I can say that in the projects I worked on, one of which was commercialized, it was solely about price, as you said.
We wanted them because they looked fucking cool, we didn't use them because they were insanely expensive. Once they were cheap- we used them everywhere we could... again, because they looked awesome. Blue LEDs had an otherworldly glow about them.
Na. It was definitely about cost. I worked on 3 projects in the time period where that phenomenon took off.
We used blue lights because they looked cool, and had finally stopped costing $6 an LED.
1) People don't generally spend a hell of a lot of time gazing upward
2) Peak wavelength of the blue sky is closer to green, peaking at pretty much the exact wavelength our eyes are least efficient at reacting to within our range (weird, right?)
3) The sky isn't bright. Observe a shadow sometime- that's the amount of diffuse scattered sunlight hitting you from the *entire* visible sky.
The blurb (and even the article) is jaded and implies that blue light causes blindness to ride the anti-screen wave.
Objection: Speculation
If you read it, you find that the issue is actually that the body makes alpha Tocopherol, a Vitamin E derivative, which keeps the photoreceptor cells from dying. Some people lose the ability to make that alpha Tocopherol as they age, leading to blindness.
That's certainly part of the article.
That wasn't even the notable part- the notable part was that blue-light activated retinol is shown to by highly cytotoxic, and that there is a known statistical trend between age and your ability to get Tocopherol to the places it needs to be, which strongly correlates with the kinds of macular degeneration that are also highly age-correlated.
So the issue isn't to avoid blue light and buy crazy glasses... (how are you really going to avoid blue light if you ever want to see white again anyway? Are you going to stop looking at white paper?) Rather it's to find a way to keep supplying alpha Tocopherol to the eye as people age.
You're actually inserting your own bias into the paper, and you're too stupid to see it.
They make it quite clear that you can't avoid blue light, and it would be even more ridiculous to think that finding a solution to age-related Tocopherol transport issues would be within the scope of that paper.
In short, they're not riding the anti-screen wave, you're just virulently opposed to it, and are viewing everything you read with... blue colored glasses?
My boss was a proponent of the same thing.
"Just use your work computer, that's what I do!"
I will say that my $400 Asus i3 13" laptop does "the job" just fine for most things, where most things for me is pretty much "run chrome".
For development, my i7 is definitely a lot nicer, and was worth the money (for me)
Meanwhile my wife's five year old iPhone 5s is running the latest iOS beta and yes; fast too
Sometimes I wonder if people just have very different ideas of what fast is than I do.
My work 6s is so slow on new iOS versions that I've found myself using my personal Android phone more often than it now.
Battery's been replaced (that wasn't an option- it wouldn't hold a charge for more than about 3 hours of standby)
That doesn't make sense. You can't manipulate Tesla's stock and make it "go out of business".
Eh, you can't really be stupid enough to think that.
Just admit it, you don't like people attacking your hero.
Could very well be the case... But I think you've just proven yourself too stupid to judge the case, either way.
Think about it: do you care that any other company has short sellers?
No.
Did you even know that short sellers EXISTED before you became enamored with Tesla?
Yes.
As for shorting a stock being "immoral" that is a joke.
No, it's a viewpoint. You're coming off as ignorant in multiple topics here, now including the English language.
It is just taking another side on a trade.
No, it isn't quite that. But for the sake of argument, I'll give you that it is.
All of the sudden Tesla fanboys are investment experts.
Nope, but given the average financial status of the average Tesla owner, they're probably statistically more intelligent on average.
That doesn't mean every Tesla owner is smarter than you... But I wouldn't be averse to considering that hypothesis.
The problem here, is that the estimated short position on Tesla is almost 17% of its market capitalization. It's an impressive amount. It's almost as unjustifiable as Tesla's actual market capitalization.
As someone highly invested in something has a motive to help see that thing succeed, someone highly invested in seeing something fail is likewise similarly motivated to see it fail.
