> I hope that you don't take this the wrong way (because many people will!), but if that's how you operate, maybe you deserve to die? Vacate that space for somebody who will live it authentically and directly.
> The long game is that the railroad will lose money when they create a 9-figure incident. The short game is the management makes their money.
Even if they do (and this is a BIG if when we see how many companies get bailed out of their bad decisions) they still have caused a 9 figure incident. Which could be a chemical spill or any number of other things that could cause serious environmental damage to the local communities. A fine that results in the destruction of the company is great and all, but they've still made the planet markedly worse through their negligence.
Presumably the same forces that cause the rate of profit to decline everywhere. It's not anything new, it's just the latest step along the cut-costs-at-all-costs staircase.
Indict, but you're right. The international community has egg on its face from how it is treating Russia vs. how it is not treating Saudi Arabia.
The parallels with the Saudi-Yemen war are many: it's an invasion of a neighboring country in the middle of a civil war under the pretense of stamping out problematic elements that has had a lot of collateral damage. Yet the Saudis get to continue being a member of the United Nations and benefit from their close alliance with the United States.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Russia's punishment is both justified and fair. I just think that it's absurd that they're getting hit with the bat when the Saudis have done the same thing in our very recent past and have faced no real consequences.
conflating "banning all independent media" and "banning a media outlet that repeatedly spreads lies" is the exact thing that the liars, hucksters, charlatans, conspiracy theorists all want you to do. Do you really honestly believe that responding with consequences to people doing bad things is the same thing as doing the bad thing? We teach children this but nobody cries foul when a child is put in time out for hitting their classmate.
>""banning a media outlet that repeatedly spreads lies"
If I had the power, I would absolutely do this! But I suspect your list of media outlets that spread lies repeatedly is quite different from my own. Would you still support my power to censor as such?
Call it paranoia but I see this "WD is amazing, Seagate is shit" sentiment everywhere, but the data doesn't back it up. Is this guerilla marketing by Western Digital?
I think there's some selection bias as Seagate drives are fairly abundant in oem systems where the oems included the lowest tier drive possible to shave some cost off which may be less well built and more susceptible to damage over time from vibration/impacts than higher tier drives.
I suspect that most of the time after a hard drive failure the drive gets replaced with a higher tier drive (typically from another manufacturer like WD as the person feels burnt by Seagate for having a hdd failure) which may prove more reliable.
Well, JFYI, in 2009 (starting 2009, last user posted a few days ago) there was the great Seagate 7200.11 Bricking Season (unrelated to quality of the actual hardware, the issues were related to firmware) that killed so many disks (most of which could be revived) that I guess noone hasn't had one or knew not someone with the issue (or heard someone talking of the matter).
By any metric a thread on an all in all "niche" technical board with almost 5,000 posts and nearly 4,700,000 views should mean that a lot of people experienced the issue:
There was a certain line of Seagate 3TB drives that seemed particularly prone to failure, as reflected in consumer reports as well as Backblaze's statistics at the time:
I got burned pretty badly by those as I bought 12. I now avoid seagate if possible because I'm pretty sure they knew their disks were faulty. Even if they didn't know they didn't handle the whole fiasco in a good way.
Sorry but this isn't accurate at all. It's an electric muscle car. It goes fast in a straight line and that's it. It can't corner, it can't sustain the acceleration for long periods of time due to overheating (which is completely reasonable - it wasn't designed for that), it's heavy as hell. It's just really really good at flooring it from a standstill or low speed, cruising, and highway acceleration (50 mph to 90 mph).
This isn't a knock on any Tesla, but they're grand tourers at best. Certainly not a supercar. You can't compare these with something that can actually corner at all.
This is a fully stock (even tires) Tesla Model 3P running Laguna Seca in 1:46.1 at the end of a long day of racing BMWs. Just for fun the driver wanted to take his Telsa out, and his boss is riding shotgun. [1]
The production EV record is held by a non-stock TM3P (upgraded suspension, brakes, and tires) at 1:37.5 [2].
By comparison, here are a list of Laguna Seca records [3].
Most of the stuff around the 1:45-1:47 mark is a hot hatch, a grand tourer, or a muscle car.
Seriously, you gotta understand, I'm super hyped for the electric GT series with the Model S to take off, but these are not supercars. They're comparable to an M series BMW or a nice muscle car, which is fine.
I’m not even disagreeing with you! “Supercar” is obviously a loaded term. I would never expect a fully stock $54k product to meet that label. IMO, if it’s not six figures it’s by definition excluded from even being considered in that group.
But 1:47 is with stock tires even. I don't know where you draw the line, if you are upgrading suspension parts and not just tires, rotors, and pads, but that’s still pretty basic kit to see 1:37, which does make it competitive with some supercars.
