Absolutely. Are you serious? Do you not learn anything from literature?
45 karma · joined June 30, 2017
I'm the kind of guy who could probably figure out how to do this if it was, like, given to me as a task. But never in a million years would I just stumble across this.
How many people do you really think are going to read their claims, then read that their claims are not fully backed up, and then decide to boycott the company?
Versus how many people read their claims, and have been reading their previous claims, and are already sucked into Tesla's "Saving the world" narrative.
For those people, stuff like this "Impact Report" aren't deciding factors, but are a part of a larger effort at Tesla to imbue a sense of 'higher purpose' or something along those lines.
There's little downside to this kind of fluff.
I am quite sure you are not aware of the issue here. We're talking about binding, or forced arbitration. Often times, people are unaware that they are being forced into arbitration, and when they are, it severely limits their legal recourse. There's little reason to support it, unless you're a huge company with liability concerns.
Here's a good source on the matter:
When you say that these appeals to reason and logic are generally to protect the right from our left-going politics, I agree somewhat. When the right use this as an argument within political debate, IE, if someone presents a reasonable point, and they simply reject it on the basis of their emotionality or perceived lack of reason, they're no better than those that reject others' ideas out of hand because of their emotionality. I don't think the right using 'logic and reason' as a weapon is a sufficient basis to reject said logic and reason, though.
You seem to take the view that we have no control over our ability to practice rhetoric and argue with logic and reason, instead of ad hominem or other pointless attacks. So what are we to do? Call it politics and move on? I don't think you properly argue against this article. You say that your point doesn't lead to this all out hobbesian war, because...Syria? We should count ourselves lucky that instead of violence, we get to use verbal personal attacks?
I don't think your post is really all that at odds with this article. I think it'd be totally fine if you were to reject a point on the basis of moral repugnance, as long as that is stated in a reasonable way. If you reject a person on this basis, then there's a problem, right? If you simply reject anything Haidt has to say, then we get nowhere. If you reject one of his contentions on the basis of, well, something then great. That's how discourse is supposed to work. "come on" is a good example of rejecting an idea out of hand without reasoning.
You say that "Us vs Them" doesn't matter or is invalid because...the US is more right than the rest of the world? This us vs them thing, it doesn't really matter where on this spectrum you lie. Indeed this is not relegated to politics at all. The issue crops up when "we" reject "their" idea because it's "them" -- it does not make a difference whether "us" is the American left or the rest of the world's left. Or any other group. I do agree that the US has to reject our extremely right leaning politics, but it's possible the only way that we're going to be able to do that is, well, using logic and reason. What other alternative exists?
Why do we have to slog through crackpottery for insight?
Any thoughts about qubes OS?
Their new system is clearly based on the data they have on you, and really feels like netflix picking for us rather than helping the user pick on their own. It does not provide much value to me at all.
It feels like CPU advancements in recent memory have brought nothing at all. It used to be, in the early days of smartphones, every generation brought something very new, something that can truly be considered an improvement. I remember the first dual core phone, the first quad core, etc. Nowadays, there is no noticeable difference at all.
Even now, where phones have indeed caught up to computer CPUs in speed, we have yet to see a phone really do anything more with that speed. The one thing I want to see, but nobody seems to be doing it, is a phone that converts into a desktop. Your laptop doesn't have to be separate from your phone. Your laptop could be a dock for your super-fast phone that converts to a desktop operating system. Of course, there have been a few products on the market that have attempted this, but none that lasted.
The Homepod does not have an aux cord.
The Homepod does not allow you to use its onboard bluetooth 5.0 hardware to play music from another device
The Homepod does not allow you to play spotify, unless you play it from an airplay-equipped device (so not android without a workaround), which means you cannot ask it to play spotify at all, or for that matter, play any other service except their own.
Many reviews are reporting a lack of features in the homepod's Siri, as well as poor performance of existing features.
I agree with you when you say apple is great at getting people to care about things that nobody cared about before. Are you suggesting that those things actually matter? Do you believe apple is getting people to care about these things out of an abundance of compassion and drive to educate the masses? I think it's more plausible that Apple will get their customers to care about whatever leads them to purchase products from Apple.
It's a consumer speaker, priced on par with professional (albeit entry level, but still professional) hardware. It's no wonder apple is offering these at 50% off to employees. That is the only reason there is one sitting at my house right now, because at that price it's worth it as a speaker, despite the shortcomings.
Just not worth it for almost everyone else.