Let me put it this way: using my car's console controls are more distracting than using CarPlay with siri/voice control. If I'm uncomfortable though I would be in a worse shape driving, hence there's a need to set climate.
I don't know about Rivian, but I'm generally less distracted on the road with CarPlay due to Siri & Voice Control. I wish I could extend it to my native car controls such as climate control etc.
I'm guessing none to be honest. It sounds plausible but in practice it's probably too difficult to do anything useful compared to other tried and true vectors.
Everyone goes to the extremes when it comes to these theories and throws out all aspects of pragmatism.
You do realise that mobile usage is a subset of the Internet and the Internet is not just about end user connectivity.
But you still haven't addressed my original point, how has IPv6 averted the impending (at the time) IP exhaustion problem? As I remember it, we were running out of IP addresses, then we did run out, and CGNAT helped extend the life of the Internet for people on IP, while v6 still remains an island that is optional and doesn't help alleviate any of the pain.
NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point.
Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around.
As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not talking about internal addressing of networks, different problem altogether.
why are you changing a USB port on a phone?