I've been in the market for an electric truck for a solid 5 years now to replace my aging Nissan Frontier. There has yet to be anything attractive at all that has made it into production at any price I've been able to find. Everything seems to be a gas truck with some electric stuff shoehorned in not taking advantage of the new design opportunities at all, and generally with a little 4' bed instead of 6.5 or 8 that I need. So far the best design I've seen was from the startup Canoo [0, 1], but as is unsurprisingly typically the case with a car startup (a really high capex challenging area) they have since gone bankrupt. The Cybertruck at announcement looked sorta promising, with a decent sized bed (6.5 at the time), decent top range (500 miles), and cab moved forward for better visibility with no engine in the way. And in principle there are some really good fully offline "cyber" sorts of features that an ambitious company could do, like making liberal use of modern screens to enable "look through your hood" and better all around awareness, built-in FLIR for enhanced animal detection at night, etc. A self-parking feature that was really solid would be good too, zero general public road self-driving needed for that to be handy. But of course the Cybertruck ended up downgrading in every respect, having mediocre build quality, being heavily delayed, full of Tesla spyware and stupid shit, and in general being made by a vehicle & power company that oddly doesn't actually seem interested in vehicles or power anymore.
It's frustrating seeing all the potential and then having to wait and wait for somebody to finally execute. Same as with PDAs/smartphones until Apple finally shook things up or countless other examples throughout tech history. Maybe it'll be China who actually does it this time around, and a small silver lining might be that could also go along with some actual anti-feudalism and pro-privacy laws in the US if we're very lucky :\.
Why do you need a truck? Serious question, in europe professionals have a van, like the Ford e-transit, and if you just need to haul some stuff from your summerhouse sometimes you hitch a trailer to your car. Why do you need a truck? Couldn’t you buy an electric van instead?
For personal use, like you mention, people use a small trailer. You own one or borrow it freely from many places, hitch it to your car, haul dirt, and then detach it. No need to drive a truck everywhere because you need to haul some stuff once a month.
> But this idea that no normal person needs a pickup truck a dozen times a year is just weird.
Yet the US is the only country where office workers own trucks. The only real use of a F150 style truck is offroad hauling, which is not something most people have to regularly do.
The split for the rest of the world is: Transit-like van for almost everything in places with real roads, Hilux-sized truck in places without roads and contractors who mostly carry dirt, gravel etc. Only the US and Canada use F150-sized trucks.
> Do people load their Transits with piles of dirt and mulch? I doubt it.
I am from the UK but live in Canada. I only see three types of businesses using those Transit style vans here in North America: food delivery, parcel delivery and landscaping businesses. I assume the landscapers are carrying dirt at least some of the time.
I see carpenters and electricians who trick them out with a little workshop, but that's really it. Landscapers it makes sense because you're hauling equipment and storing it in the van, so you can probably both store more and protect from the elements
Not sold (really) in the US. There's the VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else.
In the US, there's also just a pretty big infrastructure around tooling trucks for professional work. Not that that doesn't exist for vans in the US, it's just somewhat more common to see trucks having full toolsets on the side for quick access with a decent sized bed. The F350 is a major workhorse for that sort of thing.
>> "VW electric van but that's more of a gimmick than anything else."
Really? ... I'm seeing them adopted more widely in Europe now by businesses. Perhaps as second hand or lease prices are coming down. Maybe that doesn't translate to the US ...
Quite nostalgic seeing them run around Central London with business signs on their side... much like the originals. My point: not a gimmick in my experience.
I live in rural northern New England, and as well on-road I have plenty of either off road or unmaintained road usage year round, and a number of loads in those conditions that exceed the width of the vehicle (so wouldn't be public road legal). Also equipment and loads that exceed the height of the vehicle (which is road legal if properly secured). In principle a van with sufficient towing capacity and off road capability could use a trailer of some kind for those roles, I have nothing against vans per se, but since I don't need extra "interior space" the bonuses of vans don't help much vs the reduced flexibility and extra complications. I do keep my eye on them too because the line between "truck" and "van" can be fuzzy and if something sorta convertible or with some innovative ways to straddle the sufficient for my purposes came along I'd certainly consider it, but it hasn't been the case yet and the truck form factor is just really handy for making do with a surprise need on the spot far from anything with sufficient straps and bungie cords, without needing any other equipment.
