Stop planning for the scenario where people aren't stuck in the matrix. They are, that's reality. Plan for the world were currently in. The one where people make choices you don't like. The one where they don't think for themselves. The one where people aren't going to do the right thing. The one where they are going to choose themselves over everyone else.

That's the world you have in your hands. No one said it was fair, or you have to like it, but you do have to accept it if you want to change it.

EV stuff outside of the mainstream is not my wheelhouse in any way. Sorry to disappoint.

As far as my opinion. People want to hate on pickups in suburban areas, but people want autonomy, if they can get that in an affordable way, Im for that. EVs work for some people, new suburban areas close to town, Im sure have lots of value considering the price of modern ICE or even hybrid pickups. That's less phone calls I get for "hey can you help me move this" or "pick this up" or "move this tiny trailer" or whatever.

These trucks appear to have a lot of silly hype features like the cybertrucks do, but I did legit believe there was a buyer base for them. The issue... as I found out when they first shipped, that moving 5,6,7k lbs of metal around _wastes_ far more energy on current designs than a 2-3k lb car. The regeneration wasn't there, the storage wasn't there etc.

They have to remember what a pickup is to the working class. It's a utility vehicle. Meaning, to be worth it's space in my driveway. And in the joe homeowner example, it has to get my groceries AND the 10 sheets of plywood and mulch and whatever else homeowners need done on the weekends. If it can't do both, then I need two vehicles, two payments, two spots in my driveway. Not worth it.

I just like to make sure people are arguing in fairness.

I would like to argue that living areas were built around cars because cars were fundamental in the foundations of the building. I think it's fair to argue supply/demand. If you want to argue for cities by all means, that's not my life and don't want it to be.

I _would_ argue though, there is a supply/demand issue. There are many things, even way easier things people could do to improve their health, they already don't do that though. People demanded a mode of transportation that allows for comfort (arguably luxury), ease of operation, ownership or at the least autonomy.

People want cars, people want the luxuries of driving, and will pay lots of money to do that. Cars are a necessity for those of us in more rural areas, but often for similar reasons. Time, ease, speed, energy expenditure.

You'd have to _take_ cars away from people imo, I don't think there is more demand for less cars than there is for more, or better car facilities.

But if the user leaks their share, then what tools do I have to prevent that leaked key from completing the key material? It's the same issue as holding the key totally, unless the host maintains some, other way of knowing when the request is authentic?

Then leaking their share is equivalent to leaking their entire key?

Well this role will probably be open in a trial period for a while. They really don't know what they want or need and haven't really given us a green light on what they really want. Its mostly trial-error work taking an MVP to "production" is the best way to explain what I think they want.

You know how founders are.