Nobody ever said it was good. It's not good. But it's the way it is. A business of sufficient size must bribe^W donate to campaigns in order to not be regulated to death by all the bribes^W donations your competition pays.
It's a shit system, but it's the one we've got. And though it doesn't justify anything, I'll bet that any company that makes a product you enjoy, or any company you may have investments in also bribes^W donates to both political parties. Because that's what larger businesses must do to survive.
Why don't you go get incensed by that, instead of worrying whom an individual donates to? Also, what happened to the personal choice for someone to believe what he wants, and do what he would like with his money?
Is it cool with you if I have a difference of opinion, or have you been appointed the minister of what is acceptable for all by some fucking higher power?
GM lies about their faulty ignition switches and killed people.
Honda continued to ship faulty airbags, and testified before Congress about it. People probably died from that too.
Toyota denied faulty throttles and cruise control on the Prius that could result in unintended acceleration. Nope, that's perfectly safe.
Name one car company that never had anyone crash and die, or had a safety recall of any kind. While you come up with nothing, nobody will hold their breath and wait.
He gives to both parties, just like anyone else with a shitload of money that wants to keep that same shitload of money. He very likely has to buy congress critters to fend off all the other bought congress critters from other interests that want to see Tesla / SpaceX die (GM, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed, ExxonMobil, etc.)
Or maybe they are looking to hedge. If Tesla does good and makes meaningful strides against Big Oil, they get a piece of it. If Big Oil continues to dominate the economy for the forseeable future (amazingly likely) they still win because THEY ARE BIG OIL.
Investing in an EV company makes for a softer landing when the inevitable comes to pass.
They went from 60 days from bankruptcy and just about having their official name changed to "beleaguered Apple Computer" to one of the most valuable companies there ever has been, a brand that is more recognized and respected than practically any other (except here) and revenues that, if they were a country, would rank them around Finland.
I think they did just fine after all is said and done.
Then just say that to the user. "Your device doesn't support background playback due to a software decision made by Huawei. If this feature is important to you, contact them about supporting background media playback on their devices, and we'll happily enable support in a future version. [Got it]"
Oh, so I only have to go around the security protections that come from getting signed code from a trusted source, and instead sideload a package that could have been fucked with by unknown actors because the VLC team are being petty and petulant about this, and adopted a user-surly "solution" to the problem instead of documenting and taking 30 seconds to add a dialog on launch of the app on a device which exhibits this behavior.
What a wonderful app development team that in no way is overreacting to an external problem.
And they can't display dialogs with hyperlinks any more?
"We see you're running on a device model where a setting will need to be changed in order to enable background playback. More information about how to enable this can be found at [link] [X] don't show this again"
Oh hey look, problem solved without being draconian and boorishly stupid.
They can't query the OS to see what it is running on launch, and if it's Huawei's EMUI thing or whatever then show a box to the user saying that background playback won't work unless they do ${action}?
You're saying that just isn't possible? I have a feeling you're an idiot and haven't thought this through.
"Hey, there's updates to apply. Is now good, or please tell me when it would be best for you (ask again in 1 hour) (ask again in 3 hours) (ask again in 6 hours) (ask again tomorrow)"
Why is "machine learning" needed, unless the learning just involves asking the fucking user?
The other thought is that according to the "Least Harm Principle" a massive switch to vegan diet for society would result in far more deaths of small furry animals being run through harvester machinery than current deaths of large herbivores in slaughterhouses: https://www.morehouse.edu/facs...
Why is a cow's life worth more than a cute bunny's? Clearly we should be going for the least amount of deaths per human, which would mean finding a balanced omnivorous diet.
Resulting in massive increases to the rates of pesticide use and fertilizer runoff that is killing waterways and oceans.
As it turns out, trying to support billions of humans where 90% of them "hunt" their food in a supermarket or restaurant without having effects on the environment is hard.
Isn't there also a flight warrant in the UK due to skipping bail, or failure to appear, or some other thing? I'm not familiar with UK law, but I imagine you don't get to hole up in a foreign embassy for years and not have consequences for it.
A. Google needs the EU more than the EU needs Google. B. The EU needs Google more than Google needs the EU.
I have a feeling that if Google wanted to "Brexit" themselves right out the EU, they'd see a hit to the quarterly revenue, but make up the growth in Asia and be fine in a year or two. However, the EU would be totally fucked, and handing Apple a monopoly in the smartphone market because the vacuum left by Google Play being gone turns Android into a first-class wild west shit show of people trying to be the major market app and media distributor, but dealing with everyone having to sideload their store, which 90% of the market won't do. And because new devices running Android still can't use Google Play, we take a step back to the early-2000s where each carrier has their own store, with their own ridiculous pricing for shit that's just free on Google Play or the iOS App Store.
