How about 1920: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

But what makes us think R.U.R. is still about robots is that the play is explicit that the robots are assembled, not grown:

> His robots resemble more modern conceptions of man-made life forms, such as the Replicants in Blade Runner, the "hosts" in the Westworld TV series and the humanoid Cylons in the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, but in Čapek's time there was no conception of modern genetic engineering (DNA's role in heredity was not confirmed until 1952). There are descriptions of kneading-troughs for robot skin, great vats for liver and brains, and a factory for producing bones. Nerve fibers, arteries, and intestines are spun on factory bobbins, while the robots themselves are assembled like automobiles. Čapek's robots are living biological beings, but they are still assembled, as opposed to grown or born.

I drive a wagon. Of course wagon owners talk about the utility. And yet, you can buy a wagon with a twin-turbo V8 engine. What's the "sportwagon" segment all about? Certainly not going to Home Depot to buy four toilets for the new house, it's about putting your $15,000 Cannondale Black Ink MTB on the roof and swanking up to the trailhead.

Last weekend I hauled ~700lb of rebar on the roof (because they come in 20ft sticks so the wagon is the best choice). The number of dirty looks I got was off the charts. The same exact demographics that are in here shitting on pickups were judging me for not using one. Good thing I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks.

I also do not allow my lifted pickup and Model Y neighbours to choose my vehicle for me.

In reality ideal utility is likely found in the shape of a 2008 Toyota Camry and a U-Haul truck rental when necessary.

buy yourself a gently used 2019 Camry

A working truck should be max utility. Around the core market of "working trucks," there are various wannabe truck products that do not have to be max utility. For example, a Subaru Brat or a Hyundai Santa Fe. Niche products compared to an F-150, but they had/have their fans.

I personally can't stand the design, but the idea of an impractical "halo vehicle" that appeals to a niche audience but burnishes the brand as "forward-looking" is not a bad one. It's just the execution of this particular halo vehicle that I would have a problem with were I in the market for a lifestyle look-at-me vehicle.

    A *working* truck should be max utility.

I was in the market for a pickup recently. I had wanted to like the Cybertruck, but ... too damn ugly, too version 0.3, too many dweebs driving them, too many teething issues even for a first cut. Plus it's as heavy as an F-250. There's almost no actual reason to grab one besides it being electric. Since I drive so little, I'd never pay back the embedded energy it takes to make the thing - so even that isn't a selling point.

So instead I got a used Tacoma, and disappeared into the ocean of Tacomas that exist here in the PNW. It could be worse :)

If you use a truck for work purposes once a year it is likely cheaper to just drive a truck for everything than have a second car. Don't say rent a truck is an option - you probably can't rent a truck for most work purposes - most rentals have fine print against that, even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than just owning your own truck.

And if your needs are more ambitious, there’s Sunbelt Rentals through much of the country and Enterprise’s Trucks arm as opposed to their more consumer-familiar operation.

If I’m using it once a year, I’ll splurge for a bigass 1 ton 4x4 which Enterprise Trucks is currently listing for $139 a day including 150 miles… and in 100 years, have spent the $13,900 difference between a dweeby little smarte car and owning my own pickup

Not that there’s the least thing wrong with just preferring to own one, just options that I wish I’d known about earlier in life.

I haven't see the contract with enterprise trucks, but I suspect it is similarity restricted against the type of damage this is normal from using a truck for work. You can at least tow a trailer with them. Their locations are not convenient for me either.

EDIT: I realized I have plenty of these contracts archived and don't need to believe HN conspiracy theorists:

(a) Use Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the use of the Vehicle:

• The Vehicle will not be operated by anyone who is not an Authorized Driver;

• All occupants in the Vehicle must comply with seat-belt and child-restraint laws;

• The number of passengers in the Vehicle will not exceed the number of seat-belts and child-restraints;

• Renter will only operate the Vehicle on regularly maintained roadways;

• Renter will ensure that keys are not left in the Vehicle and will close and lock all doors and windows upon exiting the Vehicle;

• Renter will not (i) transport people or property for hire; (ii) tow anything (with the exception of an attached trailer if rented pursuant to this Agreement); (iii) carry or transport hazardous or explosive substances; (iv) engage in a speed contest; or (v) load the Vehicle or transport weight exceeding the Vehicle’s maximum capacity;

• Renter will not engage in reckless misconduct which causes the Vehicle damages or causes personal injury or property damage; and

• Renter will not use the Vehicle for the commission of a felony or for the transportation of illegal drugs or contraband.

So unless you are trying to reuse the vehicle for hire or tow a non-Home-Depot trailer (which I admit is kind of restrictive, but nothing like what the parent post says), it seems fine.

I’m actually far from a pickup truck hater; they certainly have their place (my parents live in a rural area and I can’t really see them not having one), and I occasionally miss owning one, but I’ve never managed to make the economics come even close to balancing out vs. renting for myself.

    even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than
    just owning your own truck.

That is a fully electric drive train hybrid. That way you can charge it at home and charge it with a generator under use. Problem is our current laws are making certifications a mess.

