Target Audience for the Ferrari Luce

I wanted to actually commend something that I think you might find surprising. Oh, this is surprising already. I don't even I genuinely don't know where you're going with this, and I'm scared. Something has been working every single time for me that used to never work. The most surprising thing is the product it involves. The home pod . I have no explanation for this, but for whatever reason, in the last like maybe few weeks , maybe month , when I when I switch the output of my music app on my phone from the phone to a home pod , it now works every time and it works quickly. And then when I'm done, like you know, in the shower or whatever, and I switch the speaker back to my phone, it also switches immediately and perfectly. The music doesn't lose its place. And it works just as well with all of my like, you know, iTunes matched self-uploaded jam band concerts as it does with catalog tracks from Apple Music. This has blown me away. So I wanted to. I spent so much time complaining about how badly the home pod worked in specifically this way over so many years that I wanted to actually finally commend. I don't know why it suddenly wor ks. I don't I didn't I don't remember seeing any release notes to this effect, but recently it started working and now it works amazingly. So whoever at Apple did that, thank you so much from the bottom of my heart . I will now think about you every time I take a shower. You're very brave to say this on the program because it could be that nothing has changed and you've just gotten extraordinarily lucky. And guess what? Your luck just ran out. You jinxed it. Believe me , something changed because I assure you there is this never worked before. Like it would, it would time out, it would drop, it would error out, it would continue on the home pop, but then the phone would lose it and so w there was no way to switch back and the phone would think it was still playing or it was playing something else like it was a disaster for so many years. But for some reason now, it works exactly the way it was always supposed to work. And it's so much nicer now. I wish I could say the same about my Sonos Roam. I have a Sonos Roam two now because my one was just so flaky that I couldn't so I bought a second one. That's my shower speaker by the way. That's why I'm thinking of it. Uh and boy , does it not work the way it's supposed to. Half the time the Sonos doesn't even show up as a as an airplay choice of places to play to, which just boggles my mind. I'm like, what is going wrong there? That it just it's it's not visible at all. And so I just luckily the Sonos Rum 2 has a Bluetooth mode, so I just switched the hardware into Bluetooth mode and and played to it as a Bluetooth speaker. But yesh, that I don't know. You guys love Sonos, and I've never had any of the bigger Sonos ones, but the itty bitty little tiny Sonos Rome got the short end of the stick somewhere and just I've had problems since day one. I love it. I love the form factor. I love that it's waterproof. It's it's it is my continues to be my shower podcast listening speaker. I love everything about it except the five minutes I have to spend before each shower getting it to work. You know, there is some Sonos news recently. Um first of all, I have a roam one and a move one and although I will concede that I almost never airplay to either of them, uh, on the rare occasions that I do, I don't typically have this problem. And it seems to me that there are two camps when it comes to sonos and airplay. And much like there are two camps with C E C. It's you're either a unicorn, which it appears I am in for both, as I you know knock furiously on wood, or you uh can't use either. And that seems to be John's predicament. So I'm not sure what to say about that. However, uh, I will say there's been actually a couple of developments in the Sonos ecosystem, particularly if you are a Ubiquity user. Um there was a version of Ubiquity Network, which is like the firmware for you know their networking devices, and the release video which I will probably forget to put in the show notes and I apologize but uh the release video specifically said something along the lines of for difficult ios io t uh io t devices and they have a video of like them using the user interface for the ubiquity stuff. And they specifically zoom in on like a Sonos devices. They're saying for difficult IoT devices. Uh, they have some stuff with um, what is it? STP, I believe? Span or uh Spanning Tree Protocol? Yeah, that's right. STP. Um, where that has never cooperated well with Ubiquity. Like Sonos apparently has a very old and slightly custom version of Spanning Tree Protocol, which my limited understanding means it's how they figure out like what the topology of the network is or something like that. I probably have that wrong. Doesn't matter. Um and so there's been some affordances in ubiquity stuff as of late that will let you turn that on and supposedly it works better with Sono stuff. I tried that with my Arc Ultra and tried plugging it into Ethernet, which previously the Ubiquity was like, oh my God, what are you doing? So I tried plugging my Sonos or my Arc Ultra into the Ethernet and it was it it wasn't you the Ubiquiti stuff wasn't angry, actively angry about it, but it just wasn't working well. And that was frustrating. So I took it and put it back on Wi-Fi. However, this week there's a new Sonosap update wherein you can enable or disable SonosNet. Now, I don't know if Marco or John for that matter, if you're familiar with SonosNet. Was this like their like custom Wi-Fi like secondary network they would run on. Yeah, so in the defense of Sonos, way back when, when they were brand new, Wi Fi was terrible in everyone's house. Even people with good Wi-Fi effectively had terrible Wi-Fi because the technology was just garbage. And so what they would do is they would set up their own not ad hoc, but I uh I guess semi-ad hoc, or their their own like peer-to-peer Wi-Fi network that was mostly invisible to anything but a Sonos device. And that's how they would often communicate amongst themselves. And that was a brilliant idea 10 years ago, whenever Sonos was new. But more than that. Sonos is much older than you think. Okay, there you go. So 15, 20 years ago, whatever it's been. So it was a genuinely brilliant idea then, maybe not so great now and it causes all sorts of problems uh among other things with spanning tree protocol and so um what they have announced this week is that they will they have added a switch in the Sonos app where you can turn off Sonos net for your entire system. And they actually have some like knowledge based documents or whatever they call their you know pulp docs. And uh they they talk about when should you use a wireless setup? When should you use a wired setup? What if you have like a kind of in the middle situation, which is what I was trying to do? Um, so I will I will link the knowledge base article in the show notes. Uh, but I have yet to experiment with this, I've had an incredibly busy week, one of the busiest weeks I've had in a long time. And so I haven't messed with this, but I am curious to see if this works at all. Because uh when I had my Eero system, which I'm mostly am kind of ambivalent about, um, the the Sono stuff actually worked great. Wired, wireless didn't matter when I switched to Ubiquity. Everything about my networking life got better except Sono stuff. And so I'm waiting for like the magic combination to get Sono stuff to work better with Ubiquity. And hopefully this is it. I'll have to follow back up at some point when I can mess with it. All right, let's do some follow-up. Uh first of all, I would like to bring us into uh Formula One corner, uh, where I finally able to watch a live broadcast of Formula One on Apple TV. If you recall, last time we talked about this, I had said that I'd watched a replay or you know a rerun of a race a day or two later, maybe even later that day. And none of the fancy schmancy affordances that you can get from F1 TV, you know, F1's bespoke um uh app and viewing system, none of those affordances seem to work on replays on Apple TV. And I was very excited to finally at some point be able to watch a race live. So you can see like the multiview and all that junk. And I finally watched the uh Montreal Grand Prix, which was very good and very weird. Uh, and I was able to try all this stuff live, and I will make this very brief because I know neither of you care at all and most of us most of the listeners m probably don't care too much. Correct. Um but suffice to say uh I did really like their feature that they they uh had uh talked about way back when this was all announced, where you can get the top three drivers. So imagine on your television, there's a large, like left of center, but effectively sort of kind of centered view of the live broadcast of the race where it's changing cameras all the time. And then on the right hand side, you've got three picture-in-picture sort of situations. I mean, well, I shouldn't say picture-in-picture. They're not overlaid on the broadcast, but you know what I'm saying? It's like a they're tiled. And so there's three top to bottom, and that's the top three drivers. And as the top three drivers change, it will change the three that are shown on the side, which I thought was really cool. I thought that worked really well. Uh, they also had multi-view in the spirit of F1 TV. However, in the interest, I think of be,ing simpler, in F1 TV, what you do is you swipe from on the Apple TV anyway, you swipe from right to left on your on your remote, and you get a list of all the different views you can have, the telemetry, the lap the lap the way they are in the course, like different uh tire situations, and all of the the onboard videos of all the twenty-two drivers. And you can just add and remove them willy-nilly. Well the way Apple TV does it is to start you, just select a team. So you select a pair of drivers. Once you do that, you can swap out and say, like have one McLaren driver and one Mercedes driver. But the way you activate multiview is you basically, select a pair of drivers, which isn't bad, but was very uh surprising to me. However, and John, uh, I know you probably are cheating, which I would be too if I were in your shoes, um, because you're looking at our internal show notes, but there was one critical issue with multi view. And John, could you guess what would make me upset or cheat and tell me what made me upset about the multiview as I was watching this race? I'm kind of surprised that this would be upsetting to you, and I'd love for you to explain to me why. It would be upsetting to me for sure, but why you? So the issue is they have an affordance to let you know you need to swipe down in order to get to other multi-view settings, right? The what that affordance is a chevron, a a downlooking chevron, which is fine, no issues there, except it never leaves your screen. And I have John Syracuse's head floating above my head saying, you know, you're gonna have that burnt in after a while. You shouldn't do that. And so I'm looking at my OLED TV. I mean, I know in it in the span of an hour or two it's not gonna be enough. But I feel like I just I am I'm cringing. I'm dying inside because there's this freaking down chevron that's just sitting stationary on the screen. And my LG OLED is from 2019, I believe. And I've noticed that when I mute it, it will it has, you know, a little mute icon that you know what it does it dances up and down the right hand side of the screen so you don't burn in or if you do it takes freaking forever because it's always you know it g it sits at one like y coordinate for I don't know 10 seconds and swaps to a different y coordinate for 10 seconds. This freaking Chevron, as far as I could tell, just sits there the entire time and it made me so upset. And so, all in all, uh, this is I guess one and a half thumbs up from me. It is very good. I still prefer F1 TV, which again, you get for free. Well, you get as part of you know your Apple TV plus one, whatever situation. Um, you can you can link your F1 TV app or your F1 TV account with your Apple TV account. And that's how I will probably watch races from now on, uh or in in continu as I have in the past. But if this is worth checking out if you're an American F1 fan, it was it was pretty good all in all. All right, let's talk about reminders. Uh Matthew Cave writes, why set an alarm type reminder? Well, it's because it allows you to set an alarm more than twenty four hours in advance. In my job, I often have deliverables for other countries, leading to tasks that must happen in the middle of the night. Previously I had to set reminders for the night before, that told me nothing other than set an alarm for this time. Now I can set it and forget it many days in advance. Not everyone has this use case or anything similar, but it's extremely useful for me. This is completely fair, but what's funny to me is that to my ears, Apple or excuse me, Matthew is describing the uh iOS app or uh they're on several several platforms, do DUE, which is perfect for this use case. But I get it. If that's not for you, that's totally fair. Well, but it if you want it I don't I'm sorry, I don't know if actually if do supports this feature. Um for a long time, third party apps could not have the same um abilities as the built-in alarm app in terms of overriding the silent switch and doing it disturb and things like that. There is now like an API or an entit lement to do that. Um, but most apps don't do it. But that that is now available to third parties as of I think you know maybe three ish years ago. But uh this uh this is a perfect example of why like I did I never thought of this because yeah if, you want the alarm behavior from the alarm app, it has to be just at the next instance of that time. So if if it is more than twenty-four hours ahead of time, can't do it. So that's that's a good reason. Alright, so we also talked, I think it was last week, about how you were trying to use SF symbols in the in Overcast in the context of a web view. And you were really struggling with that. And I don't think any of the three of us were particularly sure why that was such a struggle. Um, but uh a friend of the show, Clarko wrote in and said, the reason you can't use bare text SF symbols in WebKit is because they're not actually in the system font. On Mac OS you can use them in text if and only if you have the separate SF Pro font installed from Apple from the I guess the Apple developer site. And that's nearly impossible to do on iOS. Yeah, I had no idea. And this was like part of like as I was having AI kind of tell me like how are are there possible ways to get the vector data to you know so I could render an SVG into the web view uh for an SF symbol. And there were a few different approaches that were uh suggested to me or generated for me, most of which did not work, and some of some of which involve like tr ying to use the system font and like, oh yeah, that doesn't actually work. Or trying to like you know render it like get a list of every code point in the San Francisco you know in the system font and for some reason they don't appear in the list. Well, here's why. And then s sometimes there's like, oh, well, you can if you can figure out the private code point for each one. Like it so it seems like there are possibly workarounds, but they're terrible. And the the real workaround, which ended up fully implementing and um it is currently shipped in the overcast beta um is just to like have a web resource handler that runs locally in your app that like you call a special URL from the markup and it generates a a ping image that's rendered from like a Swift UI renderer of the SF symbol and it just serves it into the web view. So that's what I'm doing now. It's fine. It's not as like conceptually pure as putting a nice vector in there. But it it works just fine. All right. Vitor writes with regard to SVG and I I don't remember what the context was on this. Was this it was in the SF Symbols discussion. So can you could you could SVG fully encompass everything that SF symbols can do? Because Apple has extended SF symbols to have multiple colors and animation and stuff like that. And it was the question: can SVG do animation? And Marcus said, Oh, yeah, you can totally do animation. Well, here's some more on that. Right. So if a tour writes, yes, SVG can do animation and way more. Sarah Drasner has a fantastic talk on that, which is called SVG Can Do That . Uh, we will link this 40-minute talk on YouTube, which is basically like a demo reel of all the utterly freaking bananas stuff that SVG can do. I had no idea that like 90% of this was possible in SVG. Yeah. Well, because it supports, I think it supports most of CSS. Yeah, it's kind of like how uh you know, all valid HTML is technically valid markdown. They're just like SVG. It's a thing with graphics, but also anything that WebKit can do, we can basically do. Yeah, it it's really bananas. I'm not saying you necessarily need to watch all 40 minutes of this video, but it was astonishing to me all of these demos and all the stuff that SVG can do. I definitely learned quite a lot uh about what was possible. So might want to check it out if you're interested. All right. Uh then we had talked about at some point uh, pr I presume last episode, I don't know, my mind's is m is melting right now. I've had a big week, but uh we talked at some