It'd be nice if it could be a reasonable price too and not include a lot of the bling, though I'm perfectly aware a huge percentage of the truck buying audience cares about that a great deal vs having their truck all beat up and just wanting it to go forwards/backwards/left/right on demand reliably with a bunch of random stuff every day. But it'd be good to see anything at all that tried to work with the advantages of electric vs the limitations and both give a good truck experience and improve the experience for others that share the land, like with greatly enhanced visibility and better shapes that enhance safety for pedestrians. Don't need a ginormous engine to have very good torque with electric. I'm hopeful somebody will get there eventually but I guess the path has proven more winding then I'd once thought it'd be, I'd expected the iteration to be going pretty hard and fast by now (in America/EU I mean, it does seem to be moving real quick now in China).
Anyway, hope that gives some answer to your question. Just one solitary data point, I don't mean to do any extrapolation from this to the wider market, but I do actually use my truck pretty hard for truck things. We have compact efficient cars as well though for long distance travel and the like, my truck at least will spend 99% of its time within a 150 mile radius for work or any other use.
On the flip side, as a van owner (though not a professional "working van") ...
1. you don't need straps and bungees for the van - ours can take pipework, framing lumber and other "long" stuff up to 16', straight on the floor, fully interior.
2. you don't need the gate down - it handles 4x8' sheet goods with all the doors closed, either vertical or horizontal
3. security concerns are much better
4. weather concerns are much better
5. for some folks, you can have highly effective work space inside the van (granted, I've seen some loose equivalents on custom work trucks)
6. mileage is generally significantly better
From my POV, the two wins of the truck form factor are (a) easy of loading/unloading bulk material (e.g. the van is 100% useless for gravel) (b) tall loads. That said, I don't think I've ever need to move anything that was too tall for our Sprinter - worst comes to worst, it gets laid down.
People buy them _because_ they are ginormous and hostile. It's part of the marketing. Ford could make a pedestrian safe work vehicle but they won't because selfish people love these. Especially when it becomes an arms race when half the population drive them. Oversized vehicles need to be taxed more and regulated properly.
The bed is only 4.5' long. The 5.5' short bed available on an F150 Lightning is too short for me, the ICE F150 with a 6.5' bed at least lets you have flat sheet goods with the tail gate down.
Yeah, there's really no reason why something like the Isuzu Elf couldn't be electrified for cheap.
Car manufacturers wanting to make EVs premium products is what I think hurts them the most. That along with tariffs keeping the price of Chinese batteries much higher then they should be.
It sounds like you unfortunately have gotten yourself kinda stuck, but I very much sympathize. I too have an account dating back to iTools, and for a long time it was a major frustration that I was stuck with that original email address as unchangeable for the Apple ID, unlike newer accounts. However, some time in the last, I dunno 3-5 years maybe? I can't remember now the exact time I noticed, but after over a decade of requests and fading hope Apple actually did allow me to change the email address for that Apple ID, which I shifted to my own domain. So for anyone else who hasn't checked in a long time, worth noting situation might be marginally better now.
Re: "mac.com isn't doing email anymore", all the original mac.com email addresses still work fine. Apple has played around with various domains (mac.com/me.com/icloud.com) over their decades of bumbling with online services but they made them all interchangeable for older users, mails to the original @mac.com emails still go through. Even originally made aliases (they allowed 5 with iTools) still work. Not sure what your issue was on that one.
Finally yeah, ""security"" questions are one of those horrible legacy anti-patterns that I will cheer to see finally be dead and buried. If you try to answer them honestly probably anyone can learn it with a bit of online searching, if you go for more obscure stuff they're easy to forget defeating the purpose. It's really best just to treat them as extra passwords, use random alphanumeric values and keep them in your password manager same as the password. Apple has also fumbled around with recovery over the years, at one point you had options to have a manual recovery key you could save but I think that's dead and can't set it up after already forgetting. Maybe if you go in person to a store with physical ID and evidence, if you had payment associated with the account and have that credit card for example that might do it.
If you have nothing of value tied to the account though probably no reason not to just abandon it.
Blacklists are an inherently terrible, rights infringing approach to this sort of issue vs whitelists. It would be a lot better if the internet by default was simply considered 18+ (or 16+ or whatever a country wants). Instead, the tld system could be easily used to have age based domains where anyone who wanted one had to meet some set of requirements for content standards, accountability and content vetting, didn't allow user contributed content at all without review or whatever was needed.
