> Because progress is mostly done on value and not absolute costs. Oh.. am I reading you correctly? You don’t see the value in creating $1,000 cars that have s

> Because progress is mostly done on value and not absolute costs. Oh.. am I reading you correctly? You don’t see the value in creating $1,000 cars that have subscription packages for self-driving, heated seats, navigation, etc? > the definition of what makes a computer “super” is what evolved, not their cost or other burdens. I feel like you’re intentionally deflecting. Clearly my point was that “we get significantly more, for significantly less”. There is no reason to assume we won’t do the same with cars, or all manufacturing with time. I’ve laid out some points why/how in a different response.