up (i.e. not individuals within Apple), you're dealing with "Apple" at least for the sale through security and contract reviews, etc.