Is there really nothing objectively interesting about a whisper quiet luxury sedan that does a smooth 0-60 in 2.6s? How about one that never requires going to a gas station because you can charge it at home at night? How about the giant screen in the console? The excellent crash rating? Oh, right, those things are "not relevant" because you don't personally care about them.
This is standard/. zealotry. Start with the assumption that the only reason anyone could want anything from Tesla (or Apple, whatever) is because they are stupid fashion-craving SJW fanbois and then dismiss any legitimate reason one might favor those products as "not relevant".
Why can't you just accept that different people care about different things? It's their money, they can spend it however they want.
There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
Different people care about different things, and everyone can spend their money on whatever they want. The only ROI that matters for personal purchases is whether the buyer thinks they got their money's worth.
For example, do you believe you got your money's worth on that "degree" from University of Phoenix? Then good for you.
and it's not because they've somehow managed to trick hundreds of millions of people into buying something they don't want. Or that they've hypnotized their customers into wanting whatever Apple happens to make.
Apple is successful because they make what their customers want and their customers have lots of money--it's that simple. It's pretty much the same formula that every other company that's ever been successful has followed.
There are, in fact, many people [like me] that enjoy working. My hobby is to casually log in and do some work. You're trying to outlaw my hobby...so, ummm, fuck you?
For 25 years there wasn't a peep from the EU that Ireland's tax laws constituted illegal state aid. Then they change their interpretation--towards a single US company--and now they want that company to pay years of back-taxes.
The EU has just recently decided to reinterpret their laws to ban the rules Ireland has had in place for 25 years, and then do so retroactively to arrive at $14B.
I'm fully in favor of the EU shutting down this obvious tax shelter scheme, but: (a) society can't function if laws are reinterpreted retroactively, and (b) it's fundamentally uncompetitive to apply this revised reinterpretation to Apple alone.
All phone companies know that the real way to make billions is to be build a 4 inch thick brick with 2 weeks of battery life; a phone where every component can be swapped using thumb screws.
But, alas, phone companies hate making money. That's the only possible explanation.
1. The iPhone 7 does NOT require wireless headphones by default. That's retarded. 2. There are thousands of wireless headphones that work with the iPhone 7 (ever heard of Bluetooth?).
Workforce participation numbers have gone down because of baby boomers retiring and stubbornly refusing to not die instantly. That metric goes up and down over the course of history correlated directly to birth booms from about (wait for it) 65 years earlier.
So you don't realize this because you are (a) fucking retarded and (b) a liar, but you are blaming Obama for the post WW2 baby boom.
1. Superdelegates are in primaries, not the general.
2. She pursued superdelegates in the primary for the same reason that every candidate does (including Bernie)--because she wanted to win. She would have won the primary easily even if there were no superdelegates.
And this was rated Insightful? Idiocracy was a remarkably prophetic movie.
The debate was whether or not Bernie won the popular vote in the democratic primary. It is an incontrovertible fact that he did NOT. We don't elect people based on attendance at rallies.
I can't tell at this point whether you are trolling or just really believe that you can alter reality by stomping your feet and yelling.
That claim is false. Either you agree that the claim was false or you are a liar.
You are trying to change the subject--which is apparently what people do nowadays when they are caught in a lie, and that has contributed to this environment of fake news and information. Yes or no, did Hillary win the primary popular vote?
The only correct answer is YES--and thus the post by Hylandr was a LIE. Those are facts--absolutely irrefutable facts. I'm not going to debate them because they are not debatable.
Once we've established that incontrovertible fact--we can move on to discussing whether the primary was stacked against Bernie. IMO, yes--it was, just like it was stacked against Barack Obama in 2008. But Obama was a far better candidate with far broader appeal and he overcame the establishment bias. Bernie fought a valiant fight but fell short. In hindsight, I wish I had voted for him and I wish he had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president (I agreed more with Hillary's positions, I think she's smarter, more pragmatic, more experienced and harder working) but it really does look like Bernie would have had a better shot against Trump based on how the general election turned out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why has the Model S get glowing reviews?
Is there really nothing objectively interesting about a whisper quiet luxury sedan that does a smooth 0-60 in 2.6s? How about one that never requires going to a gas station because you can charge it at home at night? How about the giant screen in the console? The excellent crash rating? Oh, right, those things are "not relevant" because you don't personally care about them.
