For the old mechanical machines (whether powered by a crank or powered by an electric motor) yes, the term "adding machine" was because, for most, all they could do is add:
"Subtraction was impossible, except by adding the complement of a number (for instance, subtract 2.50 by adding 9,997.50)."
A few fancier ones could multiply, but they would do so by repeating an addition some number of repetitions. Nearly all output their results on a paper tape much like "store receipts" today, only printed in ink instead of via thermal transfer paper.
Then, after researching amperage and wire gauge, pay attention to the fact that power losses in wires from the inherent resistance thereof is proportional to the square of the current passing through those wires:
> This is a very shady dark pattern by Alphabet corporation.
Advertising company (Doubleclick [1]) wants phone numbers to better target ads. No surprise there.
[1] The company currently calling itself Google is not the same Google as yesteryear. In 2008 Google purchased Doubleclick, and what happened is that the advertising rot from Doubleclick ate Google from the inside out. What we have now calling itself Google is actually all the evil that was Doubleclick, only calling itself Google. That's why the Google motto no longer includes "Don't be evil".
I have currently got 5 Google accounts: 4 personal, and one from school.
Google encourages multiple accounts and it’s not like social media where they stamp out sockpuppets.
Also, a real phone number that isn’t VoIP is excellent authentication, because real mobile phone numbers are necessarily linked to SIMs for paying customers, so it’s really pragmatic to rely on them.
> which can pose a significant (and growing, as standards improve) obstacle for older cars.
At least for my state, the emissions test a car has to pass is whatever it was supposed to have passed when it was fresh off the assembly line. So older cars do not have to pass stricter newer standards that newer cars have to pass.
Now, granted, wear and tear will eventually result in an older car not passing its original standard, but at least the standard it has to pass is fixed, rather than a moving target.
The only way to have affordable, ubiquitous testing stations is to make it universal. At least, in states that do not also require safety inspections. If only 10,000 cars were tested each year, nobody would buy the equipment.
I don't see what the issue is. Pay the people running the test station more per test but less overall.
Extremely rough example numbers: Instead of testing a million cars for $20 each, 10k cars are tested for $200 each. 85% of testing stations shut down, and the rest downsize if they can, but there's still plenty of them around. The total cost of testing drops 90%. The state taxes every car $2 to pay for the randomized testing; being selected means you lose an hour driving to the station, not that you lose $200 of your own money.
This is because all lenders require title insurance as a requirement for receiving the loan monies. So for almost all buyers they have no choice, their bank/credit union that is actually putting up most of the money forces it upon them.
Not all buyers are using loans. First house I sold was to someone who refused title insurance because in his words, "that house has been sold 3 times in 10 years, the title's fine."
> so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in.
The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard.
It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display screen", and with the addition of those few dollars to the screen, that touch screen can now replace hundreds of dollars of physical buttons and their necessary wiring.
Net result, the BOM cost of the car drops by several hundred dollars, and the cost to assemble drops by some measurable amount as well.
So they why is: "because they save the automakers BOM and assembly costs".
> So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard.
Perfect example of reasonably good intention backfiring.
So now you have a backup camera, which is useful, but you also have drivers fiddling around with a touchscreen while driving, taking eyes and concentration off the road.
I don't have research numbers, but it feels like the latter causes way more accidents than the backup camera prevents.
My partner has one of these newer cars where everything is a multi-menu operation through the touchscreen and it is very scary. Anything you need to change takes many many seconds of visual attention focusing on the touchscreen, which means not focusing at the road. I'm quite sure this will lead to an accident at some point.
Personally none of my cars have a screen and none ever will. I can adjust everything that can be adjusted purely by feel without ever taking my eyes off the road. Clearly that is safer.
> Personally none of my cars have a screen and none ever will. I can adjust everything that can be adjusted purely by feel without ever taking my eyes off the road. Clearly that is safer.
You can also have the best of both worlds. I'm not pretending it's an ideal car, but my Audi has plenty of knobs and buttons and switches for about anything I usually need. You only are forced to use the screen for switching between radio and bluetooth music (maybe there's a button for that too and I don't know it), for setting up the navigation and of course the zillion of car settings. So do I have a screen? Yes. Do I depend on it? Really no. So folks, there IS a way, we just have to push for it.
Obviously they read it, but it's 2026 and entirely possible to publish an article without having read a word of it :)
All that said, I think initially it was a mix of a few things coming together.
Yes, auto mfgs always want to reduce parts for cost and supply chain control. But there was also this moment of New Wow where the impractical nature of touchscreens was overshadowed by the holy crap I've got a tablet in my car. It implied a break with the last generation of cars, where you might have gotten a 4-inch screen (touch or not), and it became desirable at a surface level to users.
Although I greatly dislike touchscreens for the obvious usability issues in a motor vehicle, I still kind of widen my eyes when I'm in a car with some new, ridiculous multi-screen dashboard setup.
Mazda was mentioned in this thread, and I think they do a great job of separating the concerns here; you've got a big buttons of various sizes that do different things that can be memorized without sight.
Likely because, in space, reflective items don't heat up as much from sunlight as would a dark, energy absorbing, material. Shedding heat in space is a difficult enough endeavor already without also painting your satellite black so it reflects less light (and thereby absorbs more heat).
reply