Hey, maybe they set up shop right in the Eurostar departure lounge in Ashford after Brexit selling devices with pre-loaded VPN configurations that activate when the phone sees it is inside EU borders, and on the box is a big middle finger emoji surrounded by the circle of stars from the EU flag.
If Google was stopped from doing business in the EU, who do you think gets hurt worse? Google, or the EU?
Think real hard before you answer about the near-monopoly status if not de-facto monopoly status that Google either holds and would be vacating, or would essentially be granted to Google competitors by that move. And then ask yourself if you've actually done any good.
Google would sting a little, but in the end they'll make it up with growth in Asia and not really care that much. The EU would be a complete shit show for Internet search, online advertising, and smartphones. And do you think the average EU citizen would be happy when Google geo-blocks the entire EU from using search, G Suite, YouTube, and Google Play? Instead those services show you in 7 different languages a nice "We're sorry, but your government is filled with unelected twunts that don't allow us to do business there, so have fun sideloading all your apps on your phone and fucking around with trying to get Bing or Yahoo to show you what you're really looking for" message instead of what they expected? Oh, and when the UK pulls the trigger on Brexit finally, Google comes pounding back in the same day, making Brexit guy feel a lot better about their decision immediately.
No, this is a cash grab, pure and simple. The EU doesn't have the balls to actually cut the cord to Google, and Google won't voluntarily stop doing business in the EU as long as the fines remain a single-digit of revenue.. So the EU will hand Google a bill, Google will first filibuster and appeal to delay paying it until the revenue stacked up by doing whatever it is the EU doesn't like dwarfs the fine and then they'll begrudgingly pay it, and everyone goes on like they did before. The EU will dump that cash into some member state that needs a bailout, and then we start all over again.
I don't think passengers would even notice 5%, because the price for a seat on a commercial aircraft changes 100 times a day. It would be lost in the wash unless someone started doing some data collection to statistically compare.
Never forget that elections have consequences, and the consequences of the Democratic ramming through of the ACA was handing the speaker's gavel to the GOP and a whole bunch of Tea Party douches being given an outsized influence over budget bills and "social issues" that the government shouldn't be within 200 miles of. The consequences of the administration attempting to usurp power from a gridlocked Congress by way of signing statements and executive orders / memos is the Senate and the White House being given to the GOP. And now we end up with a steaming heap of douche at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mitch McConnell may be an obstructionist jackass, but don't forget the obstructionism of Harry Reid - NEITHER of these guys would work with the other to craft legislation the country needed, in favor of pounding each other through sound bites on cable news and horse shit headlines on Drudge and The Huffington Post. They are / were both more concerned with holding on to a majority and squeaking in unpopular riders onto first-class legislation in order to advance a massively partisan agenda, or be a poison pill to block the other party from getting a win at all costs.
Remember the 1980s when we had a "reactionary GOP president" (who looks more and more like a moderate Democrat each day in comparison to today's GOP), and a DNC-controlled House, but shit still got done? That's because the cameras turned off and they could sit down and talk, and work out compromises that moved the country forward. Today everyone is so afraid that if they try to compromise even a little, it turns into a hashtag internet meme that a primary challenger will beat them to death with from their own party's flank, and the seat goes to some even-more-extreme shithead who thinks running for Congress (and taking fat checks from monies special interests) is a good gig, not because they actually have any good ideas or burning desire to make a difference.
Moderates are an endangered species on Capitol Hill, and they are the most effective legislators. I might be a bit cynical though.
Good job not understanding how a business works, or a calendar.
Here's a hint - they need to build lots of them in order to sell lots of them. And they're building as many as they can, but it's not quite to the degree of "lots" that they require. As that number increases, that 30% profit margin from increased sales will overtake the expenses from cost-centers that by definition don't make any profits, but are necessary for the business to operate. Then the whole enterprise becomes profitable.
It's hilarious that you're trying to tell people that they have no business commenting on financial health when you yourself clearly don't understand the basic math here.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how are they shipping AWD versions?
You are wrong.
Nobody ever said it was good. It's not good. But it's the way it is. A business of sufficient size must bribe^W donate to campaigns in order to not be regulated to death by all the bribes^W donations your competition pays.
It's a shit system, but it's the one we've got. And though it doesn't justify anything, I'll bet that any company that makes a product you enjoy, or any company you may have investments in also bribes^W donates to both political parties. Because that's what larger businesses must do to survive.
