The whole premise of this line of thought is faulty because everybody seems to assume that you're entirely either a door-open person or a door-closed person.
The point is choice. There are door-open and door-closed times of every day. In an open office, there is no choice, it's door-open always, and that sucks.
I think the novel concept here is taking a three month unpaid vacation every year, which I doubt is common or easy in any tech company.
Personally, I would sooner go for a four-day work week, which would probably be an easier sell to most companies. Similarly, I would be fine with a pretty sizable pay cut for the benefit.
It's amazing to see the Olympian gymnastics routines the tech world is going through right now to try to make the Cybertruck anything but a hilarious testament to Tesla's hubris.
Not only is it the ugliest thing that's ever existed on four wheels, it's poorly thought out for its market segment. Range under load was not even mentioned, why do you think that is? Good luck towing anything with the base model without a supercharger visit every hour or two. Luckily my door panels and windows* are bulletproof though, because suburban California is basically a war zone right?
Cybertruck isn't even competitive, let alone impressive, in its market segment. Doug DeMuro did a great rundown of this here: https://youtu.be/Q-0DdRHA-ZQ
It basically says that cheap work trucks make better work trucks. Like many of Doug’s opinions, he’s not wrong, he’s just missing the point. Nobody is going to buy a Tesla truck based solely on towing capacity.
He seems to be making the argument that people bought the Model 3 because it’s a “good value” and won’t do the same for the cyber truck.
No Doug, people buy a Toyota Camry because it’s a good value. They buy a Model 3 because it’s freakin cool and it’s not $80,000. The cyber truck’s value proposition is not “utilitarian vehicle” either.
You’re well within your right to buy a Tesla, modify it to the moon and back, and use it independently however you want. I hate Tesla as a company and I’m a strong supporter of these rights, but I stop at claiming that businesses have an obligation to continue supporting a product with unknown arbitrary modifications.
To the extent that a product is designed to only operate efficiently (or at all) with continued access to manufacturer services, it’s probably a bad idea to disqualify yourself from that access. But there are only two ways to solve that, either A) disallow the sale of products that rely on first-party services, or B) requiring manufacturers to uphold their end of the services contract while you do god-knows-what with your end of it (the product). Neither of these is the clear moral high ground that hacker types seem to think they achieve in this argument.
If Tesla (or any other company) can show that your modifications actually affect their ability to provide the services as designed, then sure, they shouldn't be required to provide them. But as long as the modifications I make don't actually affect the car's ability to operate, I don't see any reason why that should allow them to deactivate unrelated services.
There is also more important things at stake that make it very shortsighted and petty on Tesla's part to deny service.
Microsoft understands this which is why they offer updates to known pirated versions of their software.
Making things difficult for a few pirates is less important to them that making sure things stay secure. They also don't want a bunch of windows systems out there, slow due to viruses mucking up their reputation.
The idea that people’s important opinions can be changed by some sort of silver bullet mega-argument is naive and immature, and frankly a great example of what’s wrong with discourse on the internet.
In this light, the fact that CMV has the hubris to think their ‘experiment’ is significant outside reddit is not surprising, but no less laughable.
> The idea that people’s important opinions can be changed by some sort of silver bullet mega-argument is naive and immature, and frankly a great example of what’s wrong with discourse on the internet.
Even more naive and immature is the idea that conversations either lead to epiphany or do nothing. Comments are read several orders of magnitude more than they're responded to. You might not change that person's mind right now, but that kind of discourse is a part of how other people form or reinforce their opinions, and the OP might be more willing to change their mind in the future upon having other interactions and experiences that challenge their views, especially if someone has shown them a good-faith argument in the past.
> Even more naive and immature is the idea that conversations either lead to epiphany or do nothing.
Ah yes, where ever did I get that idea when forming my opinion about a site titled change my view, where you literally get a whole separate level of fake internet points for giving people deltas, cough, epiphanies?
Except CMV itself doesn't claim that that "whole separate level of fake internet points" are
epiphanies, or even full changes of position
>The definition of 'change' (verb) is "make or become different."
>Following on from the previous segment, we therefore believe that a change in view simply means a new perspective. Perhaps, in the example of literally looking at something, you've taken a step to the side; or a few steps; or you've moved around and now stand behind it. Maybe you haven't 'moved', but it looks slightly different to you now; in a new light.
>A change in view need not be a reversal. It can be tangential, or takes place on a new axis altogether.
The cold actually reduces range considerably and increases charging times. I’ve even heard reports of being unable to charge a Tesla through a standard 120VAC outlet if the weather is below freezing.
I haven't had a problem with 120V. They have always given me 3-5 miles of charge per hour regardless of weather. But I have had superchargers go at that same rate when it is cold.
I quickly learned my lesson to charge in the evening or after driving for a while instead of first thing in the morning :)
Firstly, final phone price doens't matter. Margins matter. These phones are old hardware; it's not inconceivable that mass-producing them would yield margins just as good (if not better) than the cutting-edge.
Secondly, Armament Systems and Procedures? Active Server Pages?
Small phone equals small battery, and when you have a reduced power budget there's some things you just can't do. Small phone also obviously equals small hardware components. To the extent that components occupy physical space on a logic board, there's going to need to be a trade-off there.
People say they 'just' want a 4" modern phone, but they define it as a phone with multiple cameras, high storage capacity, and fast processors, etc. etc.. It's a nontrivial engineering challenge to get everything into a smaller package, and this at a time where the market at large has picked bigger phones as the winner.
Also, don't forget that people generally expect something that's smaller to be cheaper. Reality is, it might actually cost more money to deliver a smaller product, and at that point you're swimming against people's assumptions, not a great place to be.
So, you sit down to design a small modern phone and BAM it's just nothing but obstacles in every direction. It doesn't surprise me that the conclusion manufacturers are making is that the only winning move is not to play.
I'm not saying it's the _right_ decision necessarily, maybe someone will make an excellent small phone in the near future and the whole world will flock to it. But nothing has pushed the industry in that direction yet.
>People say they 'just' want a 4" modern phone, but they define it as a phone with multiple cameras, high storage capacity, and fast processors, etc. etc.. It's a nontrivial engineering challenge to get everything into a smaller package, and this at a time where the market at large has picked bigger phones as the winner.
I don't know. My Nexus 4 was fine with respect to all of these things when it came out. Not top of the line power, of course, but not shabby either. Surely our ability to get faster processors into the same package has significantly increased since then. If I could get the exact form factor of a Nexus 4 with any hardware improvements available since it came out over 6 years ago, I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.
My Nexus 4 is about the same size as my iPhone 6S. I just dug the Nexus out of my drawer to check. They're equally wide, and while the iPhone is slightly taller, it's a very minor difference.
My Nexus 4 also had pretty big battery issues, and that was despite having no LTE support.
The point is choice. There are door-open and door-closed times of every day. In an open office, there is no choice, it's door-open always, and that sucks.