This is actually a common tactic for the world's largest short sellers. I've never heard of a specific case of it being used nefariously, but short sellers will often leverage themselves very highly against a company they're pretty confident is up to no good and set to take a hell of a fall, and then their job becomes to prove it. Their job, in essence, becomes 'to assist that company in reaping its whirlwind'
Musk is claiming that the shorts made a bad bet, and are so severely leveraged that at this point, they're willing to nefariously attempt to alter share price. It's not implausible with dollar amounts this high. People manipulate stocks upward at far smaller numbers than 11 billion dollars.
You frankly come off as someone invested in its failure, either emotionally or financially. I don't think you're intelligent enough for it to be financially, so I'm guessing you just have an avid hatred for anything 'green-ish'
He may be unhinged in some instances... But this doesn't appear to be one of them. He has the power to fuck over some folks who have made some very large bets against the success of his company, and it is certainly hard to deny that there aren't constant misinformation and smear campaigns aimed at the company- not to imply that it's a saint or anything like that.
I've seen some amazing homeschooling environments, and products of them.
I've also seen some people who's idea of homeschooling was to produce little ignorant cult fanatics.
I don't have anything directly against homeschooling, but I do think without oversight, it's dangerous.
Huh. You'd have me doing shit labor, all because when I was a child, I had a very abusive home life and as a consequence never did my homework. Ever. No teacher could in good conscience fail me, because I scored 97th percentile in 2 standardized tests. But I had F's every damn year. Permanent detention didn't fix the problem.
High school eventually came around, and the trend continued. My last year, I met a math teacher. Ledesma was her name. She realized that my math acuity was actually rather excellent, even though I was failing the class due to never doing my homework. She decided to hand me 3 years worth of books, told me to come back to her when I was ready to to take tests on the coursework. I completed those 3 years in one year, and passed the class with an A.
I imagine a screen would have worked just as well for me, but 20 years ago, that wasn't really an option. There wasn't extensive coursework available on the computers, yet.
Fast forward to today. There's 47% chance my career is more successful than yours, knowing precisely nothing about you. I make more money. I have learned to work around the issues I had due to my upbringing, and you're likely browsing this forum with at least some portion of software I wrote running on your machine assisting you in the task of spreading your ignorance like the cancer that it is.
What you don't realize, is that *you* are the problem. You're the idiot. And people like me are too kind-hearted to euthanize *you*.
Great, but most driving involves a bunch of acceleration and deceleration
Oh I sincerely doubt that is true for anything but a very small subset of drivers in this country.
Living in Seattle, and commuting all around the West and East Sides of the lake, my mustang- a vehicle practically known for its rather terrible aerodynamics still gets closer to its rated freeway mileage than its city mileage.
Last I checked, our traffic was among the top 5 worst in the United States.
which is why hybrids are so effective.
Again- for that subset of people.
For long-haul semi trucks, which spend most of their time doing long, steady pulls, hybridization would offer little benefit.
Agreed.
For people driving around cities, and/or getting stuck in traffic, it makes a huge difference.
It can, I suppose, for some people. Like I said, I spend a good amount of time in stop and go traffic (couple hours a day) and yet my vehicle's mileage still manages to average around 20. A hybrid would do me little good, and I live in a densely populated urban area.
I'm sure there are people who never leave the city or get on a freeway... but I bet most of them use mass transit.
At those times, drivers are rarely going fast enough for drag to become a significant issue.
Very true. No argument there.
For those people, there are smart cars and such. For the vast majority of us, there are other cars where weight is less of a concern.
Your entire premise is wrong, anyway.
Fuel economy has more to do with drag while in motion than the weight of the vehicle. By a huge margin.
Nobody is trying to arbitrarily "cut the weight" of vehicles. Quite the opposite in fact, since it isn't directly harmful to fuel efficiency.
There is a trend toward smaller cars, that's for sure- but smaller *is* more efficient. Less drag cross section.
Allow me to offer this hypothetical to help you understand.
