Pedo guy was a moron who shit on Elon for no good reason. True, Elon should have been the bigger man and not responded in kind. But even the best of us can't help responding to trolls sometimes.
That's exactly what the baker admitted. He would not serve a same-sex couple by baking them a wedding cake, even though he would bake that same cake for others.
This isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why you're failing to understand it. If a Nazi walks into my store and asks to buy a cupcake, and I say yes, I am serving a Nazi. If that same Nazi tells me he wants me to make him a cake for a Nazi rally, and I say no, I am not refusing to serve Nazis. I'm merely refusing to create a special order for an event I object to.
The hilarious thing is that most of the jackasses objecting to his "discrimination" would have no objection to him refusing to serve Nazis entiely. If he told a nazi to get the fuck out and never come back, that would be perfectly fine. But somehow they have a problem with him saying "you can buy whatever you want from the store, but I won't make a unique cake for a gay wedding".
Your framing of the phenomenon might have something to do with your inability to understand it.
I think you have cause and effect reversed; my inability to understand it is much more likely to drive my framing of it than vice versa.
I don't personally know anyone who hates the punk, but I do know a lot of people who think poorly of him because he's a narcissistic man-child who tries to portray the selfish pursuit of his lunatic Richie Rich fantasies as some kind of grand and heroic vision. It's not. It's narcissism exemplified.
You say you don't know anyone who hates him, yet in the exact same sentence you make it clear that you dispse him, on completely superficial grounds. If the word "hate" bothers you then replace it with "dispise", "loathe", or "dislike"; it doesn't change anything about what I said. You dislike him based on some weird caricature you've created, and I still can't figure out why.
If I'm an idiot for possessing the ability to perceive reality accurately, so be it. Title accepted, with pride.
You may or may not be an idiot, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that you "perceive reality accurately", nor have you given any reason for your dislike of him other than a half-hearted attempt at amateur psychoanalysis.
That's great; the more EV sales the better. I wish BAIC the best of luck. That said, Chinese vehicle standards have generally been too poor to be sold in western nations; there's a great video online of the first vehicle which China tried to market to the west. You can literally hear the engineers laughing as the thing crumples up like a tincan.
If BAIC can make vehicles that can compete with Tesla in first world nations, I will absolutely welcome it. That doesn't change the fact that Tesla started the EV revolution, and is still by far the best producer in the west.
Seriously, you might not the anti-discrimination laws and think they should be overturned for freedom of speech* reasons, but could you please not state the obviously wrong?
Nothing I said was in the slightest bit wrong. The original doofus claimed that the baker refused to serve homosexuals. I pointed out that he was happy to serve homosexuals, but would not provide a service which required him to create something he found objectionable. If a straight couple came in and asked him to make a cake saying "gay wedding are awesome", he would have refused that as well, but thanks to the retarded way these laws are designed it wouldn't have been considered discrimination, nor would it have been deemed illegal.
So, making custom cakes was a religious belief? Otherwise, I'm not seeing how the form of icing on a cake has to do with religion per se.
His legal battle was based on religious grounds, but personally I don't give a shit about religion. If you go to a baker and ask him to make a cake with a swastika on it, he should be able to refuse. It doesn't matter if he's Jewish and objecting on religious grounds, or if he's an atheist and just thinks you're a disgusting piece of shit. You don't get to force people to create things which they object to. That's just evil.
He says he's going to replace airplanes with rockets. He says he's going to move people in pneumatic tubes. He also says he's going to dig hundreds of non-pneumatic tubes under Los Angeles, and move people in their own cars, on sleds in said tunnels. He sold a flamethrower, because he thought it would be "cool". There's probably more of these.
I'm more confused than ever. I would classify all of those things as "cool!" and then follow it up with "make it happen!". Why in the world would any of those things make you hate him?
Didn't he make Paypal evil?
That's true. I'm kinda tired of having to call in a catholic priest every time I pay for something online. Demonic possession is a big downside.
They haven't even produced a single affordable EV yet!
This statement alone makes it obvious that you're either a troll or a moron. If you want to apologise for that and restate your argument I'll be happy to have a discussion with you, but as it stands I don't think any reasonable person is going to take you seriously.
I never understood why people are so entranced by Musk.
Because he promised things we all thought were ridiculous, at the time, and has delivered in spades. I'm astounded at what he has achieved in such a short time.