point about LLMs uh to run or or to at least come up with FFM peg commands uh to losslessly trim video. And Damien writes, I've been using the app lossless cut for the use case of FFM peg you described, and I can't live without it. Uh we will put a link in the show notes to the uh marketing page, but it is also on GitHub. Yeah, the context of this was I was we're talking about, I think, in the um maybe it was in like the vibe coded app section of some thing or whatever. The one of the main things I did with LM's asked them to do to make FFM pig commands for me to lossly trim stuff. Um since we had that discussion, I did vibecode myself a little basically like a tiny little toy Mac app that just runs the FFE MPEG commands for me. Uh so I don't have to ask a thing to do it. You know what I mean? Uh it'll just, you know, I just make an app and then I can use that. Uh and then this lossless cut thing is what everyone else is using, which is way more fancy and sophisticated and um much more capable of the tiny little toy thing that I made. But I will say, uh doing the toy app, rem itinded me, and I'm also reminded of this by seeing uh Jason Snell make one of his own little apps, uh vibe code one of his own little apps. Just how awful these LMs are at doing UI on the Mac. Like they have no idea what they should be doing. Like when when when I in my little vibe coded like you know, lossless trimming application, I just deleted the entire Swift UI view that was the main view. I'm like, just this is this is beyond repair. I just wrote it myself. It's like it's like three text fields and a button. Like, how can you mess this up? But it found a way. Uh, so I just wrote that myself. Um, and then I spent the rest of the time basically arguing with it about how I wanted the uh the text fields to work. Again, I should have just done it myself, but part of this is like experimentation and seeing what the capabilities of these models are. Um, because you know, there's a start and an end timestamp field, and I want them to be super duper flexible and allow me to yes write in the exact timestamp with colons between all the things and fractional seconds and stuff. But I also want to be able to type things like one minute five seconds, one M five S with and without spaces, min min, sex, sex, you know, like all the like I just want to be able to type anything that I could reasonably think of that I could type into this field and it should take it. And also, as I mentioned in an earlier discussion, like I wanted to implement that feature that all the uh the web dev tools have, which is if you put the insertion point in the minutes field and I hit the up arrow, it should make it go up a minute. And when it gets to 59, it should wrap. You know what I mean? Like just niceties of the fields. And I want when you first click in the field, I want it to select the entire value. But if I've edited the value and then I click in the field, I don't want it to select the entire value. You know, just the basic niceties of a Mac app and I think it's combination of LLMs having no idea how to make a decent net Mac app and also Swift UI and the Mac just like fighting you every step of the way. Like the control, the Mac controls and Swift UI, unlike the app kit controls, do not look and work uh correctly out of the box. Like you just uh I wanna have a label and a text field, a label and a text field and Swift UI is like, I don't know what you're talking about. Oh, you did you mean this? This this garbage that's nothing like the Mac ? Like, no, that's not what I meant. Like the defaults in Swift UI for the Mac are wrong and bad. Anyway, um, I did look at the I have the lossless cut thing and I'm gonna probably use that from now on because it's so much more capable. But I put my insertion point in the minutes field and also cut it hit the up arrow and it didn't do what I wanted. So it just it just put the insertion point at the beginning of the field, which is the right thing to do for a Mac text field, but you know, if your whole app is around trimming to the beginning the end, maybe add some nicety. So I'll probably maybe I'll use my little trimmer thing too. Oh and it's so clear by the way that the LMs had seen the source to lossless cut, which is open source, because a lot of the things they implemented in my trimming app use like words and phrases for particular settings that are exactly from lossless cut. So yeah. Good job, LLMs. Uh I'd like to call this what about corner, where we have a couple of entries. Uh Julian Gamble writes with regard to using a web view in Overcast. Uh, isn't it incongruous to on one hand say that electron apps are terrible and on the other say that WebViews in your app are great because WebKit is amazing technology. Uh no, it isn't. Uh for a couple of reasons. First of all, Electron isn't WebKit, right? Uh it's uh what you want to call 'em that Chrome uses. Chromium. Not that it matters, but yeah. I mean, that's fair. Uh, but secondly, it's the I feel like it's quite a bit different to have an entire app running in the context of the web as opposed to leveraging the web for the things that it's good at in the context of a native app. I mean, that I I don't feel like it's incongruous at all uh if you think about it for more than a moment. I do understand what Julian's saying, but I I don't think it's unreasonable in any way, shape, or form. No, well, because there's there' s a huge difference between using WebKit or or Electron or whatever, you know, using that to render a rich text area versus using it for your entire UI. Um WebKit is incredibly good at rendering rich text. Like that's what it's made for. That's what it was designed for from the start. And while you can implement entire application UIs in WebKit, uh like it it is technically possible, but those tend to be worse in all these different ways than full native UIs using native controls and native A native APIs. It isn't to say it's impossible to make good UI uh with WebKit. It's just unlikely. Like you you can try and you're probably not gonna succeed. Whereas if you're trying to render rich text and and do very do a lot of advanced things with text layout, you know, th like text with embedded images and stuff around the text, or you know, different having issues like I was talking about last week with text selection between different text nodes and everything. Webkit specializes in that, and as good as WebKit is at that, the native controls are as bad at those things as WebKit is bad at UIs. So while it is possible to make good UIs in WebKit, you probably won't. And while it is possible to make good rich text displaying features with native apps, you probably won't. The great thing is native apps give us the option to use both. You can have native controls for most of your app where native controls really excel, and you can use WebKit in an embedded web view somewhere where you actually need rich text and the things that come along with it. So this is a this is a an important distinction, but one that nobody really needs to make as a purist, because you can just use both for what they're good at. And speaking of uh WebKit and Electron apps and LLMs and vibe coding apps, when you ask them to make a Mac app, the UIs they come up with look like web UIs, down to like having like blue maybe it's not always underline, but like blue clickable text and like like the conventions of the web appear and they think this is this a Mac UI? I'm like, well, I can see why you might think that. I mean to be fair, like that's a Johnny Ive Mac UI. Like that's like Apple has made a lot of Mac UIs that look exactly like that. But and also like Electron apps, obviously a lot of electron apps look like that as well. So that's I mean, it's you can be forgiven. Like maybe the LMs can be forgiven because it's like the point I was making to Jason is like uh these LMs don't know how to make a good Mac app. But then again, these days neither does Apple. So yeah, like what do you what do you expect them to learn from? So we're we're in a dark time with Mac UIs here, but but yeah, the first shot out of the box from LLM, hey make me a Mac app with Swift UI. And it's like, is this what you wanted? And it it looks like a freaking webpage. And that's all with native controls, by the way. Like there's multiple layers of this. There's Electron as the technology, and there's also like what does the UI look like? And they are somewhat connected in that one leads you in a particular direction. But you can you can use fully native Swift UI and make a UI that looks like a web app. All right. And then continu ing the what about corner uh Wym ar or something like that writes, uh, does John's skepticism about using the move command modifiers in the Finder extend to using the Unix MV command or move command? If so, why? If not, what do you think is different between the two? Wouldn't they be built similarly? Yeah, my objection was uh to using a modifier of the finder that turns what would be a copy operation into a move operation. That's where the danger lies. Not just like moving a file within a volume on the finder, because that is just going to end up doing like essentially a rename system call under the covers and like that's exactly the same as the MV command. But it's like when you're doing something across volumes, if you drag a file from one volume to another, you see the little plus badge appear on your cursor because it's telling you, hey, I'm gonna copy this. Uh and if you hold down command, it will go away and say, oh no, actually I'm gonna move it. And copying it is fine, obviously. Moving it is a basically a two-step operation because it can't actually move it with the like you know the the system call that would actually move a file because it's a different volume. It has to first copy it over there, and then when it's done copying, it has to delete the source. And there at various times the finder has had bugs where that process could mess up where it's like I've successfully copied it and I've deleted the source, and you look at the place where we're supposed to copy it and it's not there, but the source is also deleted. That's what I'm saying to avoid. So it's really no connection to the MV command. I believe the MV command would not work across volume, so don't quote me on that because I haven't actually tried it uh on the Mac or in any yeah, in any recent Unix for that matter. Um but yeah, that don't don't worry about just like moving a file in the finder by like dragging it from one folder to another within a volume. That's perfectly fine. All right, let's talk about APF S on spinning hard drives. David David McKeeich writes, I've recently switched back to using Time Machine. I've had issues with degrading performance on APFS hard drives in the past, so I decided to enable defragmentation using the disk util command line tool. Today I learned that you can defrag any PFS disk. I had no idea. Uh anyway, uh there's some uh details on this that I think John you'd like to cons to add to the. Yeah, the command is just uh disk util APFS defragment and then the disk name and then enable. Uh so you're enabling defragmentation and I think the disk the man page is okay about this, but I think what they want you to put in the disk is something like DISC3 or DISC III S1. You can get that info from using Disk Util to list your devices and stuff. But anyway, it's not particularly friendly, but you can figure it out. And the Disk Util man page says this about the APFSD fragment enable feature. It's manage automatic background defragmentation of user file data. That's a mouthful, but the point is this is not a command that you run and it does defragmentation. This enables quote unquote automatic background defragmentation. I don't know why it says of user file data as opposed to what? Like, is it just saying that it doesn't do it on the read-only system volume? But anyway, that feature exists. I would only use that on spinning disks and not on SSDs, but just FYI, it's there. All right. And then we'll also put a link to uh an NJ Psy roundup in the show notes. Uh David continues. I've enabled this on two drives, a drive for projects and a backup drive, and so far so good. Does this defrag option really help? When does it run? Why is it hidden away? And additionally, should Apple create a subset of APFS specifically for spit for spinning hard drives to address these issues? So if you follow the MJ SI link, you'll see that a lot of people are reporting that it does help. I never ran it on my spinning disk. I probably should have. Um I'm assuming if the command exists that it actually does something and that it runs in the background. And I think the reason it's hidden away is because spinning disks are a legacy thing as far as Apple's concerned. And so they're not going to emphasize anything related to them. I'm I'm actually kind of surprised that it exists at all, but it probably just exists from back when they were first developing APFS and they didn't SSD adoption would go. Uh they didn't have an eye towards that working well on on uh on spinning disks, but they figure, well, maybe we we should have this defragmentation feature uh anyway, maybe it'll help on SSDs. I'm assuming Apple determine that it doesn't really help at all on SSDs, so that's why it's kind of buried in obscure backwater. We've talked about APFS features before that technically exist but have either been abandoned or just like left in an incomplete state for years and years. So this may fall into that category, but it is officially supported All right, let's talk about A I sentiments. We talked about this. Was this overtime last week, I believe? Um it was like the main topic. Oh, my bad. All right, my bad. Uh, anyways, we talked about you know how everyone is crotchety about AI, which is fair. Uh Nathan writes: one thing y'all might have missed in the long list of AI objections thanks to your self-employment, workplace behavior. Imagine, imagine the dumbest, laziest, most malicious person you've ever worked with. Now arm them with a tool that can generate mountains of reports, Jira tickets, internal documentation spam, and sprawling poll requests with dozens of copilot comments, hundreds of change files, thousands of change lines, and a long nonsensical description. They bury the rest of us in slop in the execs applauded. Woof. Nathan does make me glad that I left that world before LM Coding Agents came along, but uh a lot of uh bad workplace experiences begin with the premise that is imagine the dumbest, laziest, most malicious person you ever worked with. I have no problem imagining that person. I've worked with that person. Technology can enable them to be worse. Uh, there's lots of those people. Hopefully, I've never been that person, but yeah, that person's gonna find a way to make everyone's life miserable no matter what. But I can imagine oh I'm coding agents being an accelerant in particular for developers of that band. I think one thing I wanted to address on um on the AI sentiment angle. I think one of the biggest things to keep in mind when when when thinking about what do regular people who are not tech enthusiasts like us, what do they think of AI , where are they seeing AI? In most of the world that's not having fun generating Mac apps with AI, they are seeing AI make their lives worse in a few ways. So either if they work in a field that AI is destroying the market for, that's going to directly impact them in a really big , possibly very negative way. But also everyday life when you call a call center, now you're hitting AI agents. When you try to get customer support, now you're hitting AI agents. Customer support in general is now being made significantly worse in lots of areas because now they're putting AI agents in front in front of you know betwe between you and getting your problem solved by your somebody who actually has you know the power to do it. I've seen this myself, and I'm sure everyone else is seeing it even more than I am. So, what most people see about the world of AI is things in their life are being made worse. And they don't necessarily see the upside for them because maybe there isn't one, or at least maybe there isn't one yet, or maybe there isn't one directly. So what what most people are seeing is AI is making my life more annoying , or it's making it harder for me to make a living, and they're not seeing the upside. Also, AI is now being added to a bunch of subscription based products, and then the prices are going up and the companies are saying, we're down, we're now deliver ing you so much more value with our new AI bot that's in our product and therefore we need to raise our price and the people are like well what if I don't want that and I don't want to pay the m the higher price can I just keep paying the old price and not have your stupid AI that I didn't ask you're shoving in my face. So I think we really have to be aware of like what most people are actually seeing from quote AI, like the world of AI that they're seeing, I think for a lot of people, it's just making their lives harder or more annoying or harder to make money in. Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. I I think just AI being force fed to everyone is just not great. And think about, you know, too, like where is all this value that's being created, where's it going? It's going to a few companies at the top. That's where it's going. Like there's lots of ways that AI can make individual workers more productive. It can help small businesses. Like there's lots of ways that it can help and that it is helping. But where most of the value now, like so far, is going, is it's making a few very rich people even richer. And that's a pretty bad selling proposition for everyone else whose lives are being made worse by AI being you know destroying their job or being used in places that make their lives you know harder to harder to to get around in. Ian Robinson, continuing the AI sentiment chat, Ian Robinson said, You mentioned legislators mandating that data center construction should include clean energy production. Ireland has done exactly that. We'll link to Ireland tells data center developers to bring their own clean energy. Ian continues. See also the Irish government LEAP, which is Large Energy User Action Plan Program, which we will also link to in the show notes. All right. Then we also had a hilarious pedapix Peta Petapixel. I don't know how to pronounce it. P-E-P-A-Pixel. There you go. Thank you. This is Michael Zhang writing it. Someone shared an actual Monet painting as an AI generated artwork and asked people to explain what makes the quote-unquote AI image inferior to a genuine Monet piece. So again, they're baiting people by putting up an actual painting from the actual Monet and saying, oh, what was what do you think is wrong with this AI piece? And the responses are just incredible. John has been kind enough to curate a few for us. Uh the first one, there's no cohesion to the depth and color choices. The reflection of the tree blends into the lily pads with no regard for spatial depth or contrast. The background lily pad algae amalgam is egregiously vague, like most AI art. The second uh example. The reflection in AI art is just noise splattered right. Monet actually understood how light behaves on water. Third one, slop. Doesn't look anywhere near like a Monet. Looks exactly like somebody trying to replicate style in achieving like 20% of it. Not as vibrant as Monet's typical choice of colors. Looks dull. Finally. And amateur art as an amateur art enjoyer, the only criticism I can offer is the AI generated image does not make me feel anything. It does not conjure emotion, thought, or wonder. It's just a colorful wallpaper pattern. If you look up Monet painting in Google Google Images, you feel something. Just incredible work, everyone. So this I I put this article in here, not to dunk on people who don't don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every single Monet painting, but just to show that this is an embodiment of the sentiment about AI. Because most people aren't art experts and they don't know every painting and they don't know like, you know, not every Monet painting is as good as all the other ones, right? Like any other human's output, right? So, but it's just like because they were primed with this is an AI image, all of their sort of vitriol for the basic concept of AI comes streaming out and they end up, you know, making fools of themselves by saying that uh this is like 20%. Or maybe one A would agree. Maybe you say, yeah, this is one of my 20% paintings. It took me a little while to find this one. We'll we'll link to uh uh Wikiped ia um page showing that yes, this is in fact actually a Monet paint, a real Monet painting. And I guess some people didn't like it. But yeah, this is just this is really just like if you tell me it's AI, I'm I'm uh We are sponsored this episode by Squarespace, the on one website platform designed to help you stand out and succeed online. Whether you're just starting out or scaling your business, Squarespace gives you everything you need to claim your domain name, showcase your offerings with a professional website, grow your brand, and get paid all in one place. So of course Squarespace gives you everything you need to offer your services and get paid from consultations to events to experiences. You can showcase your offerings with a customizable website designed to attract clients and grow your business. Then you can get paid on time with professional on-brand invoices and online payments. And you can streamline your workflow with built-in appointment scheduling and email marketing tools. Of course, Squarespace supports all kinds of businesses too. If you sell goods, physical or digital, maybe you have member content or All of this is backed by Squarespace's cutting edge design tools. So anyone, whether you're not a coder or not a designer or whatever, anyone can build professional, beautiful online pres ences that perfectly fit your brand or business. They have wonderful AI tools to help you get started. And what you create is yours. It isn't just like a cookie cutter template. It looks like what you want it to look like. And they don't all look the same. They can actually looks like your site, your brand. You can direct it, you can edit it, you can move stuff around, whatever you want to do on Squarespace. They, of course, have all sorts of support for things like analytics and SEO tools. So you can, you know, direct your business with insights from actual data from how people are actually using your site. And so much more. Email campaigns, global shipping options. There's so much at Squarespace. Check it out today by starting a free trial at squarespace.com slash ATP. Build the whole site in trial mode. You can see for yourself without giving them a dime. You can see how well it works for you. When you're ready to launch, use offer code ATP to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. So squarespace.com slash ATP to get started and when you're ready to purchase offer code ATP for 10% off. Thank you so much to Squarespace for sponsoring our show. If you'll permit us, there's been some pretty big news in the car world, and so we're going to do a main show neutral, and this is in no small part because it has been requested many, many times . John John, your future car has arrived. The I'm sure extraordinarily affordable Ferrari Luce, uh, which is uh apparently starting at about the equivalent of six hundred fifty thousand dollars. So let me just drop here at p.fm slash join. Uh this from the outside. No amount of members is gonna get us into this car. I'm sorry. You never know. Don't be defeated, John. Don't be defeated. If every per if every person in the United States became a member, we'll see how we do. Yeah, right. All right. So here's the thing from my personal opinion. We'll go through the specs. Uh, but my personal opinion is from the outside, this is an abomination. From the inside, it looks great. But let's talk about what it is.. All right So the specs are it is a five-seat, you know, as you would expect of an average sedan, four-door liftback sedan Ferrari. Uh, I don't they've never done a sedan, is that right? That's not an SUV or something along those lines. Well, I'm gonna debate you on whether this is a sedan , but uh the the the para the parasatangway is a uh four-door four seat. It doesn't have a third seat and it doesn't have a middle seat in the back seat. So this is their first five seat ever. All right, thank you for the correction, John. Uh so yeah, this is five seats, four doors. It's lift back. But what's interesting is the rear doors open, I guess you could say backwards. So if you imagine the side of the car where the the front door opens , like where the on the B pillar where the front door opens, that is also where the rear door begins to open, which is different than almost every sedan that you've ever seen. I think a lot of Rolls Royce's do this. There's been plenty of cars in the past that do this. I have a car in my garage that does this. Oh, that's true. The i3 does that doesn't. And the f Ferrari's on Perosignway does this. Ah, there you go. Uh and also I think that this was most perhaps most famously for people of our age. Uh whatever was a it was a Lincoln, I think, that was in the original Matrix that did this as well. I want to say it was a continental. I probably have that. Well it's very common. It was it's been common more in the past than uh you know lots of fancy cars have done it, I think, as a throwback to the past, but occasionally. I think the reason the i3 does it is when you have a rear door that's very, very tiny, it's just easier to have it open that way and just have one big opening. Didn't Honda Element do this as well? Oh no I believe that's right. Yeah the Honda Element I think doesn't have a B pillar. But anyway, they chose to do that with their back doors. They were sort of rear hinged . Yep. Uh it has one thousand thirty-five horsepower, seven hundred and thirty pound feet of torque, which is quite a lot. For perspective, if you're not a car person, my uh Volkswagen has somewhere around three hundred horsepower and 300 pound feet of torque. I don't think that's entirely right, but it's in the ballpark. It is a quad motor, all-wheel drive car. There is a motor per wheel, which is pretty cool. I think what did the original launch edition Rivians have? Like two in the style. Rivian, you can still get a Rivian with a motor pro wheel, right? Yeah, you can. They they used the the original one, like the one I had was Quad Motor. Um that was the first batch they sold, I think were all quad motors. But then of course that's that's fairly expensive and and cumbersome. And so they they fairly quickly after that uh launched like dual and eventually tri-motor versions. Oh yeah. I I knew about the tri. I hadn't realized that the launch edition or whatever it was was quad myself. Couple other car EVs that also have uh motor per wheel. It is uh is a straightforward thing to do. It helps you avoid lots of uh issues with like torque vectoring differentials and stuff. You just put a motor on each wheel. Yeah. Uh it has around three hundred and thirty miles of range, which is about five hundred thirty kilometers, a 122 hour kilowatt hour battery, 0 to 60 in about 2.5 seconds, which is pretty solidly in supercar territory as far as I'm concerned. Maybe not when you consider electric vehicles, but amongst you know gasoline vehicles, that is astonishingly fast. It is just over 5,000 pounds, which is about 2300 kilograms. It can charge as fast as 3 50 kilowatts and starts, as I mentioned, at about six hundred fift,y thousand dollars uh but that's unofficial because US pricing has yet to be announced. So from the outside, I think the first person I saw say this was Stephen Hackett, if I'm not mistaken, although many people have said it since. This is like Johnny Ive shipped the magic mouse as a car. And what why am I even bringing up Johnny Ive? I should have explained a little bit. So when Ferrari was designing this, they actually contracted Love From, which is Johnny Ive, Mark Newsome, and their whole team to do basically all of the design for this car, despite the fact that Ferrari has its own in-house design team. And they have done nearly all the design. And from the outside, I hate this thing. It's gotten, I hate it less now that it's been that I've been sitting with it for several days, but I really maybe I don't hate it, but I really don't like it like a lot, a lot. John, what do you think about it? Well, uh, this is where I get to before you're saying that calling this a sedan . Uh when I saw this car, I'm like, oh, it's Jaguar iPace. Uh if you don't know what a Jaguar iPace is, picture a Waymo in your head because Waymo uses the Jaguar iPace as the foundation of its Waymo cars in San Francisco. I think they have used a couple of different cars, but the the what I think the most common one on the street these days is the Jaguar iPass. The Jaguar iPace is not a sedan . Okay. It is not really an SUV. It's kind of like a crossover thing. I really need to sort of codify this in some way. Uh, because I I instinctively know it when I looked at these vehicles, but I think maybe one of the measurements would be like distance from the top of the front wheel arch to the top of the hood. Um you know maybe the points where the windshield intercepts. But anyway, the the eye pace looks like a very sleek four-door SUV-ish kind of thing. It doesn't look like a sedan. It's too upright and tall to be a sedan . And the the Ferrari Luce is similar that I don't, especially since you don't really get an idea from these pictures how big it is to give you you an idea if're a car person and you look at this and you haven't seen the videos already, the the wheels are twenty four and twenty three inches. Oh my god. They don't look like that in the picture. Because if you think this is like a sedan , rearrange your measurements because that's a 24-inch wheel on the and now and now look at it and think if that's a 24-inch wheel, how high is this thing? Now it is lower than the perosangue, which is uh Ferrari's quote unquote SUV, but I wouldn't call this a sedan , but these days, like sit every sedan, like even like the Toyota Crown, I look at it, I'm like, are you still a sedan ? I'm not sure because everything's gotta be tall and upright and look like an SUV. But yeah, it totally looks like an eye pace, which is not uh a terrible thing to imitate because I think the iPace is actually a reasonably attractive vehicle. Yeah. In fact, I think the iPace is significantly better looking than this Ferrari. I mean it is not it is less Johnny I've been a S Ferrari for sure, but uh this car does not particularly appeal to me. There's a couple of areas where I feel like Johnny really blew it or the team really blew it on this. Um one question I had that I didn't see answered at any of the interviews, and granted I didn't see all the interviews. We'll link to the ones that we talk about here and we'll talk about a couple of them in more depth. But and the ones I looked at, I didn't see anyone ask them the question. I think I know the answer, but I would love to see them answer answer it, which is did Ferrari come to love from and say you have to make a four-door five-seat vehicle like or was that a decision of love from because I feel like that feel like that changes things a lot. I'm assuming Ferrari came to them because the way Ferrari revealed this car is they said here, is our you know, battery with motors and wheels and suspension and nothing else. Do you remember when they showed that? Oh, yes. Was that different from when Johnny Ives showed the only the dashboard? Right. And then and then later they showed only the dashboard and we talked about it on this show. And we're gonna talk about it again here, but they revealed the fully entire interior, but not inside anything, just disembodied, like here's the wheel. Here's the like it's just the pieces of it. We're just floating around. So now we get to see them in context with the whole rest of the interi or. I believe the word you're looking for, John, is deconstructed. Yeah. And then finally they revealed the entire thing. So I'm assuming that Ferrari said you have to make a four-door five-seat thing. And by the way, here's the measurements, because we've got the like the the you know, the battery, the the motors, like love from didn't sign that. So that's Ferrari's engineering that came up with that. They said, here are your constraints. Now build a car on top of this, which as one of the points was made in one of the interviews, like it's pretty much a blank canvas because of the way EVs are. It's like, well, you've got a big long flat floor because of that battery. There's no tunnel or anything. So like whatever you want to do car wise on top of this, you only have a very few hard points that you have to meet. You've got the the top of the suspension geometry, you've got the wheelbase, and that's basically it. You could do anything you want. They could have made it lower, they could have made it taller, they could have made it longer, they could have made it shorter in terms of overhangs and stuff, right? And maybe they even could have adjusted the wheelbase. Um, but if that's the design brief, which is you're gonna make a four-door electric Ferrari with five seats, uh, what they came up with, as everyone has pointed out, and as uh the verge and its typical blunt uh headlines pointed out. Uh here's this is what their headline said. Johnny Ives Ferrari looks nothing like a Ferrari. I said this about the interior. I said that when we saw the pieces of the interior, this doesn't look like a Ferrari interior. It looks like an interior that Johnny Ives company would make. And they put Ferrari badges on it and stuff. Um and the car is similar. And to Ferrari's creditslash I don't know as as way of explanation , this is not a uh Ferrari is pitching this as this is not uh a mistake. That the idea was make make this car and don't worry about what Ferraris look like. This is like a separate thing. In fact, going so far as having the C, I believe the CEO of the company was saying, if you love internal combustion Ferraris, don't buy this car. Because because duh, I mean, like, you know, but but the point is they're not saying, Hey, do you love internal combussian Ferraris? Well, they're you're gonna love this EV. The CEO is saying, no, you won't. You won't love this, not it's not the thing. And their designer made the point in one of the interviews that we're gonna link to, which is a somewhat fair point, but on the other hand, not quite fair. He said, Well, in Ferrari, we don't make cars that look like each other. Um, and that's not true of a lot of car makers. I mean, not to pick on Volvo, but look at Volvo. If you look at Volvo's entire lineup, you'll see a family resemblance. Like some of them might be