We're talking about business challenges/features which can be solved by using either of the solutions and analyzing pros/cons. It's not like Redis is bad, but sometimes it's an over-engineered solution and too costly
And once you start listening there, your video suggestions feed becomes a music feed thus degrade the video experience. Vids and music must be separate
"New Euro NCAP tests due in 2026 will encourage manufacturers to use separate, physical controls for basic functions in an intuitive manner, limiting eyes-off-road time and therefore promoting safer driving."
> now are a part of European Transport Safety Council requirements
Actually, no, no official EU organization nor any council mandates that. It's Euro NCAP, an independent organization, who decided they'll include tactile control in their car safety evaluation. It is literally explained in that article.
It will still make a difference, but this is not something EU did.
The NCAP and the ETSC usually work very close together.
A lot of times safety innovations are first introduced on NCAP ratings, then the ETSC carefully evaluates adoption and will then advocate for those requirements to become legally binding regulations.
A technical standard will then typically be designed at the UNECE, Then the European Commission will propose it to be discussed and voted both by the EU Parliament and the European Council.
It is not like the NCAP is just the EU version of the US "Consumer Reports". While not a part of the EU, it is a non-profit thoroughly embedded into the development of automotive safety standards in the EU.
Having driven a lot of cars with a fuckton of buttons on the steering wheel, how exactly do people use these without having to look down? One or two multi-function buttons connected to a screen is great, but there is no way I would be able to safely use that mess of physical buttons shown in the photos.
By feel. Not everyone uses all the buttons all the time, but stuff you use a lot is easily operated without taking eyes off the road. It pairs well with the other upside of physical controls, the manufacturer can’t move them out from under you with a software update.
I've owned such cars for many years and no, I've never learned all the buttons. Also, I'm not advocating for a touchscreen, but a small number of buttons plus a screen is far more ideal than a massive mess of buttons. This shit has always been a UX nightmare, it sucks that it's coming back.
I knew all the buttons on my steering wheel within weeks. They're very convenient because your hands are already on the wheel. Touchscreen buttons are just not a replacement.
Yeah, there's, like, I don't know, 25 buttons if you count the stalks? That's a lot I guess, but I wouldn't want to turn down my music or skip the track by looking over at a touch screen and guessing.
I normally don't look at them, you know by heart which is which and ours has also one up/down sticking out knob on each side (volume & cruise speed control). Combined with very nicely visible laser heads up display I never look on dashboard nor computer screen in the middle while driving.
Staying continuously visually connected with all environment simplifies driving and definitely improves safety. Also thanx to that heads up display I didn't get a single speeding fine while by default driving at the very limit of allowed speed, including our radar-infested towns and highways.
2010-level of tech of bmw f11 is enough for me, the only real improvement would be full unsupervised self driving which isn't coming anytime soon.
The touchscreen on my 2010 Prius stopped responding, I could still use the "Voice Control" button on the steering wheel. Waiting 10 seconds each time to navigate the menu by voice, hoping it heard me clearly each time.
Surely voice commands can replace buttons and touch interfaces in 2026!
You just feel around for it. Buttons on the steering wheel can be a lifesaver because you don't have to reach down or even look at it, you know what you're doing.
Most people drive the same car most days. Either many or most people (I don’t have stats) drive a different car some days. There’s entire companies — Hertz, Avis, etc — with business models based around this observation.
Speak for yourself. I can adjust all of my physical climate controls, radio, wipers, and cruise control without taking my eyes off the road. Maybe some fumbling to pick the right blower angle.
Some manufacturers have massively screwed up the cruise control buttons. On Rivians, for example, the car will instruct you to take control of steering if you will soon enter an area where it can’t do assisted steering. Fine, except that the only control that can transition directly from assisted steering to plan enhanced cruise is to jerk the steering wheel, which is distinctly uncool. So you instead cancel cruise entirely and then re-engage it.
To add insult to injury, despite the fact that the speed up and speed down buttons are actual physical buttons, they are so aggressively denounced that there’s a loop: press button, wait, press, read screen to see if you’re making progress, press, etc.