Why don't you go get incensed by that, instead of worrying whom an individual donates to? Also, what happened to the personal choice for someone to believe what he wants, and do what he would like with his money?
Is it cool with you if I have a difference of opinion, or have you been appointed the minister of what is acceptable for all by some fucking higher power?
Bad troll is bad. Go away.
GM lies about their faulty ignition switches and killed people.
Honda continued to ship faulty airbags, and testified before Congress about it. People probably died from that too.
Toyota denied faulty throttles and cruise control on the Prius that could result in unintended acceleration. Nope, that's perfectly safe.
Name one car company that never had anyone crash and die, or had a safety recall of any kind. While you come up with nothing, nobody will hold their breath and wait.
Don't be a fucking idiot.
Bad troll is bad.
He gives to both parties, just like anyone else with a shitload of money that wants to keep that same shitload of money. He very likely has to buy congress critters to fend off all the other bought congress critters from other interests that want to see Tesla / SpaceX die (GM, Ford, Boeing, Lockheed, ExxonMobil, etc.)
Or maybe they are looking to hedge. If Tesla does good and makes meaningful strides against Big Oil, they get a piece of it. If Big Oil continues to dominate the economy for the forseeable future (amazingly likely) they still win because THEY ARE BIG OIL.
Investing in an EV company makes for a softer landing when the inevitable comes to pass.
So it needs to be 100% or nothing? Incremental progress isn't good enough, so why bother at all?
You are part of the problem here.
If they weren't buying, then the US wouldn't be mining.
Simple supply and demand.
Didn't get their money's worth?
They went from 60 days from bankruptcy and just about having their official name changed to "beleaguered Apple Computer" to one of the most valuable companies there ever has been, a brand that is more recognized and respected than practically any other (except here) and revenues that, if they were a country, would rank them around Finland.
I think they did just fine after all is said and done.
Then just say that to the user. "Your device doesn't support background playback due to a software decision made by Huawei. If this feature is important to you, contact them about supporting background media playback on their devices, and we'll happily enable support in a future version. [Got it]"
Oh, so I only have to go around the security protections that come from getting signed code from a trusted source, and instead sideload a package that could have been fucked with by unknown actors because the VLC team are being petty and petulant about this, and adopted a user-surly "solution" to the problem instead of documenting and taking 30 seconds to add a dialog on launch of the app on a device which exhibits this behavior.
What a wonderful app development team that in no way is overreacting to an external problem.
And they can't display dialogs with hyperlinks any more?
"We see you're running on a device model where a setting will need to be changed in order to enable background playback. More information about how to enable this can be found at [link] [X] don't show this again"
Oh hey look, problem solved without being draconian and boorishly stupid.
They can't query the OS to see what it is running on launch, and if it's Huawei's EMUI thing or whatever then show a box to the user saying that background playback won't work unless they do ${action}?
You're saying that just isn't possible? I have a feeling you're an idiot and haven't thought this through.
Or there's this idea:
"Hey, there's updates to apply. Is now good, or please tell me when it would be best for you (ask again in 1 hour) (ask again in 3 hours) (ask again in 6 hours) (ask again tomorrow)"
Why is "machine learning" needed, unless the learning just involves asking the fucking user?
The other thought is that according to the "Least Harm Principle" a massive switch to vegan diet for society would result in far more deaths of small furry animals being run through harvester machinery than current deaths of large herbivores in slaughterhouses: https://www.morehouse.edu/facs...
Why is a cow's life worth more than a cute bunny's? Clearly we should be going for the least amount of deaths per human, which would mean finding a balanced omnivorous diet.
Resulting in massive increases to the rates of pesticide use and fertilizer runoff that is killing waterways and oceans.
As it turns out, trying to support billions of humans where 90% of them "hunt" their food in a supermarket or restaurant without having effects on the environment is hard.
Isn't there also a flight warrant in the UK due to skipping bail, or failure to appear, or some other thing? I'm not familiar with UK law, but I imagine you don't get to hole up in a foreign embassy for years and not have consequences for it.
Ask yourself which statement is more true:
A. Google needs the EU more than the EU needs Google.
B. The EU needs Google more than Google needs the EU.
I have a feeling that if Google wanted to "Brexit" themselves right out the EU, they'd see a hit to the quarterly revenue, but make up the growth in Asia and be fine in a year or two. However, the EU would be totally fucked, and handing Apple a monopoly in the smartphone market because the vacuum left by Google Play being gone turns Android into a first-class wild west shit show of people trying to be the major market app and media distributor, but dealing with everyone having to sideload their store, which 90% of the market won't do. And because new devices running Android still can't use Google Play, we take a step back to the early-2000s where each carrier has their own store, with their own ridiculous pricing for shit that's just free on Google Play or the iOS App Store.