fraternal twins. They look very similar. Design elements from a given like design language of Volvo are spread across the entire line. Whereas if you look at every individual Ferrari model, yeah, there is commonality and, in fact, I would say more so now than there used to be, but every individual car is like its own shape, its own thing. And so I said, well, this one's just another one. It's also its own shape. That's true. It doesn't borrow from other cars just the same way, like the you know, the the SF90 doesn't borrow from the the F430 or whatever. But this one, like one of these things, is not like the other. You line up the entire Ferrari um car lineup, including the Perosangue, which is this existing four-door, four-seed quote unquote SUV that looks very similar to this in terms of proportion and shape, but in it looks nothing like it if you said put them next to each other. So this is intentionally outside the realm of Ferrari. It's an EV. It's not trying to be an internal combustion engine. It's not trying to look like a Ferrari. And in that regard, it has succeeded in not looking like a Ferrari because it does not look like a Ferrari. And as as for whether it looks good or not, I have my pic ks for which aspects of it I like the least, but uh what what are your least favorite parts of the outside of this car? I I have to say I don't I don't hate it as much as everyone else does . Um, but those the doors. Oh no . The doors are bad. That's like to me, like that's that's the one big problem I have with it is those those backwards opening doors because I have like TIFF my wife's car has those backwards opening doors and it makes the car so annoying to get in and out of. If any one's in the backseat, like anyone. Like it's you have to like, you know, squeeze around, like, oh, you go in, no, you go ahead first. No, you go in. Like if you're if you're between like if you're parked in a parking lot, a regular parking lot, like with you know spots that line up you know that way like squeezing around the door to get the backseat door open and get it like it's such a pain in the butt and I think okay well why did they do that? And I look at the shape of the car and I'm like he didn't need that. Like it almost I think it would have been better off just as a two-door car. Well th it's this is a really big car. Like that's the thing that I was trying to get across with the size of the wheels. Like I know the I3 is tiny and the back the little rear hinge back doors are also tiny. But there is tons of interior space in this car. There these door this door is big. But what you to your point, if you want to see this, we'll link one various links in the notes where you can see pictures of it. But a lot of them shows the overhead view of the car with all four doors open. And the point Marco is making is if you look at that picture, you can see that the aperture for the front and rear passenger is narrow, and both the front and rear passenger have to go through that little narrow opening. That's what you're talking about. Like, oh no, you first. No, you why are you saying that? If if were they were normal opening doors, the person going in the front door would have their little place where they go, and the person opening the back door would have their little place where they go, and they would both open their doors simultaneously and they would both get into the car. But here, the when you open the doors, you're creating one slightly narrower passage that both people have to pass through to get to their entrance into the car. And that is silly. Um it's not as dumb as the Falcon Wing doors on the Model X. And I'm sure it is inspired by the various Bentleys that Johnny Ive owns and stuff. And by the way, for his obsession with symmetry, because hey, look from above. It looks nice and symmetrical, doesn't it? Uh but it's worse. It's worse than regular doors. I also I I do not like what they have done to the the front face. Like the the way it kind of like it's like almost inset a little bit. Like I m don't not set a lot. There are parts of the front, especially like the like the way like that like how the the way that the dashboard slopes down into like the hood area. There are parts of it that actually remind me a lot of the BMW I-8 . And and I actually I think the I-8 , while it was a very weird car, I think it's actually a very striking and very weird. The I-8 is way better looking than this car. But yes, I I have to agree. Can see like it's it's going for a similar style there, but I think the IA does a much better job of it. Um and the way the tail light section is kind of like inset also , it it almost feels like somebody took a Ferrari and stuck a really weird body kit around it. Um and I I don't know. I the other thing though is that it is very, very clear to me that as you were saying, this is a Johnny Ive designed car. This is not a Ferrari in any way, shape, or form. I actually think parts of this are very cool looking. And the interior definitely looks better than the exterior, no question. Yes. 100%. Like I the interior I think is very nice and I would like much of that or all of that in in a car of mine. Um but yeah, the exterior it just looks like yeah, this this is what Johnny I've has been trying to do for like fifteen years was design this car and Ferrari let him do it. And for all the good and bad that comes with a Johnny Ive that's, you know, in in this in his fully developed form with no one to hold him back anymore, this is what happens. And there's a lot of good there and there's a lot of bizarre and weird there. Um and and I I do I I don't want to gloss over the fact that much of it though is very good. I do like a lot of this. And in fact, if this was, you know, suppose this was just like you know, a high-end BMW or Mercedes, you know, if this was like a $90,000 EV from a luxury brand, that would be competing with like you know the the former Model S and the BMW IX and stuff like that like yeah that would actually be a a pretty compelling uh option. But where it is now trying to trying to be a Ferrari, trying to embody Ferrari spirit and design and you know priced as a Ferrari priced vehicle. I I don't quite know who this is for besides Johnny himself. Oh, I can tell you who it's for, but we'll get to that in a little bit. Casey, what's your least favorite exterior aspect? Uh I think the turbine style wheels, which you see sometimes, they are freaking terrible. You were talking about the arrow ones, the ones that are like dinner plates. Like that's that's kind of the problem. The curse of the curse of EVs is if you get the wheels, the wheel covers that cover the entire wheels, it's better for your mileage, but they look worse. Yes. Yeah, like the the Tesla model three ones, I can't envision them just off the top of my head, but I remember thinking they were not good, but not nearly as offensive as these are. It's pretty bad. I also don't like that there's a grab handle on the front, like not literally, of course, but like you know, where the Ferrari logo is, there's a gap beneath the Ferrari logo where the body isn't, if that makes sense, and on the front. So like where there would be a hood, there's like a floating sort of situation, which it has a front and rear wing. It's the same thing in the back as well. It's basically got a full width front wing and a full width rear wing. I don't mind it as much in the back. In fact, I don't think the back looks that bad, but I really dislike basically everything going on in the front. I'm not as offended by the rear doors. I don't disagree with what you two were saying with it with it being difficult or more difficult for ingress and egress. I don't debate that. But from an aesthetic point of view, I don't really mind them opening the way they do. I don't care for theel weird pan in the front doors, like the black panel that's hanging out for some reason. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I don't know why. Um, but uh on the exterior, I just I really don't care for it. I I extremely don't care for it as a Ferrari, and I don't think I particularly care for it as anything nicer than like a Kia. And I I don't love it. Um, I don't know what I think also about the windshield wipers. They made a big deal in one of the videos uh that I watched. They made a big deal about the fact that the windshield wipers park vertically rather than horizontally. Why? There was a reason that I can't recall. I think it's I can tell you why as well. So this is this is one of my pet peeves with uh what uh very expensive cars are doing with their windshield wipers these days. So um the windshield wipers when they are not windshield wiping, in their at-rest position. They are positioned on the A-pillars. That means vertically on the left, far left and far right edge of the windshield. That's where they sit, straight up on the edges of the windshield, going from the top to the bottom of the A pillars. The reason that they explained why they're there is because, as Marco uh mentioned before, like that the windshield slopes down underneath the front wing essentially. It's not clear to me because I haven't seen enough things whether the windshield glass ends and then another piece of glass continues, or whether it's one continuous piece of glass or whether it's glass and metal, but either way, the shape defined by the windshield continues all the way to the nose of the car underneath the front wing. And therefore, if the windshield wipers rested where they do on a normal car horizontally, there's no place to hide them from the wind. On a normal car, there's like a cowl where the windshield wipers kind of tuck into the little cowl when they're not windshield wiping, so the airflow goes over them and doesn't hit them. And so they needed some place because if they put the windshield wipers there, they would be directly in the airflow that is coming under the front wing and they they're on their way up the smooth glass over the top of the car, they would hit these gigantic windshield wipers. So instead the windshield wipers are vertical, so they not're in the airflow that is going to smoothly go over the windshield and through the back of the car. They're still in the airflow over the A-pillars, but the A-pillars are already there. So they're kind of hiding in that position. It looks weird. It looks weird when they're moving. And I really the trend I don't like is windshield wipers that are vertical when not in use. The one that kills me the most is one of my favorite cars and one of my like uh money no object. What car would you want? The um GMA T50 uh has a one of those windshield wipers that is vertical when not in use and it's dead in the center of the windshield, just straight up. When when it's a sunny day, that's just vertically straight up in the center of the windshield, right in your field of view. And it's just like, Wow. No, no, thanks. I don't like that. Please stop it. But uh yeah, this one they hit it by the eight pillars. And I think it screws up the look of the car because you're always looking at these giant windshield wipers, whereas if they had a if they had an integrated little c owl, when it's not raining, you wouldn't see the windshield wipers, they'd be hidden away. But I'm looking at a picture of a GMA T50 and the windshield wipers are horizontally where you would expect them to be, like center mounted. Maybe I'm maybe I'm thinking of the T thirty three. I might be off. One of the one of the GMA cars has a vertical windshield wiper. Or it might be the T fifty S or something like that. Check check the T thirty. No, it looks like the T thirty. I think you must have T thirty. That is freaking terrible. Yeah, my bad. T thirty three is also probably T33. I think that's why T33 is the car I'd probably rather have because the all the central seating position on the T50 is great. It's annoying to get in and out of. So I'd probably actually want a T33, but it's got the windshield wiper there. Yeah, that would kill it for me. That's like you know, that's even worse than no car play, as far as I'm concerned. Here's my take on the exterior of this car. Um I agree with what Marco said that the back of the car looks weird because it looks like there is like a Ferrari 360 or in like that. This car eight. Um they I mean it's again, if you you'll have to look at the images to get what this looks like, but it's like here's the back of a car, but it's like hollow and inside it is another little car screaming to get out. And they emphasize this in some of their design videos. The official design for videos from Ferrari, he's like, look, we have this kind of like the part that is in black, because it's a two-tone type of thing. Like the body is like red in these examples, and like the canopy is black, and so is the roof is black. Um, take off the red part, and what you have is just this smooth kind of black lozenge that slopes really, really low down on the front and really, really low down on the back, and then put the red part onto the car, and the red part forms the front wing and the back wing and some side cladding on it or whatever. So they're emphasizing like there's an inner car and an outer car. And I think in the front, maybe that's okay, although from the side it does look like a literal open mouth. Like you can see from the side, the front of this car, the silhouette of this car has a C-shaped mouth at the front that you can see. Like literally there's just nothing there. It's just it's a C it's a little mouth. Um and then the back, it looks like that's their non-te Ferrara, like those two four circular headlights, the the 4030 had them and the 360 had them. I'm not sure if it's been you know, but that's Ferrariism. There that is the probably the only part of this car that looks like a Ferrari. If you're following it at night, you'd be like, oh, is that a Ferrari? Because you see the headlights. Uh that's like a signature headlight pattern. Um, I think it was Casey mentioned the black thing behind the front wheels. This I feel like is one of the worst things on this entire car. This I believe this is a real vent. It's to relieve pressure from the front wheel wells. Lots of cars have these i'm sure you can think of lots of cars that have things there um the worst sin of this particular black thing uh uh well first of all it's they they've emphasized it by not making a body color so it stands out more um and I I mean I can't tell if this is just a trick of the images. I think it's not a trick of it, I think it's a real thing. Um look at it in a dead on side view. That black vent thing uh is not per pendicular with the ground. It is tilted forward, which means that were you to draw a line from the front of that to the back of that, it would point upwards, not exactly horizontal. In other words, when the car is speeding along the road , you would uh what you want are like speed lines that are windswept that are exactly parallel to the ground in the direction of travel. But this thing leads your eye not in the direction of travel, but slightly up, like it's tilted so that it is equidistant from the front cut line for the front door. But that's not what you want to do. You want something that makes a car look fast and streamlined. You don't want it to be canted forward. You want it to be look like the wind has shaped it. What a a what terrible mistake. Like it makes the whole front of the car very awkward. Like I just feel like going to Photoshop, taking that and going like move it back, rotate it, and just that that's the least of this car's problems, John. It's one of the worst things because this is such a common design element on tons of tons of cars, and they've found a way to screw it up that I've never seen anyone do before. Like this this is emphasized a few times in the interviews, even from Ferrari people, and I'm like the the Ferrari's head designer, I forget what his name is. Uh makes the point when he's sitting there with Johnny Ive in one of the interviews. That like, and don't forget, this is the first car you've ever designed. It's like, we can tell. We can tell. Don't forget, you're not car designers. Like, yeah, no, I know. Like good is a good for it's amazing first try. Like like they're they're world-class designers, but they're not car designers. And this car they've designed doesn't look like it was designed by car designers. And the final thing I'll say for the outside is, because again, we had seen the inside and we're going to talk about the interior in a little bit. Final thing I'll say about the outside is um this is not unprecedented territory, a storied sports car brand wants to make an electric vehicle and it's going to be four doors. To show an example of how you actually do a good job at this, Porsche Tycon . It's from Porsche. They're known for two-door sports cars. They made a four-door electric vehicle and A looks like a Porsche. B it does. It does. Looks really good. And C is sporty and fast in a way that Ferrari claims they could not accomplish. It's like, no, we couldn't we couldn't make this a sports car. Like yeah, no, you totally could've. Porsche did it. It's there. Like it's amazingly fast. It's like just it's it is and granted, the the Tycon has tiny back seats that are not comparable to this. And we'll get to who's gonna buy this thing and why, right? Like so I see maybe it didn't fill the design brief, but if you're wondering, can you do this? Can a storied uh sports car brand make an EV and have it be four-door and have it be sporty and fast and desirable? Yes , they did it. Like so, it just really burns me up that they decided to go the Johnny Ive direction with this, is because Johnny Ive did not. I mean, granted, that wasn't the goal of this car, I think. But if you were Ferrari, like uh as many of the stories about this pointed out, uh uh the the one-time CEO of Ferrari uh Ferrari said Ferrari will never make an uh uh an SUV, also said Ferrari will never make an EV. He is no longer the CEO of Ferrari. The new CEO said, Hell yes, we're gonna make both of those things. Uh, and so they are. But uh but yeah, like I I think the exterior of this it reminds me of Johnny Ive. It also reminds me that Johnny Ive is not a car designer, it's not awful, but boy, could it be a lot better. Uh it's not great. It's really not great. I wouldn't I maybe not awful, but it's right, it's towing the line of awful. It is really freaking bad. Yeah, and uh MKBHD had a good slam on this where he he uh posted on threads, uh Ferrari Luce review on autofocus coming soon. And the image he attached to it was a Nissan Leaf. Because it looks kind of like the Ferrari, but the new Nissan Leaf is kind of ugly. But uh that's that's a l I mean, I really think Ferrari 's not gonna be happy with that post . 