Tesla removes radios from new entry-level EVs

[K.M. Richards]

You need to add it as a string, sounds like you added it as a boolean (which is the default option)

I didn't add anything initially because Firefox wouldn't let me. I thought I had stated that clearly.

But (*sigh*) the YouTube instructions didn't work either.

 

[yeoldeschool]

But (*sigh*) the YouTube instructions didn't work either.

Wish I knew why this is happening, but this is the first instance of a Firefox installation disallowing the addition of new strings to about:config that I've ever heard of.

There is one other non-time consuming possibility you could try. Get the latest Windows 7 compatible version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Portable. Firefox Portable can be installed into a standard Windows folder sitting right on your desktop, or on an external flash drive. Anything you do in it won't have any effect on your main Firefox installation. You just have to make sure your main installation is closed before attempting to open the portable version (and close the portable version before re-opening the main installation).

In any case, theoretically, if the portable version allows you to add new strings to its about:config, you could just use the portable copy exclusively with your bank.

 

[davideduardo]

I have a suspicion that the current strict hardware requirements for Windows 11 may actually have a lot to do with the next version of Windows, which will likely be very heavy in AI functionality. Microsoft may be attempting to clear the deck of older equipment that won’t run “Windows 12” or whatever it winds up being named. Chatter is that we are still a couple of years away from that, with a possible late 2027 release date.

As such, if you have a computer that runs Windows 11, I would hold off on buying any new device until “Windows 12” is released, as you would then be assured of having adequate hardware for that platform which would also likely run the eventual “Windows 13”.

That all works if what you do is mostly email, Facebook and web browsing or a simple Excel spreadsheet without complicated variables.

I am about to move to my new system because my old one was irritatingly slow in processing scans, PDFs, search indexes and the like for WorldRadioHistory.

The new one is "home made" with an Aorus motherboard and a Ryzen Threadripper 9955 CPU and 256mb of 6600 mhz memor and an array of Gen 5 SSDs with a RAID card for data work. The old one had a Threadripper with a 7960 CPU... not enough.

My point is that some jobs require as much power as you can get... and more. Others do not, but many people buy into the Windows and CPU manufacturer push to constantly upgrade.

 

[K.M. Richards]

My point is that some jobs require as much power as you can get... and more. Others do not, but many people buy into the Windows and CPU manufacturer push to constantly upgrade.

I agree. That was kind of my point about my version of Firefox being "deprecated" because "Microsoft said so", restricting my access to my investment account.

The computer I am running now was a present from my Albuquerque client, and it is essentially the same as the computers running the automation software there. All the machines run Windows 7 Ultimate (the 64-bit version of that OS) which makes the remote interface that is necessary for me to do my job work flawlessly.

I still believe that, if challenged legally, Microsoft would not be able to justify many of their claims about the "latest" version of Windows being full of security holes. I was thinking that way back to Windows 95.

(BTW, for the technogeeks out there, this machine uses an Intel Core i3-4130 CPU, with 8GB of RAM and two physical HDs -- one 1TB and one 500GB -- plus one 64GB semi-permanent USB flash drive and three more 16GB ones. I'm only using 7% of the larger drive, and the use of practically every other drive is similarly low. The 500GB drive is the most full, because I keep the music library -- both source rips and automation-toned -- on two partitions.)

 

[yeoldeschool]

I am about to move to my new system because my old one was irritatingly slow in processing scans, PDFs, search indexes and the like for WorldRadioHistory.

The new one is "home made" with an Aorus motherboard and a Ryzen Threadripper 9955 CPU and 256mb of 6600 mhz memor and an array of Gen 5 SSDs with a RAID card for data work. The old one had a Threadripper with a 7960 CPU... not enough.

You dropped these, sire!

 

[cc333]

The new one is "home made" with an Aorus motherboard and a Ryzen Threadripper 9955 CPU and 256mb of 6600 mhz memor and an array of Gen 5 SSDs with a RAID card for data work. The old one had a Threadripper with a 7960 CPU... not enough.

