anthonygd

Of course being laid off is a must. The question is how long, before you find a new job, does it remain a must? An individual's reasons for passing on a new job sometimes stretch the idea of "must".

Routine maintenance on EVs does tend to be less, but non-routine damage tends to be much more expensive. That leads to insurance being 40% higher than comparably priced ICE cars. Essentially the median cost is a little lower but the mean cost is much higher.

Here's a interesting Tesla specific take: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/tesla-insurance

Personally I prefer predictable slightly high costs vs random potential for exorbitantly high costs.

> The children who are estranged from their parents are experiencing the traditional gaslighting, and not the more recent thing you bring up.

And sometimes, the parent is experiencing gaslighting. We all have problems and the difference between parent and child fades with time (most of us live both roles).

Without an objective record of fact and an independent analysis, it very well could be either party or more probably both that are guilty of gaslighting. Nothing is wrong with being estranged though unless you want there to be.

It seems clear the original engineering was also an _unknown_. Planning for failure cases is part of engineering: making a $16k part that is easily damaged and non-repairable is simply shoddy engineering.

I'll agree a 2 week outage is insane, but that's hardly an example of the tech being behind. Shitty process sure and lazy software development too.

How about the charge range or stability control? Any idea about the battery's expected life span? What technology do you think Audi is behind on?

My impression has been that Tesla nailed the charging network, charge range and raw straight line performance. Everything else they half-assed, i.e. the stuff I care about on a daily basis feels cheap.

It sounds like you don't understand how wealth works and you're having some sort of emotional reaction towards "rich people".

I just did a quick search for the breakdown, but essential 81% of Elon's wealth is Tesla stock and 14% is SpaceX. The remaining 5% is a combination of assets. The important point is that 95%+ of his wealth is being actively used by other people for things like salaries, research and manufacturing. That's how investing works: you give your money to other people in exchange for some well defined privileges. We talk about those privileges as being worth a certain $x but that's not at all the same as having $x.

There is no Uncle Scrooge style vault with cash. Other people are using that money.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-net-worth-quintupl...

The Sunk Cost fallacy is strong.

It's just important that people figure out what makes them happy, and what they're buying.

I have no issue spending $60k+ on a car because I like to drive and a nice car makes me happy every time I get in. There is no way I'd buy a Peloton though: I absolutely hate all fitness classes. I'd rather spend $3k on dumb equipment than $1k on "smart" equipment with classes.

Having a single customer doesn't make a monopoly; if anything it gives that customer much more power. There's no reason the government can't do price comparisons even when buying from the US. If you want to sell $500 toilet seats then I'll sell $499 toilet seats. There might even be someone out there who could make them for $498...

Obviously the US can't/hasn't/won't out compete the entire world in all areas but it should be at least competitive.

Competition should extend beyond pure price. National values should be more than politicians talking points. If widget A is made by Uighur forced labor and widget B is made by a middle class labor in a free market, are you willing to spend more for B? How much more?

FWIW - I don't want a blanket mandate either but I don't think you have a convincing argument against it.

Back when I started working with Python professionally, virtual environments were required before I could grok things. I just could not wrap my head around the crazy inconsistent behavior and nightmare dependencies until I discovered virtual environments.

I've never become a Python fan, but I really don't think it's even usable without virtual environments.

I think you're right about dating apps not really favoring either gender. Hiring is the first thing I think of when reading about dating apps. There's just a very strong natural imbalance.

Dating apps are especially good at making people not have to face their shortcomings, i.e. I don't have to fix my shortcomings, because with a large enough pool there's going to be someone broken in the right way to accommodate me. Maybe that's rational, or maybe it's not, it really depends on expectations.

Counter intuitively, accepting that we're just stupid hairless apes makes me believe we're rational. We're not failing to find anything meaningful; we're not interested or looking.

Why do you say "the people that worked their ass off to make his wealth possible" haven't been compensated?

I have zero confidence I would be able to pick out the Spaniard, Belgian, Canadian or American.

I'm having a hard time matching your generalization with my experience. When I started travelling I was surprised how similar people were regardless of where they were from.

Sure you can dig into political views and find themes but those aren't consistent or pervasive enough to make predictions on an individual basis.

My kind take on this is that the author is more social than a lot of developers. Some people like water cooler conversations at work and a lot of informal meetings. That makes sense for some jobs in some companies.