At that point all the technical components exist to make this an ultra easy UI for parents. Require ISP WiFi routers at least to support VLANs and PPSKs, which ultra cheap gear can do nowadays no problem, and have an easy to GUI to "generate child password, restrict to [age bracket]", heck to even just put in a birthday and by default have it auto-increment access if a parent wants. Add some easy options for time-of-day restrictions etc, done. Now parents are in charge and no adult needs anything ever.
Now I highly doubt politicians are all being honest about full motivations here, clearly there are plenty of forces trying to use this issue as a wedge to go after rights in general. But at the same time parental concern is real, and non-technical people find it overwhelming. It'd be good if industries and community could proactively offer a working solution, that'd reduce the political salience a great deal. It's unfortunate the entire narrative has been allowed to go 100% backwards in approach.
To be frank, while it may have a level of technical beauty, this kind of "opt-in whitelist" approach is an authoritarian's dream.
Once the baseline is established, the playbook becomes simple: Shift that age bracket up to the very moment when someone can vote. Make sure that every new voter spends all their formative years unable to access even basic resources on the struggles that marginalized groups go through, and the history of their existence; set the bars for the "whitelist" so high that one must toe the party line in every bit of messaging, and thus is effectively a list of propagandists whose businesses can be fined astronomically if they deviate. Take away the parent's choice, and make it mandatory to use routers that block the non-whitelisted TLDs for any device that doesn't cryptographically authenticate as being operated by an adult. Find ways to impose this on groups other than children (for instance, by making it illegal for criminals to access the non-whitelisted web, then greatly expanding that definition). All in the name of peace and tranquility.
If you want V for Vendetta, this is how you get V for Vendetta.
... only to the degree it hasn't been manufactured by tabloid media and Russian propaganda warfare, that is.
With every little news about local shootings, robberies, rapes, beatings, thefts, whatever not just making national, but in the worst case international headlines, one might think that Western countries are unsafe hellholes of the likes of actually legitimately failed states - despite criminality rates often being on record lows. Of course parents are going to be afraid for their children, and it's made worse by many Western countries financially only allowing for one, maximum two children.
On top of that, a lot of the panic is simply moral outrage. Porn and "trans grooming" it seems to be these days, I 'member growing up with the "Killerspiele" bullshit after some nutjob shot up a school in the early '00s. My parents grew up with the manufactured fear of reading too much as it was supposed to make you myopic. Again, all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces.
Parents should relax and rather teach their children about what can expect them on the Internet, how people might want to take advantage of them, and most importantly, that their children can always come to them when they feel something is going bad, without repercussions. When children think that they cannot show something to their parents, that is where the actual do-bad people have an in.
The problems I mentioned aren't real, that's the point.
It hasn't just never been proven that Counter Strike et al cause amok runs, it's been disproven [1]. Consuming porn doesn't make people rapists (although I do concede: the ethical aspects particularly around studio-produced porn do require discussions), and consuming LGBT content doesn't make children LGBT. People are, to the extent that we reasonably know, born LGBT.
The fact that some organizations (particularly religious) have framed these issues as "political" doesn't make them political either.
Very much this. The research points to hours spent on social media - not 'I saw something adult and now my fragile little mind is le bork'.
If you want kids to be healthier you're gonna have to deal with it on the device level at worst, and the healthcare level at best. Include mental health services and counseling as part of a single-payer preventative care plan if you really, really want to save the kids.
"The problems I mentioned aren't real, that's the point."
Can you possibly think that determining what is and is not a valid problem isn't a subjective evaluation?
Even looking at your examples, which are not chosen well for your argument. In each of these you're just shifting the burden of proof to reflect what your values. "No one has proven counter strike causes violent behavior, consuming porn makes people rapists or people can become gay." All wide-open empirical questions. Maybe none of these gets resolved in the near future; they aren't even well-formed questions. Meanwhile parents, governments, policy-makers need to make decisions. If you are very concerned about your kid being violent, you will avoid videogames even as a precautionary measure.
"The fact that some organizations (particularly religious) "
Ah you found an even easier way to resolve the issue, just ignore religious values.
Maybe go after Discord then for doing nothing meaningful against abusive, should we not?
And if that means that Discord has to shut down... well, okay, if that's the price? An organisation that doesn't care about the impact on its host society is nothing more than a parasite or cancer and should be treated as such.
