[casualrandomcom]

This blog post is unfair to horseless carriages.

"lack of suspension"

The author did not see the large, outsized, springs that keep the cabin insulated from both the road _and_ the engine.

What was wrong in this design was just that the technology to keep the heavy, vibrating, motor sufficiently insulted from both road and passengers was not available (mainly inflatable tires). Otherwise it was perfectly reasonable, even commendale, because it tried to make-do with what was available.

Maybe the designer can be critizised for not seeing that a wooden frame was not strong enough to hold a steam engine, and maybe that there was no point in making the frame as light as possible when you have a steam engine to push it, but, you know, you learn this by doing.

[wanderful]

I see the horseless carriage as part of the evolutionary product journey to what is now known as the car, from the horse-drawn carriage to the horseless carriage, to early automobiles, to now.

I would take your statement further than unfair and say the analogy is inaccurate and confused about how products evolve over time.

The article itself shows only an incremental improvement on the UI by exposing a system prompt, rather than reaching for the modern car from the era of the first horseless carriages.

[razkarcy]

Thank you for pointing this out; though the article's underlying message is relatable and well-formed, this "laughably obvious" straw man undermined some of its credibility.