Except they keep setting their target higher and higher. At no point has Musk ever left the goalpost in the same spot once they were near it.
Go look at his 10-year plan from 10 years ago. It reads something like: invest money to build a small number of EVs aimed at wealthy/collector types; invest money from those sales to build a significantly larger number of high end EV and sell that to well off people; invest money from THOSE sales to build a mass-production, moderately priced sedan and sell LOTS of those...which he is on the cusp of doing.
Are his target dates aggressive? extremely. Does he miss them? Often. Is it all hidden behind walls of secrecy? never. It's all out in the open for anyone to see. If you don't believe in it, no worries. Plenty of other people are - quite literally - lined up to buy what he's selling or the stock in the companies that make it all.
Remind me again how often the US Government, military, large business contractors, NASA, etc. deliver on time for most of what they do?
Remind me again the last successful new car manufacturer that came about? Or who else is actually selling EVs and making a profit without worrying about gutting their actual source of revenue?
Or who's *making money* on fucking ROCKETS while launching for far, far less than NASA ever could manage?
Or...etc.
If this is how things don't 'end well' then I can only hope my life doesn't end well either.
Seriously though people...after the ZOMG YOUR LAPTOP CAMERA IS SPYING ON YOU Apocalypse (ahem) people put tape or got fancy little sliding doors for their cameras. Why amazon isn't building that into something meant for the bedroom with a camera in it is beyond me...but it's not really THAT hard to fix.
Related: I fully expect these will be hacked and some interesting videos posted. But it won't be the first time cameras have gotten into the bedroom and recording things you don't want seen.
Ask the SCOTUS who ruled binding arbitration is valid.
That was 10+ years ago so it's no wonder this is a 'recent' change per the article. I knew this shit was coming one way or another when they ruled that way.
Yes, a contract signed under duress can be invalidated. However an employment contract/agreement is very unlikely to be considered that situation. You have the option to not take the job and thus not sign the contract... so there's no duress.
A bindind arb clause can't stop someone from suing, however you can very much use it to have the case tossed and referred to binding arb. Yes, this includes employment practices. It does NOT include criminal activities because the gov't prosecutes those and isn't a party to the contract.
Threat of being fired for not signing a contract is NOT a guaranteed out by a judge. Employment at will gives companies (and employees) a ton of leeway for changing job terms or simply terminating people. That generally does not rise to the level of duress, as much as people wish otherwise. You're free to take another job.
T-Mobile IS a US corporation and they're even publicly listed on Nasdaq.
DK may have a controlling interest but also access to much deeper pockets and in a large part responsible for enabling TMO to be disruptive to the US-based cellular industry.
If they merge, part of it would include softbank divesting their interest in sprint OR softbank getting a certain interest in the combined company afterwards.
You confuse classic ownership (this is my baseball, I do with it as I please) with corporate share-based ownership (I get a vote towards who plays with this baseball based on how much $ I put in when we bought it). Analogies suck...so don't read too far into it.
Companies exist to generate money for investors (shareholders, etc.). That's it. Not for consumers, not for employees...
With that said, a merger of TMO and Sprint combines their spectrum and offers significantly more opportunity to build out complete coverage with good speeds...which consumers like and buy into...which generates more revenue. Sometimes consumers do benefit from corporate greed...particularly when a CEO understands that giving consumers what they actually desire can drive business growth. Go figure.
But giving one company access to the spectrum of both (plus the physical infrastructure which surely will require some adjustment) is a huge benefit. TMO has already begin building out lower frequency infra and has a very aggressive schedule for it which will solve their building-penetration problem.
Add in what Sprint offers and you've got spectrum for oodles of bandwidth, lots of users, building penetration/coverage and consolidating the extra costs associated with having two separate companies.
A technically ideal situation would be a single wireless provider...except for the part where monopolies rarely work out well for the consumer.
Add to that - it's a zero sum game. There's a finite number of subscribers (even allowing for additional market penetration, having 17 cell phone carriers wouldn't magically make more subs appear), and a finite amount of frequencies which are divided up between the carriers - and various other uses of course.