What I don't get is all the idiots who absolutely hate his guts. I mean, I understand that some humans have an innate desire to despise anyone who is doing well... but I don't understand WHY that desire exists.
Masterpiece Cakeshop clearly and flagrantly violated that law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for one couple, despite baking wedding cakes for dozens of others. His reason? Explicitly stated, he didn't want to serve a same-sex couple.
Bullshit. He told them he would be happy to serve them, but that he would not bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding. They could purchase whatever goods they wanted from the store, but they couldn't force him to create something which went against his beliefs.
That's why he lost in court, and even the most blatantly partisan members of the Supreme Court had to punt on the issue because they knew they were already going to be mocked for their tortuous claim about judicial bias in Colorado, so actually trying to pursue their facetious agenda would have just lead to them being compromised to the point of say, the Taney Court.
The supreme court didn't "punt on the issue"; they ruled in his favour.
Seems like a market opportunity, but I've looked for clothes that would fit my wife better, and they aren't there to buy. I don't get it.
The fact that there is such a thing as "women's pants" and "men's pants" is absurd on the face of it. It's not like men and women have a different number of legs. The only reason this differentiation exists is because men and women care about different things. Men want comfortable pants that are functional; women want skin-tight pants that make their ass look good.
If women actually cared about comfort and utility over "fashion", there wouldn't be such a thing as "women's pants". There would just be pants. Maybe instead of looking for "women's clothes" for your wife, you could try just looking for clothes.
When someone asks you why 20% of your fellow citizens can't identify their own country on a map, the responsible, thoughtful person acknowledges there's a problem and resists the urge to prescribe the solution in twenty seconds or less.
No, the responsible thoughtful person questions the statistic, because it's clearly bullshit. The fact that you just blindly believe it to be true makes you look just as ignorant as she did.
Of course a contestant in a beauty pageant can't really just yell out "CITATION NEEDED!". If put on the spot, a thoughtful person might answer with something along the lines of "I find it very difficult to believe that your claim is true, however, I would say that any nation whose citizens DO have such a poor familiarity with geography clearly has a dysfunctional educational system".
There are many nuanced modern scientific theories which have been proven to not predict what they intend to, yet are reverently defended by scientists.
This is the kind of thing we tend to hear from creationists arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old because hurr durr carbon dating.
If you have an actual example, we can have a discussion. As it stands your response just reads like hand-waving.
Apple can do inexpensive. They've done it in the past (iPod shuffle, iPhone SE, Mac mini) and they're still doing it right now (Mac mini).
All of those products were more expensive than competing products in their class. If apple sells something for $5 that might fit your definition of "inexpensive", but when competing products only cost $2 then no, in the context of the discussion it's not at all inexpensive. Apple charges a premium, and that premium exists refuardles of whether the specific product we are talking about costs $5 or $5,000.
I've lived in Alaska and been outside in -60F weather. Trust me, anything lower than -20F feels the same
No, no it does not. The coldest temperature I ever experienced was -76F, on my way up to the most northern outpost in the world. I took my gloves off for 2 minutes to record a video, and then spent the next half hour in horrible pain, terrified that I was about to lose my fingers to frostbite.
The next day we had temperatures around -20F. It felt like a warm summer day in comparison. I even took off my parka.
The scientific method is essentially democratic. One person claims to have done something via an experiment, and that doesn't prove anything. You need a whole bunch more people to do the same experiment....to convince them. And their experiments need to be peer-reviewed. To convince even more people. Eventually, when enough people are convinced, your hypothesis is essentially voted into being a theory.
That's not at all how that works. A hypothesis is just an idea. A theory has predictive power. We don't vote to turn a hypothesis into a theory; a hypothesis is just the starting point for an experiment. Based on the results of the experiment you may be able to formulate a theory... and if that theory is valid, you will be able to predict future results. Popularity and opinion are irrelevant; either your theory predicts future outcomes, or it does not.
Slashdot Mirror
No disrespect intended: Haven't you just said that you cannot understand the phenomenon of disrespect for Musk, therefor it must be irrational?
I've said that all of the reasons people give for hating Musk seem irrational, which is why I don't understand the phenomenon.
I'll not defend myself against an ad hominem argument. The discussion is about Musk, not me.
Me pointing out that you haven't provided any rational reason for disliking the guy is not an ad hominem.
Pedo guy was a moron who shit on Elon for no good reason. True, Elon should have been the bigger man and not responded in kind. But even the best of us can't help responding to trolls sometimes.
