On the right you mostly have "proper" religion, mainly Christianity (in the western world at least), while on the left you have the church of identity politics.
Everyone seems to be laughing at centrists nowadays, ya know the "enlightened centrist" meme, but it's the only truly secular position today.
The left remains stubborn in persecuting even an ounce of independent thought (or any thought that goes against the established dogma) on topics related to gender/race/identity and dismissing people with different opinions as "bigots". And then they wonder why people simply stop expressing their opinions loudly and opt to express them via voting instead.
And then when the voting results come in, they double down: "I can't believe 50+% of the population is RACIST, SEXIST, BIGOTED, UNEDUCATED, STUPID!"
I am completely ignorant of all things automotive. I was under the impression that any relatively recent (15 or so years) ICE car also operates by way of a car computer, and that stepping on the gas pedal is just a way to politely instruct the computer that you would like it to apply throttle. And that for even more recent cars this also applies to braking (since the newer cars can brake automatically). Have I got it all wrong?
If not, what's stopping a "traditional" (ICE) car from (mis)behaving in a similar fashion in some catastrophic circumstance that would damage its computer?
You’re sort of right in your assumption but there’s a lot of context missing.
First, the time period is more like 30 years for cars having engine control units (ecu), but most car up until 10 years ago or so had hard physically wired throttles where you stepping on the throttle pulled a physical cable. If that cable doesn’t get pulled the engine doesn’t get enough air to go really fast no matter what the ecu tries to do. More recent cars have fly by wire throttles meaning they are like electric cars in that sense.
An ecu has a far more complicated control algorithm than a electric motor controller. If it were suddenly damaged it’s more like that the engine would fail to run at all then run out of control because the ecu needs to control the airflow, fuel and spark position for the engine to run, if any of those fail to work, or stop firing at the right the exact time they are required the engine will just stop or run very poorly. I actually think this is true of electric vehicles too, it’s far more likely to stop the motor working than to have it run out of control, unless a wheel speed sensor is damaged or something.
A petrol car can be placed into neutral if all else fails, the engine will run out of control but the car wont. Also the gearbox controller is typically a different computer from the ecu.
The brakes on any car should be able to over power the engine. This is not a challenge for 99% of petrol cars because the torque they output is tiny compared to what a brake system can apply to the wheels. If you slam on the brakes the engine doesn’t even come close. Idk about other countries but in Australia this also applies to electric cars that are road legal, it’s a requirement.
the ecu is usually located in the passenger cabin or sometimes next to the battery quite deep inside the engine bay.
The only thing that would cause a petrol engine to really go out of control would be if it was fly by wire throttle and that throttle position sensor was broken in the particular way that it’s reading as full throttle. Idk if manufacturers do this but it wouldn’t be hard to design a fly by wire throttle that when it fails the ecu will see it as closed not open.
Anyway I don’t think it’s much of a concern for electric cars either tbh.
> most car up until 10 years ago or so had hard physically wired throttles where you stepping on the throttle pulled a physical cable.
More like 25 years ago, at least in France. The 2001 Renault Clio 2 I'm driving has throttle-by-wire, the newest car I personally know of with a mechanical throttle is a 1998 Peugeot 205, the last model year of a car that debuted in 1982. I doubt any European car manufactured after 2001 has a mechanical throttle, if only because of European emission standards.
> The only thing that would cause a petrol engine to really go out of control would be if it was fly by wire throttle and that throttle position sensor was broken in the particular way that it’s reading as full throttle. Idk if manufacturers do this but it wouldn’t be hard to design a fly by wire throttle that when it fails the ecu will see it as closed not open.
On the Clio 2 car, there are two redundant linear potentiometer tracks. If the dual measurements don't match or if either sensor is disconnected, the ECU will default back to a slightly higher than idle throttle.
> On the Clio 2 car, there are two redundant linear potentiometer tracks. If the dual measurements don't match or if either sensor is disconnected, the ECU will default back to a slightly higher than idle throttle.
That’s really neat. I was thinking something along the lines of having a microcontroller with a good adc right next to the throttle pedal and its angle transducer (hall effect would be better) and having that microcontroller send a digital signal. If the ecu can’t make sense of the digital signal or it is missing, just set the throttle to idle. That’s a solution that would be reasonably cheap today though but not 25 years ago.
Anyway in my experience most Japanese and Korean cars didn’t have fly by wire until the 2010s
I once had a diesel engine runaway (google it, the engine ran on its own oil at some insane rpm). I put it in neutral until the engine seized. Scary stuff
I believe petrol engines can do this too, and I didn’t mention it for petrol engines because the performance of the engine in that state won’t be anything like what it’s capable of, the rpm will go high but if you put any load on it the engine won’t be outputting a lot of torque or power. If this happens in a manual just push the brakes really hard while the car is in gear and clutch released, it will stop the engine. If it’s auto I guess you’re buying a new engine lol, but it’s not like the car is going to run out of control if you just stay calm
The correct course of action is stuffing up the air intake to suffocate the combustion, if this is still a viable option. Otherwise, depart from the vehicle and be ready to call the fire department.
I should have done that, hoping to stall the engine. I panicked and really didn’t know what to do. The noise and MASSIVE cloud of black smoke pouring out the back were terrifying. Not a great first drive after an engine swap.
Brakes are not usually "by-wire" on a car that is able to automatically brake. The brake pedal is still physically connected to the brakes.
