automotive fuel economy is a joke

I recently stumbled across an activist group's website. This political action organization is striving to make a difference. They're fighting the good fight, they're battling the Washington lobbyists, they're encouraging visitors to sign a letter to congress in an effort to have an impact on national legislation regarding emission standards for American cars.

Their goal: 35 miles per gallon by 2020. "Many believe it can't be done..." their website claims, "but we know it can!"

I'll bite my tongue for a minute here and get to some data. Let's look at the most fuel efficient 2008 cars by class (we'll ignore trucks for now), courtesy of the EPA:

Most efficient two seater
2008 Audi TT Roadster: 22 mpg

Most Efficient Minicompact Car
2008 MINI Cooper Convertible: 23 mpg

Most Efficient Subcompact Car
2008 Toyota Yaris: 29 mpg

Most Efficient Compact Cars
2008 Honda Civic Hybrid: 40 mpg
2008 Toyota Corolla: 28 mpg

Most Efficient Midsize Cars
2008 Toyota Prius Hybrid: 48 mpg
2008 Nissan Versa: 26 mpg

Most Efficient Large Car
2008 Honda Accord: 22 mpg

Most Efficient Small Station Wagon
2008 Honda Fit: 28 mpg

Most Efficient Midsize Station Wagon
2008 Volkswagen Passat Wagon: 21 mpg

So if everyone was driving the most fuel efficient model in their vehicle's class (again, trucks aside for now), we're looking at a rough average of about 28.7 miles per gallon. Note that these rankings even include hybrid models (if they're top in their class).

This is pretty good, right? I mean, auto companies market anything with 20+ mpg as fuel-efficient. When you compare your Honda to a Hummer you're pretty much saving the world. When you begin to engage with reality a little more, however, you'll see that the numbers look a little different.

Let's think big picture here for a second. How long have people been driving cars? Well the first car that was effectively mass produced was Henry Ford's Model T, which went on sale in 1908. 100 years before the models listed above.

Fun fact time. Did you know Ford's 1908 Model T essentially ran on regular unleaded gasoline (this was before leaded fuels were introduced and subsequently banned)? How about the fact that it could run on ethanol as well? Yeah, pure ethanol. (Note that this century's E85 is 85% ethanol, 25% gasoline). What about mileage, though?

The Model T got 21 miles per gallon. Shit, Ford used to advertise this mileage.

Do you know what kind of technology was around in 1908? Among the things invented in that decade, aside from the Model T: the vacuum cleaner, instant coffee, the first talking motion picture, tea bags and the theory of fucking relativity. When the Model T was invented people still though space and time were fucking magic tricks, and we're only able to get 28.7 miles per gallon today (actually mid-next year, to be accurate)?

One hundred years of automotive innovation has gained us about seven miles per gallon. To be fair, the Model T doesn't really fit in any of our modern classes. But still, look at the average mileage of the most efficient cars from each class in 2008.

I know my methodology here is a little shaky, but even looking at the information directionally it's pretty pathetic. Having to beg for 35 mpg minimums in America by 2020 is just embarrassing.

Sorry if I sound pissed.

what if apple actually released osx for the pc?

Five years ago my answer would have been, "well hell would freeze over... obviously." But it's really a different story today. There have always been folks trying to run OSX on non-mac computers, but until recently they've faced pretty steep challenges. Today, not only is OSX actually designed for use with Intel processors, new Macs support Windows natively. Boot Camp isn't even in beta anymore. Hell, Apple is offering a decent suite of software for Windows (Quicktime, iTunes, Safari) these days.

But is Safari on Windows really an analogue for OSX on the PC? I think it might be. And I think it will be a good way for Apple to test the waters. In the grand scheme of things, IE is to Safari as Windows is to OSX (Firefox aside), so it makes at least a little sense. But when the hugely-dominant market share leader's competition was freed from the chains of OSX, was there a huge auto-correction in the browser market? Is Safari so awesome that once PC-users were finally granted access they ditched IE for good? There's not really been any official statement from Apple on the subject since Safari came (left?) to Windows, but I think it's pretty safe to say, "not really." You can expect Steve Jobs to frame "not really" as a 500% increase in Safari market share, though, since it would probably be about a .5% to 2.5% scale shift.