That's exactly what the baker admitted. He would not serve a same-sex couple by baking them a wedding cake, even though he would bake that same cake for others.
This isn't difficult, so I'm not sure why you're failing to understand it. If a Nazi walks into my store and asks to buy a cupcake, and I say yes, I am serving a Nazi. If that same Nazi tells me he wants me to make him a cake for a Nazi rally, and I say no, I am not refusing to serve Nazis. I'm merely refusing to create a special order for an event I object to.
The hilarious thing is that most of the jackasses objecting to his "discrimination" would have no objection to him refusing to serve Nazis entiely. If he told a nazi to get the fuck out and never come back, that would be perfectly fine. But somehow they have a problem with him saying "you can buy whatever you want from the store, but I won't make a unique cake for a gay wedding".
Your framing of the phenomenon might have something to do with your inability to understand it.
I think you have cause and effect reversed; my inability to understand it is much more likely to drive my framing of it than vice versa.
I don't personally know anyone who hates the punk, but I do know a lot of people who think poorly of him because he's a narcissistic man-child who tries to portray the selfish pursuit of his lunatic Richie Rich fantasies as some kind of grand and heroic vision. It's not. It's narcissism exemplified.
You say you don't know anyone who hates him, yet in the exact same sentence you make it clear that you dispse him, on completely superficial grounds. If the word "hate" bothers you then replace it with "dispise", "loathe", or "dislike"; it doesn't change anything about what I said. You dislike him based on some weird caricature you've created, and I still can't figure out why.
If I'm an idiot for possessing the ability to perceive reality accurately, so be it. Title accepted, with pride.
You may or may not be an idiot, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that you "perceive reality accurately", nor have you given any reason for your dislike of him other than a half-hearted attempt at amateur psychoanalysis.
That's great; the more EV sales the better. I wish BAIC the best of luck. That said, Chinese vehicle standards have generally been too poor to be sold in western nations; there's a great video online of the first vehicle which China tried to market to the west. You can literally hear the engineers laughing as the thing crumples up like a tincan.
If BAIC can make vehicles that can compete with Tesla in first world nations, I will absolutely welcome it. That doesn't change the fact that Tesla started the EV revolution, and is still by far the best producer in the west.
I don't give a shit about religion; I still don't think people should be forced to do things which violate their own moral codes.
Seriously, you might not the anti-discrimination laws and think they should be overturned for freedom of speech* reasons, but could you please not state the obviously wrong?
Nothing I said was in the slightest bit wrong. The original doofus claimed that the baker refused to serve homosexuals. I pointed out that he was happy to serve homosexuals, but would not provide a service which required him to create something he found objectionable. If a straight couple came in and asked him to make a cake saying "gay wedding are awesome", he would have refused that as well, but thanks to the retarded way these laws are designed it wouldn't have been considered discrimination, nor would it have been deemed illegal.
So, making custom cakes was a religious belief? Otherwise, I'm not seeing how the form of icing on a cake has to do with religion per se.
His legal battle was based on religious grounds, but personally I don't give a shit about religion. If you go to a baker and ask him to make a cake with a swastika on it, he should be able to refuse. It doesn't matter if he's Jewish and objecting on religious grounds, or if he's an atheist and just thinks you're a disgusting piece of shit. You don't get to force people to create things which they object to. That's just evil.
Do you really not get why people hate his guts?
No.
He says he's going to replace airplanes with rockets.
He says he's going to move people in pneumatic tubes.
He also says he's going to dig hundreds of non-pneumatic tubes under Los Angeles, and move people in their own cars, on sleds in said tunnels.
He sold a flamethrower, because he thought it would be "cool".
There's probably more of these.
I'm more confused than ever. I would classify all of those things as "cool!" and then follow it up with "make it happen!". Why in the world would any of those things make you hate him?
Didn't he make Paypal evil?
That's true. I'm kinda tired of having to call in a catholic priest every time I pay for something online. Demonic possession is a big downside.
They haven't even produced a single affordable EV yet!
This statement alone makes it obvious that you're either a troll or a moron. If you want to apologise for that and restate your argument I'll be happy to have a discussion with you, but as it stands I don't think any reasonable person is going to take you seriously.
I never understood why people are so entranced by Musk.
Because he promised things we all thought were ridiculous, at the time, and has delivered in spades. I'm astounded at what he has achieved in such a short time.
What I don't get is all the idiots who absolutely hate his guts. I mean, I understand that some humans have an innate desire to despise anyone who is doing well ... but I don't understand WHY that desire exists.