'Cause that that is not what you want to see. But it's I mean, people have been doing the same thing by showing showing the luce in profile next to a a a a Prius, which again I don't think you have the scale right 'cause the Prius is way smaller than this car, but yeah, it doesn't look like a Ferrari and people aren't looking at it and going, well, it doesn't like a Ferrari, but boy, isn't it sexy? No, they're not saying that. We are sponsored this episode by Zoc Doc. Life can feel like a big puzzle. You're constantly trying to fit all the pieces together: your career, passions, relationships, finances, and of course your healthcare. It's a lot, especially honestly that last part, but finding healthcare shouldn't be the trickiest piece to fit into ever ything going on in your life. So Zoc Doc makes it easy to find and book an appointment with a doctor you'll love. Zoc Doc is a free app and website that helps you find and book high-quality in-network doctors so you can find someone you'll love. Whether you're looking for primary care or a specialty like dermatology, eye care, even dentistry, or one of the other 200 plus specialties offered on Zoc Doc, you can easily search by specialty or symptom to build the care team that's right for you. If you want to see a doctor in person, great, they'll find one of those. If you want to see a doctor over video, great, you can do that too. When you're ready to sign up, you can see their real-time availability and click to book instantly. There's no phone tag, no waiting around, and appointments made through ZockDoc happen fast, typically within just twenty-four to seventy-two hours of booking. You can even score same day appointments. So you can also view thousands of verified patient reviews to give you a real sense of who these doctors are, and you can what you know, whatever you're looking for, you can feel confident that you can book with a doctor you know you'll love with Zoc Doc. So stop putting off those doctors' appointments and go to Zocdoc.com slash ATP to find and instantly book a doctor you'll love today. That's Zoc Doc. It's spelled Z-O-C D-O-C. Zocdoc.com slash ATP. Once again, Z O C D O C. Zoc Doc.com slash ATP. Thank you so much to Zoc Doc for sponsoring our show. That being said , I really like what I've seen of the interior. Yes. I feel like this is Johnny Ive doing the things that Johnny Ive should be doing. And interestingly, it's a lot of tactile buttons. There's a lot of physical affordances, which I also love. Well, we did t remember w Casey, we did talk about this on the show and we saw physical buttons. But you can reiterate, but I just want to remind you this is not something we didn't know. Yeah, no, I know. And I mean it was weird seeing it deconstructed in that San Francisco loft or whatever it was. But seeing it all put together now, I think it looks really great. I think they've got a lot of smart, good touches. And I I since we've already talked about it, I don't have too much to add that we didn't already say, but I think this looks really, really good and really, really smart and a good balance of touch screen versus not. Maybe not perfect, but pretty darn good. I I think I have no notes on this interior. Yeah, I think yeah, I maybe there's some minor things I would quibble with, but I think what this shows is I actually would really like a Johnny Ive interior, you know. I mean, you know, please let somebody else do the software. But like I would love like this actually looks really nice in a lot of ways. And I I'm hoping, you know, obviously this is this is going to make some waves. I don't think this is gonna be a big deal, but I think it's gonna make some waves in like the car design world . Um and it's it's gonna make people say, huh, and you know, discount it or whatever. But some people are gonna say, hmm, maybe that's a good idea. And some people are gonna think it's cool. And what I hope happens is that maybe this gets some other car designers at some other companies to finally realize, hmm, maybe physical controls can be cool again. Right. Because right now we've gone so far in the other direction, and we have all these like totally minimal all screens, everything's on the touch screen vehicles, especially in the EV world. Every time I have to go into a menu to change my fan speed. I'm just like, this is this is not the right solution to this problem. Like I'm hoping that maybe maybe this will just tilt the influence a little tiny bit back towards more Yeah. Uh on the past program that hopefully will be in the show notes. I don't have anything particularly new to say about uh the specifics there. I'll just uh reiterate a few things, which is that I think um going with a rounded rectangle for the instrument cluster, the center screen, and both aspects of the central like armrest area is a little bit of Johnny I'm punting. I know you like rounded rectangles, dude. Just like come on, there's other shapes in the world. Um seeing the rest of the design, like the connects those pieces that we saw disembodied, the rest of the design seems fine. I think the uh I mean this really emphasizes one of my uh complaints from the the uh earlier episode about the interior in that uh you know really a big central iPad with a handle to point it, that's your best idea for the middle thing now that you see where it where it plugs into the the dash of the car it just emphasizes even further because the physical uh switches for like the climate control and stuff setting sign that they're toggle switches that could probably stab people when they have little guards on them for safety reasons, but still not a great idea. Um it makes this whole point of like look you you know if the passenger wants to use the screen they can point it towards them and the driver wants they can point it towards them. I don't want to be fighting over the screen going back and forth. One way to solve this problem is to have the climate physical climate controls, which I give a thumbs up to, to have those physical climate controls in a fixed position in the center console of the car that's equally reachable by the driver and passenger. That's what most other well design cards do. But here they put it on the iPad, which means that if you're yanking that iPad back and forth, the climate controls are going back and forth. So if the driver is looking something on the screen or whatever, like navigation, because the instrument cluster doesn't really have the same it's not all one screen so you if you if you have the big navigation screen have the driver one it's pointing towards them but now the passenger wants to adjust the climate control maybe they want to point it back towards them and now you're fighting over the screen again solve that problem put them in a fixed position they're easier to find they're easier to reach you just they don't need to be on the screen, but he was so wetted with oh this screen's gonna have all the stuff like that the steering wheel is for input and that central screen is for output, except for when it's for input, but also there's this weird lozen ge cavity where you can put stuff in the middle. It's like this little cave where you do the phone charging and stuff. I just some aspects of this same aspects of interior I complained about before I I continue to complain about. The rest of it that I didn't see, like um the the door and the interior and the top of the dash and stuff, that's all reasonable. I don't know if I think the door pockets are that reasonable, but you know, it's it's fine. I like that there's a footwell gap underneath the uh the center console and the rear seat so the center rear seat passenger get can fit their feet under there. I don't like that that thing j uts out so that the center rear seat person gets it into their shins, but you know, uh you win some, you lose some. Um the main thing I think about when I see this interior oh I forgot the steering wheel that I also complained about that has a flat bottom. I was reminded of this today because relax I was I was watching a review of the uh the Chevy Bolt the Chevy's thirty thousand dollar EV it's like they're you know one of the cheapest EVs you can get extremely inexpensive for an EV a very small inexpensive car . And I was looking at the steering wheel and like, oh man, Chevy, you didn't you didn't. Yeah, they did. It's a Chevy Boltz has a round steering wheel except at the very bottom. They're like, you know what? It's a little bit flat. Just like they're just flat enough so that you can just flat enough to be annoying when the the wheel slips through your hands. Like, why Chevy? Why I believe Chevy the Chevy if you can't put the the zero to sixty in seven seconds thirty thousand dollar E V, you can have a round steering wheel. Please, somebody. Anyway. Um here. John, I promise, as someone with a flat bottom wheel, I am not saying that you shouldn't prefer a circle. Uh but that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's terrible. I'm just saying like why? Like, why make it a little bit worse? Why? I I get it. It's like because it's race cars have like I I understand the lineage, but it's become an epidemic. People need to come back to round steering wheels. You're not, especially in this car. It's so vast inside. It's ridiculous. Anyway, here's what I think this interior will do. And I could have said this before with when we saw just the interior by itself, but seeing it all together just emphasize it further. Um I doubt there will be another car interior, including another car interior from Ferrari, that has the level of fit and finish that this interior has simply because that's that's what Johnny Ive does. And guess what? His budget was apparently 650 grand. Right. Like, we have to keep the car below a million. Go, Johnny. You will not see in like even in Ferraris, even in million dollar Ferraris, just hell, look at any of the existing Ferraris that are more expensive than this one. The switches don't look as good. The switches don't feel as good. The hardware is not like this thing is made like like a Swiss watch because that's what he wanted to do and he had the budget to do it and you will not see that again. And this is not a lesson I think car makers will take from this. Because if look at a Rolls-Royce or Bentley interior. They have nice interiors, but their switches are not as good as the switches in this car. Like nothing, like this is a level of fit and finish for interior mechanical stuff that no one else is going to do. They probably shouldn't do it. They probably can't do it because who has the budget for this? Only probably only Ferrari in a $650,000 car. But this is an important moment in time to say, like, especially if they don't contract with them to do like future versions of this car or whatever. Watch Ferrari D content this interior, man. Like watch them just go, okay. Well, we don't need the cutouts on the screen. We can get the switch a little bit cheaper from a different vendor. That stupid glass shift knob, we don't need that. The thing where the color goes out of the key into that we don't need that. Like, watch it get decontent. Decontenting in a 650 grand car, it will happen because no car maker wants to put this much money into the interior. And the only reason it happened here, this is a moment in time where a person with massive power was given the reins of a company with huge history, and they and they said basically, make the car for us. Here's the four wheels, the chassis, and the battery. Everything else, you can more or less do what you want. And he did, and his company did it. And some of the most talented designers ever to work in the world, most of the most talented designers from Apple made it an interior where the individual elements are amazing. Cohesively all together, I don't think it's a amazing car interior, but it's sure better than a lot of other ones, just like in broad strokes. But in the individual, on the close up, let's zoom in on the switch and feel it. Let's see how like it's it's without equal. I don't think I've seen it like again, I don't think I've seen a Rolls-Royce or a Bentley that hasitch Sw gear that is as nice as this. The only question I have is, and I have this question about my Protosplay XDR stand as well. Sometimes in the in a very expensive Apple hardware, I like my literal $1,000 stand that is holding up this monitor. It has aluminum rubbing against aluminum as part of the mechanism. And I don't think that feels or sounds good. It's very precise. It's very expensive. It's very smooth. There's no play in it. You push it and it stays where you want it to go. But it doesn't feel that nice. It doesn't feel it's first of all, it's not lubricated, which is part of it. It's not like, you know , polished steel over polished steel with like oil between it or something. It doesn't feel like that. It feels a little scrapy. And I look at the I look at the uh the air vents, which look very cool. Like you twist this solid, you twist this machined aluminum thing and this machined aluminum air vent thing turns which again I think is not the best way to regulate airflow because it is not very granular but it looks cool. Um and that mechanism as cool as it is I see them using it and I'm like, that sounds like my Pro Display XDR stand. And it's not as pleasing as you would think of it. I might be wrong because I haven't touched this car and I might just be imagining things, but I think aluminum rubbing on aluminum is not that great. And Johnny apparently disagrees with me. Um but anyway, this interior is you know is probably singular. Uh and it's worth like if you ever encounter one of these, you should ask the citadel and play with the switches. Cause that is a thing you will never be able to do in any other car , uh, and that is probably its greatest strength. And I I'm with Marco that I hope other people see this and uh say, hey, we should have physical controls in our car, but it's not as if this is unknown. Every car maker for the past decade should know yeah people are rebelling against having only touch screens but the countervailing forces but it's so much cheaper to not do that and screw the users. That's exactly it. Like because that's that's the reason why Tesla started that way and, the reason why everyone copied them is because it is cheaper. What Tesla had to do when they started was figure out how to sell uh a very, very expensive battery in a car that looked like it was as expensive as gas cars. They had to like match the price of this very expensive battery to the market of whoever you know whatever car they could fit in, which meant they had to basically sell a $100,000 car that mostly had the parts of a $30,000 car . And so they had to find a lot of different ways to you know, some might say cheap out, they would probably say sim plify or reinvent. Um but they had to do everything else about the car very, very cheaply. And they did, and it worked. Well look at the rest of the industry. Now everyone is like, oh the futuristic EVs, now that everything should be screens. Everything's on the touch screen. Look how elegant and minimal and simple it is. Yeah, it's also cheap. What tends to happen in like you know corporate America is whatever is cheaper , they'll find a way to sell it to you with marketing. So they they sell it as minimal and futuristic and everything, but the reason is because it's cheaper. Yeah, and this to be clear this interior is not cheap. Is it the opposite of cheap. Even their screens are ridiculous expensive because they punched all these holes in them. I'm putting these incredibly expensive little controls in it. Money is no object for this interior. To your to your point before, Marco, about like maybe people will see this and start using physical controls. I think the aspect where this helps move in that direction is because is is to the extent that this interior is well received by the automotive press and that this car and this car's interior become uh known as cool because you can say all that you want, like, oh, users are demanding that you have more physical controls, and they'll grudgingly kind of sort of add them back. But if this car can help nudge physical controls in the direction of cool, that's where it will help. I'm