Don't have much of an opnion on him being good at the engineering stuff or not, and not saying I would bet on it, but I could see the logic in shorting TSLA either way, he's distracted, it seems possible that Tesla's customers overlap with twitter users/left-leaning people enough to cause trouble, him getting involved in the first place could be a sign that his judgement has got worse for some reason.
I've seen once or twice people admitting to doing this deliberately to get around brigading/doxxing rules when they actually do want to share the username or whatever - not sure if it's allowed because "they tried" or because it's difficult enough to read that still stops most of the brigading (in many cases you can probably just search for the content to get the username anyway, if you care enough)
I think in the same way we have expensive cars or whatever to say "I have so much money I can afford to waste $x" we have suits to say "I'm so organised I can spare some effort dressing kind of impractically, just to look a bit better for you, my client"
This is a good point, but on the other hand, couldn't any application be hijacked in the same way to include a keylogger/upload plaintext password DBs stored locally by browsers/etc? Somehow this hasn't happened on a mass scale that I'm aware of.
Mostly agree but if your diet is particularly bad, just eating less will mean existing nutrient deficiencies are magnified and (probably for this reason) you'll feel more hungry than you need to, increasing the chances you give up. IMO.
Some companies, you can tell, have realised the word plastic has negative connotations and try to avoid it, normally they'll use the word polycarbonate instead, I think that was what they were playing on. (I myself hadn't realised it wasn't always possible to substitute in that way).
I guess you've heard it before but “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I don't know whether it's true or not... hard to prove there's causation and not just random cycles of improvement and decline due to luck or external factors - the higher you climb, the easier it is to fall.
Sometimes you come back to an area to fix a bug or whatever, and it's useful to know that the hack wasn't absolutely necessary, just a matter of time constraints - it may be that moving to the proper solution is the easiest fix for your problem, and you get a bit of extra confidence that it won't break something else.
This feels like it proves the point, I believe this is true, but yet, for all situations that aren't very specific and technical, the earth is round, and saying otherwise will cause more confusion->harm than good.
So much emphasis on thinking about gear changes does seem a bit unfamiliar to me - but it could just be since my first driving experience was also manual, I was learning all this in the background while my main focus was trying not to hit anything.
Never did anything as exciting as you but I do feel like maybe being a passenger for so many years gives you an ear for when a gear change is needed, and you hear "sorry, wrong gear" and feel the lack of acceleration or whatever. As for /why/, I just imagined cycling up a hill.
People who are net-contributors feel like they're likely to eventually be elderly, and unlikely to become disabled, I guess (so the inverse of your feelings)- combined with deception by governments that social security programs are like a savings account for the future, not a tax to pay for today's expenses.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is the only solution for healthcare.
This is important to say - but I guess the question still stands, if they had somehow secretly developed nukes in say 2008, would they have been left alone? (and should we let everyone have them for world peace? I don't think I like those chances)
I'm not sure if you're saying this as an argument for standardisation (ha, let's debate the spelling) or not, but these people will always find something, from frameworks to linting rules - the amount of discussion stays the same no matter how much is agreed
I'd never heard of the guy until now so maybe it's obvious but you do wonder in these situations, he must have realised that the questions were leading to an article but did he expect the transcript to be published verbatim?
So is a million, I've never got this surprisingly common argument based on population size, would it be fine for a country of 100,000 to do nothing/would a hypothetical country 10x the size of China be reckless if it didn't act even more forcefully than they are? The human costs of lockdowns also scale with population after all.