camdat

Not sure where you saw this, the Quest Pro has built in speakers.

Straps are detachable, comes in-box.

You're posting here though? Hackernews is definitely a social site.

> but he also over delivers

My family has had reservations for the Roadster, the Cybertruck, and we have a first-edition Model 3 & X.

Tesla has overpromised on all of our reservations, and the final product, imo, is not "overdelivering". It's honestly just barely "delivering".

>but even in their approach to manufacturing.

This is pure Tesla propaganda. Yes they have built bigger versions of existing technology (supepress, gigafactory), but they're definitely not leading innovation in car production, as evidenced by M3s still having the largest panel gaps in the industry.

I mean this has been the core issue of journalists since FB started to render page previews for users.

The whole "FB Bad" news cycle, in my opinion, is primarily the result of traditional media feeling threatened by FB "freeloading" on their work.

A oft-told tale in FB. Zuck rewrote memcached for FB in 2005. Either you or he is slightly misremembering the story.

>First, RCS is not a very modern or practical standard. It was created in 2008 by carriers (GSMA!!) for their SMS/MMS centric (at the time) platforms. So is it a good idea to adopt this more than a decade later? I don’t think so.

Is a standard from the 90s acceptable then? Do we say Apple shouldn't migrate to USB-C since it's old-ish? A standard being around a long time is a good thing, but when a better one comes along I don't see what excuse Apple has to not migrate (besides anti-competitiveness, which is a really good reason I suppose).

>Second, it’s really not Apple’s fault that Google has failed to come up with a messaging solution. Google has released 13 separate messenger apps since 2011!

The argument in the article could be made irrespective of Google. The article isn't saying "Apple isn't playing nice so use our stuff instead", it's a critique of an obvious attempt by Apple to build a walled garden around messaging. Google is arguing for a standard adopted across the industry, not one of their many messaging apps.

I'm aware. It's difficult to have a causational discussion with someone continually using correlational evidence.

If I say with "provide a reason why Elon is necessary to the success of the company", and you respond with "Look at the success of these two companies he led" that's completely tangential to the question.

So in exchange for "doing better" answer a simple question for me: What specific actions did Elon take that led to the success of Tesla and/or SpaceX?

I've provided several specific actions that were to the detriment of Tesla, so it should be straightforward to do the inverse.

How so?

Awesome, so we agree that Elon isn't attributable for the success of Tesla.

The owner of the team matters less to the success of the team than the participants, as is easily proven by the argument you have just made.

If Elon had consistently led successful teams, as Jordan has, then the correlationary argument would be more convincing. Since he has led a mix of failures and successes, the likely indicator is the teams that worked for him, not his own ability.

> Easy. Nobody else's electric car company succeeded.

Define "succeeded"? Tesla was definitely not first to market, Ford is expected to surpass them in EV cars shipped by end of this year, and Tesla is well known for their poor car QA + service (as an owner myself).

The comparison between Steve Jobs and Elon Musk is very apt, but I think you lack the historical knowledge to understand why that is.

So a person that wins the lottery twice is good at the lottery? You need to make a causational argument, and so far everyone in this thread has replied with a correlationary argument.

This is a great analogy. Would you say that Michael Jordan is only successful because of the owner of the team he played for?

If I were to argue that Tesla succeeded in spite of Elon, how would you disprove that?

I could point to his bitcoin investments, many discrimination cases, failure to release Autopilot (against his own promises), SEC action, and Tesla share price manipulation as examples of him hurting the companies success, and directly connect them to his actions. Could you do the same for the companies success?

Then how is that a convincing argument that Elon is the reason that Tesla is successful.

So the willingness of the founder to stay/leave is the only metric for the long-term success of the company?

Survivorship bias. Elon has led many failed companies, success doesn't imply correlation.

> Even with Elon the company barely made it many times

This is the crux of my argument. If Tesla failed, would it been because of Elon? Did X.com, Boring Co., etc fail because of Elon?

Tesla already existed before Elon. Can you make the case that they wouldn't have been as successful without him? I don't see any specific performance that would indicate that he's instrumental to their success.

Would you expect the same level of candor from your employer? If the answer is no then you owe them nothing.

Did you bother to read the article?

>Building on Meta AI’s research and advancements, we’ve developed the first model capable of automatically scanning hundreds of thousands of citations at once to check whether they truly support the corresponding claims.

>algorithms that have an editorial effect?

Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm?

And? I'm not sure what this has to do with actual leaked data. I'm sure that many companies do not have a high quality data monitoring system, but very few actually leak data to the public.

> I don't want Facebook monetizing my data and my gaming life.

Do you use the Steam store? It's related "recommendation" queue? Is that not an example of Valve monetizing your data/gaming habits?

>Valve hasn't had scandal after scandal of them abusing user data in egregious ways.

Any real examples? Scandal after scandal implies there should be many, but in recent memory I can't think of FB directly abusing user data besides it being repeated as truth on HN.

Have you turned on your device in the past year? Social/FB profiles haven't been required for Rift/CV* for a few years at this point.

If anything FB has greatly improved this. Airlink is a literal step-change improvement to VR that allows the user to have a totally wireless PC VR experience, something that was assumed to be very difficult/impossible over existing wireless standards.

>Before Facebook bought Oculus there was cooperation and native software interoptibility between Vive and Rift.

With respect, did you ever use a Vive or a Rift CV1? They absolutely had much worst interoperability prior to FB. The launch of CV2 gated it behind the Oculus store, making it impossible to use Steam with the CV2 before overwhelming negative feedback changed it.

> But they also leak personal data. A lot.

Some examples please. In recent memory I can only think of examples where services violated TOS (which I'm not sure how FB could prevent) or got authorization from the end user (as in the Cambridge Analytica case).

Any examples of them leaking data as a result of their own processes?

Can you expand on why you think this is a good thing?

Starting your post with misinfo isn't a great outlook for the rest of it

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/v2g7xr/whats_...