A single company using all those resources and available to all subscribers - in theory - would be best for everyone. Of course, corporate greed makes that a non-starter. The concern here is TMO merging, growing big enough not to need disruptive events to gain market share, and the situation regressing back to what we used to have with all kinds of extra charges, fees, higher prices and so on.
My only question is: what will carriers use as their next incremental, per-use/metered charge? Voice and messaging are fairly easily moved totally to data-based services (there's not a strong incentive for individuals though carriers have begun using voice-over-LTE) and that leaves data. Restricted only for extreme uses and on video streaming down-grading from the highest resolutions...assuming you don't circumvent that via one of several available means.
With a worry about censorship...you refer to 'fairer polls' as the accurate measure and dismiss the actual polling (vote)? That seems to be completely opposite of what one would do.
As we've seen in the last year, 'predicted polling' is utter garbage and very heavily biased on the perspective being pushed by media. Particularly if one choice over the other is relentlessly painted as bad and those making it equally bad. Yes, I'm referring to the recent US election and Trump...which clearly makes the point. Someone who virtually every analyst said had only the slightest chance of winning at best, actually got a clear and substantial majority...all while every news agency and squeaky wheel were quite literally calling anyone who voted for him horrible names, humiliating and denigrating them, even threatening and ostracizing them.
Don't cherry pick polls...hold a vote and hold to it.
Depending on which precision model it is...most likely 56. (assuming you bring a crate full of adapters) Now tell me how many ports you DON'T NEED adapters for on the MBP? Oh right... one.
Hint: TB/USB-C aren't exclusive to apple.
I have a new MBP (thanks work) and it sucks. The keyboard is outright horrific - quite literally the worst keyboard I've used in a decade despite regularly testing new products. The touch bar is a waste of space/life and seems to cause more problems than it fixes. It's certainly not a PRO machine (i.e. high end, high spec, meant for heavy use) and I half the things I want to do require a dongle, dock, or some add-on that makes life even more annoying.
Maybe do a bit of homework...Samsung has been using AMOLED in their phones for several generations (and, unless i'm mistaken, the LCD panel vendor for Apple)
And similarly, how many generations has Samsung been using AMOLED screens?
Apple's nonsense about how there's finally one 'good enough' for them is complete nonsense. They're buying the damn things from Samsung to begin with...and let me remind everyone again what Samsung has uses for screens in it's own smartphones? Derp...yep. Except they don't have that stupid notch.
You'd be surprised how seriously the exchange take security...and how seriously the SEC pretends to.
The SEC regularly audits...and digs into all kinds of inane, improbable scenarios while often ignoring gaping holes. Their auditors are usually far more interested in finding 'something' that suits the current trend then an actual look at overall security. I've been through the process with them myself more than once and it's a comical game of 'what if'
What if a hacker stole a terminal It has a password What if they reset the password they can't, the drive is encrypted What if they got the decryption key the accounts are domain based and local logins have no permissions What if they compromised the computer itself local accounts have no network permissions What if they compromised the computer AND got a user login they'd still be offline and we don't store local data What if they did all that AND got the computer online they can't since remote access requires 2FA What if they circumvented 2FA the computer wouldn't do much good since we'd invalidate the machine certs once it's reported stolen What if they circumvented network access control and bypassed the cert checks then...they could get online but only as a client access so the most they could do is compromise what that individual could access What if they got access to the servers from there non-application level production server access requires separate permissions and 2FA What if they bypassed that too they'd still need admin priv accounts on the server And if they had those? Then they'd take over the world tonight pinky instead of us. WTF?
Seriously, conversations actually follow that kind of stupidity. They'll follow some extremely improbably chain of events and ignore things like 'bad actor' who already has all the access needed to compromise things. Buy hey, we checked the box for 'doing code review' so obviously no one could EVER slip bad code in.
What happens if the ETF is hacked? (and it will be!)
When has the NYSE been hacked?
Who says they haven't?
But anyhow...you're confusing hacking the *exchange* with hacking their wallet holding millions, or potentially billions in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. Two very different things there.
Plus, if you hacked the exchange they just void your errant transactions (bad transactions are thrown out fairly often as a normal matter of business) while if you got the private key for the wallet and transferred out coins you'd either have to fork the blockchain or allow the loss. There's no method to rescind individual transactions.
why do you think its NOT ok to imprison ceo's? the rich white guys are that untouchable to you?