Masterpiece Cakeshop clearly and flagrantly violated that law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for one couple, despite baking wedding cakes for dozens of others. His reason? Explicitly stated, he didn't want to serve a same-sex couple.
Bullshit. He told them he would be happy to serve them, but that he would not bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding. They could purchase whatever goods they wanted from the store, but they couldn't force him to create something which went against his beliefs.
That's why he lost in court, and even the most blatantly partisan members of the Supreme Court had to punt on the issue because they knew they were already going to be mocked for their tortuous claim about judicial bias in Colorado, so actually trying to pursue their facetious agenda would have just lead to them being compromised to the point of say, the Taney Court.
The supreme court didn't "punt on the issue"; they ruled in his favour.
Seems like a market opportunity, but I've looked for clothes that would fit my wife better, and they aren't there to buy. I don't get it.
The fact that there is such a thing as "women's pants" and "men's pants" is absurd on the face of it. It's not like men and women have a different number of legs. The only reason this differentiation exists is because men and women care about different things. Men want comfortable pants that are functional; women want skin-tight pants that make their ass look good.
If women actually cared about comfort and utility over "fashion", there wouldn't be such a thing as "women's pants". There would just be pants. Maybe instead of looking for "women's clothes" for your wife, you could try just looking for clothes.
Fact: making up bullshit and then calling it "fact" does not, in fact, make it a fact.
When someone asks you why 20% of your fellow citizens can't identify their own country on a map, the responsible, thoughtful person acknowledges there's a problem and resists the urge to prescribe the solution in twenty seconds or less.
No, the responsible thoughtful person questions the statistic, because it's clearly bullshit. The fact that you just blindly believe it to be true makes you look just as ignorant as she did.
Of course a contestant in a beauty pageant can't really just yell out "CITATION NEEDED!". If put on the spot, a thoughtful person might answer with something along the lines of "I find it very difficult to believe that your claim is true, however, I would say that any nation whose citizens DO have such a poor familiarity with geography clearly has a dysfunctional educational system".
"If I only had a brain ..."
- Djinn, 2018
Even ICP has a better understanding of how to use magnets than you do, apparently.
There are many nuanced modern scientific theories which have been proven to not predict what they intend to, yet are reverently defended by scientists.
This is the kind of thing we tend to hear from creationists arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old because hurr durr carbon dating.
If you have an actual example, we can have a discussion. As it stands your response just reads like hand-waving.
I don't care how you abuse your colon; I'm quite familiar with how to use mine.
"Under $100,000 would be very impressive! It'll never happen!"
- Djinn, 2003
If you believe that the provided link supports your assertion, you're clearly a simpleton.
Those 2 gigs of ram will do wonders when I open up Firefox with 30+ tabs. I'll get to relive the good old days with my pentium computer and 56k modem.
Apple can do inexpensive. They've done it in the past (iPod shuffle, iPhone SE, Mac mini) and they're still doing it right now (Mac mini).
All of those products were more expensive than competing products in their class. If apple sells something for $5 that might fit your definition of "inexpensive", but when competing products only cost $2 then no, in the context of the discussion it's not at all inexpensive. Apple charges a premium, and that premium exists refuardles of whether the specific product we are talking about costs $5 or $5,000.
I've lived in Alaska and been outside in -60F weather. Trust me, anything lower than -20F feels the same
No, no it does not. The coldest temperature I ever experienced was -76F, on my way up to the most northern outpost in the world. I took my gloves off for 2 minutes to record a video, and then spent the next half hour in horrible pain, terrified that I was about to lose my fingers to frostbite.
The next day we had temperatures around -20F. It felt like a warm summer day in comparison. I even took off my parka.
The scientific method is essentially democratic. One person claims to have done something via an experiment, and that doesn't prove anything. You need a whole bunch more people to do the same experiment....to convince them. And their experiments need to be peer-reviewed. To convince even more people. Eventually, when enough people are convinced, your hypothesis is essentially voted into being a theory.
That's not at all how that works. A hypothesis is just an idea. A theory has predictive power. We don't vote to turn a hypothesis into a theory; a hypothesis is just the starting point for an experiment. Based on the results of the experiment you may be able to formulate a theory ... and if that theory is valid, you will be able to predict future results. Popularity and opinion are irrelevant; either your theory predicts future outcomes, or it does not.
Fucking magnets. How do they work?