If a really angry huge man were going to hit you in the head as hard as he could with a baseball bat, would you want to be wearing:
A) Magneto's helmet
B) A big motherfucking Afro
You take your strength. I, personally, (and the people more intelligent than you that design these things) choose life.
And beyond a certain point, the strength of the vehicle -- or lack thereof -- does compromise safety.
What an idiotic addition to the argument. You're right- I can't win. If we reduce the vehicle to nothing but a frame with wheels, it will in fact be less safe.
You can only make a steel or aluminum chassis so light before further reductions compromise its ability to protect occupants in a crash.
I can tell you have no idea how crash dynamics work. The safest vehicle in the world would be a rigid lightweight cage surrounded by a lot of low-weight energy absorbing structure. The trick is to slow down your deceleration, absorb the energy and dissipate it before it is transferred into your rapid and fatal deceleration. Strength is quite simply *not a factor*.
That you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of physics speaks volumes on your understanding of the issue the OP brought up.
I'm left to wonder how many people around you silently think that you're a fucking moron and don't have the courage to tell you, because you clearly don't know that you are.
You are correct. He does not understand progressive taxation. Turns out a lot of us don't, because every single year I have to explain it to every single fucking colleague of mine in my IT firm with an average salary in the 6 figure range.
No, it's actually not. At all.
Fuel economy is a function of efficiency at turning fuel into motion, which includes unfortunately, drag.
Clean emissions is a function of turning fuel into heat.
They are indirectly related, but definitely not directly.
Oh I don't know. My 2011 emits quite a bit. It's hard to pump out 412hp without doing that.
But the real problem is that it pumps out nearly 700hp worth of combustion products to do it, and that's just physics. No way around it. Internal combustion engines are terrible as discrete motors at this scale.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't even remotely illegal.
Though in my experience, it does usually net you a pretty pissed off board.
I can say that in the projects I worked on, one of which was commercialized, it was solely about price, as you said.
We wanted them because they looked fucking cool, we didn't use them because they were insanely expensive. Once they were cheap- we used them everywhere we could... again, because they looked awesome. Blue LEDs had an otherworldly glow about them.
Na. It was definitely about cost. I worked on 3 projects in the time period where that phenomenon took off.
We used blue lights because they looked cool, and had finally stopped costing $6 an LED.
1) People don't generally spend a hell of a lot of time gazing upward
2) Peak wavelength of the blue sky is closer to green, peaking at pretty much the exact wavelength our eyes are least efficient at reacting to within our range (weird, right?)
3) The sky isn't bright. Observe a shadow sometime- that's the amount of diffuse scattered sunlight hitting you from the *entire* visible sky.
Actually, yes it does. Try reading it next time.
The blurb (and even the article) is jaded and implies that blue light causes blindness to ride the anti-screen wave.
Objection: Speculation
If you read it, you find that the issue is actually that the body makes alpha Tocopherol, a Vitamin E derivative, which keeps the photoreceptor cells from dying. Some people lose the ability to make that alpha Tocopherol as they age, leading to blindness.
That's certainly part of the article.
That wasn't even the notable part- the notable part was that blue-light activated retinol is shown to by highly cytotoxic, and that there is a known statistical trend between age and your ability to get Tocopherol to the places it needs to be, which strongly correlates with the kinds of macular degeneration that are also highly age-correlated.
So the issue isn't to avoid blue light and buy crazy glasses... (how are you really going to avoid blue light if you ever want to see white again anyway? Are you going to stop looking at white paper?) Rather it's to find a way to keep supplying alpha Tocopherol to the eye as people age.
You're actually inserting your own bias into the paper, and you're too stupid to see it.
They make it quite clear that you can't avoid blue light, and it would be even more ridiculous to think that finding a solution to age-related Tocopherol transport issues would be within the scope of that paper.
In short, they're not riding the anti-screen wave, you're just virulently opposed to it, and are viewing everything you read with... blue colored glasses?
I've been telling myself I was going to do that for a decade.
It sounds... healthy. And fucking amazing.
My boss was a proponent of the same thing.
"Just use your work computer, that's what I do!"
