I don't know about blacks or hippies, but Last Week Tonight played an Oval Office tape of Nixon wanting to target marijuana laws because those in favor (of legalization) were Jewish.
14 karma · joined February 8, 2011
Fully loaded, the Prime is ~35k, and theoretically has more or at least equivalent features, can travel about 25 miles on EV alone, with smooth switching between EV and ICE modes. However, it feels like they threw all these systems in as feature creep. There's a HUD that's really hard to see or get used to, a lot of your EV info is on top of the middle of the dash in a very cluttered manner, the NAV system / phone system is tough to use - you end up trying to go thru a phone tree to make a simple call, and the phone sync is so bad that the sales guy who tried to demo it with my wife's iphone 8 spent 15 minutes and couldn't get it to work. The same holds true for almost every feature on it - the autopilot was hard to get to engage because there was also the standard cruise control features, and so on.
The Model 3 is amazing for its elegant simplicity. The early iPhone metaphor is remarkably apt here - there are things that could be better, it could be cheaper, and little idiosyncrasies like the door handles are there - but in the end it's a night and day difference, like you're getting Something New, and not just next year's model.
There's a list of hard factual reasons I could go into that played into the decision, but I'll try to cut the gushing fanboi talk short. In the end we dropped the extra 30k on our Model 3 and are ecstatic with it.
I think we'll find there's a lot of early Prius owners, even up to '10 or '13, who have enjoyed their car, bought it partly for green reasons, and when looking for a replacement will choose to bump up to the Model 3.
It would be more interesting if someone with the necessary legal muscle could design an effective and legal "IP shelter" from the U.S. patent system . The structure would be some series of foreign companies/organizations that could claim immunity for internet products as they would be 'foreign' and therefore not infringing. There are obviously many legal and tax issues that make this difficult (PCT, not viable for physical products, etc). However, if it could be designed and then templatized, much like Series funding documents have become, then it would allow any startup, but especially ones that attempt to tackle traditionally hostile industries (MAFIAA), to exist in a 'safe haven' away from the utter nonsense that US intellectual property has become.
Even if it creates some $X burden on startups, I am sure that most startups would be willing to pay this expense if it takes the risk of an Armageddon-like legal suit out of their startup picture. It would also be a forcing function on the US legislature due to loss of prestige and possibly revenue (imagine if the next Google incorporates in Canada and only a subsidiary works in California due to patent concerns).
Is there a company structure, or is it possible to design one, that would allow a startup to operate free from the threat of patent trolls? What comes to mind is a network of shell holding companies that is used to hide ownership of copyright IP - Charles Stross describes this in the first part of Accelerando. Simply, it may have reached a point where it is safer for startups to operate as a subsidiary of a foreign company not subject to U.S. patent law.
There are multiple and various reasons for studying history, whether this is articulated clearly in everyone's mind or not. Establish a baseline cultural past, instill moral values (ex. glorifying Person X's accomplishments), predict future results of actions, and entertainment are reasons that also spring to mind just off the top of the mind.
If history is being taught simply to teach decision-making skills, then using a case study format would be one possible way to improve the current teaching methods.Academically, it would be very interesting to find where the line can be drawn between 'in-born character traits' and 'soft skills.' In reality, you have daily rituals and activities designed to reinforce "disciple"; you have millions of dollars of investment in "leadership" training (of what quality is another conversation); and "morality" training that often takes place on (insert religious day of the week). Euripides will tell you that "Courage may be taught as a child is taught to speak." I do not claim to have extensive knowledge in learning theory, but at least some portion of our prior actions and experiences form the foundation for future actions.
Personally, I would say you train such skills by making a person take one action with the quality you seek, and then build upon that to have them take another. You change a person's environment, give them the tools to lower the 'barrier to entry' cost, and set up a result/reward feedback loop. E.g, basic training.
Final aside: in this conversation, we seem to have muddled the differentiation between the trait of creativity and the act of initiating and producing.
[1] paraphase of http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html