(Besides: if you're aiming at stuff like groups of kids bullying other kids into suicide or self harm - guess what: that existed in times where there was no Internet. It just wasn't widely reported, other than maybe holding a vigil for a classmate who had "passed away")
I'm not debating whether they should ban VPNs for minors with you. I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces".
> I'm providing a counter statement to your ill-conceived thought that this is "all manufactured fear by organized groups aiming to rip our rights to pieces".
What is making Discord different from the real world? Do we ban kids from going to school because they could get bullied there?
Yes, sure, some content we decide to age-gate in real life... but hell. Our parents perused the VHS porn stash of their parents. Their parents wanked off to Playboy magazines. It has all been bullshit from the start.
>The entire point of Section 230 is that carriers can claim to be just the messenger
Incorrect, and it's honestly kinda fascinating how this meme shows up so often. What you're describing is "common carrier" status, like an ISP (or Fedex/UPS/post office) would have. The point of Section 230 was specifically to enable not being "just the messenger", it was part of the overall Communications Decency Act intended to aid in stopping bad content. Congress added Section 230 in direct reaction to two court cases (against Prodigy and CompuServe) which made service providers liable for their user's content when they didn't act as pure common carriers but rather tried to moderate it but, obviously and naturally, could not perfectly get everything. The specific fear was that this left only two options: either ban all user content, which would brutalize the Internet even back then, or cease all moderation, turning everything into a total cesspit. Liability protection was precisely one of the rare genuine "think of the children!" wins, by enabling a 3rd path where everyone could do their best to moderate their platforms without becoming the publisher. Not being a common carrier is the whole point!
> Congress added Section 230 in direct reaction to two court cases (against Prodigy and CompuServe) which made service providers liable for their user's content when they didn't act as pure common carriers but rather tried to moderate it but, obviously and naturally, could not perfectly get everything.
I know that. I spoke imprecisely; my framing is that this imperfect moderation doesn't take away their immunity — i.e. they are still treated as if they were "just the messenger" (per the previous rules). I didn't use the actual "common carrier" phrasing, for a reason.
It doesn't change the argument. Failing to apply a content policy consistently is not, logically speaking, an act of expression; choosing to show content preferentially is.
... And so is setting a content policy. For example, if a forum explicitly for hateful people set a content policy explicitly banning statements inclusive or supportive of the target group, I don't see why the admin should be held harmless (even if they don't also post). Importantly, though, the setting (and attempt at enforcing) the policy is only expressing the view of the policy, not that of any permitted content; in US law it would be hard to imagine a content policy expressing anything illegal.
But my view is that if they act deliberately to show something, based on knowing and evaluating what it is that they're showing, to someone who hasn't requested it (as a recommendation), then they really should be liable. The point of not punishing platforms for failing at moderation is to let them claim plausible ignorance of what they're showing, because they can't observe and evaluate everything.
>But on the other hand, we all rally for the importance of anonymity on the internet, so it's very likely that there will be no way to find the author.
So:
1) We all rally for the importance of anonymity (wrt general speech) EVERYWHERE, before even (and critical to) the founding of America. Writing like the Federalist Papers were absolutely central to arguments for the US Constitution, and they were anonymous. "The Internet" is not anything special or novel here per se when it comes to the philosophy and politics of anonymous speech. There has always been a tension with anonymous speech risks vs value, and America has come down quite firmly on the value side of that.
2) That said, "anonymous" on the internet very rarely actually is to the level of "no way to find the author with the aid of US court ordered process". Like, I assume that just as my real name is not "xoa" your real name is not "xg15", and to the extent we have made some effort at maintaining our pseudonymity it'd be somewhat difficult for any random member of the general public to connect our HN speech to our meatspace bodies. But the legal process isn't limited to public information. If you have a colorable lawsuit against someone, you can sue their placeholder and then attempt to discover their identity via private data. HN has our IP addresses if nothing else, as does intermediaries between the system we're posting from and HN, as well as possibly a valid email address. Which can potentially by themselves be enough breadcrumbs to follow back to a person and have enough cause to engage in specific discovery against them. And this is without any money getting involved, if there are any payments of any kind that leaves an enormous number of ripples. And that's assuming nobody left any other clues, that you can't make any inferences about who would be doing defamatory speech against you and narrow it down further that.
Yes, it's possible someone at random is using a massive number of proxies from a camera-less logless public access point with virgin monero or whatever and perfect opsec, but that really is not the norm.
