I administer a Windows domain at my job that I do 40 hours a week so your assessment of me is just wrong and also offensive.
I just restarted one of the workstations with Teams startup enabled and Teams ran when the computer restarted. Then I tried disabling Teams startup in the task manager on the same workstation and then restarted the workstation, and Teams hasn't started. I checked the startup tab in the task manager and Teams is still disabled after the restart. It hasn't appeared in the task manager either. This is Windows 10 Pro, so the behavior might be different on different versions/editions of Windows. Also this behavior might be affected by updates. These machines automatically install updates every Saturday, so they're running the latest Windows 10. Even if the setting is reset on a future update, I can create a GPO to disable it or even a scheduled task if I'm not allowed to manage this computer at the domain level.
This is the thing: Windows admins praise Windows when they are running a completely different edition of Windows with different configurable behaviors. It looks a lot different for home users who almost certainly do not even know what a GPO is. And this also raises the suspicion of which exact Windows edition those admins are running on their home computer(s) and how they obtained the license for that...
You haven't re-created the described problem - Teams sets itself to auto-start again after you start it yourself. After all, it's very reasonable that you might want to join the occasional Teams meeting but not want it running after every boot.
I'm not sure if it's a particular version or environment that does this, but at the very least I can't replicate it on my home PC with Teams (personal). If I disable it in the task manager's autostart, it remains disabled if I start Teams. It won't even let me enable "Auto-start" in the Teams settings if it's disabled in the task manager.
not to mention that gp editor is disabled on non pro windows. i think there is some kind of a funky command line or registry hack to enable it. So yeah, I moved on from windows largely because of this force fed software.
Windows licensing is the hardest part of my job. Like if I want to have thin clients running Windows 11 VMs hosted on Windows Server 2022, how do I pay Microsoft so they will let me use the software in this way? I have no idea. I think you need to contact some kind of client services representative at Microsoft in order to figure out the whole licensing thing. By the way if it wasn't clear, I hate all of this. The only good thing about it is that I can make a living by dealing with it so other people don't have to.
Task Scheduler is available on Windows 10 Home. I think of it as "cron for Windows" even though despite being able to schedule the execution of specific tasks, it is really nothing like cron aside from that.
Not sure about other people here but I really liked how autostart used to work in 7 and before - just drop a shortcut in the Start menu folder and you're done. In 10 at some point, in order to have 3rd party software launched at login I had to use task scheduler.
I tried that path back then but it still didn't work for me - no program I tried to put there incl Windows ones was able to launch at the login. I had just entries in the task manager's startup page. Maybe something changed in 11 - dunno
I can guarantee you that the startup folder still works fine, but in some cases you must create the folder.
Microsoft does not screw around with backwards compatibility. There are multiple ways to start applications on launch now, including the user or public user startup folder, registry entries, and via scheduled tasks.
I was recently browsing their docs, and kept finding references to choosing a "browser chrome" (options including Qt and AppKit). Is this some new usage of the word "chrome" that I'm not familiar with, or does it use chrome libraries?
Netscape called it that and thus so does Mozilla. Try loading up `chrome://branding/content/about-logo.png` for an example of the chrome URI scheme in Firefox!
Around the turn of the century, the "Mozilla" browser used to support themes for its chrome, written in XUL [0], which also supported inline images. The themes were available in a repository called "Chrome Zone".
Google later appropriated also the name "Chrome Zone", for a chain of retail stores in the UK. [1]
Specifically google originally chose that name for chrome because one of their goals was reduction of chrome. They made a bit deal out of it when the browser was new, how it didn't have a bunch of menu bars or whatever
It's a usage that predates and conceivably inspired Google-brand Chrome (and by contrast arguably Rust?), referring to the UI parts of the browser rather than, I think, rendering and javascript and stuff.
The term "window chrome" is common to describe the parts of a window that are outside the client rectangle and managed by the window system (titlebar, scroll bars, resize widgets etc..). AFAIK the term also predates "Chrome, the browser" by a long time.
The "chrome" of an app is the part surrounding the main windows, like toolbars and the such.
IIRC when Chrome appeared, the name was chosen because it was a browser without chrome (ie: it used to be just the rendering windows with the url bar on top), differently from other browsers at the time.