I will say that my $400 Asus i3 13" laptop does "the job" just fine for most things, where most things for me is pretty much "run chrome".
For development, my i7 is definitely a lot nicer, and was worth the money (for me)
I can buy that. I have never wiped it. I'm using ~120G on it, mostly in pictures and iMessage.
I'd love to hear how perceived value of a mobile computing and telephony device differing from your own is a measure of intelligence.
Damn. My last desktop cost $2200, and my last laptop $2300.
Are your desktops used for little more than browsing?
Meanwhile my wife's five year old iPhone 5s is running the latest iOS beta and yes; fast too
Sometimes I wonder if people just have very different ideas of what fast is than I do.
My work 6s is so slow on new iOS versions that I've found myself using my personal Android phone more often than it now.
Battery's been replaced (that wasn't an option- it wouldn't hold a charge for more than about 3 hours of standby)
That doesn't make sense. You can't manipulate Tesla's stock and make it "go out of business".
Eh, you can't really be stupid enough to think that.
Just admit it, you don't like people attacking your hero.
Could very well be the case... But I think you've just proven yourself too stupid to judge the case, either way.
Think about it: do you care that any other company has short sellers?
No.
Did you even know that short sellers EXISTED before you became enamored with Tesla?
Yes.
As for shorting a stock being "immoral" that is a joke.
No, it's a viewpoint. You're coming off as ignorant in multiple topics here, now including the English language.
It is just taking another side on a trade.
No, it isn't quite that. But for the sake of argument, I'll give you that it is.
All of the sudden Tesla fanboys are investment experts.
Nope, but given the average financial status of the average Tesla owner, they're probably statistically more intelligent on average.
That doesn't mean every Tesla owner is smarter than you... But I wouldn't be averse to considering that hypothesis.
The problem here, is that the estimated short position on Tesla is almost 17% of its market capitalization. It's an impressive amount. It's almost as unjustifiable as Tesla's actual market capitalization.
As someone highly invested in something has a motive to help see that thing succeed, someone highly invested in seeing something fail is likewise similarly motivated to see it fail.
This is actually a common tactic for the world's largest short sellers. I've never heard of a specific case of it being used nefariously, but short sellers will often leverage themselves very highly against a company they're pretty confident is up to no good and set to take a hell of a fall, and then their job becomes to prove it. Their job, in essence, becomes 'to assist that company in reaping its whirlwind'
Musk is claiming that the shorts made a bad bet, and are so severely leveraged that at this point, they're willing to nefariously attempt to alter share price. It's not implausible with dollar amounts this high. People manipulate stocks upward at far smaller numbers than 11 billion dollars.
You frankly come off as someone invested in its failure, either emotionally or financially. I don't think you're intelligent enough for it to be financially, so I'm guessing you just have an avid hatred for anything 'green-ish'
He may be unhinged in some instances... But this doesn't appear to be one of them. He has the power to fuck over some folks who have made some very large bets against the success of his company, and it is certainly hard to deny that there aren't constant misinformation and smear campaigns aimed at the company- not to imply that it's a saint or anything like that.
I've seen some amazing homeschooling environments, and products of them.
I've also seen some people who's idea of homeschooling was to produce little ignorant cult fanatics.
I don't have anything directly against homeschooling, but I do think without oversight, it's dangerous.
Huh. You'd have me doing shit labor, all because when I was a child, I had a very abusive home life and as a consequence never did my homework. Ever. No teacher could in good conscience fail me, because I scored 97th percentile in 2 standardized tests. But I had F's every damn year. Permanent detention didn't fix the problem.
High school eventually came around, and the trend continued. My last year, I met a math teacher. Ledesma was her name. She realized that my math acuity was actually rather excellent, even though I was failing the class due to never doing my homework. She decided to hand me 3 years worth of books, told me to come back to her when I was ready to to take tests on the coursework. I completed those 3 years in one year, and passed the class with an A.
I imagine a screen would have worked just as well for me, but 20 years ago, that wasn't really an option. There wasn't extensive coursework available on the computers, yet.