3) Hosters not being directly liable doesn't make them immune to court orders. If something is defamatory you can secure an order to have it removed even without finding the person in question. And in practice most hosters are probably going to remove something upon notification as fast as possible, as in this case, and ban the poster in question on top.
So no, I don't think it's a "a massive vacuum of responsibility" anymore than it ever was, and the contrast is that eliminating anonymous speech is a long proven massive risk to basic freedoms.
This comment could use some elaboration. For those that don't know you can use a Yubikey that supports PIV as a smart card for logging into macOS and performing a range of admin authentication operations with just the PIN, not just in the GUI but sudo as well (and of course more directly for SSH etc). It's not a perfect substitute, no ApplePay, but it means you can have a long complex password and only need a 6-8 digit PIN for most usage while still being pretty safe, and has some positives of its own in a multiuser or machine environment. It's a very reasonable option to consider IMO, even though yes it'd absolutely be nice if Apple did better on the hardware auth front.
It's pretty depressing as well as frustrating, watching something pretty solid get flushed in real time. This post puts words on it I hadn't really, but fading "confidence" is a really succinct foundation. There's no single massive thing just completely fubar'd, but the cumulative effect of hundreds to thousands of mysterious cuts combined with that now familiar sinking feeling of watching GUI bikeshedding accelerate with each new version, every more miserable, less useful, no more Feelings Of Delight at seeing some cool little attention to detail or nice new thing that clearly had some real thought and testing behind it. It all really eats away at one's day. I'm seeing this HN post and article literally right as I'm watching Activity Monitor and trying to figure out WTF is going on with mysterious ApplicationsStorageExtension (a plugin buried in the StorageManagement.framework) tasks spawning 4x on a Sequoia Mini M4 Pro and doing constant disk churn to no discernable purpose and introducing massive latency to certain file system access patterns. This started up out of nowhere in the last few weeks, almost exactly 1 year after getting this machine and with no major system upgrades. Why!? Who knows! Force quit them all and other stuff like MailStorageManagement goes nuts for a bit and then it settles down for an indeterminate period of time. Restart the computer and it goes away for awhile. No FS corruption issues found, seem to be no issues with spotlight. Sigh.
After decades using macOS and significant investment the barrier to change is significant too, even if there was some ideal thing to jump to which there is not. But like others I am chipping away at it where I can, slowly divorcing from the Apple ecosystem, going ever more heterodox. I can see people reaching tipping points at various places, might take quite awhile but the thing is once someone jumps ship you're probably never getting them back and eventually that can add up to them taking others with them. It's just such a damned waste too.
The three other replies you've gotten so far have given some generically applicable though still good answers, but I want to address something regard Cloudflare specifically: a major part of their entire core goal and value proposition revolves around being able to defend their customers from continuously scaling ever larger hostile attacks. This isn't merely a case of "natural selection" or what a company/VCs might desire, but that it's hard to see how under the current (depressing, shitty) state of the Internet it'd be possible to cheaply defend against terabit-plus class DDOS and the like without Cloudflare level scale in turn. And "cheaply" is in fact critical too because the whole point of resource exhaustion attacks is that they're purely economic, if it costs many times more to mitigate them then to launch and profit from them then the attackers are going to win in the end. Ideally we'd be solving this collective action problem collectively with standards amongst nations and ISPs to mitigate or eliminate botnets at the source, but we have to trundle along as best we can in the mean time right? I'm not sure there is room for a large number of players in Cloudflare's role, and they've been a pretty dang decent one so far.
>That's true but there's also a separate element here which is there is an obvious need for aviation and not an obvious need for autonomous vehicles.
At least in America, the need for autonomous vehicles is much, MUCH more obvious than for aviation actually unless you're a 20 year old exclusively city person. In most of the country by area, and at least a good hundred million-ish people by population, being able to have [arbitrary point to point mechanized transportation] is a necessity for normal adult life & work. Right now that equates exclusively to having and being able to drive your own vehicle. There are no other options of any kind unless you are extremely wealthy to the point you can employee an exclusive human brain & body not your own for that role. There are no buses. There are no trains. There are no human driven taxis for that matter. Normal family, friends and neighbors can fill in on an occasional/emergency basis and that's a safety net, but you will be heavily restricted. And tens of millions of people, indeed eventually almost all of us, do not have the ability to safely drive themselves. They are either too young, too old, have some sort of disability preventing it, or have made some poor life choices that nonetheless are compounded upon by this.