My less kind take is that the author is not at all a self starter. Structure is something that absolutely can be applied to life even without an office. The example of faster feedback loops was supposed to be positive, but it was a pair of developers who very quickly broke their production environment.

It's clear the author is better off working in an office and I think that it's good they can. I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't want to work in _that_ office.

It was just a humorous warning for normal people to not use odd kernel versions. Long ago odd versions were extremely experimental and this was the best example of crazy they could think of.

This article isn't about Naomi Osaka; it's about a guy reveling in sloth. He's pretty explicit about just not wanting to contribute to society. He doesn't want to work, he wants to sit on the couch and watch TV.

Refusing to encourage a narcissist is not the same as bullying them. I hope he gets the help he needs, but he's going to have to want it first.

Not everyone who shoplifts was "driven" to shoplift.

Some people simply decide they'd rather keep their money and the product. After you remove "law and order" that actually becomes the most rational individual decision.

I think the point is that wind/solar have scaling limits. Sure they work today, and in the immediate future, but what would it look like to have 100% of daily usage delivered by wind or solar?

Don't forget political boundaries. Not all countries/regions have enough water for huge windfarms or deserts for solar panels. Also remember electricity usage generally grows with time, so how long do you think we can increase by x annually if land use has to increase by 470x?

Today there aren't any large regions where 100% of power comes from renewables and we really don't know what's it's like managing renewable generation at large scale. It's not a concern we should be totally dismissive of.

Think of the "worst" case more like we're trapped growing a solar installation and need the land from your home to do it.

It's probably late for you to see this but here's an attempt to clarify... my complaint is with wearing a mask as a statement _while_ complaining about the other side being overly aggressive in making their statement.

Essentially 6 months ago you somewhat had the moral high ground because science was on your side, but now it's just personal preference.

If you feel safer with a mask, that's fine (it might do some miniscule good). If you wear a mask to show everyone where you fall on the political spectrum, than just own up to the fact that you're being divisive.

The problem you're describing is real and something that needs to be resolved.

I'm assuming six months ago you would have told someone to wear a mask because that's what science says. Now you're ignoring the science to make a statement. Was it lip-service and posturing 6 months ago or is it now? Do you value science or not?

You're telling the anti-mask/anti-vax people that yes it really was just bullshit and it was never really about science.

I've met precisely one person face to face who seriously proposed banning salary negotiations. It took a really long time to hire him because of his salary negotiation strategy.

In all seriousness this is one of the best ways to make sure I'll never work for Coinbase. There's no clearer message that management is composed of shameless exploitive liars.

You do realize criminals don't get to pick which crimes they're charged with, right?

I have mixed feelings about code reviews. It seems like sometimes they're an opportunity to show off so every review _will_ find something insignificant; sometimes code reviews are rubber stamps and just not useful. There's a balance though where you get concise thoughtful responses.

It seems like there is something about pairing though that guarantees a focus on shallow insignificance. I don't like dismissing something that has smart proponents but I just can't find a way to make pair programming anything other than negative. The real time aspect rules out depth.

I remember when leaving politics and religion at home was just considered basic good manners.

It's disappointing it needs to be specifically spelled out, but I'm glad some companies are taking that step.

That's crazy talk.

You're not wrong but higher unemployment helps push prices down. The economy is a huge collection of competing forces so answers are rarely so straight forward.

> ...it wouldn't be too hard to build some reasonable safeguards into a law like this...

I think you're glossing over the entire point of why people are concerned. It _would_ be incredibly difficult to add safeguards.

As a side note, you should be aware a Slippery Slope Argument is not necessarily a fallacy. Whether it's a fallacy depends on the strength of the chain of conditions. I'm not normally a Wikipedia fan but their article is reasonably good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It comes down to, "What percentage of energy output from the panels needs to be devoted to keeping them clean?" If it's 100% there's no point in going to Mars, if it's 0% there's no point in using solar panels.

At least back with Opportunity the solar panels did have wipers. They ended up lasting much longer than expected. I'm not sure whether Insight has wipers or not, but it's possible they shifted too far in the other direction.

> > if you don't think that's absolutely crazy, and I don't know what to tell you, man > > to adjudicate such things instead of leaving things up to a hate-filled lynch mob

> See the duality of your own post.

That reads as though you scored some virtual point, but I can't figure out what you're saying. Can you clarify?

It does seem like a safe bet.