Better question: do you think it's okay to imprison tax payers for not paying their taxes (aka debtor's prison)? Think carefully before you answer. If you don't know the history of the topic I'd refrain from answering.
Take away all their money. If the amount they have doesn't compensate for the wrong they perpetuated, then debtor's prison is suitable.
A few centuries ago, people regularly starved to death and stealing bread was already a life or death decision. Your analogy might as well have included a car.
With that said, I agree that prison isn't a functional detriment to those who would or do commit crimes. The threat of jail has very little effect on people not otherwise inclined to break laws either.
However, CEO's are already compensated far higher than they were now that many years ago when people actually did expect them to be useful. Look at the ratio of average CEO income vs average worker income and the ratio has gone from 10 or 100:1 to 1000:1 and more...often much more. If a CEO is earning easily 1000 times what their average employee does then yes, I DO expect them to assume MUCH more risk (not less like is the case today)
Jailing more people is generally not a viable solution. Nor is it a particularly useful or effective one.
Instead hold people RESPONSIBLE. (hint: if you're getting free room and board + entertainment + schooling + social time + etc. then you aren't especially responsible.
Take away the CEO's money. Including their stock options and hidden offshore money and so on and so forth. Fine them personally for fuckups they knowingly allowed, endorsed, or perpetrated. None of the 'oh, Mr. CEO is resigning at the boards request and taking their million stock options while they transition over to CEO somewhere else' crap that we see all the time.
Fine people relative to their income (hey, maybe we can do that for taxes too) and the level of stupidity the perpetrated. That will quickly make people very interested in doing the best they can, not the least they can get away with.
More so than that...an individual develops bacteria in their mouth at a very young age and it's virtually impossible to wipe it out and replace it.
Now, when you're an infant you haven't done that yet and it's another story. Maybe we should stop tongue kissing infants...unless you don't have cavities? lol
My understanding from a fair bit of previous reading (and research into preventing cavities):
Your mouth is a sea of bacteria and, like your body as a whole, the exact makeup of that bacteria varies from person to person but develops when you're an infant and is generally consistent to the individual over their lifetime (excluding infections which are a separate case). These cultures Some of that bacteria break down food and create chemicals that attack your enamel more than others. Sometimes greatly more.
Scientists have attempted to wipe out the bacteria cultures in individuals mouths' and replace the bacteria that are dangerous to the enamel with ones from other cultures which don't have that problem. Unfortunately the bacteria in your mouth/body is very pervasive and virtually impossible to wipe out and replace without resorting to drastic measures which are worse than the problem they're trying to solve.
Tin hat theory says dental associations fight this stuff because it will majorly impact their business. I don't exactly believe the first part, but the second is certainly true.
I've NFI what TFS actually means (this being/. and not a biological research site) but i'm guessing they're developing something which will attack bad bacteria in your mouth and immunize you. Maybe. Or maybe the chinese are just doing their usual crazy half-working, overpromised, under-delivered nonsense.
They all CARE...as long as it doesn't interfere with then doing the various inane things people MUST DO ZOMG CAPTURE THAT FOR SNAPCHAT WHERE IS MY EMOJI FACE AND QUICK HIT THE AUTOFIX MY FACE AND MAKE ME PRETTY BUTTON
Oh...you have your pictures encrypted because you send noodz to your SO all the time and don't want your spouse to know? well...yeah. that needs a password.
Regen helps with not losing energy to the endless cycle of stop-and-go traffic in cities. Typical inner-city speeds (or general LA-area in this case) make air resistance a fairly minor factor.
Additional weight of passengers is actually not a huge factor either - because once again you get most of the energy back via regen.
Slashdot Mirror
Later... "Tesla hasn't reached their target" ...
Except they keep setting their target higher and higher. At no point has Musk ever left the goalpost in the same spot once they were near it.
Go look at his 10-year plan from 10 years ago. It reads something like: invest money to build a small number of EVs aimed at wealthy/collector types; invest money from those sales to build a significantly larger number of high end EV and sell that to well off people; invest money from THOSE sales to build a mass-production, moderately priced sedan and sell LOTS of those...which he is on the cusp of doing.