Firefox always referred to its user interface as the chrome (hence userchrome.css) and Google engineers decided that it should be funny to name their browser that.
So when you see me pull out my phone to snap a photo of some graffiti I like or use it to translate a sign I can't read or message my wife to let her know I'm running late, what are you thinking?
I can google pictues of interesting graffiti any time I like. Taking a picture devalues the moment.
I'm not sure where you are that you can't read the signs (but have cell service), but you would be really out on a limb if that's the case and you don't have anyone to help you out. I'd honestly find it kind of pathetic to watch.
If it's so important to message your wife, then it's a better idea not do it while also trying to walk around in public.
> I'm not sure where you are that you can't read the signs (but have cell service), but you would be really out on a limb if that's the case and you don't have anyone to help you out. I'd honestly find it kind of pathetic to watch.
I guess you don’t travel often or maybe you can read lots of different languages. I can’t so my phone is useful.
Which would you say is more pathetic - the guy and his wife trying to read a menu in a foreign language or the person standing off to the side watching and judging?
If I'm somewhere where I can't read the local language nor is there anyone to ask to translate, then menu translation is the least of my worries. How do you do anything else, like pay, or arrange transport or accomodation? I would certainly judge if someone tried to achieve all of those things by waving a phone around and gesticulating at people.
It's a neat feature, don't get me wrong, but a complete luxury (and only works out in relatively developed countries).
>Maybe they should focus on improving their frontend
They have. Do you know how many ads they can stuff into people's faces now?
Youtube is unbearable without ablock. If there are people who are able to watch it like that, then it shows just how long you can boil the proverbial frog.
YT premium unfortunately scales very poorly for low usage. I probably average about one youtube video watched per month, so while I'm not opposed to paying something, I am opposed to watching any ads, and I'm not going to pay $13/video.
My wife doesn't use youtube to any significant degree either, so the cost calculation doesn't notably change with the family plan. Obviously if your usage is significantly different the cost calculation is different, which was my point from the start.
This is a false equivocation, blocking ads doesn't mean nobody will be supporting them. Anyway watching ads enriches Google far more than the creators. You can block all ads indiscriminately and send money directly to the creators you care about.
If everyone blocked ads it means exactly that. People can send money directly to the people who can set that up. If not enough people send money then the creator moves on.
Aren't you cheating yourself out of future content? Whatever you like doesn't matter to the creator.
This sounds like YT premium, but just a different platform that has no ad supported option. These platforms are dependent on the network effect and the creators and viewers are only going to use a limited number of platforms (2-4)
Youtube premium is insanely good value for money if you're at all a regular Youtube user. And content creators get paid significantly more for Premium views than ad supported views.
I'd love to see how you derive that from Newton's Laws of Motion, which are all about acceleration. All other things being equal, it takes no more or less energy to keep a heavy object in motion than a light one. After all, a pendulum's period is proportional to its length, and not its weight.
Indeed. There are plenty of things that I will teach my kids are not worth the downsides.
As for your medical examples - those devices work fine without a smartphone. Certifying a medical device that includes the user's smartphone as a key part of the therapy is very challenging, and avoided if possible.
The OP's article was careful to make this distinction, and I think it's very interesting (as well as being the crucial point of the article). Cars are now more reliable and last longer, but when they do develop a problem, it's less economically viable to repair them.
The definition of 'Totaled' is when a comparable car on the used market can replace your vehicle for less than or equal to the repair costs.
As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle.
But saying the word 'Disposable' is pretty bad with regards to the headline. It doesn't capture the full effect of what the stats are showing. That is, we are all keeping vehicles for longer. Longer miles, longer life.
Repair costs for old vehicles always grows as old parts tend to be harder to find (factories have shifted production to newer vehicles. So you are forced to look for scrap). Meanwhile, older cars lose more and more value as they age.
As GP said, the author recognized that people are keeping cars longer and that they are more durable. However a new wrinkle is that "the proportion of brand new vehicles being written off has increased." This is due to the costs of repairing "Advanced Driver Assistance Systems” such as automatic braking and lane-keeping assistance. These systems include sensors, cameras, and other equipment that must be carefully calibrated, which adds a lot of skilled labor costs to the repairs. It's no longer the case that a repair is just hammering out dents and spraying some paint.
