tatsuke95

>"People don't want to cheat to win - and you're telling them that they have to. Well, who are you to say that? Why should people listen to you?"

It's advice, you can take it or leave it.

You're more than welcome to be the guy/team who says, "we're going to do this the right way!". But so do a lot of other indie gaming teams, and they go under. I lived in the social gaming space for a while (Facebook). The biggest discouragement is that the quality of games made little difference to getting noticed and making money. I am no longer in the space.

You can do it the "honorable" way, and that's great, and may work. If you want to make a business of the business, you have to get your hands dirty. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

>"Ridiculous arguments are ridiculous."

So where is the line where it is no longer ridiculous, then? $999? $500? $10?

Labour is an input cost of production; when the input prices rise, so do output prices to compensate.

I'd vote for no minimum wage but with a minimum income subsidized by the government.

>"Also, this is another "right time right place" story - his code wasn't just good, it was one of the few solutions at the time."

This "right time" exists always and forever, in history and the future. There will never be a lack of problems to solve for money. In hindsight, it's all easy and obvious.

I'm not sure if he "wants" it that way, but that will be an unintended consequence.

It's hard to say anything negative about Elon or Tesla here without getting down-voted.

>"You were saying that you don't understand women because of the functionality provided by Lulu's app"

I said that? Where?

I don't understand women who would want to talk, semi-publicly and on the record permanently in some DB, about having sex with their boss, at work, and then rating how he smells after said sex. Just like the line I quoted...

It's confusing, but probably not worth debating with a fellow fellow on a hacker forum.

Spare me the PC nonsense. If the roles were reversed, women would be up in arms at being degraded. Meanwhile, most of us here (mostly men, I assume), don't particularly care.

Point to a mainstream site or app that does this for men. I grew up in locker-rooms as a hockey player. We talked like this when we were young. No one I know would think it's still appropriate. And women I know find it unattractive. But yet...

>Most importantly, Lulu revolves around talking about repeatedly shagging your “sexy CEO” male boss up against his desk and then rating him on his performance, looks and pong (yes, his scent) afterwards.

I don't understand women.

Don't think too hard, it's just internet points. I upvote good comments, and only downvote trash. Having a different opinion shouldn't draw ire, lest we become Reddit.

Having also gone through the SRED (as well as Arts grants) process, I concur. But, this is the "grant" game in Canada.

It's not ideal, but those are the rules of the game. Optimize with these constraints, don't hope that doing or charging what others do will work. It's pretty clear to me that this product is worth more than a buck, and I don't even know what it does.

There's nothing to feel sorry over in this case. These guys were blessed (non-denominationally, of course) with a product that people want, and aren't able to capture the value in it. That's what running a business is all about. The product is only one (albeit large) component.

And this isn't irreparable. If too many customers breaks you, you're in the wrong business.

Economics 101: If you know that there is a limit to the number of customers you can support, why not scale the price the price up as demand for your product increases to curb that demand? You get to ensure that those who value the product the most get it. It seems like an interesting model to try in such circumstances.

I zipped over to the page, and Falcon Pro for Android is a buck, with the following message:

"And Please RELEASE your access token from the Twitter settings on the web if you're not using the app anymore."

Sorry, but if I bought it I own it. If this isn't a lesson on "Don't undervalue your product", I don't know what is.

>"Nope. No wage, no tips."

That sounds illegal, at least here in Canada.

>"How many people saw that vandalism?"

It shouldn't be about how many people saw it. It should be about restitution; how much did the vandalism cost Burger King? Very little, perhaps even nothing when accounting for the publicity.

Punish the perpetrator financially as a deterrence. But prison time does little to make Burger King whole.

The fact that we can talk casually about people going to prison for what is essentially cyber-vandalism is so ridiculous I don't know what to think. These are weird times.

They were oenology undergraduates, which means they are actually neck-deep in studying and applying this stuff. They will have careers in this field, some as "experts". They may not be "experts" in the sense of having some celebrity pedigree, but that doesn't matter to me, since I think it's nonsense.

Because that would reveal that the whole thing is a racket. They're all in on it.

>"Those laid off are terrified to say anything publicly."

I'm curious as to why?

Norway doesn't seem like a place where people would fear their ex-employers.

I've done my share of software developer hiring. And, I've had my share of sticker shock. What always makes it a little more palatable is seeing the number of (man)hours a project will take. People understand wages, and can also easily mentally compare them. When I see what you're making per hour, and it isn't gut-wrenching, it's easier to swallow.

Of course, you'll still have to deal with idiots who can't understand why it won't be done in an afternoon.

>I just did.

Good on you. The only way these companies will figure out that this sort of model sucks is if they lose users/money.

>The charging does add half an hour to a three-and-a-half hour trip, about 15%

This is true. I was considering round trip. The information is from the Wiki:

400 miles @ 65mph ~ 6.5 hours in an ICE, if you have to gas up along the way.

400 miles @ 54mph ~ 7.5 hours + 2.5 hours of charging.

That's quite a difference; one is a day trip, the other is an long day. And it's worse in the winter. Canada is a big place. I regularly drive, 4,5,6 hours without stopping. I have a hard time understanding how people think stopping for an hour every 3 hours of your trip is reasonable. To me, the answer would be to not use the Model S in such a situation, which is fine. But when I have to say, "That trip is too far for my car", and said car approaches 6 figures, it means it's niche, IMHO.