Are his target dates aggressive? extremely. Does he miss them? Often. Is it all hidden behind walls of secrecy? never. It's all out in the open for anyone to see. If you don't believe in it, no worries. Plenty of other people are - quite literally - lined up to buy what he's selling or the stock in the companies that make it all.
Remind me again how often the US Government, military, large business contractors, NASA, etc. deliver on time for most of what they do?
It's ended so terribly so far at every stage.
Remind me again the last successful new car manufacturer that came about? Or who else is actually selling EVs and making a profit without worrying about gutting their actual source of revenue?
Or who's *making money* on fucking ROCKETS while launching for far, far less than NASA ever could manage?
Or...etc.
If this is how things don't 'end well' then I can only hope my life doesn't end well either.
Amazon G-spot...erm...E-Spot
https://www.amazon.com/Duck-29...
Seriously though people...after the ZOMG YOUR LAPTOP CAMERA IS SPYING ON YOU Apocalypse (ahem) people put tape or got fancy little sliding doors for their cameras. Why amazon isn't building that into something meant for the bedroom with a camera in it is beyond me...but it's not really THAT hard to fix.
Related: I fully expect these will be hacked and some interesting videos posted. But it won't be the first time cameras have gotten into the bedroom and recording things you don't want seen.
Ask the SCOTUS who ruled binding arbitration is valid.
That was 10+ years ago so it's no wonder this is a 'recent' change per the article. I knew this shit was coming one way or another when they ruled that way.
I don't think you're correct on most of that.
Yes, a contract signed under duress can be invalidated. However an employment contract/agreement is very unlikely to be considered that situation. You have the option to not take the job and thus not sign the contract ... so there's no duress.
A bindind arb clause can't stop someone from suing, however you can very much use it to have the case tossed and referred to binding arb. Yes, this includes employment practices. It does NOT include criminal activities because the gov't prosecutes those and isn't a party to the contract.
Threat of being fired for not signing a contract is NOT a guaranteed out by a judge. Employment at will gives companies (and employees) a ton of leeway for changing job terms or simply terminating people. That generally does not rise to the level of duress, as much as people wish otherwise. You're free to take another job.
T-Mobile IS a US corporation and they're even publicly listed on Nasdaq.
DK may have a controlling interest but also access to much deeper pockets and in a large part responsible for enabling TMO to be disruptive to the US-based cellular industry.
If they merge, part of it would include softbank divesting their interest in sprint OR softbank getting a certain interest in the combined company afterwards.
You confuse classic ownership (this is my baseball, I do with it as I please) with corporate share-based ownership (I get a vote towards who plays with this baseball based on how much $ I put in when we bought it). Analogies suck...so don't read too far into it.
Companies exist to generate money for investors (shareholders, etc.). That's it. Not for consumers, not for employees...
With that said, a merger of TMO and Sprint combines their spectrum and offers significantly more opportunity to build out complete coverage with good speeds...which consumers like and buy into...which generates more revenue. Sometimes consumers do benefit from corporate greed...particularly when a CEO understands that giving consumers what they actually desire can drive business growth. Go figure.
On day one, it would not...probably.
But giving one company access to the spectrum of both (plus the physical infrastructure which surely will require some adjustment) is a huge benefit. TMO has already begin building out lower frequency infra and has a very aggressive schedule for it which will solve their building-penetration problem.
Add in what Sprint offers and you've got spectrum for oodles of bandwidth, lots of users, building penetration/coverage and consolidating the extra costs associated with having two separate companies.
A technically ideal situation would be a single wireless provider...except for the part where monopolies rarely work out well for the consumer.
Add to that - it's a zero sum game. There's a finite number of subscribers (even allowing for additional market penetration, having 17 cell phone carriers wouldn't magically make more subs appear), and a finite amount of frequencies which are divided up between the carriers - and various other uses of course.
A single company using all those resources and available to all subscribers - in theory - would be best for everyone. Of course, corporate greed makes that a non-starter. The concern here is TMO merging, growing big enough not to need disruptive events to gain market share, and the situation regressing back to what we used to have with all kinds of extra charges, fees, higher prices and so on.
