> That's really a matter of their personal opinion. Some of us find such buildings repulsive.
I find lip piercings repulsive. I wouldn't want them made illegal. The country would be in a better place if people hadn't decided that there's a 0th amendment saying they had the right to never be offended by anything.
Why do the rights of the local people trump the rights of people from "elsewhere"? The major question is what harm is being done to the local people by the existence of 50 story buildings, vs the harm to people that find an ideal job in SF but can't afford to take it?
It is a concern, but for me (which I'm extrapolating to "most" using this technique: https://xkcd.com/605/) it seems very minor. It's not a concern at all for the first car in a two-car household. It's a very slight concern if I was also buying a second Tesla for the wife. Some long trips we'd be able to take in the Tesla, and some road trips we'd have to rent a car to take. But I already have to do that when we take a vacation that involves a flight.
Range drops by how much? How do you know that recharging happens "routinely" and what frequency is "routinely"? I drive 35 miles to work, more than most anyone I know. Range could drop 50% from the stated 200 miles and I still wouldn't need to charge before I got home.
He claims that he doesn't like that either, but that without those subsidies ICE cars are economically viable but Tesla would never sell cars. Anyway, I'm giving you the reasonable summary, don't go actually reading those comments, they're worse than the article.
Were the batteries brand new? Were the battery swap stations everywhere that had a supercharger? Did everyone know about it? It seems like there are possibly some other explanations than people didn't care about the recharge wait. I know I wouldn't swap out my known good batteries for some dodgy unknown batteries from the last Tesla that went through here just for convenience, but that wouldn't mean that I didn't care about the inconvenience..
Right. So it tells you that typically even when superchargers are needed the driver doesn't need 100% to get where they're going. In order to need the 100% you have to be driving 400 miles in one trip.
The author acts like this is a huge deal. As if every Tesla driver will be filling up their Tesla at a supercharger as often as every other driver fills up their car at a gas station. It seems like a very minor point to most. 400 miles is about the limit of what I'll drive on a road trip, anything more than that I'll take a plane. So if I had a Tesla and I took a vacation once a year within 400 miles, it would mean spending 0 minutes filling up my car for 51 weeks out of the year, and adding an extra hour on each end of the trip. I'd probably be annoyed at the delay if it didn't coincide with a meal but it would probably just remind me how awesome it was that I never have to stop the other 51 weeks..
If you read the comments, he's a hardcore libertarian whose problem is really the tax subsidies on Tesla. The rest of it is just weak reaches for additional justifications.
No, the capitalist way to fight a monopoly is to provide a better product and/or a better price, not to force your competitor to raise their prices to a point where you can compete with them through collusion.
So let's say there's 6 major publishers because I'm too lazy to look up the correct number. If apple had approached one of them individually and offered them the same deal and they had agreed everything would have been fine. But individually it looks pretty bad. The result would be that on Amazon (where 90% of the sales come from) the one publishers books would be available for $12.99 and 5 other publishers books would be available for $9.99 and they wouldn't compete. So individually the publishers would have turned them down. The illegal part comes in where Apple tells the publisher "Don't worry, we have talked to all the other publishers and they've agreed to the same deal so you won't have to worry about competing." Just like it would be illegal for all the CEOs to get together and agree on one price. It's not suddenly legal just because a third party is facilitating the price fixing.
It seems to me like it's a bad thing that an accidental rm in an efivarfs filesystem can brick the system, regardless of whether the filesystem was automounted or not.
What you mean is: systemd could have fixed it, but it would have been a lot of work and a hack that wouldn't help you when efivarfs gets mounted on a sysv/upstart/openrc system. The kernel was the best place for the fix.
I've read that page, I don't see their words where they say Protobuf is not good at encoding raw bytes. You have not been able to confirm it because you didn't spend 10 minutes trying it (add a bytes field to a message and see what the resulting message size is, add it to the benchmarks). I got to that "No" in the feature comparison and realized that this comparison was more marketing than science.
There are lots of options for routing Protobuf messages which are pretty straightforward logic. Most common is probably writing the length of the message first before writing the message. You could also break up the message into two parts, a header used for routing and the message. You could use UDP as the transport mechanism if your messages are small enough.
Also, it seems like a big leap from "unsuitable for systems that require routing of messages but for some reason don't know the schema of the messages being routed" to "unsuitable as a network protocol message format"
Where is their words that Protobuf is not good at encoding raw bytes? I don't see that anywhere. There is a "bytes" type specifically for that purpose.
The tag numbers are part of the message definitions, they're not assigned arbitrarily. So absolutely you can reorder them. And as long as you described them as "optional" in the original message definition you can remove them without breaking backwards compatibility.
What does proxying have to do with it? One of us is terribly misunderstanding the concept. As I understand IPv4+ concept in this article, your router gets address 1.2.3.4 then every device behind it gets 1.2.3.4.0.0.0.1, etc. That way all the routers in between don't need to be upgraded, they just get the packets to your router and don't care about the extra address bytes, and your router gets them to a particular device. Which is great for routers in the middle, but your web browser still has to use IPv4 and NAT workarounds until all the web servers are upgraded to support IPv4+.
I think you're making the OPs point about the parallels. You've come up with these technical arguments about POS system limitations and management expectations for why the waiter is "right" to be annoyed at being asked to split the customer's check. The end result is that the customer is only going to remember that the waiter was rude when he was asked to split the check.
As to why you're getting downvoted, I would assume a lot of people (such as myself) don't agree with your anecdotal evidence that waiters never react badly to splitting a check, unless you "live in a weird place".
This isn't new. Your interface could have more than one ipv4 IP also. If two ipv6 addresses are throwing something off that means it wasn't properly handling this case before.