Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.
The question, more likely, annoyed Musk because it pokes at a somewhat sensitive topic. But Musk is the one being a crybaby here. If he did not need Wall Street's money - sure, he could say and do whatever he wants. Yet he does, and so he needs to please those who pay to keep Tesla running - and it's not, (yet?), it's customers.
Just how badly *did* they screw up their nuclear test site? I mean - this about face is looking a bit too desperate. These guys need to bluff a little better (or did they also keep all their newly minted nuclear weapons at the same site and lost them too?)
And don't forget that there is no way to transfer authentication credentials from one device to another (as I just found out). So, if you have to change a phone, you will need to visit every single service that is using Google Authenticator and reconfigure it to use a new device, from the beginning.
Also - it appears to only allow a single authenticator at a time. I like my phone, but I am not quite that married to it and I do need to access various services sometimes where my phone is not available or not convenient to access.
The amount of bycatch will be nontrivial. This will inevitably result either in a lot of valid traffic being blocked, or no meaningful blocking of malware.
Except this time they slapped AI label on the service, so it's very modern and cool and costs more money.
Everyone in the US is Amazon customer (and if not - Walmart or all the other online retailers). Raising rates will simply increase prices for everyone. That will make consumers poorer, and reduce the amount of business they do on Amazon and other online retailers, hurting their profits and US economy.
Incidentally, it is cheaper to mail a product from China to the US than to mail the same package in the US internally. This is because China realizes importance of shipping and has creative and less expensive shipping options internationally, which in turn helps their business. Since each country is in charge of their end of shipping rates, making US mail more expensive will hurt US businesses and give bigger advantage to the Chinese. That said, China is a new Trump's buddy - so not a big surprise there.
Your internet provider is a conduit on which multiple services rely. It cannot and should not, by law, be used to control or limit access, or police content either of it's own accord or upon request of external parties.
Of course, personally, I am strongly against connecting any devices (other than computers) in my home to the outside facing network, but that's beside the point.
Majority of world population (and pretty much everyone of the adult working age) either wasn't around 50 years ago or, if they were, were too young to really understand. Combine that with various confirmation biases, tendency to forget the negative and overstate how good things were back in the old days - and this question is, essentially, meaningless as a true gauge of change in life quality.
At most all it does is measure how whiny a given group of people is. And US residents are some of the whiniest in the world (but, unsurprisingly, France beats us on this one, if only just a bit)
What is particularly worrying to me is how short the list of ISPs is (and this is after we include cellular providers, who are ISPs only in a wider sense of the word). There are more electricity generating companies out there than there are ISPs providing home broadband internet. USA truly does not have much choice here.
The US corrective wear industry is a giant scam and a monopoly cornered by a small number of companies and a very skewed set of rules. Routine eye exams are often not covered under medical insurance policy, and "contact lens fitting" even less often. The costs are high, and optometrists do everything in their power to limit usefullness of their prescription. Most will actively resist providing one in writing to be used by a 3rd party. Even when they do (as they are required by law in most states) the prescription will invariably be time limited, usually to 1 year. So, you have to get another refraction test in a year for glasses, and another "fitting" for lenses - which for adults is nothing more than writing the same prescription for the same lens brand, and charging anything from $50 to $200.
This is pretty much US only - in most countries anyone can buy eyewear of any strength they choose (or, if they want, refraction test is usually done by a machine for free on the spot).
I wear both glasses and contact lenses (depending on activity) and due to the state of the optical market here have been buying both prescription glasses and contacts from abroad. In fact, waiting on another pair of RX "transitions" glasses right now for the total price of $55 (from China). Several previous glasses came from China and Korea ($60-$80 total, all "transitions", thin lenses, anti-reflective coating) and the quality is excellent.
I use the same lens brand and type for over 15 years now, and certainly do not require annual "fitting" of any kind. My lenses usually come from the UK, and even including shipping and some price premium, still come out cheaper on an annual basis than if I were to go through the process here.
And, of course, it is all perfectly legal because those countries do not require any "prescription verification", and generally let people deal with their eyesight as they see fit.
When the rules make no sense and are designed primarily to line the pockets of specific industry, why is anyone surprised that some choose to work around them?
Very aware, so much so that I spent several days auditing Chrome by watching traffic in Wireshark, to see if it sends anything anywhere I do not expect it to.
I found that with appropriate basic configuration Chrome does not "phone home" and, generally, does not expose any more information than Firefox did (possibly less, actually)
Ironically, google.com cookies and local data are permanently blocked in my Chrome copy;)
While you are trolling, I will respond because I think it makes a good point:)
I suspect that Firefox may support the same API (thought existing addon authors adamantly state it does not). However, if I am to use the same API, I'd rather use it in a faster, more efficient and (due to its popularity) better supported browser. That is to say - whether Firefox supports such an API is irrelevant at this point.