Anyway, the point is that, while physical buttons in predictable locations can make it possible to operate something without looking, it still needs a good design and implementation.
I mean "even" in a Tesla you can adjust volume, next/previous track, wipers, cruise control (among other things) with a physical button, and climate controls are in a fixed location on the screen (and are typically left on auto).
Sounds like the IIHS which has been imposing 'mandates' on car manufacturers with little proof that these mandates are effective. These mandates are costing us all millions in upfront and insurance rates but I never see any evidence that they are worth the cost they impose. Not opposed to the mandates specifically just the lack of cost benefit analysis.
Can you be more specific about these “mandates” you take issue with?
IIHS doesn’t have any mandate power over manufacturers (they are not a regulatory body) but they do align with insurance company interests, whose goals are to pay out less for damages from vehicle incidents, and therefore IIHS logically would theoretically be focused on actuarial data-driven analysis. If you have specific examples of where this has not been the case, I’d love to learn more.
Here are some where IIHS punishes cars that don't meet its features with dubious evidence of improving safety...
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian Detection: IIHS rates vehicles on forward collision avoidance, including pedestrian scenarios, but systems often underperform in real-world conditions like nighttime or with larger vehicles (e.g., trucks or motorcycles). Studies show virtually no crash reduction at night, and features can create false alerts, weather-related failures, or a false sense of security, potentially dulling driver awareness without clear evidence of broad effectiveness at higher speeds.
Roof Strength Test: Vehicles must withstand a force equivalent to a certain multiple of their weight (e.g., 4x for a "good" rating) to simulate rollover protection. Critics, including automotive industry analyses, argue there's no statistically reliable evidence that increasing roof strength beyond basic levels (e.g., from 2.5 to 3.5 strength-to-weight ratio) reduces injury risk, with claims relying on unsupported extrapolations from low-strength data and anomalous results.
Updated Side Impact Test (Introduced 2021): This tougher test uses a heavier, faster-moving barrier (4,200 lbs at 37 mph) to mimic modern SUV strikes. It's criticized for disadvantaging smaller vehicles unfairly, incorporating misleading variables (e.g., tire grip affecting results), and prioritizing structural deformation over occupant outcomes, potentially leading to "poor" ratings despite good dummy readings. Detractors view it as more marketing-driven than reflective of common real-world crashes, with little evidence that the changes proportionally save lives beyond the original test.
Sounds like AI slopish article. A whole section about "Why most enterprises don't" with many words but no actual data or analysis. Just assumptions based on orthogonal report.
AI won't give you much productivity if the problem you're challenged with is the human problem. That could happen both to startups and enterprises.
Right now it's a bit opposite - you can't purchase using Visa/MC some services that are legal in your country but considered illegal in US. Visa/MC just won't allow that.
Payments aren't but issuing currency is. State doesn't monopolize the payments. State creates a regulation and common standard across the EU. It's the banks who would do the payments, not the state, and for that banks would receive a standard fee so you as a consumer always know how much you pay for the service.
According to the public information, bank fees are (or going to be) standardized across the EU's Euro zone. It's in the works for a long time because it's a joint effort and requires a lot of coordination from many involved parties. European Payment Initiative was founded in 2020 but the idea was there since the formation of EU and Euro 20 years ago.
And also it superseeds most of those payment solutions. Wero is based on iDEAL and other european payment systems.
I'm coming from Fusion, advanced hobbyist, I can't find anything missing. </anecdata>
There is a problem though - sometimes what you want requires deep understanding. It's less user friendly, polished, and documented. That's also relevant to the performance - it's easy to cause performance issues. But I remember the same was also applicable to Fusion.
Of course FreeCAD is less user friendly, polished, and documented. It's open source. Open source people do not get GUIs. They think command line.
It's taken decades for artists and graphic designers to nag the GIMP and Blender people into usable interfaces, and they're still inferior to Photoshop and Maya.
Mind you, it can't export to step file. That makes it impossible to re-use the models in other CADs to make assimblies. Also it's tedious to use for 3d printing when you want to include modifier objects with your model. Otherwise it's great and good enough for part modeling
reply