partial_accumen @ partial_accumen @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

4,187

Joined

2 yr. ago

Those advancements were made possible by the Roadster, which was the true pioneering product that made EVs cool again. A car that was dreamed up and invented by Martin Eberhard, and would go on to be built by someone else that gave him the shittiest end of the most shit-covered stick there ever was.

All credit due to Eberhard and Tarpenning for the idea and some of the initial development of the BMS, but its not like they had a full car ready to sell and before Musk came in. Tesla was established as a company in 2003, Musk was brought in (with his money) in 2004. The first Roadster sold in 2008. Now stop making me say anything positive about Musk just to set the record straight. Its making me sick to talk about him positively after what he's become and how much harm he has caused human society.

It’s not rare for the first company to bring a product to market to not be the top dog once other companies get involved.

Except Tesla wasn't the first mass market EV. It wasn't even the second. The first would be the GM EV1 in 1997:

Many would argue that the EV1 doesn't count because it was on old technology. Fine then, the Nissan Leaf from 2009 then sporting its lithium battery:

Tesla Model S brought performance, range and styling that both of those were missing. However, we don't need Tesla anymore in the world if Musk is still benefiting from it.

Especially those times of year where you're in the office before the sun rises, and leave after it sets. Oh, and you work in a windowless room.

Nice humblebrag. You don't need to use the plural of pog in your post here when you only have a single mint condition Alf pog as your $2M asset.

I'm the last person to ever use the "both sides the same" but our side had some of that same problem during Obama's first term. Yes, key legislation was passed, but just barely and even some of those bills had some compromises.

Surprisingly, sliding a piece of paper with my Geocities URL wouldn't have the same effect.

I'm enjoying seeing my solar panels still producing electricity for the house at 8:55pm at night.

"The agencies were also instructed to consider other modern non-dollar assets such as Pokemon cards and Beanie Babies" /s

I'd trade Ukraine getting NATO membership if it means Hungary loses it.

A 3.5mm AUX jack takes up a significant amount of space just to connect a few wires that could be connected through USB-C anyway, that space could be used for a bigger battery.

The USB-C is unavailable because its being used to keep the phone powered. Is your solution to force everyone to carry yet another dongle in the form of a splitter?

You misunderstood. I don’t mean that the state or the feds will send their own people. I mean that they will literally take the police control away from the city government.

If they already have the local police doing their dirty work, haven't they already effectively done that?

If they do not comply, the state and federal government will step in.

So the defense is, to avoid having state and federal jackboots come in, the only solution is to put on jackboots yourself and become part of the problem?

I don't disagree with most of your thoughts above, but I'm not seeing a discussion of the merits or detriments of arguing in bad faith. A necessary component of bad faith arguing is the knowledge that you don't actually hold that opinion that you're defending even while claiming you do. After your first sentence in your text above you're speaking to actual beliefs that the person holds, which wouldn't be bad faith.

But I see what you are saying. It’s different and they will have to adapt.

The organization adapting may mean they simply exit that line of business if the costs/risks of training for the required staff it too high.

Those that argue in bad faith usually abandon consistency in the process. Because they don't believe in the argument they are presenting, as soon as they are proven wrong they simply pivot to a new, and likely, contradictory argument. This often occurs because their real reason for their desired outcome is abhorrent (and they are aware of that) but they argue a different reason that would have the same outcome. This is prime red meat for racists and misogynists, as an example.

On the job training. Yes, it takes time and money but it is the obvious solution.

A challenge facing many white collar jobs is that the entry level jobs are being automated away. There is no job for them to train on. The floor starts at Intermediate skill level and advances quickly to senior. The grunt work that needed to get done used to be handed to juniors. It wasn't very difficult, and it was low risk if they made mistakes. It was perfect entry work that was both necessary in that it served a productive purpose, but also allowed someone to get in the door and start working in a particular field. Technology and automation are now doing that same grunt work, so the entry level jobs are drying up and not being replaced. Its going to be a massive problem in a decade or two if the Intermediate and Senior positions are still needed and those that are in those jobs now retire or die off. This assume that the Intermediate and Senior positions don't also get automated away.

I'm not closely involved in trade jobs, but I wonder if a version of this is happening there too. One example I can think of is jobs like twisting rebar tie wire by hand for concrete work isn't technically difficult, but it is time consuming and uncomfortable.

Here's how its done by hand

However, now there are now robots that can do this work so much faster, and they don't eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, or get injured.

Here's a robot that can do it

Is this happening in other entry level trade jobs? Will there be nowhere to train on the job?

If I understand the explanation, its like when an author (or their proxies) buys thousands (millions) of copies of their own book to make them "sold" so that they can raise their standing on the "Best Seller's List".

There are already bacteria and fungi out there that show signs of breaking down plastics but at a very slow rate btw. It could function only under very specific conditions, like UV light exposure or sea water.

I wouldn't consider UV light to be specific. Sunlight has huge amounts of UV and sunlight is, well nearly everywhere. Sea water would also be a bad catalyst to choose. Lots of parts of boats and ships that come in contact with sea water (through the bilge or as sea spray) intentionally use plastic as it doesn't rust or corrode in the presence of marine environments. What you're suggesting would remove that protection.

There are already bacteria and fungi out there that show signs of breaking down plastics but at a very slow rate btw.

Sure, but we're not talking about those. You're suggesting releasing a bacteria that is being designed for industrial scale and use of rapid plastic decomposition. You don't see a difference there?

I’d like to know how else you would remove plastics from the wild.

I'm not required to provide a solution just to point out the catastrophic shortcomings of a proposed one.

No, I wouldn’t call that diplomacy.

This is why you and I aren't diplomats.

If the head of NATO is dependent upon the USA for lots of support to NATO, then it is in NATO's interest for the head of the USA to like NATO. If you know the head of the USA is incredibly shallow and you can achieve that support simply by sending an email/text message which requires zero dollars, and at best, a bit of political capital, then its a good deal for the NATO head to do that.

This is what is both fascinating and horrible about diplomacy and geopolitics. Its not about being "right" or "moral" in the moment. Its about getting what you want hopefully in service of the overall goal of of your interests. Sometimes that overall goal is "right" and "moral" in the case of NATO usually.

Why would it be random?

Perhaps I should have used the word "uncontrolled" instead of random. If you're expecting this bacteria to work against, say, a field with plastic litter in it, its going to be in contact with lots of other things made of plastic that aren't waste. If the bacteria is able to self replicate, and you've released it into the wild, you've effectively killed the use for nearly all plastics as things that are still in use will be decomposed.

We are already releasing huge amounts of artificial chemicals into the wild.

Thats a bizarre argument. That would be like saying: "We have lots of murders in the world, so why not intentionally murder more people?"