That's one powerful computer you've got there!

c

 

[Miss Tuned]

You need to add it as a string, sounds like you added it as a boolean (which is the default option)


Exactly, they can make a great UI with great built in maps but are they going to still be releasing updates in 10+ years. How is it going to get real time traffic and road closure info onto the maps? I suspect they will want you to pay for a subscription for that. I'm already paying for a data plan on my phone and can mirror it to my car with Android Auto (or Carplay if Apple) and get all of the real time traffic, closing, etc. onto my car's screen without paying anything extra. Android Auto and Carplay have both been around for around a decade now and as far as I know its still working on those 2015 cars that came with it. I would not buy a new car that doesn't include Android Auto/Carplay even if the built in infotainment is great.

I just changed my car (I commute two days a week by train and WFH the rest of the time now, so it's a downgrade to a smaller vehicle for weekends) and Android Auto was a must-have. The built-in nav in cars tends to work for so long and then be a subscription feature, but it also generally has worse quality maps and doesn't have the real time traffic functionality that Google does. (Although these days, Google has a tendency to send you down horrible minor farm tracks to theoretically shave 30 seconds off, so if I see a big sign to the place I'm headed, and Google is going "no! turn right down Twisty Lane!" then I tend to follow the local signage.)

From a radio perspective, Android Auto is brilliant. I can stream any station, from anywhere, and listen to it in high quality. In the few years I've had it, I've rarely bothered with terrestrial radio. People talk about signal problems with streaming radio in-car, but honestly I've had more problems with broadcast radio crackling, cutting out, disappearing because you get too far from the station. With Android, I can put on my favorite local station and listen to it for 200 miles if I want.

 

[bmasters1981]

(Although these days, Google has a tendency to send you down horrible minor farm tracks to theoretically shave 30 seconds off, so if I see a big sign to the place I'm headed, and Google is going "no! turn right down Twisty Lane!" then I tend to follow the local signage.)

I don't blame you for going the signed way, instead of Google's "get you caught in a trap" way-- what possesses Google to be like that?

 

[cc333]

Well, in much of Europe (including the UK), I've heard that Internet infrastructure is quite good, so I'm not super surprised to see that your streaming experience is good.

Here in the US, particularly in the western states, good, high speed internet is generally limited to cities, larger towns and their respective suburbs. Good cellular connectivity is generally available a bit farther out, but once you're out in the countryside, coverage tends to be hit or miss, and in the mountains, it's still largely nonexistent.

In other words, if you're mainly driving around in cities, you'll be able to stream fine, but if you live in a more rural area, and you need to pass over some mountains to get there (like I do), you can forget about streaming.

c

 

[cc333]

I don't blame you for going the signed way, instead of Google's "get you caught in a trap" way-- what possesses Google to be like that?

I never use Google mainly for this very reason.

Generally, if I can study a map for a few minutes before I head out, I can figure my way around just fine without Google.

My main problem is I tend to get my rights and lefts mixed up (I don't think I'm dyslexic; I've never been tested because there never seemed to be any pressing reason to (my reading skills are fairly normal, i. e., things don't look backwards or otherwise incomprehensible), but sometimes I wonder).

c

 

[AMRadioGuy]

The difference is the people continued to buy radios, and electronics manufacturers continued to come up with creative new devices. For example, the pocket transistor radio was created AFTER the introduction of TV. Before that, portable radios had tubes and were a lot bigger. The transistor made radios the size of a pack of cigarettes, and those new smaller devices made radio more portable than it had been. It completely changed the way people used radio. They couldn't take TV with them like radio. Of course now people can also watch TV on their phones, so the phone is also having an effect on how people watch TV.

A big part of this is that radio & TV were once considered "new technology" and the electronics companies that made radios and TVs also owned radio and TV stations. That's not the case anymore. New technology is digital, and the digital companies control the hardware. They're pushing their own digital streaming radio, and that's set the bar as to where radio needs to be. Sure, there still will be companies using traditional broadcast radio. It's not completely disappearing. But after 100 years, the platform has become dated, and all of us who work in it can see there are more opportunities if we see radio as a bigger thing than transmitters & towers.