Yep, they are surprisingly complex and expensive sensor-controlled devices, and a modern car might have a dozen of them. Just their replacement alone will be thousands of dollars, on top of the actual collision repair work.
> As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle.
I sometimes wonder how much the carbon footprint of the auto industry would change if people preferred to fix them instead of throwing the whole thing away just because of a fender bender or an expensive part broke
Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.)
I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K plus the cost of replicating some mods [CarPlay head unit, tow hitch, and heated seats] and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value. What other carbon reduction could be bought for that extra $3K in costs vs. repairing our damaged car?
From the at-fault driver's and their insurance company's point of view: the driver's negligence caused around $8-9K of direct damages to me plus several hundred in incidental/related expenses. That's what the driver is liable for (and the insurance company on the hook to cover as per their agreement), not a $12+K figure for a liability for damages amount that was thousands lower.
> I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value.
The problem with that logic is the assumption that the car can be replaced for $8K. To some (maybe most) people, cars are non-fungible and there is a significant amount of personal, non-transferrable value in one particular vehicle, due e.g. to the memories acquired in connection with it.
Part of the reason that people get upset when the insurance company decides to declare their car totaled is that the replacement value offered is significantly lower than they would have accepted for the car had it not been in an accident-- The actuarial value assigned isn't properly valuing the intangibles.
Edit to add: Or, in other words, if the market-clearing price of "comparable" vehicles represented the actual value of the car to its owner, the car would have already been on the used market. The fact that it wasn't signals that there must be some premium over the market price that's necessary to make the owner whole.
Here is another angle on that "sentimentality" you're talking about. If I've been following the book on every maintenance item, driving gently, and proactively going after any rust that starts to form on the vehicle that is then smashed up in an accident I don't want an "equivalent market value" used vehicle that was neglected and beat to shit by the previous owner just because it's the same make, model, and age. Especially since that previous owner was a chain smoker.
True. As a car person, I’m expecting an annoying battle here, and that’s over just replacing the utilitarian aspects of what is a pure utility car for us.
If it was my fairly modified (by me) ‘66 Mustang, that would be very difficult to get to a settlement figure that I’d find fair.
I literally can’t get another light truck that’s as compact and as useful as the one I have. My choice is to buy a giant semi truck or an suv with a 4-foot box bed. There’s more to vehicles then sentimental or book value.
As it stands I’ll probably try to get a mini van and put vinyl floors in.
What you describe would be insurance over the minimum coverage, which is available. If you take the minimum, expect to get the 'market value' of a replacement because that's what you agreed to when you initiated the policy.
There are two key cases: when you are forced to deal with your insurance company because no one else is at fault. In that case, you get what you bought.
When another driver is at fault and you elect to not use your insurance company for whatever reason. In that case, you didn't have any opportunity to pre-arrange with this other driver's insurance company and you have to fall back on the law as a backstop.
All dozen of my kids were conceived in the back of that 1997 Toyota Camry. The car was given to me from my Grandpa after he passed. All those memories from the past 27 years clearly has a ton of sentimental value; I put it at $2M. I'll settle for half of that though.
The total valued does not include the significant time of finding an equivalent vehicle at that price in the rough and tumble used car market.
It also does not price in the significant risk that a used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.
So if someone else is at fault, their insurance can total your car? I thought that was only a factor for your own comprehensive/collision insurance. I would expect if my car is damaged and the repairs are $X, that is the other drivers liability regardless of the value of my car??
Imagine your 1990 Honda Accord is smashed into a 2’ x 2’ x 2’ cube or caught fire and burned to the ground as a result of the accident that was someone else’s fault.
Do you think that the other insurance should be on the hook to repair the remains of your car into a functioning 1990 Honda Accord?
Or is paying to replace the car with like sufficient? (I hate it, but I have to agree that it’s far more practical to allow the replacement.)
That depends. In the general case I'd call a 2000 Toyota close enough because I don't consider the 1990 Honda collectable. However if you are a collector that 1990 is a 30 year old classic and you can demand more. To demand more than means you need to show you will - get a special insurance policy that will demand a 1990 Honda if anything happens. You also won't be driving this 1990 Honda on the roads except in context of a parade (you put it on a trailer to get to the parade).