Hey, maybe they set up shop right in the Eurostar departure lounge in Ashford after Brexit selling devices with pre-loaded VPN configurations that activate when the phone sees it is inside EU borders, and on the box is a big middle finger emoji surrounded by the circle of stars from the EU flag.
If Google was stopped from doing business in the EU, who do you think gets hurt worse? Google, or the EU?
Think real hard before you answer about the near-monopoly status if not de-facto monopoly status that Google either holds and would be vacating, or would essentially be granted to Google competitors by that move. And then ask yourself if you've actually done any good.
Google would sting a little, but in the end they'll make it up with growth in Asia and not really care that much. The EU would be a complete shit show for Internet search, online advertising, and smartphones. And do you think the average EU citizen would be happy when Google geo-blocks the entire EU from using search, G Suite, YouTube, and Google Play? Instead those services show you in 7 different languages a nice "We're sorry, but your government is filled with unelected twunts that don't allow us to do business there, so have fun sideloading all your apps on your phone and fucking around with trying to get Bing or Yahoo to show you what you're really looking for" message instead of what they expected? Oh, and when the UK pulls the trigger on Brexit finally, Google comes pounding back in the same day, making Brexit guy feel a lot better about their decision immediately.
No, this is a cash grab, pure and simple. The EU doesn't have the balls to actually cut the cord to Google, and Google won't voluntarily stop doing business in the EU as long as the fines remain a single-digit of revenue.. So the EU will hand Google a bill, Google will first filibuster and appeal to delay paying it until the revenue stacked up by doing whatever it is the EU doesn't like dwarfs the fine and then they'll begrudgingly pay it, and everyone goes on like they did before. The EU will dump that cash into some member state that needs a bailout, and then we start all over again.
I don't think passengers would even notice 5%, because the price for a seat on a commercial aircraft changes 100 times a day. It would be lost in the wash unless someone started doing some data collection to statistically compare.
That's adorable that Oregon thinks they matter because they are sandwiched between California and Seattle.
I grew up in Oregon and lived in Portland for 15 years. Oregon doesn't matter nearly as much as you think on a national stage.
Never forget that elections have consequences, and the consequences of the Democratic ramming through of the ACA was handing the speaker's gavel to the GOP and a whole bunch of Tea Party douches being given an outsized influence over budget bills and "social issues" that the government shouldn't be within 200 miles of. The consequences of the administration attempting to usurp power from a gridlocked Congress by way of signing statements and executive orders / memos is the Senate and the White House being given to the GOP. And now we end up with a steaming heap of douche at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mitch McConnell may be an obstructionist jackass, but don't forget the obstructionism of Harry Reid - NEITHER of these guys would work with the other to craft legislation the country needed, in favor of pounding each other through sound bites on cable news and horse shit headlines on Drudge and The Huffington Post. They are / were both more concerned with holding on to a majority and squeaking in unpopular riders onto first-class legislation in order to advance a massively partisan agenda, or be a poison pill to block the other party from getting a win at all costs.
Remember the 1980s when we had a "reactionary GOP president" (who looks more and more like a moderate Democrat each day in comparison to today's GOP), and a DNC-controlled House, but shit still got done? That's because the cameras turned off and they could sit down and talk, and work out compromises that moved the country forward. Today everyone is so afraid that if they try to compromise even a little, it turns into a hashtag internet meme that a primary challenger will beat them to death with from their own party's flank, and the seat goes to some even-more-extreme shithead who thinks running for Congress (and taking fat checks from monies special interests) is a good gig, not because they actually have any good ideas or burning desire to make a difference.
Moderates are an endangered species on Capitol Hill, and they are the most effective legislators. I might be a bit cynical though.
Everyone doesn't live in the Bay Area.
There are places where the only viable option is the cable company, and the cable company knows it.
It makes too much sense, so it will never happen.
Good job not understanding how a business works, or a calendar.
Here's a hint - they need to build lots of them in order to sell lots of them. And they're building as many as they can, but it's not quite to the degree of "lots" that they require. As that number increases, that 30% profit margin from increased sales will overtake the expenses from cost-centers that by definition don't make any profits, but are necessary for the business to operate. Then the whole enterprise becomes profitable.
It's hilarious that you're trying to tell people that they have no business commenting on financial health when you yourself clearly don't understand the basic math here.
He probably donates big to both parties, because he's rich AF and wants his own shills in Congress to combat his competitors' shills in Congress.
That's how business is done these days.