Let's talk about that. Radio companies are investing in talent. Mainly talk show hosts from AM political talk to FM lifestyle talk. Take a look at some of the top rated radio stations, and they're the ones with well-known talent who people want to hear. The music aspect of radio has basically been eclipsed by streaming, mainly because the music itself has become more individual. Radio is one-to-many, so that system doesn't work as well when the music has become so personal.

Music changed in the 80s. Prior to that, a lot of popular music was made FOR the radio, because that's how music was marketed. That stopped in the 90s, when music companies got a digital royalty, and got paid by digital companies for the use of their music. That doesn't happen in broadcasting. So music companies were unleashed, and marketed music directly to consumers via streaming, and radio was left out of the process. That's really where we are now. Older music works well on the radio, because it was consensus music made for radio distribution. Current music works better for streaming because it's more individual.

So what I'm saying is there are a lot of factors and a lot of major changes that have happened in the last 30 years. They've affected traditional broadcasting. TV is affected as well. Where we are now is it's not one or the other, but all. Radio has to be everywhere, and that includes the phone.

This is fair, BigA. Especially about music changing in the 80s. Even in the late-70s, music was splintering a lot.

 

[TheBigA]

This is fair, BigA. Especially about music changing in the 80s. Even in the late-70s, music was splintering a lot.

Yep, the difference is that in the 70s, radio was part of the splintering, thanks to FM. By the 90s, radio was no longer part of the process.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Yep, the difference is that in the 70s, radio was part of the splintering, thanks to FM. By the 90s, radio was no longer part of the process.

Which is another factor that flummoxes Classic Hits programmers when they try to move significantly into the 90's. Less radio then means less consensus now as to what the favorites are.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Here in the US, particularly in the western states, good, high speed internet is generally limited to cities, larger towns and their respective suburbs. Good cellular connectivity is generally available a bit farther out, but once you're out in the countryside, coverage tends to be hit or miss

I'm sure there are parts of the country like that but I've driven all over the Midwestern and Eastern U.S., from the Great Lakes through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, all the way through New England and into Canada. I've also driven pretty extensively through California, Arizona and into Nevada. Road trips over 600 miles in a day, and the only place I didn't have connectivity the entire time was in a very rural, unpopulated stretch of Maine for less than 30 minutes.

In other words, if you're mainly driving around in cities, you'll be able to stream fine, but if you live in a more rural area, and you need to pass over some mountains to get there (like I do), you can forget about streaming.

That sounds like an outlier case. I think the vast majority of Americans have pretty solid cell coverage wherever they go, especially in any well populated area and along all of the Interstate highways.

 

[luperm]

That sounds like an outlier case. I think the vast majority of Americans have pretty solid cell coverage wherever they go, especially in any well populated area and along all of the Interstate highways.

Agreed. I commute through some back road areas with hit or miss coverage. I have some playlists and podcasts that automatically refresh on my mobile device that are always available for offline enjoyment. No shortage of content. But generally, streaming works just fine.

 

[davideduardo]

(BTW, for the technogeeks out there, this machine uses an Intel Core i3-4130 CPU, with 8GB of RAM and two physical HDs -- one 1TB and one 500GB -- plus one 64GB semi-permanent USB flash drive and three more 16GB ones. I'm only using 7% of the larger drive, and the use of practically every other drive is similarly low. The 500GB drive is the most full, because I keep the music library -- both source rips and automation-toned -- on two partitions.)

A perfect example. You have all you need and nothing more.

I have 3 1tb SSDs as boot drives; two mirror the first. There is an 8tb SSD that mirrors the website RAID drive. The RAID card holds 2 x 2tb Gen5 SSDs. There are 4 x 22tb hard drives that backup the website and all the work files every day in four one-week cycles. An there are 5 NAS systems, with two having mirrored 5 x 22tb drives each in RAID, with about 60tb usable in RAID 1. Two others, with 8 x 14tb drives each, have all the scans, going back more than a decade. A 5th unit, 4 x20tb, holds all the website at about 6 month intervals for "just in case" historical preservation

Few people have such needs. Fewer build their own systems, but my point is that for most people decisions should be made on factors like how clear the monitor is, whether it is big enough to do work without strain, is the keyboard pleasant to type on (particularly for touch typists) and is the touch-pad adjustable enough for your fingers and touch. In other words, does it feel nice to use.