Firefox had a distinctive advantage of a unique flexible design and API access to all aspects of browser implementation. They chose to remove this advantage in favor of standardization. Now there is no longer anything about Firefox that makes it a better choice.
I've been using Firefox "since it all began" (and Mozilla before then, and Netscape when that was the thing - yes, that's a long time ago). My primary reason for sticking with Firefox through thick and thin was the wide selection of addons, in particular those designed to guard privacy and clean up my web experience.
With the move to webextensions there was little left to distinguish between Firefox and Chrome. My main reservation wrt. Chrome was presumable lack of ability to programmatically control cookie access list (i.e. allow/session only/deny sites ability to set cookies from an extension). Authors of Firefox cookie manager extensions (such as Cookie Controller) stated that doing so is not possible in Chrome.
Finally, I figured I'd give it a try. Less than 20 minutes of searching helped me find an API to control cookies from a Webextension. I wrote my own (and put it up in Chrome "web store" - "Cookie ACL manager"), and we were in business shortly.
While doing that, found a few bugs (not critical but def. needing some attention) in cookie and site data handling. Reported these through Chrome bug reporting site and was positively surprised by developers actually reading and responding (and, hopefully, fixing them soon). By comparison, never got Firefox developers to fix anything.
So - I am sorry Firefox, it's been a good 20 years, but now we must part. Farewell.
Wikipedia is refined from the wisdom of the crowds. But crowds, by and large, are pretty dim. So, naturally, the more wise the knowledge, the fewer people carry it. I would expect the graph to look somewhat exponential.
I am sure online retailers have to expect that. When ordering something that has an individual fit - I do not know if it actually fits until the item arrives and I can try it. Clothes, shoes, glasses and many other items. Picture and description is not the same as seeing an item in person. Why is that news? I am sure catalog sales back in the day had the same return percentage.
Watch the carefully worded denial, no doubt approved by company's lawyers. "We don't - and have never - used your microphone for ads. Just not true.". Ok, so they did not use microphone *for ads*. What did they use it for?
(Here are some ideas that are not contrary to this denial: listening in for research purposes, compiling data on behalf of a government)
Slashdot Mirror
Wall Street *are* his investors, and by the stock valuation we can judge their reaction. They surely did not like this, and, apparently, were more interested to find out what the answer to the analysts' question was.
The question, more likely, annoyed Musk because it pokes at a somewhat sensitive topic. But Musk is the one being a crybaby here. If he did not need Wall Street's money - sure, he could say and do whatever he wants. Yet he does, and so he needs to please those who pay to keep Tesla running - and it's not, (yet?), it's customers.
(ok, have to comment some more, so "yes, indeed")
And those 2 pieces would be of manure, not silver.
Just how badly *did* they screw up their nuclear test site? I mean - this about face is looking a bit too desperate. These guys need to bluff a little better (or did they also keep all their newly minted nuclear weapons at the same site and lost them too?)
Sounds more like a "public service announcement" for the Youtube generation. Good on them for warning people.
That already happened.
And don't forget that there is no way to transfer authentication credentials from one device to another (as I just found out). So, if you have to change a phone, you will need to visit every single service that is using Google Authenticator and reconfigure it to use a new device, from the beginning.
Also - it appears to only allow a single authenticator at a time. I like my phone, but I am not quite that married to it and I do need to access various services sometimes where my phone is not available or not convenient to access.
It's problem is that it's an ugliest plane ever made. Now if only it had the graceful lines of 747.
The amount of bycatch will be nontrivial. This will inevitably result either in a lot of valid traffic being blocked, or no meaningful blocking of malware.
Except this time they slapped AI label on the service, so it's very modern and cool and costs more money.
We've seen this before.
"we" ? :)
Sometimes I wish their government was in charge here (except for that whole lack of freedom of speech thing).
They can get my 2002 Honda to do that? These people are some kinda stable genius.
Oh, kinda like you can't expect drivers to bother stopping for a red light or checking what the speed limit is?
Everyone in the US is Amazon customer (and if not - Walmart or all the other online retailers).
Raising rates will simply increase prices for everyone. That will make consumers poorer, and reduce the amount of business they do on Amazon and other online retailers, hurting their profits and US economy.
Incidentally, it is cheaper to mail a product from China to the US than to mail the same package in the US internally. This is because China realizes importance of shipping and has creative and less expensive shipping options internationally, which in turn helps their business. Since each country is in charge of their end of shipping rates, making US mail more expensive will hurt US businesses and give bigger advantage to the Chinese. That said, China is a new Trump's buddy - so not a big surprise there.
Your internet provider is a conduit on which multiple services rely. It cannot and should not, by law, be used to control or limit access, or police content either of it's own accord or upon request of external parties.
Of course, personally, I am strongly against connecting any devices (other than computers) in my home to the outside facing network, but that's beside the point.
Majority of world population (and pretty much everyone of the adult working age) either wasn't around 50 years ago or, if they were, were too young to really understand. Combine that with various confirmation biases, tendency to forget the negative and overstate how good things were back in the old days - and this question is, essentially, meaningless as a true gauge of change in life quality.