You accused me of trolling, misconstrued my argument, then ranted about environmental issues out of the blue.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

>"But going from that to "absolutely terrible" reads as pretty hyperbolic, and I think that's what you're getting from "people"."

Maybe terrible is overstated. But if we're talking about average Joe making a commute between NY and Boston, how does the Tesla make any sense whatsoever? Between the low recommended speeds and charge times, you're looking at increasing the length of the trip by 50%, no? There's a huge loss in efficiency there. We're not even talking about the overnight loss of power, or the discomfort associated with guidelines on cabin temperature and gadgets.

I think it's pretty clear that the EV is still sort of niche. It's a grocery-getter/weekend driver. Definately a nice one, probably a fun one. But they have a ways to go.

I'm not claiming that Broder isn't a hatchet man and lied. If you'd taken the time to read, rather than going off like an crazy environmental zealot in every thread, you'd have seen that.

>"Better not make any progress then, or try anything new. You're right, let's keep polluting the atmosphere."

What are you going on about? No one is arguing anything of the sort. EVs just aren't the environmental saviour you want them to be. They have their own issues.

>"No, that's not Elon's argument. His argument is that the journalist lied."

Let me see if I can spell this out for you:

Broden said he followed the Tesla guidelines, like driving 54. He didn't. Elon busted him in that lie. But Elon didn't say those aren't the guidelines.

I'm saying those guidelines are ridiculous. Driving 11mph below the speed limit and with-lower-than-desired temperature settings, just so you can make your destination, is bad. Having to stop and charge for a whole HOUR, multiple times on a 600 mile trip, is bad.

We don't all live in California and get to bike to work. I have 3+ hour drives twice a week. Sometimes it's very cold.

Granted, I'm not going to buy a Model S to do this sort of commute, but then, what is the article trying to sell me? The idea that you can take a car like this on an extensive trip. And, to me, it looks absolutely terrible in that regard, especially in the winter. Somehow people take that as an affront to climate change, puppies, the internet and Elon Musk himself.

>"Are you trolling? No, you don't have to drive it 'slow'"

45 mph isn't slow to you? You must not drive. Broder is criticized for driving too fast. Elon knocks the fact that he drove an average of 60+, and calls him out for driving 80. So what if he did? I do all the time. That's how people drive. If speed is irrelevant, why does Elon harp on it in his blog?

>"No, you don't. You're just making things up."

Huh? Elon is saying "Look! He turned the heat up!". So what? He wanted it warmer. This is not a problem in an ICE vehicle.

>"No, it's not. You know what's craziness? Humanity driving cars that burn things and pollute our atmosphere to the point of causing and accelerating global climate change, driving species to extinction and gunning towards global upheaval. That's craziness."

Yeah, because the machinery required to dig all those precious metals out of the ground to make these batteries aren't burning a ton of diesel in unstable countries around the planet. Nor are the machines that need to build the charging stations in close succession, because you have to charge these cars far more often than you have to fill up with gasoline (and gas stations are already too prominent on the landscape). Glad you'd like to see more. Nor is the electric grid that most people will charge from "dirty".

Why do you take this so personally? You seem really angry that people aren't as impressed with this thing.

Elon's argument is essentially: he drove too fast, he set the cabin temperature too high, and didn't charge long enough. As a guy who puts 30k miles per year on my car, those are things that would annoy me and I wouldn't expect from a car approaching six figures.

>"They were, in no way, behaving like any half-ways rational person would"

I know, right? No rational person would put the cruise on 60, sometimes do 80, and expect the cabin temperature to be a balmy 75 degrees.

Broder's article was a hack job. That's obvious. But I can't come to terms with how a rational person would want to stop every 3 hours to charge a car for an hour. Get yourself a small turbo-diesel and you're doing this trip in probably half the time, thanks to no charging and setting the cruise at whatever you want. Oh, and you can play whatever music and set the cabin temperature to whatever you'd like. And it's 1/5th the price.

I'm not surprised that the Times wrote a shitty article. I am surprised at how bad the Tesla looks as a daily driver.

I don't understand how so.

Sure, they shredded the Times article. But this looks to me like an extremely finicky car. I mean, you have to drive it slow, possibly turn off the heat in the winter and charge it for an hour at a time? That's craziness.

Edit: Whoever is just combing through the comments, down-voting anything that doesn't praise Saint Elon, how about you step up and point out what I've said that's wrong. Or do we just downvote differing opinions now?

How about to expose the stupidity of a car bricking under normal use (if it indeed would have bricked)?

>This post makes me want to reconsider a Model S as my next car."

Really? I had the opposite reaction.

Let's assume the the Times lied about everything, and we only consider Tesla's words. Look at the instructions he was to follow, "Drive like this, turn off this, don't do this, charge here for an HOUR".

That seems like a lot of consideration, and the thing costs $100k? No thanks. It's cool, and it may be the future, but the technology seems over-hyped for daily use.

You do. That's what you are paying for in a lease, the depreciation that occurs over the term of the lease, plus interest and whatever other spread the finance company/manufacturer/dealership takes. They sell the car at the lease end for the value of the car less the depreciation you "used".

Lease/buy in an efficient market should be equally profitable. Most of the lease benefits are from taxes.