You're right that it's always been there, but wrong that you think it can be won. Every woman's gain is her son's loss, and every father's gain is his daughter's loss. It's an iterative game with a long term aggregate outcome for the society in question. You're framing it from the perspective of individuals. Women cannot win without men also winning and vice versa.
I don't even understand this at all. If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good then any women's gain up to gender equality would be a gain for anyone who has that principle regardless of their gender.
Do you think that black emancipation from slavery was "white's loss". It's just such a nonsensical position to hold.
Not at all. What I mean is each sex has a vested interest in the well being of the other, since both of them have a vested interest in the well being in their children of either sex. If my wife gains from affirmative action while her 5 sons lose, it's a net loss to my wife. By the same token, emancipation of women is good for the man with 5 daughters.
The race comparison doesn't hold in quite the same way, because there isn't automatically a heredity line. One group can just exploit the other indefinitely.
> If you believe gender equality is an intrinsic good
First, I believe that women have privileged position compared to men. So tipping the scales in favor of women removes gender equality.
Second, comparison with black emancipation makes no sense. For evolutionarily foreseeable future, as long as humanity exists, so will men and women, and they need to get along with each other. Meanwhile you could imagine a perfectly functional world without emancipated black slaves.
If you can point a package manager at a git repo and use it like package, this is accidental convenience. Source code repositories should be factored as source code, with a build step to transform them into packages. For some languages that means compilation, for others it means transpiling, minifying, or just copying files. The resulting artifact is a different shape, designed for consumption.
If you use git for packages, then your repo becomes the package boundary. You no longer have the option of producing multiple packages from one repo, or even one package from multiple repos.
> If you use git for packages, then your repo becomes the package boundary. You no longer have the option of producing multiple packages from one repo, or even one package from multiple repos.
What does this even mean?
I'd argue that having the source to build the thing is more important than the artifacts. Release artifacts are more of a convenience. If the thing doesn't build from the source given, what use is it?
Exactly my point. You assume the source is the thing you want to consume, but it isn't. Package registries are much more than a convenience and packages don't necessarily map 1:1 with source code repositories. Nor should they need to. You shouldn't have to build every dependency and care where their source code is.
Sure you want the source available, otherwise it's closed source, but ideally you never need to look at it unless you're a contributor.
Correct way is to have everything as-if a source dependency, but a globally shared cache system that can automatically provide artifacts if that exact version of source has already been compiled.
Any system that can only consume manually built (and even in worst case, only tagged and globally pushed) dependencies is horrible for cross-module development, like large scale refactorings and the like.
This is exactly what I disagree with. It forces you to consider git your package boundary. You're now organising your source as if it was a package registry, when git can (and should) be orthogonal to that. Your problem with cross module development may even be because you're using git this way. If you want to do cross package development, having them in a monorepo and building two artifacts is the easy way. If that's not an option because the two packages need to be separate, you need a workflow that pulls the source together again.
To say nothing about hardcoded repo URLs (not resolvable identifiers), transient dependencies, URL schemes, and trying to pretend github is the only package source.
I was in the market for an EV due to great tax advantages. I assumed BYD would be the sweet spot, but test drove a Tesla for comparison.
I ended up with the Tesla. It is hands down the better vehicle and I'd be very surprised if anybody seriously thought otherwise. There wasn't very much in it price wise so that wasn't a factor.
The BYD (Sealion 7) wasn't even a bad car. It's a good car. But it's inspired and just a little gaudy. It felt like a conventional SUV with an EV powertrain. The Tesla felt like the future.
Funny that you say the BYD was tasteless. I definitely agree, and it's something that can be said about much Chinese-made stuff.
In French we have the word "chinoiserie" which is used to describe objects with a certain aesthetic, reminiscent of Chinese art. It is used derogatively to mean something lacks taste even if it looks sophisticated at first sight.
On the whole, it's a great car, it really is. They've pretty much nailed the fundamentals. It's opinionated, not unlike Apple, but if the opinions work for you you'll enjoy the car.
But there are shortcomings, and they are jarring. The parking sensors basically don't work at all due to being vision only - and apparently can't be made to work properly. The lane change and reverse warnings are just crap and may as well not be there. My previous car implemented these to perfection, but I cannot trust the Tesla. The autopilot is a gimmick that offers you nothing but increased risk - and there's no way in hell I'd trust FSD for car that can't accurately detect the distance of my house when parking. The big touchscreen is great for passengers, but outright dangerous for drivers.
Having said all that, it seems strong emotions around Musk and Tesla cause people to want Tesla to fail. They want the car to be bad. There is so much motivated reasoning around this brand that it's hard to take any article like the above, or half the comments in this thread, seriously.
I kind of don't really care, as long as I get good service if my car is affected. I'm not defending them here. The next few years will tell if it was a bad buy or not. So far I'm really happy with it.
My point was there's a huge anti-Tesla bias entirely as a reaction to Elon Musk. It's emotional, not rational. It's not objective criticism of Tesla. Sure, there are some awful moves he's made, vision only, FSD claims, but if it was another car company it wouldn't even be on HN. Wasn't so long ago that VW (a manufacturer literally started by the Nazis by the way!) were caught falsifying their emissions.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You know what, I do feel a bit conned by this vision only implementation. It wasn't obvious when we test drove it, and they didn't mention it. When we picked the car up, on the shop floor, before it had even moved we saw the "Park Assist Degraded" warning and questioned it. They assured us it just needed time to calibrate. It has never gone away. It will never go away.
As a consumer, I'm pissed off. I do feel conned.