At most all it does is measure how whiny a given group of people is. And US residents are some of the whiniest in the world (but, unsurprisingly, France beats us on this one, if only just a bit)
What is particularly worrying to me is how short the list of ISPs is (and this is after we include cellular providers, who are ISPs only in a wider sense of the word). There are more electricity generating companies out there than there are ISPs providing home broadband internet. USA truly does not have much choice here.
The US corrective wear industry is a giant scam and a monopoly cornered by a small number of companies and a very skewed set of rules. Routine eye exams are often not covered under medical insurance policy, and "contact lens fitting" even less often. The costs are high, and optometrists do everything in their power to limit usefullness of their prescription. Most will actively resist providing one in writing to be used by a 3rd party. Even when they do (as they are required by law in most states) the prescription will invariably be time limited, usually to 1 year. So, you have to get another refraction test in a year for glasses, and another "fitting" for lenses - which for adults is nothing more than writing the same prescription for the same lens brand, and charging anything from $50 to $200.
This is pretty much US only - in most countries anyone can buy eyewear of any strength they choose (or, if they want, refraction test is usually done by a machine for free on the spot).
I wear both glasses and contact lenses (depending on activity) and due to the state of the optical market here have been buying both prescription glasses and contacts from abroad. In fact, waiting on another pair of RX "transitions" glasses right now for the total price of $55 (from China). Several previous glasses came from China and Korea ($60-$80 total, all "transitions", thin lenses, anti-reflective coating) and the quality is excellent.
I use the same lens brand and type for over 15 years now, and certainly do not require annual "fitting" of any kind. My lenses usually come from the UK, and even including shipping and some price premium, still come out cheaper on an annual basis than if I were to go through the process here.
And, of course, it is all perfectly legal because those countries do not require any "prescription verification", and generally let people deal with their eyesight as they see fit.
When the rules make no sense and are designed primarily to line the pockets of specific industry, why is anyone surprised that some choose to work around them?
Very aware, so much so that I spent several days auditing Chrome by watching traffic in Wireshark, to see if it sends anything anywhere I do not expect it to.
I found that with appropriate basic configuration Chrome does not "phone home" and, generally, does not expose any more information than Firefox did (possibly less, actually)
Ironically, google.com cookies and local data are permanently blocked in my Chrome copy ;)
While you are trolling, I will respond because I think it makes a good point :)
I suspect that Firefox may support the same API (thought existing addon authors adamantly state it does not). However, if I am to use the same API, I'd rather use it in a faster, more efficient and (due to its popularity) better supported browser. That is to say - whether Firefox supports such an API is irrelevant at this point.
Firefox had a distinctive advantage of a unique flexible design and API access to all aspects of browser implementation. They chose to remove this advantage in favor of standardization. Now there is no longer anything about Firefox that makes it a better choice.
I've been using Firefox "since it all began" (and Mozilla before then, and Netscape when that was the thing - yes, that's a long time ago). My primary reason for sticking with Firefox through thick and thin was the wide selection of addons, in particular those designed to guard privacy and clean up my web experience.
With the move to webextensions there was little left to distinguish between Firefox and Chrome. My main reservation wrt. Chrome was presumable lack of ability to programmatically control cookie access list (i.e. allow/session only/deny sites ability to set cookies from an extension). Authors of Firefox cookie manager extensions (such as Cookie Controller) stated that doing so is not possible in Chrome.
Finally, I figured I'd give it a try. Less than 20 minutes of searching helped me find an API to control cookies from a Webextension. I wrote my own (and put it up in Chrome "web store" - "Cookie ACL manager"), and we were in business shortly.
While doing that, found a few bugs (not critical but def. needing some attention) in cookie and site data handling. Reported these through Chrome bug reporting site and was positively surprised by developers actually reading and responding (and, hopefully, fixing them soon). By comparison, never got Firefox developers to fix anything.
So - I am sorry Firefox, it's been a good 20 years, but now we must part. Farewell.
Wikipedia is refined from the wisdom of the crowds. But crowds, by and large, are pretty dim. So, naturally, the more wise the knowledge, the fewer people carry it. I would expect the graph to look somewhat exponential.
I am sure online retailers have to expect that. When ordering something that has an individual fit - I do not know if it actually fits until the item arrives and I can try it. Clothes, shoes, glasses and many other items. Picture and description is not the same as seeing an item in person.
Why is that news? I am sure catalog sales back in the day had the same return percentage.
Watch the carefully worded denial, no doubt approved by company's lawyers.
"We don't - and have never - used your microphone for ads. Just not true.". Ok, so they did not use microphone *for ads*. What did they use it for?
(Here are some ideas that are not contrary to this denial: listening in for research purposes, compiling data on behalf of a government)
Interesting FAQ, but has nothing related to my specific question, unfortunately.