not sure it can. Maybe it can't, because A, no one will ever see this car, and B, it's not actually that cool looking on the inside. It looks kind of dorgy. Oh, I forgot to mention on the outside. My real fear with for this was that it would look like a lot of the uh fan renders of what the Apple car would look like. Like just like this big sort of like Volkswagen bus lozage that you can't tell if it goes forward or backwards. And luckily it doesn't look like that. So it could have been worse. But yeah the inside still looks like I'm not a Ferrari, I'm just like a you know, it looks like a fiat interior or or a mini interior or something like that. Like it has such a strange character. So I'm not sure if this will advance the cool, but the fact that it isn't a Ferrari maybe will. So maybe people will imitate that a little bit more. Um the the late the the things that we'll link in here are there's they gave a bunch of they give press uh a tour of the car stationary where they could just walk around and go in it and film stuff. Although uh MKBHD's uh non driving tour, which we'll link to in the notes, he complained the whole time about the stupid uh like uh camera on a gimbal they forced him to use. He wasn't allowed to use his own equipment and the stupid camera on the gimbal had a mind of its own and kept looking at the wrong thing. Love to see him be cranky about having to use their crappy tools and what a dumb decision that was by Ferrari to not let him use his own equipment. Yeah, right. Uh there's also the uh Cleo Abram interview with Johnny Ive and Ferrari's chief designer, Flavio Manz oni. Oh, this was painful, and it was not Clio's fault. I don't I seem I I watched it with after hearing you complain about it, Casey, and I thought it was not as bad as you. I mean Johnny Ive does occasionally go off into uh the mode where he is saying words that don't mean anything, which is fine, that's his thing, like whatever. But most Johnny , but uh but but Flavio Manzoni was fun and uh a little bit spicy. Uh the only thing I'll for Cleo Cleo had lots of good questions. I'm not familiar with her work, but she had lots of good questions in this interview. She's also not a car journalist, so kudos for her to doing such a good job. Uh my only note to Cleo is maybe don't include the parts where the people you were interviewing say how wonderful you are. Just let your wonderfulness shine through. don You't need to put the clips of them saying it in the video. You can just say them for yourself. No, I think the the thing that bothered me is, and I don't know if this is a design thing, I don't know if this is an Apple design thing, but the two of them particularly, Johnny, were so high on their own supply. They were just was like watching them fart and go . Like it was just ridiculous how much they're like we're changing the world. Not a direct quote, but we're changing the world with this. It's amazing. And it's like, I get that this is basically marketing. I get that they're of course gonna talk it up, but like cheesy peasy, keep your feet on the ground, fellas. My word. Like it's a car. Johnny Ive has never had a foot on the ground. I thought it wasn't as bad in that regard as some of the other things I see from Johnny Ive. For example, the open the op the open AI bar thing was worse than this. Oh, that was the pinnacle of bad. Golly. And I thought Johnny was pretty constrain in what he said. Um and actually that uh yeah, and we'll link the Cleo Abrams interview. It's forty five minutes long, but it's worth at least scrubbing to the parts where they have the interview. Um one of my favorite parts was when uh Johnny gets into the car with Cleo and they're talking to each other about the car. Johnny's in the driver's seat, which I thought was interesting. I feel like if you're if if if if you're doing the interview, I guess you let him sit in the driver's seat, but then you don't get to play with the wheel. Anyway, um here's one of the things he said, and this will lead me into the the next segment here which is uh I forget what the question was asked the the question that was asked was but Johnny's response was for some reason just because the power source is electric. There is some assumption that the interface should be digital, and that's a huge leap. And I think it's presumptuous. And this that is 100% true. We talked about it many times in the show. When people are making an EV, when car makers are making an EV, especially when EVs were new, something goes off in their brain and says, Well, this is an EV, it's got to be futury and weird. And we can't just do normal stuff because it's an EV. And there's some excuse for that in the early days because you have to get people excited about EVs and they damn well better look future because why else is someone gonna buy it? But we're well past that point now. So Johnny highlights that point, which leads me to my E V stupidity checklist, which I should formalize. Incredible. I'm obviously cheating because I'm looking at our intern al show notes. We're not gonna put all this listing in the external show notes, the ones that you all can see. But I am so excited for this. This is incredible work. Yeah, and this is the thing. Whenever EVs come up, every car review, this is not just like a thing that I every car review will will look at and note these things, but I don't see enough people saying, Hey, it's no longer okay when car makers make an EV to just give them a pass on the stupid things that they do. Like it's well past time to say, Stop doing these things. They're bad and stupid. And it gets you know it's even worse if your car is a six hundred and fifty thousand dollar car because then you kind of can't use costs as your excuse. So here we go. Doors. We know that on EVs, you gotta screw up the doors. They kind of already did that. We talked about it with the rear hinge doors. Like that is one aspect of screwing it up. Yeah, number the number one thing is like it when when some when a guest approaches the door that you're picking up somewhere, will they be able to figure out how to open it? Yep. And so that's the first item. Exterior door handles are readily accessible. Yes or no? And guess what? The uh the uh uh luce does an okay job. I think if someone came up to this car, they'd have a decent shot, especially in daylight of, finding where the handles are, because they are centrally located, they have cut lines on them, so they're obviously hand les. As the many reviews point out, the way they are designed, they may collect snow and ice, but it's Johnny's first car. Maybe he didn't think about winter. See San Francisco, right? Maybe he didn't think about snow and ice. But it does have handles that you can see with your eyeballs and that are clearly they have to be the only things that are handles because like where else would you do? So I think I'm giving him a a thumbs up on that one. You did it. Okay . Thumbs down, unfortunately, on physical door opening mechanism. Basically, the question is: if I find the handle on the car and I pull on it , does it physically make the door open? That's important for two reasons. One, software bugs should not cause you not to be able to get into your car. How many people with EV owners, EV reviews say for some period of time I could not get into my car because even though I pressed the button or pulled the handle or whatever, that all that handle does is activate a switch that sends a signal where some software is supposed to unlock the door and it's not doing it for some reason. Just this week, I was watching a review on a current EV that's like this company's like ninth EV. I forget which one it was. It might have been a Volkswagen or something. And they were saying at one point they they had to stop the review because they couldn't open the driver's side door. They had the key, they had everything, everything was fine, but when they pulled on the little thing that's supposed to open the door, all it was doing is hitting a switch, and that switch was not opening the door. If you can make it 100% reliable, sure, go for it. But obviously, we can't as a society make 100% reliable. So so therefore I'm gonna say make the door opening mechanism either entirely physical from the outside or it's software, but then if you pull farther on that very same handle , it's physical. And the luce fails on this on the exterior and the interior because now we can see what the interior door handles look like. And guess what they look like? A circular, beautifully machined button that's in probably incredibly satisfying to hit, but is nevertheless a button. I don't even know if there's a physical way. And for the both the interior and the exterior handles, there is also the safety aspect, which is if you're trapped in a car and need to get out, is there a physical way for you to get out? Or if someone is trying to get you out of a car from the outside and your car has just crashed, is there a physical handle that they can open? Again, physical handles can get stuck too, like it's not a guarantee, but there have been too many situations where someone is in an accident and either they can't get out or someone can't get to them because of an electronic gremlin or malfunction or whatever, whereas physical door handles give you a uh more fighting chance. And it's not because they're inherently superior, it's because we've been making physical door handles on cars for what a hundred and something years. We've gotten really good at it. We've just started making electronic handles for doors and we suck at it. And so that's I'm not saying you can never do this, but I'm saying have a physical have it like the ones where it's like it's electronic, but then if you keep pulling that exact same handle, it's physical. Do that until you can get the electronics 100%. That's all I'm saying. And speaking of the word affordance, which Casey uses correctly most of the time, but occasionally not. I thought I would put the a link to the definition in Wikipedia here. Use it in this very episode, I think like three or four times every time you use it, I'm like, wow, I'm racking up your percentages. You got it right, I think one or two thirds of the time in this episode. Great. Yeah. Affordance, according to this Wikipedia definition, is in design, affordance refers to the possible actions that an actor can readily perceive. So Marco just uh hit the nail on the head when he said, when someone walks up to a car, the affordance is can that person readily perceive that they can open this door? In other words, do they see a handle? Does something say, Oh, I know when I walk up to this car, I have to pull on that to open this door. That is a a readily perceived thing that lets you know what your possible actions are. This is a door I can open. One of the examples he always given these design books is like, uh doors that are like you know, push-pull doors where the push side has a flat plate because it's like, hey, I know I should push this door because it's got a flat plate and it's saying shove the palm of your hand against this plate and you will push. The other side of the door would have a pull handle where it's like a little you know hook-shaped handle. It's saying, this is not for pushing, grab this handle and pull it. Those are affordances because you look at them and you know what you can do with the door. And it's why when you if you put someone puts a door in backwards and they have the push plate on the pull side that it confuses people, that's an affordance. This car has exterior affordances and its door handles. I think if you look on the outside and you see that little part with a little cut line, it's clear that it probably wants you to pull it. Interior, no affordance. You have to know where the button is. This this drives me this drives everyone nuts who's who's in my car. Because just like the exterior, you also have to figure out how do I get out of this car, which I think i from like an emergency perspective should be even more obvious and not by a small amount. Like that should be signific antly regulated and required to have like a common, recognizable, fast mechanical mechanism to get out of a car. That's incredibly important for safety. And y and this you think you wouldn't think you need to legislate because you're like, well right. But, we've been making door handles for like again a hundred years or more. Like we know how to do it. It's a solved problem. And to that end, there was even a Saturday night live sketch, we'll link in the so show notes about this very it was uh the the angle on it was like uh you're out for a night of fun, and then you call an Uber to take you home, and you can't get out of the Uber. And the driver's like, just push, and you're like, Oh no, that's that's the window. Like, mm-hmm. And and part of the part of the song lyrics is this was a solved problem. Like, and it's not because, like, oh, old people can't figure out newfangled door handles. It's like there have been decades and decades and generations of generation of door handles. Every generation, one after the other, my generation, my parents' generation, my grandparents' generation, all of them, with all the cars they ever owned, figuring out how to get out of the car using the handle has not been a problem. Like we solved it. We know how to, we know where to put the handle. We know how to shape them so people know when they look at them what they need to do to them. They're mechanical , they open the door. EVs come and everyone loses their minds and they're like, nope, can we hide a button somewhere? Guys, guys, this is a solves problem. You're not adding to the wow factor of your car by having an electric door popper hidden in some place. And then this, I think in the backseat, this one has the thing where it's like a well, I just said where it's like a physical thing where you pull it up a little bit and it opens it and you keep pulling and it's physical. But even that is well hidden in the interface. It should be way more obvious. There should be an affordance for opening a door. I don't know why people are forgetting how to do this, so I'm gonna give them a thumbs down on the interior where they totally screwed up by having a button on the exterior. I give them I don't know some, some sideways because they kinda sorta did it. I I th I can't tell if the exterior ones are physical at all. I think they're entirely electronic, but I'm not entirely sure. And I can just say like as an owner of a car with an interior button to open doors. There is nothing more embarrassing than when I have to apologize for the design of my car to every new passenger who is ever in it as they struggle to figure out how to get out of my car because the design is stupid. Because they had to go and redesign door handles, not only on the outside, but also on the inside. Yep. And uh continuing in that vein, the charge port. EVs obviously have a charge port, and one thing they love to do is come up with the most ridiculous possible mechanism for revealing the charge port . Really complicated mechanisms were like the door goes in and slides up to a hidden cavity and comes down. It's like again, this problem has been solved. I know you have electrons and not gasoline, but in the end, it is a hole inside of your car where you stick a thing with a little door over it. We've solved that problem a million times over. Like, and this is the same type of thing where like I've had physical, like the the thing that goes over the gas, what you know, what do you call it? Gas port. I keep I'm I'm so instantaneous. Yeah, the gas hole. The gas hole. That's right. That's right. Um, I've had that get stuck on physical mechanisms. Not like physical mechanisms can't get stuck, but we've had so many years to perfect the design of that mechanism that it's pretty reliable and pretty cheap. But when an EV comes out, they're like, no, we can't have that open physically. It has to be an electric mechanism. And I think through the decades that we've had any kind of electrical mechanism in cars for like some tiny little thing that used to use physically but we're gonna make it move by a motor, those things are more likely to fail. Now we've gotten good at some of them. Electric windows and electric seats are close to as reliable as their physical counterparts. Not exactly, but close but the charge ports that open electronically especially the ones that have like a capacitive surface that they want you to swipe or something on the outside of the car a lot of the ones have like run your finger along this little fin and it will open the charge ports. L noike, stop,, don't don't like make it so you go push in the corner of it and it pops out, or make it a physical popper. Like, I know it feels cheaper and you're a $650,000 car, but resist. Uh Ferrari fails here. The luce does not have a physical charge port door opening and closing mechanism, and it's all electronic. Boy, I hope that software never bugs out. And I hope that electronic motor and mechanism always works. And given the incredible craftsmanship and Ferrari's uh car assembly process, I do not have a lot of faith. Uh going to the interior, uh, on the controls, turn signal stocks do not exist in this car. Another solved problem. I know lots of cars have the buttons for turn signals in the steering wheel. Some people even like it better, but I'm going to take the bold, brave stance that stocks are in fact the best solution for signaling turns. I know there's a debate about like