I’d like to see a time with TM3P just with racing tires, pads, and rotors, but stock suspension, if it can beat 1:40 on that chart.
By most accounts, the stock TM3P is ahead of the BMW M3 on the track, not just drag. It’s not a supercar, but it is the most super car you can get for $54k!
You'll kill me for saying it, but this sport sedan has the same toss and catch that makes the best front-drive hot hatches such a joy to hustle—bolstered by no-joke instant horsepower and the predictability of vectoring all-wheel drive.
The instant acceleration and drag strip performance means it's closer to something like a Dodge Demon than a Ferrari 488. That's OK, it's just not realistic to say it's something it's not.
I don't think it's a supercar. But it handles better than a muscle car and you can absolutely compare it to something "that can actually corner at all" by looking at the list you posted at Laguna Seca. It's about 10 seconds slower than an AMG GT, which is certainly a supercar. Plus, most drivers are not going to be capable of taking either the AMG nor the M3P to the limit, so admittedly it's sort of a moot point.
Sadly, for you, the article does not say Tesla used tape in-lieu of heat-shrink tubing or even mention heat-shrink at all. It simply states a fact that "factory tape is high-quality and looks as if it’s shrink-wrapped on a part" to provide contrast to the product Tesla was using.
The usage of the tape, as suggested by the article, wasn't for electrical insulation or wiring protection.
> Weird, I saw people elsewhere in the comments mention heatshrink tubing being substituted with electrical tape.
Right, because like I said above, the prevailing paradigm is to skewer Tesla by extrapolating from any available datapoint. So people take "tape" and invent reasons for the tape that don't appear in the article. Some of this isn't the posters' fault, because the article is sensationalized and is clearly trying to lead you to a conclusion about "tape" that it can't make with the simple facts presented.
Which is a media behavior that is, in the auto industry as of right now, almost exclusive to Tesla. No one runs dirt stories about tape on Fords, not because there isn't any (I mean, who knows, but none of would be shocked to read about it) but because even if there was, no one would care.
It's particularly weird, because the people who're talking about Tesla using tape are the ones saying "it's heat shrink tape, guys, nothing to see here".
Whereas the people reporting the tape are saying it's standard electrical tape, used to hold cracked pieces of plastic together.
> The admission of willful ignorance here is rather astounding.
> then again I'm ignorant to the dress code or actual temperature of a typical automotive factory
That seems a bit ironic considering you said the above right after suggesting that the tent is actually better than the factory for the purpose.
Anyway, the tape not being used for electrical insulation or wiring protection but rather for structural integrity of certain parts that cracked still doesn't bode well.
> That seems a bit ironic considering you said the above right after suggesting that the tent is actually better than the factory for the purpose.
When taken out of context, yes.
The factory comment I was responding to was questioning why factory workers would request to work in the tent. I was suggesting that it might be due to the pleasant climate in which the tent is located. I then acknowledged my ignorance to typical working conditions and how they might factor into that equation.
This thread revolves around a someone admonishing Tesla by comparing one fiction to another fiction at a competitor. Then, when the fiction is pointed out, the commentator again establishes they didn't read the article and then suggest we should still admonish Tesla for unspecified reasons.
I mean I get the idea and all, but considering half the internet runs on AWS is this even feasible? Your day-to-day internet use would be crippled. Wouldn't it be better to spend the effort on writing letters to politicians or better yet campaigning yourself? (I'm assuming this is being posted because of the prime day walkouts today)
Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with AWS.
On the broader topic, what's wrong with people spending money on things they want? We live in a free country. If you have money, and want to buy junk with it, more power to you. It's your money. Do whatever you want with it. As far as vices are concerned, I would rather someone derived satisfaction from binge shopping than the alternatives (gambling, alcoholism, drugs, etc. etc.), since those have far more deleterious effects on society.
"what's wrong with people spending money on things they want?"
It depends on what they're buying. Many people would consider unethical the buying of children or child pornography, for instance. Bans on ivory, whaling, and trading in endangered species have gained ground in recent years.
Some arguments for what's wrong with those are that the former exploit people who are unable to defend themselves or even realize they're being exploited, while the latter cost the lives of sentient creatures and reduce biodiversity by causing extinctions. Now, whether you find any of those arguments persuasive depends on your own values. Some people see nothing wrong with exploitation or species extinction. It's really difficult to argue against them. Either you share certain fundamental values with the rest of us or you don't.
Philosophers study such ethical issues in nauseating detail, but I've yet to see how any of their arguments would be persuasive to someone who doesn't already share their core values.
What's the 'right' way to take this? Do tell.