Normal-sized pickups aren't meant for offroading.

A decent SUV can get you by in a pinch. A “normal sized” truck, is exactly what you take off road - yes you might have to do some modding, upgrades, but I don’t understand this take. And I’ve been around many a truck at the top of a gnarly mountain.

I must be misunderstanding what you’re saying here. Even rock crawlers aren’t typically using F250 and larger truck sizes.

> It’s all but impossible to go into any rural bar in America today, ask for thoughts on pickup trucks and not hear complaints about the size of trucks these days, about touch-screens and silly gimmicks manufacturers use to justify their ballooning prices. Our economy, awash in cheap capital, has turned quality used trucks into something like a luxury asset class.

> It’s often more affordable in the near-term to buy a new truck than a reliable used one. Manufacturers are incentivized by federal regulations, and by the basic imperatives of the thing economy, to produce ever-bigger trucks for ever-higher prices to lock people into a cycle of consumption and debt that often lasts a lifetime.

> This looks like progress, in G.D.P. figures, but we are rapidly grinding away the freedom and agency once afforded by the ability to buy a good, reasonable-size truck that you could work on yourself and own fully. You can learn a lot about why people feel so alienated in our economy if you ask around about the pickup truck market.

> Instead, the authors of “White Rural Rage” consulted data and an expert to argue that driving a pickup reflects a desire to “stay atop society’s hierarchy,” but they do not actually try to reckon much with the problem that passage raises — that consumer choices, such as buying trucks, have become a way for many Americans to express the deep attachment they have to a life rooted in the physical world. A reader might conclude that people who want a vehicle to pull a boat or haul mulch are misguided, or even dangerous. And a party led by people who believe that is doomed among rural voters, the Midwestern working class and probably American men in general.

> This approach to politics governed by data and experts is what we mean when we talk about technocracy. It’s a system that no longer really functions today because the broad societal trust that once allowed data and experts to guide political choices has broken down. Democrats, increasingly, live in a world where data and researchers convincingly show that low-wage immigration raises the economy and our gun laws are reckless and misguided.

How about I just conclude that while pulling a boat or hauling mulch are completely OK things to want a vehicle for (*), one does not need a F150 with a front end that reaches my chest and has gas mileage to prove it.

As many have noted, pickups like the 90s Toyotas did these things just fine for almost everyone, but most US based manufacturers have stopped making them.

Me noting that doesn't make me part of the doom of the political party I always vote for.

(*) to the extent that we live in a society where private ownership of vehicles is completely unremarkable, that is. And we do, for the foreseeable future.

Also, there are a lot of boats, RVs and trailers which my 2019 Tacoma absolutely would not have towed successfully.

Did you miss like the entire first half of the quoted passage? Because it kinda sounds like you're judging the people buying the trucks.

One buys from the options the market gives them, and the market often does not optimize for what consumers want. It optimizes for barely tolerable products that maximize profit.

Which kind of makes sense, because it's Gluesenkamp-Perez critiquing a book she opposes.

The Ford Maverick is a smaller vehicle but also a truck. It is a working truck for some, and a rec/handyman vehicle for others.

Really the only thing I think you can ding it for is the small bed. It used to be that trucks this size would have a regular cab or an extended cab with the two tiny side facing seats, and they would have a longer bed. With the tailgate down you can still move sheet goods with a Maverick though.

The real issue that limits the Maverick for a wider audience is the rear is too small to comfortably fit kids, especially in car seats. Adding 4 in of leg room to the rear and making the whole truck 4 in longer would've made in a great homeowner family option without sacrificing much agility.

I agree that the Maverick's bed is small and the back seat is small. IMO they would have been better off making a regular cab or an "access cab" thing with two doors and fold-down seats, and used the extra length to add to the bed. Those are great if you're single or don't have kids, and you just need to carry passengers very occasionally. If you're regularly hauling kids around you definitely want the next step up. A lot of tradesmen essentially never even use the passenger seat though, and the back seat is just lost bed space unless you're using it for locked storage.

The Maverick only tows 2000 base, the 4000 is an upgrade package and only for trailers with their own brakes.

RWD is pretty functionally important for a vehicle to maintain control while towing significant weight, as all the weight sits on the back of the frame, and that's where you want the engine power to go.

The Maverick is not a working truck, which was my original point. In terms of what matters, it is worse in every way than a 40 year old design.

You can't really compare the tow ratings with a 1985 Ranger. Back then the ratings were not standardized and were generally inflated for marketing purposes. Today tow ratings are standardized by SAE J2807. The Maverick has way more power than the old Ranger and weighs about 600 lbs more, plus it has trailer sway control. You're going to have a much easier time towing 4000 lbs in the Maverick than the Ranger.

Edit: The Maverick also has 300 lbs more payload capacity than the 1984 Ranger. The fact is, not everyone needs a giant heavy truck. I see loads of tradesmen driving Mavericks.

Grabbed it in '25 with factory warranty still on it for about the price of a new maverick.

    It's a car with a bed, not a truck.

I've seen plenty of people in working clothes driving them, carrying working tools and such.