should it turn with the wheel versus should it be in a stationary position. It's the same debate with the paddles, but the thing about stocks is not only are they always in the same position, they're huge and you can hit them in a million different places. The buttons are small and much smaller targets and you can't like you can't just like whack them with your fingertips or throw your hand up like stalks, man. The turn signal stalk is an amazing design from an organomic perspective. Any car that abandons them is either going for the F1 race fantasy, which I guess kind of this is what they're going for because Formula One cars and other race cars have an increasing amount of controls on the steering wheel. So because you're race car driver and you can't take your hands off the wheel. But man, turn signal stocks they are better than buttons on the steering wheel. Um and also EVs, when they do have buttons on the steering wheel, it's like all capacitive. But then we can make just one clean sheet of plastic and hate it. Everything can be capacitive and haptic and thumbs up so much thumbs up to the Ferrari here because guess what Johnny Ives like no every one of these buttons is gonna cost as much as a Volkswagen and I'm putting a thousand on the steering wheel right so physical buttons all of that steering wheel. Good job, Johnny . Climate controls, physical controls for temperature and fan speed. Uh car manufacturers refuse to do this now that they've uh they've they've tasted the sweet, sweet honey of uh of touch screens for everything. They're like, no, they' likere, they're always in the same place. We just leave them on the screen all the time. It's like, that's not a physical button, dude. Uh but the luche, physical controls for temperature and fan speed. Granted, they're dumb uh toggle switches that are poking out of the screen waiting to stab you, but they are physical. Uh and and another one that Luce gets right, direct physical control for airflow and direction. If you want the air to blow to a different place in your car, can you reach out to the air vent and point it where you want? Or do you have to go through the touch screen and look at a 3D model of your car and drag your finger on it. One of those things you can do while you're driving without taking your eyes off the road. The other one you cannot and is stupid. Lucha gets us right every one of its air fence. You grab it with your hand and you point it where you wanted it to go and you twist it to change the airflow. Good job, Johnny . Glove box. I can't believe I have to say this. Can you open the glove box without using the touch screen? I I I know people who aren't car people, like, what are you talking about? You have to use the touch screen to open the glove box? How dumb is that ? I agree. So many cars do this. Tesla did it first, I think. Like so many of these things, and everyone's like, Yeah, the glove box should have no way to open it except through the touch screen. That's a great idea. It's not. Don't do that. Luce, you can open the glove box without using the touch screen. I had to put a uh a thumbs down in this category for them though, because I think the way you open the glove box without using a touch screen is by pressing a button that fires an electronic actuator.. Most likely You don't need to do that, Johnny. Just design a really cool opening mechanism. Like a physical opening mechanism. Yeah, but then you have to have like a locking mechanism too. That's why they do it. I think it's for the locking. Yeah, no, we used to remember the the glove boxes used to have a key lock on it. Like you can do physical Yeah, but does this car even have a key? Yeah, they used to have actual keys. Yeah. Well, no, but it doesn't have like a jiggy jaggy piece of metal, I don't believe it. Yeah, I'm saying old cars used to have that. But anyway, if you want to make the glove box lockable, then you just have an electronic locking mechanism that can lock it. But in the common case it probably should be open and should have a physical switch. The rear view. Does the rear view mirror exist? Again, you would think this is another question you'd have to ask. Uh, but it does. The luce has a rearview mirror. Right. Thumbs up. What do other EVs have? They say, Well, this is an EV. We don't have a rear view mirror. You know what we have? We have a screen in the place where the rearview mirror should be. And you can use that instead. Some cars going as far as to have this as the next item. Does the rear window exist? And Volvo's like, we don't need a rear window. We've got a camera out the back. And where the rear view mirror is, we've got a screen. So why do we even need that back window? And so they just cover it up in the what is that one? There's the EX40 or something? I don't I know what you're talking about. I don't remember which one of the one of the current Volvos, or maybe it's Polestar. I forget which one. I think it's a Polestar. Again, not 100% sure. Maybe it's Polestar 4. Anyway, no rear window. Uh, but the Luce has a rearview mirror and it has a rear window. And actually a reasonably sized rear window for a Ferrari. So I mean sometimes you can't have it because it's like there's the engine behind you and your low slunk car or whatever, but they have both those things for thumbs up. And by the way, the reason why screens with current screen technology will never be as good as the rearview mirror is because when you're driving and you're focusing on the cars out in front of you, and you glance in your mirror to focus at the cars behind you. A mirror will allow you to have your focal distance that is like 50, you know, 20 yards away. You'll be able to maintain that 20 yards in front of me. And then when I look in the mirror, because it is a mirror reflecting light rays and not a screen, I don't have to focus on the distance from my eyeball to the to the mirror screen. Because if it was a screen, it would be like, okay, my eyes have to go from 20 yards to three feet. 20 yards to three feet. But because it's an actual mirror, I can say 20 yards in front, and then I can look in the mirror and focus on 20 yards behind me because of the way mirrors work with light and the way screens do not work. So yes, review mirrors are superior to screens. And on that same category, side view mirrors exist. Luce's got 'em. It's got mirrors on the side of the car. And again, you may be asking, doesn't every car have that? Not if you're an EV because if you're an EV you're like mirrors are so passe and in fact they they impede the airflow. Let's have tiny pinhole sized cameras that we use and then we'll put screens on the interior just inside the interior where where d the side view mirrors would be. Uh that's illegal in the US, so the US models don't get that, but everywhere it's legal, they're like, no, yeah, the US models will get the mirrors, but everywhere else gets this stupid thing. Luce didn't. They have actual side view mirrors. Although I have to say I have to give Volvo some extra negative bonus points because um I think it's one of their recent models. They decided that the uh the side view mirrors, rather than having the mirror change angle inside its little thingy, you know, as you adjust the mirror so you can see where you want. They make the entire little pod thing rotate. Like to like it, like the mirror is fixed in in a little pod. And then when you adjust the mirror, the whole little pod moves. And I'm like, Volvo. The whole point in having the mirror move and not the exterior is so you can wind tunnel test your little stationary pods and make them optimal. And then people can adjust the mirrors within that fixed thing. By moving the little pod, you're changing the aerodynamics of the car based on the height of the driver. I don't know what people are doing. But anyway, Luce has side view mirrors, so thumbs up. And then I have a bonus checklist just for Johnny Ive. One incredible. One which we knew we knew this because we saw the interior, but does the car have cup holders? And I feared a Johnny Ive car, he'd be like, you shouldn't be drinking in your car. You shouldn't have cup holders. But this car does indeed have cup holders. In fact, it has machined aluminum $1,000 cup holders, but it does have cup holders. So good job, Johnny. I know it was tough for you. I bet you probably said, what if the car didn't have cup holders, but someone said no, we need cup holders. Two adjustable headrests. This is the adjustable monitor stand of cars. The luche does not have adjustable headrest height. I guess it just assumes everyone's the same height. A lot of Ferraris and a lot of sports cars when, you get the sports seats, they don't have an adjustable headrest height. It's just a one-piece seat for you know for lightweight or whatever. Um, and as far as I can tell, the only seat option in Lucha has a non-adjustable headrest hat. I couldn't tell if the little cushion slides up and down, but I don't think it does. And as someone who is taller and who has a wife who is shorter, I can tell you the adjustable headrests are really important for safety because if my wife adjusts the headrest for her and then I get into the car, if I get hit from behind, that headrest is going to snap my neck because it's going to meet like the middle at the middle of my neck and not actually stop my head from going back. And the same thing with me. If I put the headrest where I needed to go, her head's gonna miss the headrest entirely and like hit the metal poles that are holding it up. So adjustable headrests is an important safety consideration. But just like Apple monitors don't have adjustable height stands, this car does not have adjustable headrests. And then finally, I' dont know what these are called, but you know on the little grab handles over the rear doors, they're usually these chintzy little plastic handles that are, you know, that flap down, and when you let go of them, they flap back up into the roof. They've been on cars for my entire life. The ones on the lucha are obviously machined aluminum tubes that are again probably horrendously expensive, incredibly strong. You could probably hang children off of them. They're amazing looking. But one thing they don't have is that little tiny hook where you hang your dry cleaning? Uh yeah, yeah, yeah. Probably because Johnny thought, I've got these beautiful aluminum tubes. Why would I mess them up with a little hook? I'll tell you why, Johnny. When you get your dry cleaning, where the hell you're gonna hang it. I mean, I just hang it from the handle because here's the thing . I never do I never get one shirt dry cleaned. I always wait until there's like a whole bag of shirts that's waiting to go to the cleaners for three months, then I bring them all there at once. And so I'm always coming out of the cleaners with like twelve shirts. So they never fit on those dumb little hooks anyway. So I always just hang them off the whole handle. Almost every car has them. And you can't you can't hang them off the the bar thingy because then you have to like twist the hanger so it is perpendicular to the direction of the clothes, you know what I mean? Doesn't matter. Yeah. It's probably not a big deal. And honestly, when you hang clothes there, it really reduces the visibility in your car. You should probably lay them flat in your trunk. But it's interesting that he decided, again, for purity of design. I know every car has these, but I don't like it. Look at these beautiful aluminum tubes. So overall, a pretty good score on the interior. Like I said, this is this is probably the most expensive feeling. Uh most carefully designed car interior that will literally ever exist. And it's not to say that it is the best, because I have lots of complaints about it, but I believe it is an amazing moment in time when someone uh with very particular taste and tremendous skills was given an unlimited budget to do what they wanted with the car interior. And what they came up with is not a great car interior, but on the micro level aspects of this will probably never be equaled. Yeah. I mean again, I I really, really like the interior. It is not flawless, but I like it a lot from what I can tell. Uh the exterior though, woof. Oh, and I forgot to mention so who's why is this car exists? Who's gonna buy it? Um uh setting aside uh Ferrari's strategy of like we're gonna let someone else design this car and it doesn't have to look like any of our Ferraris. Like it's clear that's what they wanted to do and that's what they got. But what's gonna happen with this car, I would imagine, or at least what they hope is going to happen, is as their lead designer pointed out in a couple of the interviews, you know, what is Porsche's best selling car? It's not the nine eleven, I can tell you that. Mm-hmm. It's their SUV. The SUV is as soon as Porsche decided to make an SUV, that became their best selling car. Not by a little bit, not like it sells a little bit more than like the 9-11. Like they are basically an SUV company that also sells the 9-11 on the side. Right? Uh the Per Sangu , the Ferrari SUV, it's Ferrari's best-selling car. I mean, even even Ferrari is not immune to what everybody wants. And what everybody wants is not a two-seat sports car. Even at this price class, where you think it doesn't matter for these people, they're paying half a million dollars for a car. Surely they're not gonna want an SUV. Nope, they do. They want a Ferrari SUV, and that's what they buy. And so this car is for the people who most people who buy Ferraris, they have a stat of like who buys Ferraris? It's people who already own Ferraris. To the extent that sometimes, in fact, frequently, Ferrari will not let you buy one of their cars unless you have bought several of their cars previously. So if you want like an F-80, you can't just go and buy an F-80. They'll be like, what other Ferraris have you bought from us? We'll see if we're gonna let you buy this car for $2 million dollars, whatever the hell the F-80 costs. I forget. So this car, say you own a bunch of Ferraris, but you're not gonna, you can't take your like, you know, SF90 to go get groceries or whatever. It's just like it's not convenient. There's not a lot of luggage space. What if you want to go on a trip? What if you want to take people with you? What if you just want a driving around town car, but you're also horrendously wealthy? You probably want something that's kind of like an SUV. And EVs are great too. This is that car. If you just want a normal car, but all your other cars are Ferraris and you don't want to get a Mercedes or a BMW or whatever, Ferrari now has something for you to buy. And I think fulfilling that purpose, it fits people well. Three adults can go in the backseat and not feel cramped. I'm sure it drives nicely and smoothly, and it is much more comfortable and convenient than any other Ferrari, including their their uh you know, the Purusangway, the internal combustion SUV and the interior is gonna look impressive to rich people because it is right and that's who I think who's gonna buy this car people who want a four-door EV, but also are the type of person who owns Ferraris. So here you go. And the fact that it doesn't look like any of their sporty cars probably won't be too much of a hindrance as long as they don't think it's ugly. Because you're just looking for a car to like take your friends to the movies or go run an errand or something. And honestly, if you get this into color other than red, this will probably blend in with the rest of like the Teslas and other stuff that's on the road. It certainly won't stand out as much as like a Tycon would because that looks like a sporty Porsche because it is. So that's that's what I think this car is for. Hey you want a normal car? Ferrari has one of those now. We'll see if it becomes their best selling model or if it and the perasangue together become the best selling model. We'll see how this goes. Again six hundred and fifty grand is much more expensive than the Perosangway. This is the top of Ferrari's price range, but I think they felt like we need to have a car in this category because you just can't drive a screaming, you know, I was gonna say 12-cylinder, but they only make I think one of those these days. A screaming uh flat plane crank uh for our internal combustion engine car every single day. Sometimes you just wanna go to the store. This is the car for you if you have spare six fifty grand . All right. Thank you to our sponsors this episode, Squarespace and Zoc dock. And thanks to our members who support us directly, you can join us at ATP.fm slash join. One of the many perks of membership is ATP overtime , our weekly bonus topic. This week in overtime we're gonna be talking about Bamboo. This is the 3D printing company, uh Bamboo's battle with its community. Uh there's a lot going on there, um, and we're gonna talk about that in overtime. You can join and listen at bzfm slash join. Thanks everybody, and we'll talk to you next week. Now the show is over. They didn't even mean to begin because it was Oh it was accidental John didn't do any research Marco in Casey wouldn't let him Cause it was accidental Accidental who is accidental accident al And you can find the show notes at ATP.fm And if you're into Mastodon you can follow them at C A S E Y L I S S that's K C Lis M-A-R-C-O A-R-M -T-Marco Armin S-I-R-A-C USA C rec user it's accident al accident al They didn't mean to Accidental Accidental Check Podcast John , I'm so sorry for your