Same for the steering. BMW for example has a method where the steering wheel is physically connected but the computer can add corrections to it via a clever set of gears. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_steering
If the computer (or electric steering motor) fails the steering wheel still works.
Where is the proof these people are "racist cheerleaders?" If someone called you an anti-White, misandrist, child groomer, etc., you'd demand them to back up the claims with sources.
It really depends. In some companies/countries, women in IT are being coddled, with way easier criteria for interviews and more leeway for mistakes/poor performance. I suppose that is being done to increase the number of women in the workplace and balance things out.
Some are well aware of this and fully take advantage of the situation, playing damsel in distress, some even manipulate their more socially/sexually frustrated male colleagues into doing their work for them and covering for them.
Police force? FireFighter? Do they have to lift the same?
If you're hiring to fill out a 4 person tech team and you've got 3 men, and a quota 50% male/female split, would you say men have an equal chance at the job. Or less of a chance?
Being intellectually honest, you will admit the criteria for the men in that case are harder, or perhaps impossible to achieve.
If the criteria for one sex are significantly harder (impossible without gender affirming care) then the criteria for the other sex are easier.
I've never ever heard of a quota where I do interviewing, which is tech. As the article is about Apple I thought tech was assumed, and not the roles you are talking about, which are obviously different and I have no experience in.
People will omit applying any amount of critical thinking if they agree with the basic premise/contents of something they read.
That's how we have Schrödinger's Russia, one that keeps fumbling every day and loses 1000+ soldiers a day, whose soldiers have run out of basic equipment and are fighting with shovels (no, I'm not joking https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64855760), all the while being absolutely crippled by sanctions. Truly a laughing stock, right?
Yet they are also somehow about to launch a full-scale invasion of entire Europe, while currently _undermining democracy_ (my favorite phrase) in the entire Western sphere.
> Her company, and it's legacy, ultimately destroyed by men
> A portrait of the insidious nature of sexism.
A tad ironic to make these two statements in succession don't you think?
I'm not saying that sexism doesn't or didn't exist (especially in that time period), but trying to dismiss the discrepancy on Wikipedia as sexism, when Jobs helped build a literal worldwide business empire that is Apple of today, doesn't help your case at all. In fact it's the opposite, it sounds like you're fighting windmills.
>A tad ironic to make these two statements in succession don't you think?
Where's the irony? You'll have to point it out to me.
> As a result, Harp McGovern had the opportunity to see, sooner than most other companies, what Microsoft was adding to its own operating system in an effort to capture the market.
> It was a switch that Harp McGovern herself was inclined to make, so she contacted Gates and negotiated a provisional contract for Vector to pivot to using DOS instead of CP/M on far sweeter terms—and at a much faster pace—than were being offered to other manufacturers. “We had an amazing relationship with Microsoft. I’d signed a contract where every update and every new system in perpetuity we would get at no increased royalty,“ she explained.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
She negotiated a sweetheart deal with Microsoft before their big break. She had a personal relationship with Bill Gates. This decision killed the company.
> but trying to dismiss the discrepancy on Wikipedia as sexism, when Jobs helped build a literal worldwide business empire that is Apple of today, doesn't help your case at all. In fact it's the opposite,
The final line was a summary of the article as a whole, not specifically the difference between Jobs' legacy and hers. I recognize the difference.
> Where's the irony? You'll have to point it out to me.
> The deal was taken to the board, but the collective decision was made that it was better to stick with the known quantity that was CP/M for the in-development Vector 4.
Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured? If you think that, you must also think that a board consisting mainly (or fully) of women that makes some mistake has to do with them being women, right?
> Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured?
You've done some subtle editorializing here to try and make your point stronger, allow me to correct it:
> ultimately destroyed by men
is not what I wrote, what I wrote is
> ultimately destroyed by the men who overrode her decisions and opted to take the 'safer' route.
They convey two very different ideas. The strawman that you wrote implies that I believe men, by virtue of their sex, are responsible for the companies failure. This is not the case.
What I wrote implies that the board rejected her proposal because they thought they know better. Is it conceivable to you that this belief might have had something to do with the fact that she was a female CEO, formerly a housewife, in an exclusively male industry?
Surely you can concede that identifying sexist behavior and committing sexist behavior are not equivalent.
I don't think the article portrays the decision as disrespectful or disregarding of Lore's opinion, just that they took the wrong bet on the future.
While she says later on that she made a mistake not "forcing" that route following her instinct, I read that as a classic leadership dilemma where your gut says go one way but plenty of data disagrees. She is the visionary in this story, and visionaries often struggle with the hard routes their visions suggest and don't always follow them.
IBM made the opposite bet, against CP/M. This was a bold and risky decision at the time because CP/M was massively dominant in business. It was anything but assured that DOS would win.
Everyone seems to be laughing at centrists nowadays, ya know the "enlightened centrist" meme, but it's the only truly secular position today.
The left remains stubborn in persecuting even an ounce of independent thought (or any thought that goes against the established dogma) on topics related to gender/race/identity and dismissing people with different opinions as "bigots". And then they wonder why people simply stop expressing their opinions loudly and opt to express them via voting instead.
And then when the voting results come in, they double down: "I can't believe 50+% of the population is RACIST, SEXIST, BIGOTED, UNEDUCATED, STUPID!"
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really.