But what if this were to change over time? Again, Firefox aside (just so this works as an analogue, relax), what if after a few years people decide that Safari is actually better, and since it's just as readily available as IE, we were looking at a 50/50 market share? What if Safari only took 30%? 20%? I think it would be huge.

OSX Leapard came out two days ago. This is the first release of OSX designed specifically to run on Intel processors. We're already hearing news that it's not all that hard to get it running on a PC. Would Apple release OSX for PCs? Would mac users freak out? Would PC users freak out? Would everyone be more happy? I really wonder.

OSX is one of Apple biggest selling points for the Macintosh. It's better, right? Mac users seem to think so. I personally think so. But Microsoft really has very little to fear from OSX at this point. Windows comes pre-installed on (essentially) every computer in the world except for Macs, and with no other options, that 95% market share isn't really being threatened commercially. Even though it has to bug Microsoft to see Apple users that love their OS so much that they'll line up for a new version (as opposed to Vista, which has to be forced on people), it's not that big of a threat. Since it's only on Macs, OSX market share is limited by Macintosh market share. But what if it wasn't?

What if Apple released it for PCs? Let's say they set up partnerships with Dell (!) and the like to offer OSX as a pre-install option for PCs. The decision to switch from Windows would no longer involve switching to a different hardware manufacturer, it'd just be a radio-button. Would people make the switch? Would there be a huge OS market share correction when OSX for the PC was released?

I think it would be the ultimate opportunity for Apple to put their money where their mouth is. Apple trash talks Windows all day long, but if OSX market share was 50%, it would be just as much a target for viruses as Windows. Is OSX security really that much stronger? Do people just love OSX by proxy because they love the way Apple hardware looks?

I realize there area lot of questions in this article. I guess I'm just curious. I think I would like to see it happen. Just to see what happens.

bi- vs semi-

This is a digression from technology, but bear with me, I really need to get this out. Maybe I'm crazy. During a recent business conversation, I asked someone to provide me with a delivery report every other week. Actually, let me paraphrase our exchange:

Me: Hey, can you please send updated delivery reports every other week?
Her: Bi-monthly reporting? No problem.
Me: No, every other week. So... twice per month.
Her: That's what I said.
Me: No... You said bi-monthly, which would mean every other month. Twice per month would be semi-monthly.
Her: Bi-monthly means twice per month.
Me: Then why would the phrase semi-monthly even exist? Trust me, I know this for a fact. At my previous employer I was paid every other Friday and my checks literally had "bi-weekly" printed right on them. Bi- means "every other" and semi- means "twice per."
Her: What are you trying to prove?
Me: What? I'm not trying to prove anything. You know what, nevermind. Just send it every other week. Call it whatever you want.

Obviously, I decided to run this by a few other people. And you know what? I got the same confusion, mixed responses. One girl started talking about the seasonality of planting flowers (bi/semi annuality is apparently important for this), which seemed to make sense. But I by no means had a consensus. Weird.

So I looked it up. Turns out bi-monthly has two possible definitions: "(happening) once in every two months" or "(happening) twice per month." That's right. A part of speech used to measure time has multiple definitions, one four times as long as the other. What the fuck kind of world am I living in?

And yes, "semi-monthly" means "twice per month, " too.

on bathroom stall doors

Why on Earth are public restroom stall doors designed to open in? We're talking about a space that is about 20 square feet, in which most people are already feeling awkward, cramped and uncomfortable. There's no reason to make someone have to stand back in the corner to navigate an escape.

I know that these "doors," as they've become known, are technological marvels in their own right, but let's think through appropriate implementation, guys. Really.