loss. Same. We are both very, very sorry. Marco can insert taps here. Uh we we will play taps as you are telling us about what's going on in your video game life. Yeah. I I mentioned this uh Rectifs where I also talked about this that uh the past couple of uh episodes of Rectifs I've been talking about playing uh the game Marathon from uh game developer Bungie and having feelings about it. And I was like, oh guess what? Sorry. Sorry, Marilyn, we're gonna be talking about video games again. I don't know, it's not intentionally turning this into a video game podcast, but like it just so happens that things in my life related to video games , a lot of stuff has been happening lately. Um and this most recent one, I can't say I didn't see it coming, but it's still uh I think the whole community's in shock. Okay, so there is a video game franchise called Destiny that came out in twenty fourteen that I have been playing since twenty fourteen. So I've been playing this game for almost twelve year years, basically continuously. And for perspective for perspective, Declan was born in October of 2014. Yeah. If you're wondering how can you play one game for 12 years, don't you get bored of it? As I tried to explain to Merlin in our episode and maybe failed, it is what's called a live service game where yeah, you buy the game, but then they just keep putting out new content for it and they have a way for you to pay for that. Whether it's like a subscription like World of Warcraft or like Destiny where you buy expansions or annual passes or whatever. But the point is it is like a living game. Yeah, like Minecraft has been around for like a thousand years. But they, you know, like but the version of Minecraft that they have today is so much more deluxe and there's been so much stuff added to it compared to where it was, you know, fifteen years ago. Yeah, and it's a little bit easier for like sandbox games like Minecraft where it's like, you know, w you can play with Legos forever because you can build infinite things, and that's what Minecraft is like. But this is more like a little bit more narrative, multiplayer, also player versus player, and there's a story and stuff. So it does require like significant cre ative content and effort to put out for people to play. Um and it's had a bumpy history. Uh Destiny One when it came out, it was not a critical darling. It got middling reviews. Um had some struggles, uh so much so that they came out with Destiny 2 in 2017. So that's only three years after the game came out. Destiny two has continued to this day, where it's like, well, are they ever gonna do a Destiny 3? Originally the plan was to do a bunch of sequels and stuff, but they basically said Destiny 1, oh it's got some troubles, we do some cool stuff. Now Destiny 2, Destiny 2 also had troubles out of the gate, but they just stuck with it. In fact, at one point one of the rumors is they wanted to call it Destiny Infinity, which would have been a marath on thing to do. Or a bungee thing to do because they did come out with a game called Marathon Infinity to signal the end of the original Marathon franchise. Anyway, um the health of Destiny has been a roller coaster for the whole 12 years that I've been playing it. At various times, fans have been excited and elated, also disappointed. They've made changes to the game that people didn't like, and then they responded to feedback, and like half of playing Destiny , half of the experience of being a Destiny player and Destiny fan is the back and forth with the game developer and the game changing. The game has changed so much. It's changed to Marco's point, it has changed much more than Minecraft has. Significantly more than Minecraft has. If you were to look at the original version of Destiny 2 versus Destiny 2 today, you would think are these two different games like fantastically different. So much stuff changed in between there. And riding that roller coaster has been part of the exper ience. Um, the analogy I use with Merlin, I think, is a good one, is it's kind of like the MCU, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where Destiny One is like Iron Man . And when they came out with Destiny 1, like this is from Bungie, the developer of Halo. So, you know, that's what people know it from, but I know it as an old school Mac user from their other games, including the original Marathon. Um, and I said, this is gonna be our next franchise. We're gonna make this franchise called Destiny. And it was like it was a big deal because Halo was was a big deal then. That's what everybody knew them from. Like, oh, the people made Halo or making a new game that's called Destiny. Okay. And I forget if this was announced or just strongly implied, or maybe it was just read from the business agreements because they made agreements that had this timeline in it. But the whole idea was we're gonna put out a game called Destiny, and this is gonna be a 10-year game. We're gonna be developing this game for 10 years, this franchise for 10 years. I think Activision probably thought it was more like Call of Duty, like we're gonna keep making Call of Duty games for 15 years. We're just gonna keep making them. Whereas Bungie was kind of like we're gonna make one game called Destiny and just have it be a live service game for 10 years, like World of Warcraft is what, been 20-something years, whatever it is. That was their plan. And they had a story in mind. The story got rebooted right before the release of the first game, so it was kind of a mess. The story continued to be a mess for many years, but eventually, somewhere in that middle of that decade, they coalesced about, you know, this is the light and dark saga in Destiny. This is the big story we're telling, and every expansion we put out and everything players do, we're progressing that story. And eventually we got to um Avengers Infinity War and Avengers Endgame, where essentially the story came to a close. Like the story of the MCU was like, you know, Thanos, the Infinity Stones, the Avengers, right? You know, in between the middle there was that there was the first Avengers movies. Like now we're bringing everyone together. I can't believe we made it to this point. We made it, guys. Avengers, but was that at the end? No, because it's like there's stanos and there's still the infinity stones, and there's ups and downss, and there' good movies and bad, and there's Thor of the Dark World and Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy and Up and Down and All O, right? But eventually they get to Infinity War and Endgame. And when they get to Endgame, spoiler alert they, fight Thanos . That that whole thing is resolved. Okay . And then the MCU's like, well, but we want to keep making these movies . Everybody's gone, all their contracts are up, a lot of our characters are who dead or or old you know or old or whatever, like the story's over, right? It's like, no, no, the money machine has to keep going. So Destiny did that. It had its Avengers Endgame moment. It was an expansion called the Final Shape. We all fought the big bad and defeated him . End of the 10-year saga of destiny, which at that point was like 11 years. But they wanted to keep making destiny . So they came out with new expansions. And the thing is, they could never really get everyone to sort of come back and say, wait, no, it's not over. Come back. Destiny, there's still, we're still, it's the game is still going. It's like we all just spent over a decade of our life on the light and darkness saga that is now resolved. And I don't know. It's just seems like the game is cool. Like some aspects of the game are better than they've ever been before. They even had a Star Wars expansion, which is hard to explain to people. It's not like they put Luke Vader, uh, Luke Skywalker in Luke Vader. Luke Vader. Can you imagine if Marco or I said that we would be just ridiculed for years. Quickly corrected myself. Uh but they did put lightsabers in the game and they did put lots of stuff with Star Wars flavor in the game. Very weird. This is officially licensed, by the way, with like Lucasfilm and stuff. There was even a Star Wars expansion. And it was cool. And I played it. But even that couldn't save the franchise. The the number of players playing Destiny just kept going down and down. And you kind of need players to be playing this because one of the ways they make money is by selling cosmetics in the game, selling things that change how things look in the game for real money. And you also need players to want to buy the next expansion, which is the other way they make money, which is every once in a while they come out with a new annual pass or a new expansion or whatever. And if you look at the graphs that we have from like Steam or whatever of Destiny's player base, it's been going down since twenty fourte,en honestly. That was near its peak, like in twenty maybe twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, somewhere around that I don't know I don't know the graph looks like, but it's been going down for a long time. And it just got to the point where it was going down so much that they just couldn't sustain the game anymore. Uh Bungie itself used to be part of Micro well, used to be independent, then Microsoft bought them. Then they spun out of Microsoft, then Activision. They were working with Activision on Bungie stuff. And then Sony bought them a couple years ago. Uh oh, they were independent again in between there. Anyway, point is Sony owns them now. Sony bought them for I don't know, like four billion dollars or something like that, a couple years ago. Uh and Sony wants to see Destiny make money, and Destiny wasn't doing that, and so they've pulled the plug. They made an announcement on May 21st that the expansion that we were all waiting for in June for Destiny that had already been delayed a month, uh, that will be the last one. That's the last expansion for destiny after that there will be no more dest iny no more destiny two no more destiny period they said they'll keep the game running uh and as they noted you can play Destiny 1 today.' Thats a game that was launched in 2014 and ended in 2017. You can play it right now. They've kept the servers running because you need the servers running for this game. Like it has to, you know, you can't play without servers because again it's a live service game. That still exists today. So there is some hope that Destiny 2 will be playable, you know, seven years from now. We'll see. But the point is, no more content for Destiny. Destiny is over. Um I personally, even though I have been playing it basically continuously since twenty fourteen, most recently after I did the Star Wars expansion and had done everything I wanted to do, I played Arc Raiders, then I played Marathon, which is also from Bungie, which I've really been enjoying. So I haven't really been playing Destiny in the past several months. I've checked in a few times to do one or two things, but I've just been waiting for the June expansion to come. But now I know that the June expansion is literally the last one. They basically dumped everything that because they had planned up a whole bunch of other expansions throughout the year that they had announced. And basically it's like pencils down, whatever you have finished for the expansions that were supposed to come out over the next year, that's all going into the June expansion. So it's got a lot of cool stuff in it, including the return of SRL Sparrow Racing League, where you take the in-game vehicles and race them. It's a something it's a feature they had uh many, many years ago that people enjoyed. That's coming back. So I think they'll probably leave Destiny 2 in a pretty good place. Other than the fact that the uh special ammo economy and crucible is screwed over again, just like at the end of Destiny 1. I know that's all. I I'm suddenly code switching and talking to the Destiny fans. It annoys me that both times they've ended Destiny games, they mess with the special ammo economy, and it's going to be stuck that way forever. So that kind of annoys me. But anyway, Destiny is over. All good things must come to an end. We talked about this with TiVo. It's been such a big part of my life for all these years, but honestly, after Avengers Endgame, I felt like you did it. Like people love uh that the final expansion, the final shape. It f finished the story in a satisfying way. Just like people love the Avengers Endgame movie and all that stuff. Like, yes, we were all on this ride together with all our friends, and we all we did all the things . And now it's over. Um, so I'm sad. There's been an outpouring of people who are sad about it. A lot of the outpouring has been from people who, by their own admission, have not played Destiny in years, but they're like, I just assumed it would always be there. And they have such fond memories of it. Penny Ar cade, the comic, did a wordless three-panel comic just as a tribute to Destiny. They haven't played Destiny in years, but like, man. Like now it's kind of like after someone dies, you find out how much really how how people really felt about it. And what people are coming out and saying is, boy, Destiny, one of the best games of all time. Like, I can't think of many other games. Like, you can think I think I already mentioned them. World of Warcraft, uh, maybe Call of Duty, although, and maybe like Grand Theft Auto, like franchises that have just been been there for so many years. And only I think World of Warcraft is directly comparable to Destiny 2 because it's been like the same game, just with new content, which again, World of Warcraft has changed tremendously from the first version of that game till now, but it's kind of one continuous thing. And so yeah, everyone's out here uh sad the destiny's gone. Um people were hoping someday there might be a destiny 3. That is if Bungie even continues to exist, because if Marathon doesn't do well, maybe Bungie's just gone entirely, which would be a sad end to an amazing company. But still, if you know, put up uh in the Hall of Fame, the things that uh Bungie has accomplished. The original Marathon series, Pathways into Darkness, Myth, Oni, these are things that only have meaning to old school Mac users. Then the whole Halo series, that's where the whole world knows them from. Just to have something like Halo in a game developer's you know repertoire is amazing. And then Destiny after that, and Marathon is also an amazing game. It's just I'm not sure it's gonna save the company because it's much more narrow interest. So we'll see where this goes. It could be the Debunji itself disappears and Sony just cans everything and destroys the whole studio, which would be really sad. But maybe, you know, in seven years' time I'll be checking out Destiny three. But in the meantime, I just wanna salute Destiny . The most clearly the most and probably the most important video game in my life, clearly the game that I have played the most, and to that end I looked up my stats. I have played the Destiny franchise, that's Destiny 1 and Destiny 2 for 2,210 hours. Gracious. Wow. Which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things. The number one player on Destiny has played for about 43,000 hours. And it goes down from there to like 40, 42, 99, 9 for like this, you know, people play this game a lot. I'm sure that's nothing compared to the World of Warcraft people, but just to give an example, the Legend of Zelda franchise, which I love. I'll if I play a Zelda game and I 100% it, I do everything in the game, that's like one or two hundred hours for a single Zelda game. But I've played 2, 200 hours of Destiny. And I'm gonna play more when the June expansion comes out. I'll play it. Uh but yeah, this is uh a chapter of my life ending, even though kind of like TiVo, like it I had already ended it myself by essentially barely using TiVo and mostly using streaming. Barely playing Destiny and mostly playing Arc Raiders and then Marathon. So I feel like it's you know whatever. Two every season, turn turn, whateatever. Whver the song, uh however the song goes. Yep, nailed it. Yep, it is it's bittersweet, but like that's life. Things come and go. And I just I'm thankful that Destiny existed because it really was a special game to me and a lot of other people. I'm sad to see it go. A lot of it is at the at the foot of like mismanagement by people who are just interested in their next exit or selling to somebody or whatever. And I'm mad at those people, but like to sustain this amount creative the amount of creative output and the amount of money behind it, like it's unprecedented. Again, the other parason I was given is obviously the MCU, which like improbable. When Iron Man came out, can you imagine? Like it's amazing they even made it to Avengers, let alone that they already made it to Avengers Endgame. Like just making it to Avengers. We made these movies, which we didn't know if they were gonna do any good. And then we finally get to the Avengers movie, we get to bring them together, and that's not even the end, and we keep going. It's amazing they did that. And the the Lord of Rings movies, where they pulled a bunch of people to New Zealand for a couple years and made three movies all at once. It's amazing that happened. It may never happen again. Destiny is like that. Someday, if and when World of Warcraft ends, it's gonna be a bit even bigger outpouring, but Oh yeah. For me, Destiny was that type of game, so RIP D2, you're a real one .