My only question is: what will carriers use as their next incremental, per-use/metered charge? Voice and messaging are fairly easily moved totally to data-based services (there's not a strong incentive for individuals though carriers have begun using voice-over-LTE) and that leaves data. Restricted only for extreme uses and on video streaming down-grading from the highest resolutions...assuming you don't circumvent that via one of several available means.
Funny how everyone has virtually the same story but until TMO turned things upside down a few years ago, Sprint was well ahead of them in subscribers.
With a worry about censorship...you refer to 'fairer polls' as the accurate measure and dismiss the actual polling (vote)? That seems to be completely opposite of what one would do.
As we've seen in the last year, 'predicted polling' is utter garbage and very heavily biased on the perspective being pushed by media. Particularly if one choice over the other is relentlessly painted as bad and those making it equally bad. Yes, I'm referring to the recent US election and Trump...which clearly makes the point. Someone who virtually every analyst said had only the slightest chance of winning at best, actually got a clear and substantial majority...all while every news agency and squeaky wheel were quite literally calling anyone who voted for him horrible names, humiliating and denigrating them, even threatening and ostracizing them.
Don't cherry pick polls...hold a vote and hold to it.
Depending on which precision model it is...most likely 56. (assuming you bring a crate full of adapters) Now tell me how many ports you DON'T NEED adapters for on the MBP? Oh right ... one.
Hint: TB/USB-C aren't exclusive to apple.
I have a new MBP (thanks work) and it sucks. The keyboard is outright horrific - quite literally the worst keyboard I've used in a decade despite regularly testing new products. The touch bar is a waste of space/life and seems to cause more problems than it fixes. It's certainly not a PRO machine (i.e. high end, high spec, meant for heavy use) and I half the things I want to do require a dongle, dock, or some add-on that makes life even more annoying.
Maybe do a bit of homework...Samsung has been using AMOLED in their phones for several generations (and, unless i'm mistaken, the LCD panel vendor for Apple)
And similarly, how many generations has Samsung been using AMOLED screens?
Apple's nonsense about how there's finally one 'good enough' for them is complete nonsense. They're buying the damn things from Samsung to begin with...and let me remind everyone again what Samsung has uses for screens in it's own smartphones? Derp...yep. Except they don't have that stupid notch.
Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead, and the other doesn't have internet.
You'd be surprised how seriously the exchange take security...and how seriously the SEC pretends to.
The SEC regularly audits...and digs into all kinds of inane, improbable scenarios while often ignoring gaping holes. Their auditors are usually far more interested in finding 'something' that suits the current trend then an actual look at overall security. I've been through the process with them myself more than once and it's a comical game of 'what if'
What if a hacker stole a terminal
It has a password
What if they reset the password
they can't, the drive is encrypted
What if they got the decryption key
the accounts are domain based and local logins have no permissions
What if they compromised the computer itself
local accounts have no network permissions
What if they compromised the computer AND got a user login
they'd still be offline and we don't store local data
What if they did all that AND got the computer online
they can't since remote access requires 2FA
What if they circumvented 2FA
the computer wouldn't do much good since we'd invalidate the machine certs once it's reported stolen
What if they circumvented network access control and bypassed the cert checks
then...they could get online but only as a client access so the most they could do is compromise what that individual could access
What if they got access to the servers from there
non-application level production server access requires separate permissions and 2FA
What if they bypassed that too
they'd still need admin priv accounts on the server
And if they had those?
Then they'd take over the world tonight pinky instead of us. WTF?
Seriously, conversations actually follow that kind of stupidity. They'll follow some extremely improbably chain of events and ignore things like 'bad actor' who already has all the access needed to compromise things. Buy hey, we checked the box for 'doing code review' so obviously no one could EVER slip bad code in.
What happens if the ETF is hacked? (and it will be!)
When has the NYSE been hacked?
Who says they haven't?
But anyhow...you're confusing hacking the *exchange* with hacking their wallet holding millions, or potentially billions in bitcoin or other cryptocurrency. Two very different things there.