This is standard /. zealotry. Start with the assumption that the only reason anyone could want anything from Tesla (or Apple, whatever) is because they are stupid fashion-craving SJW fanbois and then dismiss any legitimate reason one might favor those products as "not relevant".
Why can't you just accept that different people care about different things? It's their money, they can spend it however they want.
There are hundreds of thousands of cars selling in that segment (high-end Porsches, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc.). I can only think of one that seats 5 comfortably and does 0-60 in 2.5s...and that's why Tesla is cleaning up in that segment.
Different people care about different things, and everyone can spend their money on whatever they want. The only ROI that matters for personal purchases is whether the buyer thinks they got their money's worth.
For example, do you believe you got your money's worth on that "degree" from University of Phoenix? Then good for you.
and it's not because they've somehow managed to trick hundreds of millions of people into buying something they don't want. Or that they've hypnotized their customers into wanting whatever Apple happens to make.
Apple is successful because they make what their customers want and their customers have lots of money--it's that simple. It's pretty much the same formula that every other company that's ever been successful has followed.
That's pretty much what this amounts to.
There are, in fact, many people [like me] that enjoy working. My hobby is to casually log in and do some work. You're trying to outlaw my hobby...so, ummm, fuck you?
while watching a DVR full of Duck Dynasty reruns with your Trump hat on, no one will care.
For 25 years there wasn't a peep from the EU that Ireland's tax laws constituted illegal state aid. Then they change their interpretation--towards a single US company--and now they want that company to pay years of back-taxes.
The EU has just recently decided to reinterpret their laws to ban the rules Ireland has had in place for 25 years, and then do so retroactively to arrive at $14B.
I'm fully in favor of the EU shutting down this obvious tax shelter scheme, but: (a) society can't function if laws are reinterpreted retroactively, and (b) it's fundamentally uncompetitive to apply this revised reinterpretation to Apple alone.
you smug idiot hipster with your cell phone.
nt
So I guess I'm one of the guys that you "can't imagine". I find work fulfilling.
People are different.
All phone companies know that the real way to make billions is to be build a 4 inch thick brick with 2 weeks of battery life; a phone where every component can be swapped using thumb screws.
But, alas, phone companies hate making money. That's the only possible explanation.
they aren't thinking about headphone jacks.
1. The iPhone 7 does NOT require wireless headphones by default. That's retarded.
2. There are thousands of wireless headphones that work with the iPhone 7 (ever heard of Bluetooth?).
Why do we need cellphones?
I'll give you a hint, they didn't get all that money by hating their customers.
Or is it only a perversion of nature when women make an elective medical choice?
nt
Workforce participation numbers have gone down because of baby boomers retiring and stubbornly refusing to not die instantly. That metric goes up and down over the course of history correlated directly to birth booms from about (wait for it) 65 years earlier.
So you don't realize this because you are (a) fucking retarded and (b) a liar, but you are blaming Obama for the post WW2 baby boom.
You can't find a more ideologically homogeneous area than the American South--can we throw their votes out?
1. Superdelegates are in primaries, not the general.
2. She pursued superdelegates in the primary for the same reason that every candidate does (including Bernie)--because she wanted to win. She would have won the primary easily even if there were no superdelegates.
And this was rated Insightful? Idiocracy was a remarkably prophetic movie.
The debate was whether or not Bernie won the popular vote in the democratic primary. It is an incontrovertible fact that he did NOT. We don't elect people based on attendance at rallies.
I can't tell at this point whether you are trolling or just really believe that you can alter reality by stomping your feet and yelling.
You don't get to make up your own facts.
Asshole.
That claim is false. Either you agree that the claim was false or you are a liar.
You are trying to change the subject--which is apparently what people do nowadays when they are caught in a lie, and that has contributed to this environment of fake news and information. Yes or no, did Hillary win the primary popular vote?
The only correct answer is YES--and thus the post by Hylandr was a LIE. Those are facts--absolutely irrefutable facts. I'm not going to debate them because they are not debatable.
Once we've established that incontrovertible fact--we can move on to discussing whether the primary was stacked against Bernie. IMO, yes--it was, just like it was stacked against Barack Obama in 2008. But Obama was a far better candidate with far broader appeal and he overcame the establishment bias. Bernie fought a valiant fight but fell short. In hindsight, I wish I had voted for him and I wish he had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president (I agreed more with Hillary's positions, I think she's smarter, more pragmatic, more experienced and harder working) but it really does look like Bernie would have had a better shot against Trump based on how the general election turned out.
If that's not the best measure of popularity then it is poorly named.