They could have copied Teslas playbook and create a cool, fun, overpowered electric 911 or Targa or pull an old, fun concept and make it electric.
Instead, they have a boring SVU and the panamera, one of the probably ugliest car they have.
No one buys a Porsche because they want a sensible car for their family or they need something with large storage. They want midlife-crisis cars that go fast and look sleak.
They are now giving up on their entire electric strategy.
I don't get it. They could have ridden the wave of electric fun vehicles, instead they are giving in. Either because they can't do it or because they had no real interest to begin with.
> No one buys a Porsche because they want a sensible car for their family or they need something with large storage
I know two porsche-owners personally. One sometimes uses his porsche (non SUV, but the small fast one) to go on family vacations (with the kids cramped at the too small back seats, which seems funny to me). The other has an SUV and lives in the country with bad roads; They sometimes use their porsche to commute to work and for everyday-stuff like shopping.
> The other has an SUV and lives in the country with bad roads; They sometimes use their porsche to commute to work and for everyday-stuff like shopping.
That blows my mind.
I guess its the same mindset as people who buy a mercedes "jeep" (don't know the product id) or range rover and live the middle of the city.
Indeed, it's immature to disclose an opinion without being forthcoming and add some objective rationale behind a bold conclusion as disliking an entire person. It may be something they said, or did, getting specific would help, ideally something that is relevant to the original thread. It's not entirely helpful and potentially a negative impact to just imply you don't like someone. Do what you want obviously, that's my 2 cents.
It is a disease of modern (social) media and personal branding. People also now broadly think that an ad-hominem (attacking the person behind an argument, not the argument) is good argumentative style. I don't know about Jack Dorsey other then he founded twitter, and I don't care much about him. If there is a product, I will evaluate that product by my catalogue, not whether I like or dislike a person.
You are making assumptions about a future that hasn't happened yet. It is open-source, so whatever move the person might do in the future, you can fork it anytime.
I suppose the community around a product is also a reason to bring up an influential character's character. You can't fork the community, only fragment it. "I don't want to join a club with that guy in it" is a time when an ad hominem becomes a valid argument.
It is a self-fullfilling prophecy. If the community would adopt the style of not juding the person but only the product, that community would not care for that person. So the "I don't want to join a club with purpose X because of guy Y" leads to the problem that you are describing. If everybody would just "I join the club because of its purpose X achieved by means Z", that community split won't happen.
You can fork, but will you want to fork and spend time and effort, potentially in huge amounts, on that fork?
There are reasons to be wary. Choosing an alternative, where that particular reason for forking might not exist, is a valid choice to make.
Thinking that good reputation in a law translates to a good lawyer is just as mature as thinking that a bad reputation translates to a bad lawyer, just two sides of the same coin. Credibility can be so cruel, it can make a brilliant mathematician like Terry Tao preemptively decline to read your mathematical arguments basically forever.
In both cases I think these may be characteristics of healthy judgment.
Obviously because he was one of the architects of the censorship regime of the late 2010s and early 2020s that nearly changed the internet into a three-letter-agency controlled space. If that isn't a risk for a censorship-resistant app, I don't know what is.
I personally don't care if its bitchat or briar, I care about the most effective proven implementation in the end. Such a technology is needed now, not later, and if if bitchat started out as dorseys vibe coded side project last year and has now grown into something greater, then so be it.
That's probably because AFAIK Apple doesn't allow process forking, making any Tor-based messenger almost impossible to run as Tor would have to run as part of the main thread.
>iOS doesn’t allow apps to fork subprocesses. While on the desktop Tor is running as a separate process, on iOS Tor is hacked to run as a thread inside the app itself. Therefore, you can’t have a system-wide Tor process like desktop and Android. If Tor is running in one app, and you open a different one, it’s not automagically going to start using Tor.
Similar? Very different. The HKmap.live app was build and marketed directly for the protests. It tracked social media and geolocated where the police and protests were happening, etc. This is a big distinction.
I agree, enthusiastically and wholeheartedly. The mere presence of a potentially-cancellable person poisons the entire tech stach, regardless of any other merits. If I were to use such technology I would risk becoming morally tainted by JD's potential-objectionableness, a social risk I am entirely unwilling to take. I simply cannot endorse such technology that is not fully sanctioned by the High Table of Moral Certification & Transactional Stamp Duty. I must therefore distance myself from any such endorsements and withdraw my support regardless of whatever so-called "technological" merits such technology may claim.
Please view my participation in this discussion as certified proof of the objective verification of my moral essence. I hereby claim superiority now and forever over JD and any such users of said technologies. Sincerely and respectfully (without any possible hints of objectionableness), the undersigned.
I am running a Netgear Nighthawk when I am on the road. But the Mubi7 looks interesting - I would not want to go back from 5G to a slower networks, sorry :)
companies will go where the money is. If Valve enables, say EA, to have their yearly franchise and in-game-stores on mobile devices, they will find a way.
> Very cool, should be very hackable. Very unlike every other standalone VR headset.
That might be the reason I'm going to buy it. I want to support this and Steam has done a lot to get gaming on linux going.
< Which again brings me to the question: why? Why would anybody do that?
Because why not have a fence that at least generates some power instead of a fence that does nothing! Costs are not that much more, 2k is easily spent on a bigger fence and this way, you don't have to get up and hustle, our fence does it for you!
They could have copied Teslas playbook and create a cool, fun, overpowered electric 911 or Targa or pull an old, fun concept and make it electric.
Instead, they have a boring SVU and the panamera, one of the probably ugliest car they have.
No one buys a Porsche because they want a sensible car for their family or they need something with large storage. They want midlife-crisis cars that go fast and look sleak.
They are now giving up on their entire electric strategy.
I don't get it. They could have ridden the wave of electric fun vehicles, instead they are giving in. Either because they can't do it or because they had no real interest to begin with.
reply