Fast forward to today. There's 47% chance my career is more successful than yours, knowing precisely nothing about you. I make more money. I have learned to work around the issues I had due to my upbringing, and you're likely browsing this forum with at least some portion of software I wrote running on your machine assisting you in the task of spreading your ignorance like the cancer that it is.
What you don't realize, is that *you* are the problem. You're the idiot. And people like me are too kind-hearted to euthanize *you*.
Great, but most driving involves a bunch of acceleration and deceleration
Oh I sincerely doubt that is true for anything but a very small subset of drivers in this country.
Living in Seattle, and commuting all around the West and East Sides of the lake, my mustang- a vehicle practically known for its rather terrible aerodynamics still gets closer to its rated freeway mileage than its city mileage.
Last I checked, our traffic was among the top 5 worst in the United States.
which is why hybrids are so effective.
Again- for that subset of people.
For long-haul semi trucks, which spend most of their time doing long, steady pulls, hybridization would offer little benefit.
Agreed.
For people driving around cities, and/or getting stuck in traffic, it makes a huge difference.
It can, I suppose, for some people. Like I said, I spend a good amount of time in stop and go traffic (couple hours a day) and yet my vehicle's mileage still manages to average around 20. A hybrid would do me little good, and I live in a densely populated urban area.
I'm sure there are people who never leave the city or get on a freeway... but I bet most of them use mass transit.
At those times, drivers are rarely going fast enough for drag to become a significant issue.
Very true. No argument there.
For those people, there are smart cars and such. For the vast majority of us, there are other cars where weight is less of a concern.
That was my initial take on the phenomenon. These days, I'm less sure.
No. Perhaps the only one kind-hearted enough to imagine that wasn't the exact intent, though.
Your entire premise is wrong, anyway.
Fuel economy has more to do with drag while in motion than the weight of the vehicle. By a huge margin.
Nobody is trying to arbitrarily "cut the weight" of vehicles. Quite the opposite in fact, since it isn't directly harmful to fuel efficiency.
There is a trend toward smaller cars, that's for sure- but smaller *is* more efficient. Less drag cross section.
Allow me to offer this hypothetical to help you understand.
If a really angry huge man were going to hit you in the head as hard as he could with a baseball bat, would you want to be wearing:
A) Magneto's helmet
B) A big motherfucking Afro
You take your strength. I, personally, (and the people more intelligent than you that design these things) choose life.
And beyond a certain point, the strength of the vehicle -- or lack thereof -- does compromise safety.
What an idiotic addition to the argument. You're right- I can't win. If we reduce the vehicle to nothing but a frame with wheels, it will in fact be less safe.
You can only make a steel or aluminum chassis so light before further reductions compromise its ability to protect occupants in a crash.
I can tell you have no idea how crash dynamics work. The safest vehicle in the world would be a rigid lightweight cage surrounded by a lot of low-weight energy absorbing structure. The trick is to slow down your deceleration, absorb the energy and dissipate it before it is transferred into your rapid and fatal deceleration. Strength is quite simply *not a factor*.
That you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of physics speaks volumes on your understanding of the issue the OP brought up.
I'm left to wonder how many people around you silently think that you're a fucking moron and don't have the courage to tell you, because you clearly don't know that you are.
You are correct. He does not understand progressive taxation. Turns out a lot of us don't, because every single year I have to explain it to every single fucking colleague of mine in my IT firm with an average salary in the 6 figure range.
that's directly proportional to fuel economy.
No, it's actually not. At all.
Fuel economy is a function of efficiency at turning fuel into motion, which includes unfortunately, drag.
Clean emissions is a function of turning fuel into heat.
They are indirectly related, but definitely not directly.
Oh I don't know. My 2011 emits quite a bit. It's hard to pump out 412hp without doing that.
But the real problem is that it pumps out nearly 700hp worth of combustion products to do it, and that's just physics. No way around it. Internal combustion engines are terrible as discrete motors at this scale.