Plus, if you hacked the exchange they just void your errant transactions (bad transactions are thrown out fairly often as a normal matter of business) while if you got the private key for the wallet and transferred out coins you'd either have to fork the blockchain or allow the loss. There's no method to rescind individual transactions.
why do you think its NOT ok to imprison ceo's? the rich white guys are that untouchable to you?
Better question: do you think it's okay to imprison tax payers for not paying their taxes (aka debtor's prison)? Think carefully before you answer. If you don't know the history of the topic I'd refrain from answering.
Take away all their money. If the amount they have doesn't compensate for the wrong they perpetuated, then debtor's prison is suitable.
A few centuries ago, people regularly starved to death and stealing bread was already a life or death decision. Your analogy might as well have included a car.
With that said, I agree that prison isn't a functional detriment to those who would or do commit crimes. The threat of jail has very little effect on people not otherwise inclined to break laws either.
However, CEO's are already compensated far higher than they were now that many years ago when people actually did expect them to be useful. Look at the ratio of average CEO income vs average worker income and the ratio has gone from 10 or 100:1 to 1000:1 and more...often much more. If a CEO is earning easily 1000 times what their average employee does then yes, I DO expect them to assume MUCH more risk (not less like is the case today)
Jailing more people is generally not a viable solution. Nor is it a particularly useful or effective one.
Instead hold people RESPONSIBLE. (hint: if you're getting free room and board + entertainment + schooling + social time + etc. then you aren't especially responsible.
Take away the CEO's money. Including their stock options and hidden offshore money and so on and so forth. Fine them personally for fuckups they knowingly allowed, endorsed, or perpetrated. None of the 'oh, Mr. CEO is resigning at the boards request and taking their million stock options while they transition over to CEO somewhere else' crap that we see all the time.
Fine people relative to their income (hey, maybe we can do that for taxes too) and the level of stupidity the perpetrated. That will quickly make people very interested in doing the best they can, not the least they can get away with.
More so than that...an individual develops bacteria in their mouth at a very young age and it's virtually impossible to wipe it out and replace it.
Now, when you're an infant you haven't done that yet and it's another story. Maybe we should stop tongue kissing infants...unless you don't have cavities? lol
My understanding from a fair bit of previous reading (and research into preventing cavities):
Your mouth is a sea of bacteria and, like your body as a whole, the exact makeup of that bacteria varies from person to person but develops when you're an infant and is generally consistent to the individual over their lifetime (excluding infections which are a separate case). These cultures Some of that bacteria break down food and create chemicals that attack your enamel more than others. Sometimes greatly more.
Scientists have attempted to wipe out the bacteria cultures in individuals mouths' and replace the bacteria that are dangerous to the enamel with ones from other cultures which don't have that problem. Unfortunately the bacteria in your mouth/body is very pervasive and virtually impossible to wipe out and replace without resorting to drastic measures which are worse than the problem they're trying to solve.
Tin hat theory says dental associations fight this stuff because it will majorly impact their business. I don't exactly believe the first part, but the second is certainly true.
I've NFI what TFS actually means (this being /. and not a biological research site) but i'm guessing they're developing something which will attack bad bacteria in your mouth and immunize you. Maybe. Or maybe the chinese are just doing their usual crazy half-working, overpromised, under-delivered nonsense.
Turning off wifi and bluetooth isn't complicated and phones have had the ability pretty much as long as they've had those features.
From TFA it sounds like apple is enabling a phone-home even if you disable the services. Yay?
They all CARE...as long as it doesn't interfere with then doing the various inane things people MUST DO ZOMG CAPTURE THAT FOR SNAPCHAT WHERE IS MY EMOJI FACE AND QUICK HIT THE AUTOFIX MY FACE AND MAKE ME PRETTY BUTTON
Oh...you have your pictures encrypted because you send noodz to your SO all the time and don't want your spouse to know? well...yeah. that needs a password.
Regen helps with not losing energy to the endless cycle of stop-and-go traffic in cities. Typical inner-city speeds (or general LA-area in this case) make air resistance a fairly minor factor.
Additional weight of passengers is actually not a huge factor either - because once again you get most of the energy back via regen.