Other than Apple music and iCloud, they’re generally less intrusive about popups than Microsoft. Their tactic is to completely prevent competitors from integrating with the system at all rather than nag you to use a setting. For example, there’s no way to use Google maps or Spotify in all the same ways you can use Apple music or Maps.

There’s multiple things you’re mixing up here. There’s the “up” in the global coordinate reference frame. This could be based on the local system, though that makes entering and exiting the system a tiny bit more difficult. More likely it’d be based on galactic coordinates.

There’s also the ship reference frame in the comic. This probably won’t be oriented towards the global coordinate system. It’ll be oriented towards whatever the engines, sensors, and gravity need. Because the ships will all be in orbit, their orientations will probably be changing constantly relative to other ships and the global reference frame. There’s no reason to orient in a single direction and lots of reasons not to (it wastes energy, points your sensors away from the things you want to see, etc).

The ecliptic North Pole (Earth’s plane of orbit) is a bit over 27 degrees off the plane of galactic rotation. Which one is “up” and why would a spacecraft that’s done any number of inclination changes to get there care about it?

A torque converter is part of the whole transmission system even if it’s a separate housing. When you buy a new transmission, it comes with a torque converter.

Torque converters also create the majority of heat in automatic transmissions and are why automatic transmissions get coolers in the first place. How many manuals have you seen with transmission coolers?

deleted by creator

There is independent government oversight. That’s NHTSA, the agency doing these investigations. The companies operating these vehicles also have insurance as a requirement of public operating permits (managed by the states). NHTSA also requires mandatory reporting of accidents involving these vehicles and has safety standards.

The only thing missing is the fee, and I’m not sure what purpose that’s supposed to serve. Regulators shouldn’t be directly paid by the organizations they’re regulating.

Just for context, a large chunk of “top tech talent” at the companies in the study are going to be making 200-400k. While there’s still going to be issues with pay, it’s a pretty different situation than fast food workers or similar.

I’m not assuming it’s going to fail, I’m just saying that the exponential gains seen in early computing are going to be much harder to come by because we’re not starting from the same grossly inefficient place.

As an FYI, most modern computers are modified Harvard architectures, not Von Neumann machines. There are other architectures being explored that are even more exotic, but I’m not aware of any that are massively better on the power side (vs simply being faster). The acceleration approaches that I’m aware of that are more (e.g. analog or optical accelerators) are also totally compatible with traditional Harvard/Von Neumann architectures.

ML is not an ENIAC situation. Computers got more efficient not by doing fewer operations, but by making what they were already doing much more efficient.

The basic operations underlying ML (e.g. matrix multiplication) are already some of the most heavily optimized things around. ML is inefficient because it needs to do a lot of that. The problem is very different.