How often do you need to pull 2000kg?

Towing weight is also a good proxy for frame strength. I do some light forestry work moving and bucking logs, freeing stuck cars, plowing snow in addition to towing trailers and equipment.

Plus, you can't really put a winch or snow plow on a Sportage.

I always find it kind of surprising how large a vehicle people in the US think they need to pull trailers, especially when you compare with the size of trailers people pull in the UK. My own elderly Range Rover (1990s P38A) has a plated towing weight of 3500kg which means you can pull another one on a trailer with it easily. With the back full of tools and spares and a couple of passengers, you've got an all-up weight well over six tonnes!

Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.

And there's also wear on the road, noise, and damage to property and people when accidents happen (physics is a bitch).

I think more sports cars are burning out, revving loudly (or getting modified to take out their mufflers), and the damage from going a lot faster creates more damage.

This is a modern society in which we must live and let live. That core value of tolerance, which preserves our personal freedoms, deserves to be weighed as much and more than our shared infrastructure, imo.

You do not mention the perception of asymmetric legal and market power. Many people think that file sharing Disney movies is ok, but Google scraping the art of independent artists to create AI is not ok. That is not the same dynamic at all as not caring about copyright, and then suddenly caring about copyright.

Look at how much they are spending. Think about how HN cheered Tesla's innovation in disintermediating vehicle sales by selling direct. Now think about OpenAI or whomever selling directly to enterprises. It's the same proposition:

"That Enterprise SaaS startup adds a markup to the AI that is powering your app."

Again, this is only IF the AI-vangelists are correct that some startups will collapse to a solopreneur. I am not sure that those same startups won't vanish entirely.\

———

There are some high-stakes apps where Enterprises prefer vendors for extrinsic reasons. For example, some apps must have certain certifications, and in a vibe-coded future, the cost of certification could exceed the cost of development by multiple orders of magnitude. And it needs to be kept up. Another example would be apps where for liability reasons, it is helpful that there be an "industry standard."

But lots and lots and lots of apps are not nearly so consequential.

That's a particularly icky formulation of personal connection, because it has overtones of paternity as property rights.

American parties always seem to maintain party discipline over their members, forcing those with other views to either remain silent, or leave.

I mean, why wouldn't they? If you ran a party, and one individual seem (from your perspective) to hold opinions that goes against what you and others believe the party is for, wouldn't you also want them to leave your party?

Shouldn't be that hard of a problem really, if we could accept that people change beliefs and opinions as life goes on, and if you have more than 2 political parties as real options, people could be a bit more diverse and nuanced with their spoken opinions.

I have run and worked for businesses in which dissenting views were important to our success. I don't personally find your argument persuasive.

But I do know people who find that kind of thing very persuasive: I think it would most appeal to the type of person who believes that groups of people should be managed in a strict hierarchal manner, with the people on top managing things for their own benefit.

And—confirmation bias alert—IMO that's absolutely what both of America's parties do, and why it is difficult for their voters to get even of a fraction of the benefits that the donors (who may donate to both parties) enjoy.

Unlike the republicans, the democrats have never been able to maintain that kind of tight control over members. The CR didn't pass because "democrats" chose to let it. It passed because the republicans were able to individually influence 5 additional democrats to change their votes, in addition to the 2 who had always voted for it.

The kind of tight control that the republican party has had recently is very new and hasn't really happened before in the US.

This is a hell of a coincidence.

I don't mean to call out the Democrats as the only one who do this (on HN you simultaneously can't point out a party for something because then somehow you're being partisan, but you're also damned if you don't give an example, so it puts you in a tough spot). Just a most recent thing I've noticed.

Up until recently even on HN Schumer was nearly universally damned for letting it happen or being behind it in his capacity as a minority leader. Perhaps without evidence, and perhaps baselessly. But it's telling that as soon as I point it out in a slightly different context, then suddenly it's an opinion worthy of greying out.

>Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, continued to face criticism from members of his own party after he reversed course and allowed the stopgap spending bill to come to a vote.

It's obviously not a coincidence. I don't see how it is any kind of evidence for taking orders from above. People who don't have to face their voters any time soon (or ever) obviously have more leeway on making deals they might not like.

Passing a CR has required 60 votes in the senate since 1974. Despite this, and 60-vote majorities being very rare, shutdowns remained rare and typically very short for a very long time. This was not because the parties got together and made a deal; it was because it was common for senators in both parties to make side deals across the aisle to support their own pet projects. Having the discipline to force the senators of a party to not make such deals is something that only the republicans have managed, and only very recently.

People are angry at the democrats for being weak and a mess, but that is the normal state of affairs in US party politics.

It's not believing they actually dissented.

In 2012, Mitt Romney was at least nominally the leader of the Republican party as their Presidential nominee.

Nowadays, Donald Trump is clearly attempting to maintain party discipline, but I don't think anyone has ever been able to maintain discipline over Donald Trump, not even before he was their President or Presidential nominee.

Anybody shipping slop around—whether written by interns and published under their name or written by machines—is not an author. They are an influencer, and reposting slop is what they do.