I think the most important question is whether the system requires a regular automatic/manual transmission or forgoes one entirely. The Toyota planetary gear system forgoes one, as does the modern Honda and Nissan approaches. Not having a transmission in the traditional sense saves so much complexity that the overall system is net simpler imo even with the additional complexity from having a motor and engine.

Then there are systems that have a full automatic drivetrain and some extra clutches to couple to a motor-generator. And there's even systems with an electronically controlled manual transmission instead. Those systems are going to be incredibly complex and fragile.

>In court filings, attorneys representing the state and Bradley have argued Holland's lawsuit should be dismissed as the trooper has "sovereign immunity" as a member of law enforcement, and that it was a "lawful" traffic stop.

Plus, you can just packet sniff and see if they're doing anything AI related when the switch is off.

It's not necessary a single discrete point I think. In my experience, it's tied to the quality/power of your harness and tooling. More powerful tooling has made revealed differences between models that were previously not easy to notice. This matches your display analogy, because I'm essentially saying that the point at which display resolution improvements are imperceptible matters on how far you sit.

*compared using nominal exchange

>The best I’ve found is to track relative migration pressure - where do people want to go?

I like this approach. It's much more holistic and captures stuff that really cannot be quantified with prices and numbers, like freedoms and rights.

"People are chaotic, both in isolation and when working with other people or with systems. Their outputs are difficult to predict, and they exhibit surprising sensitivity to initial conditions. This sensitivity makes them vulnerable to covert attacks. Chaos does not mean people are completely unstable; most people behave roughly like anyone else. Since people produce plausible output, errors can be difficult to detect. This suggests that human systems are ill-suited where verification is difficult or correctness is key. Using people to write code (or other outputs) may make systems more complex, fragile, and difficult to evolve."

To me, this modified paragraph reads surprisingly plainly. The wording is off ("using people to write code") and I had to change that part about attractor behavior (although it does still apply IMO), but overall it doesn't seem like an incoherent paragraph.

This is not meant to dunk on the author, but I think it highlights the author's mindset and the gap between their expectations and reality.