Such cars are already operating in shanghai. It's not talked about much in the west media, but that's just how news is today. Achievements are only so when done by the west!

Driverless car's only real obstacle is regulatory acceptance, not technical.

> don't think Fx can survive on only us.

not at the current employee and costs. But do they need to do that? Do they need to produce new products (and pay the cost to do so)?

Why can't they be lean and mean? Focus purely on browser experience without any BS, without any upsell? And there are volunteers out there that willingly contribute code/fixes for free.

I like having containers for different parts of my life built into the browser. I liked relay for quite a while (moved on to other setups). I like syncing between devices and the ability to push something from my phone to my computer on another continent currently with two taps.

Yeah they have rolled out a lot of nonsense I don’t care for, but they have also rolled out a lot of features I regularly use and enjoy. You can’t please everybody, but ultimately I’m glad it’s not “just a lean browser.”

> Why can't they be lean and mean?

Because they canceled the* project and laid off the lean and mean team that threatened their bloated C++ tower of rubble.

* https://servo.org/

If they truly wanted to be mean and lean and focus on the browser experience they would need to throw away their pride and port the browser from gecko to blink. I think they are too prideful to do that though.

That's why you change it to make the pain work. This does need CEO-level cooperation to implement, but i think it is possible.

CEO’s are generally the ones causing the pain

Everybody values their own time more than other's.

The fix, imho, is for the reviewers to also use ai to review the code. However, the ultimate responsibility for the outcome(s) should be on the committer - you commit it, you own it, so to speak. If there's an incident, they need to be the one paged in the middle of the night. Bugs resulting from it will land on their desk.

The reviewers aren't a shield/safety net.

Speak for yourself. I highly value other people’s time, to the extent that I should probably value my time higher than I do for my own sake.

Doing something that wastes other people’s time or makes more work for them than necessary makes me feel awful.

I’ve always worked in a way that respects other people’s time and I always tried to make sure I did everything I could to minimize the work I’m asking someone to do for me.

> Everybody values their own time more than other's.

This is false, you’re just oblivious to people who grew up in conditions that would make them that way.

Well its obviously infeasible as during the time of the incident it is not yet known what is wrong and who caused it.

Is it even actually good to get to a point of blaming someone for an incident?

> I'm always surprised how bad ideas spread faster than good ideas among our rulers.

it's not a bad idea from the POV of said "rulers" - more surveillance and control on the population is desirable (to them).

> roughly 1B revenue per month is a good look for SpaceX

this agreement between spacex and google can be cancelled with 90 days notice from either party without the other's agreement.

It's purely there to make the IPO look good, on google's part.

Not that I want to defend US police but even in Trump’s America that’s largely untrue. Folks are still able to protest.

The situation is worse than it has been in the past but it’s not at China equivalence levels.

> people invest in your business, the business uses their money to achieve more

that was what normally would happen. However, in the last few decades of IPO, it's become common to have two classes of shares - one being the controlling shares that founders hold on to (with 10x the voting rights), and a 2nd class of ordinary (common!) shares with 1x vote per share.

This means the founders (and early investors perhaps) don't give up any controlling stake of a company at all when the IPO while only selling common shares. Doing this means they get to control the company's operations and financial moves, without shareholder oversight, but obtain all of the shareholder investment cash.

You could argue this can lead to better management, as the founders are more likely to care about the company than professional managers that typically would be hired to manage a public company. I say that is only an argument of luck of the draw, rather than a good argument against the above share and voting right splitting.

Look at facebook/meta - would that company be as invested in things like the metaverse, etc, if zuckerberg weren't in a controlling position?

These two classes of shares were only introduced in the 1990s.

> a wysiwyg editor that gives you all the power of, say, CSS, and yet remains simple for simple things, sounds like a much more difficult task.

so the problem is CSS isnt it?

The constraints and flexibility of CSS makes it difficult to make a simple outcome easy to specify in similarly easy CSS.

And that is the perfect piece of software - it does exactly what is asked, and no more. It has simple enough "architecture" to let anyone maintain it (by adding new stuff that regulations demand, easily), and continues to function without modification otherwise.