I only buy Alienware laptops, as they have a mechanical keyboard and also can be bought with a Spanish keyboard. In other words, they are unique for my needs and tired fingers!

 

[cc333]

@davideduardo Wow! That's a lot of storage!

I have a handful of 4 and 8 TB mechanical drives I use for backups, plus a 5 TB mechanical and 1 or 2 TB SSD externals for short term backups and for moving current work around.

And since we're sharing our computing specs, my main PC currently runs a Gigabyte GA-Z370P-D3 motherboard with an Intel Core i5-9600K CPU, 64 GB of DDR4-2667 RAM, a 1 TB SSD boot drive on the motherboard's internal slot and a 256 GB SSD (the old boot drive) on a PCIe adapter. I also have a Firewire PCIe card installed so I can use my "ancient" (2014) Focusrite Saffire Pro 26.

My laptop is an aged Late 2013 MacBook Pro hacked to run the latest MacOS Sequoia, so it's safe and secure. It doesn't win any speed contests, though.

c

 

[bobdavcav]

Well, I'm reading some interesting discussions today.
Not related to the original topic but related to the discussion at hand, I see both sides of the hardware debate. I suspect the hardware requirements are the reason Microsoft is not seeing the uptake of Windows 11 they had hoped. I suspect there are lots of people out there like a friend of mine, who was running Windows 7 until the computer she was running that on completely died. She had a Windows 10 machine that then became her primary, but that was only a couple years ago. Why should she have to get new hardware again just to keep the software up to date? The only reason I'm running 11 now is because my previous computer really needed to be replaced a couple of years ago. My machine started out as having Windows 10 on it and I upgraded because my hardware could support it.
I would still probably have my iPhone SE 2020 if I had not been in the situation I was in last summer. It was becoming really hard for my phone's battery to maintain a charge, so I made an appointment to get the battery replaced. When I got to the appointment though, they did not have the battery, and would have needed to order it. This would have meant that I would be without my phone for at least a week if not two. If I could have paid for the repair and then had them place the order without being without my phone, I probably would have. That being said, I think location accuracy gets better with each hardware advancement, something really important if you can't see where your Uber is.

 

[cc333]

I recently managed to install 11 on a virtual machine, and after installing some third party tools to bring back some of the better aspects of 10 that were removed for mo apparent reason, I find it somewhat tolerable.

I never thought I'd say it, but 10 seems like it's actually gotten to be fairly decent. Finally. After 10 years! Of course, this is also with all the third party "sanity restorers" installed. I'd never want to use 10 in stock form, if I can avoid it, because of all the spyware-like telemetry "features."

To that end, I still regard 7 (NT 6.1) and XP (NT 5.1) as the best versions. And coming in as second best are Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) and Windows 98 SE. Honorable mention goes to Windows 95, which was the one that established the UI look and feel that Windows still uses to this day in some form.

c

 

[ted chittenden]

I recently managed to install 11 on a virtual machine, and after installing some third party tools to bring back some of the better aspects of 10 that were removed for mo apparent reason, I find it somewhat tolerable.

I never thought I'd say it, but 10 seems like it's actually gotten to be fairly decent. Finally. After 10 years! Of course, this is also with all the third party "sanity restorers" installed. I'd never want to use 10 in stock form, if I can avoid it, because of all the spyware-like telemetry "features."

To that end, I still regard 7 (NT 6.1) and XP (NT 5.1) as the best versions. And coming in as second best are Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) and Windows 98 SE. Honorable mention goes to Windows 95, which was the one that established the UI look and feel that Windows still uses to this day in some form.

c

As a totally blind person who has used Windws ME, 7, XP, 10, and currently 11, I think my favorite was 10--I liked its setup with Outlook, especially the keystrokes that were removed when Outlook was updated. Unfortunately for me, the software I use to read the computer (JAWS--Job Access With Speech) will not update its own software for past editions of Windows so now I'm on Windows 11 and the most up-to-date version of that.