I think the issue is mostly from misaligned motivations from insurance companies and car manufacturers.
On the insurance side, they're motivated by finances. If the quote to fix a car is $10k and the car itself was only worth $8k, the insurance company is just going to give you $8k to find yourself an equivalent car to the one you "totaled". There's no intrinsic motivation for the insurance company to go for the $10k repair? Maybe allow them to have carbon credits or something for spending an extra $2k to keep the same car on the road? How do you tease out how much of a carbon win this is? (and who is in charge of deciding that?)
So then on the car manufacturer side, they're motivated by sales/ brand reliability. Maybe if cars were more repair-friendly that would help change the equation? That comes with the potential trade-off of new cars being more expensive and/or less reliable if they can't be as tightly integrated as they currently are. So if car manufacturers are motivated to make the most reliable/cheap car, they are going to forgo making them less repairable.
If you try and get both sides of this equation onto the same page, I don't know that you could trust that there wouldn't be some under the table shenanigans going on without making things so overregulated that both new cars and car repairs are both more expensive?
If you priced carbon emissions for building the car into the cost of new cars, it would fix this. In the case of your example, the used car would be worth more than $8k because new cars would be correspondingly more expensive.
Of course the problem is as you said how do you price carbon emissions.
But, that already isn't what happens. A totaled vehicle is almost never thrown away. They're sold for salvage value. Some of them are repaired, and sold as rebuilt vehicles. Others are stripped for parts that are recycled to fix other vehicles. And anything left over is recycled for raw material.
The change to unibody construction in the 70s/80s and the more-recent move to 'gigapressing' an entire car with body work has unfortunately made repair much more difficult.
In the past body shops would realign frames, pull body work back into shape, and weld in new pieces but it's just not safe and practical to do that with unibody vehicles even if you did have the tooling and machinery to ensure that it was done right and everything is actually back into factory spec and alignment.
It's almost a shame that the electric vehicle 'skateboard' concept (essentially a rolling chassis in industrial/truck vehicle terminology) didn't really get anywhere - but I have to imagine that design constraints, extra weight from attaching the body to the chassis, and other relevant factors that pushed us into unibody vehicles in the first place also made concept unfeasible.
> weld in new pieces but it's just not safe and practical to do that with unibody vehicles
Unibody cars are repaired safely all the time, whether for collision or rust repair. It may have been easier in the body-on-frame days, but it safe and practical now still.
People might prefer to fix them. The paradigm of replacing rather than repairing is effectively enforced by insurance policies.
A different insurance model would be necessary to adopt a repair orientation. Maybe it's the equivalent of paying more to be "green," except that consumers don't really consider it as an option when they buy a car insurance policy. It seems like this kind of option would justify higher insurance premiums, so maybe a major insurer could consider promoting one as environmentally friendly.
I think it would decrease, but not as much as you'd think.
When most cars are "totaled," the car itself is sold for salvage. If it can be fixed relatively easily, the car will be purchased at a salvage auction, fixed, and resold.
If it can't be easily fixed, the parts that can be salvaged will be resold to other autobody shops.
While the consumer might be "throwing away" the car, the car itself isn't generally being thrown in a landfill until all of the functional parts are reused in some way.
It makes sense to repair a totaled vehicle if you can do most of the repair work yourself instead of paying the market rate. A friend has an older Volkswagen Jetta that was hit from behind at an intersection. There was no frame damage or airbag deployment but the insurance company totaled it because inflation has driven labor charges for simple repairs to ridiculous levels. My friend took the insurance payout and repaired it himself using a junkyard bumper. Works fine. But he had more free time and better mechanical skills than most people.
I can't get the link to work at the moment so I was wondering: are the stats being covered here including or excluding EVs? I've read elsewhere that EV repair costs are artificially high due to various other factors surrounding the manufacture and distribution of their parts versus ICE vehicles, not only but especially the batteries being SO expensive that it borderline out-prices a new car.
We generally get about 8 years out of a car before we start running into larger repairs. This tends to become the point we decide to trade it in for something new.
Obviously we need technological development, to keep everyone in a job. What when we cannot maintain or afford those systems? This includes systems of production, as well as the products themselves.
As for the method:
https://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BHI-Antikythera...