Right now it can't be helped, it is what it is, our mechanical technological capability ran ahead of our information processing capability so the human brain and body was called upon to fill in and here we are. The law also reflects that, with far more generosity given to poor and dangerous driving because it's by necessity a quasi-right however much it's called a "privilege". But fully public road autonomous vehicles would change all that. Driving yourself would truly become a hobby practice, not a requirement. Major training could be demanded. If someone has any DUI infractions or the like boom, no more driving privilege. You could be 90 with failing eyesight and reflexes and physically incapable even during the day. And it'd all be ok with everyone still having near identical mobility because they could just fall back on having the car itself take them where they need or want to go on their schedule, same as someone driving today.
That'd be just wildly huge and will only get bigger as America follows the rest of the developed world in terms of aging demographics. This is putting aside all sorts of massive improvements in productivity, lives saved, urban/suburban/rural development, electrification, and probably more we haven't considered. Certainly there are pitfalls to be avoided but it blows my mind anyone could possibly not see all this. The car is one of the most important things in American society and consumes EONS of human time. Literally. An eon is a span of one billion years. Hundreds of millions of people have absolute spent a year or more of their lives behind a steering wheel. It adds up. Anything that shifts that is by definition enormous.
>And you think the same problem wouldn't exist with 6ghz?
Yes. Probably because they have some basic grasp of electromagnetic reality, which perhaps you might consider studying a bit before forming strong opinions?
>It will be as crowded as 5
Physically impossible. 6 GHz simply does not have the material penetration, that's the point. Having way more raw bandwidth on tap, all available all the time without DFS plopped in the middle too, is also extremely helpful of course too. But the signal just not traveling as far and not going through walls well is the core thing. You don't need special effort EM shielding for it so much, bulk material will do it. And WAPs are cheap now. Having a higher number of smaller cells has been best practice for awhile already, and 6 GHz takes that much further.
We said this about 5Ghz when that came out. I'm sorry to say it's not true, there's more than enough spectrum in 5Ghz if properly managed and co-ordinated. I would rather fix that first. Why is it we can run WiFi for thousands of developers in one room/venue just fine but people living in apartment blocks are apparently struggling with a dozen devices per 60sqm apartment?
APs using 160MHZ channel widths with 1 or 2 spatial streams because it's cheaper than 80MHZ channels and 3 or 4 spatial streams. Absolutely crap 'auto' channel selection, too high a power (because cheaper than a second AP), poor AP placement and inappropriate channel width (in an apartment block 40Mhz per AP might be optimal).
To the extent "we" said this, we were absolutely, 100% correct. 5 GHz was and remains a massive improvement over 2.4 GHz, exactly as hoped. But in the decade and half since demands have gone up a lot. 6 GHz will be even better as it propagates even worse and has even more bandwidth available, while human population density won't change.
>I'm sorry to say it's not true, there's more than enough spectrum in 5Ghz if properly managed and co-ordinated
I'm sorry to say you're wrong, there is not remotely enough usable spectrum, and that's regardless of "proper management" which in reality is completely contrary to the practical reality local networks in a setting with a high density of independent people/organizations.
>I would rather fix that first.
That's nice. Most fortunately you are not in charge.
>Why is it we can run WiFi for thousands of developers in one room/venue just fine
That's a low demand situation under the control of a single entity where people are going to be understanding of compromise given the special circumstances, unlike in home or business.
>but people living in apartment blocks are apparently struggling with a dozen devices per 60sqm apartment?
You're wondering why might want their own independent LANs in their own homes? Well, I'm sure you can think of one or two reasons if you put your mind to it.
Most of 5Ghz is unusable because of DFS. In Australia, only 2 out of the 6 80mhz channels are usable. 6 Ghz has 6 of them completely usable today, with possibly more on the upper end usable in the future.
> 6 GHz simply does not have the material penetration, that's the point.
Really? Is there something special about 6 GHz absorption through common construction materials? Otherwise, why would a 20% higher frequency be that much worse?
It's frustrating seeing all the potential and then having to wait and wait for somebody to finally execute. Same as with PDAs/smartphones until Apple finally shook things up or countless other examples throughout tech history. Maybe it'll be China who actually does it this time around, and a small silver lining might be that could also go along with some actual anti-feudalism and pro-privacy laws in the US if we're very lucky :\.
----
0: https://www.greencars.com/expert-insights/all-electric-all-a...
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzjqfQdj3sM
reply