All EV trucks suck at pulling, so that's a category problem. It's designed to ride like a car, as truck dynamics of leaf spring suspension on a solid rear axle isn't actually good technically. The feel, though, is a personal preference. It is not a hobby nor a toy: it is fully functional as a truck other than for pulling long miles. It is way more capable than other trucks on certain dimensions. Other trucks are outrageously expensive with similar features. I feel like you are biased.
How do you not understand the trickle down effect of motorsports, given that you work for a competitor? The tech in the roadster trickles down to normal cars (e.g., its drivetrain advancements), and possibly to off-planet rovers (Earth is the brutal case to test the equipment on, but I don't know enough about the potential to reuse here).
Sounds like a reasonable explanation. I've never wanted to deal with running an open-source community (I'm way too introverted and focused on coding, not chatting), but now that AI is here, I will be releasing something awesome. I don't know how I'm going to deal with the community though. Possibly it will be so awesome that others create the community in my absence, and that solves the problem.
This is silly. I bought my Model Y specifically because its safety is so high. You can see it in (1) the crash rate numbers when using FSD, (2) the crash-test ratings are fantastic, and (3) impossible situations where people survived such as plummeting off a cliff on route 1.
International law is primarily a set of treaties between sovereigns. The point of being sovereign is that you can unilaterally leave a treaty. There are consequences to doing that for those that are weaker, of course.
Those of us that believe in preserving civil liberties argue that we should take away powers of the government so it is harder to bully people under the color of law --- the process is the punishment. I'm not sure why the left only cares about this topic now, and not when the left was in power. The Left had a lot of opportunities to take away government powers before Trump entered office.
Do not forget that world leaders are heads of sovereign states that are in charge of their self defense. Those that actually have to defend themselves, like the US, rather than relying on strong allies, need to make public statements that are not hypocritical about what they would do for self defense. This is why both U.S. administrations support Israel's actions
I'm not understanding the issue here, as everyone has different expectations for prose. No matter which LLM I use, I will provide a skill to generate high-quality prose. It is the first thing I add to my repo that I'm working on.
This is exactly what I mean: you take what the news reports as evidence, when the news is hearsay. Courts don't run off of hearsay. I know quite a bit of what actually happened, and it doesn't match what you're saying. You've bypassed epistemology and gone to condemnation.
This mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.
It's wild to me how many replies are like this. I like X. HN, on the other hand is miserable, with censorship through down votes of unorthodox thinkers (PG would be completely down voted if he were to post here anonymously).
They want this problem to be solved. So you spend the munitions, forcing the manufacturing problem to get fixed. This works in favor of Anduril, which cares about manufacturing scalability
If I'm interested in a Jeep or Bronco, I don't go to a car reviewer. They say it is noisy and handles poorly. They act like their use case is what matters for something obviously targeting a different use case.
Acute heat exposure, like 45 minutes where sweat is starting to accumulate on your skin, causes capillary growth and other adaptations some weeks later. If you don't have those adaptations already when exposed to heat, and you're weak, you're going to be in trouble.
If troops get deployed, it will no longer be an air war. Part of keeping it an air war is to achieve the original objectives, and getting Iran to think that troops are coming is a way to increase the probability of achieving those objectives. If you don't know how war, or game theory, works, why are you commenting on it?
What he says matches to reality: that regime change isn't possible with an air war. Thus even if you don't listen to him, we know from prior experience that regime change is highly improbable. Every person educated about these things knows that.
No air war has changed a regime. The US government knows this. Trump knows this and never had regime change as an objective. Why are you saying that regime change was an objective, and how do you think it was going to happen in an air war when no air war has caused a regime change before?