But I'm fine explaining Musk's promises away as hubris. He made promises he should not have, and couldn't keep. He shouldn't have done it, but I do think he believed it. I don't think it was an intent to mislead. Incompetence before malice and so on.
He deserves credit where credit is due. He did push us into the EV era.
> He deserves credit where credit is due. He did push us into the EV era.
Nissan should get some credit, too. Tesla started production on the Roadster in 2008, which beat Nissan's Leaf which started in 2010, but the Leaf sold much better.
Tesla only made about 2500 before it was discontinued and the Model S was release.
Nissan sold 20 000 Leafs in its first year. It was the first mass produced EV.
It took until early 2020 for Tesla cumulative sales to pass Leaf cumulative sales.
Yes, definitely and a lot of people (me included) where eyeing Tesla cars until the cybertruck/politics debacle.
>Incompetence before malice and so on.
At first, maybe, the Tesla 3 was announced for 30k$ and had a starting price of 35K$, acceptable.
But the cybertruck announced at 40K$ sold at 60K$, less so.
>As a consumer, I'm pissed off. I do feel conned.
I can easily imagine that, I'm not a costumer and I feel conned.
I actually don't really care if he's a nice person or not, just like I don't care who the CEO of other car makers are. But for the record I think it's pretty silly to call him a Nazi.
I saw more of an awkward guy doing a weird gesture, either because he was trying to be edgy, or he meant it as something else. He might even have done it as an ill advised joke because people were already calling him one.
It's silly to call him a nazi because he doesn't fit the profile well at all. It only works if you redefine nazi to be whatever you don't agree with at the moment. This might even be harmful, as it's an obvious strawman that provides cover for his real faults.
He denies being a nazi. We can take his word on that. One thing about nazis is they are weren't shy about their beliefs.
> The parking sensors basically don't work at all due to being vision only - and apparently can't be made to work properly
What's stupid about this is that it is hard to come up with a good reason for it. The no LIDAR thing is at least understandable because at the time LIDAR was very expensive. Ultrasonic parking sensors are cheap.
Same for automatic windshield wipers, which have been a significant source of complaints from Tesla owners. Pretty much everyone else uses a dedicated sensor that is simple and inexpensive and works well. Technology Connections has a good video on how it works [1]. Tesla uses vision.
>There is so much motivated reasoning around this brand that it's hard to take any article like the above, or half the comments in this thread, seriously.
Funny, because for the last year, any submission that have Tesla or Musk or Musk associated with something negative have been flagged very quickly. I assume by Musk fanboys. So when an article or two slips the Crack, it naturally is filled with criticism. Survivor bias at its finest.
Your criticism paragraph being longer than "it really is great!" paragraph does point towards motivated reasoning going both ways.
If I said I wasn't a Musk or Tesla fanboy, I would expect you to take me at my word. I gave a two sided account of my Tesla experience. I do like this car, and I bought it because I liked it.
Maybe it gets flagged because there's no chance of having an intellectually honest discussion if it involves Elon or Tesla? I certainly don't flag them.
The conclusion of the article is "yes", because you usually end up saving more time in the long run than you think.
But there's an even better reason. Consistency, encapsulation of process, and a form of self documentation. This is the real goal - the time savings are a bonus.
There's a big difference between being a party member actually in a government position (war related, no less), and being a businessman surviving under that regime. You're not only making an absurd comparison, you're calling for punishment for somebody who hasn't even remotely broken any laws. Can't you see you're being authoritarian?
Law and morality are not the same thing. The apologism for Apple on HN is comically and selectively gymnastics. I think the biggest shame here is the brand identity for a corporation that many of you have self deluded into adopting. Even now the voices that tell you to stop bootlicking them and warning against them get shouted down.
That may be true, but if you think your definition of morality is correct and anybody who thinks otherwise needs to be punished, then no wonder you've ended up with an authoritarian who's beaten you at your own game.
It's also got nothing to do with Apple fanboyism. The same is true for all corporations in the US.
When the opposite side of the coin is Trumpism, yeah, I’m going with my definition of morality is correct. It isn’t perfect but it sure beats the alternative.
Come on, it was the 1930s, in Germany and Hitler and the Nazis (the real ones we got the name from) were actually in power. You're comparing apples to potatoes.
Does anybody actually find Autopilot to be more than a novelty? Having to look ahead like a robot and keep your hands on the wheel is exactly how you drive without it. It feels like placing trust in the system and accepting risk without any tangible benefit.
This implies there's some kind of shared resource out there on the network that your devs are developing on. Why not make all these resources part of your local dev stack, served on localhost, and use dummy credentials? You can even commit them because they're not sensitive.
Ok ok, it is indeed keys to AI APIs. I know it's not kosher to admit to that on HN anymore but it's the reality for me at least. Unfortunately local models just can't support development of products using them.
NAT isn't protecting them. Not being on the public internet at all is protecting them.
NAT is then unprotecting them a little by letting them punch out again. It's super easy for routers to implement this behaviour by default if your LAN is publicly addressable, and removes a whole class of exploits caused by applications making NAT hacks.
I think you missing my point. My point is not that IPv6 cannot be secured, it is that the author's take is controversial because people are skeptical about whether networks ARE being secured when NAT is not present. This skepticism is backed up by the research paper that I quoted and real world experience. IPv6 is deployed in many places incorrectly and without the good defaults. IPv4 NAPT in residential networks acts as a last line of defense because most users have been incapable of turning it off.
I suppose I will distill my thought into the assertion that the author should have prefixed his title with "In capable hands,"...
