At this point I've read 2 stories that had little to nothing to contribute past those two tweets that Elon Musk wrote. They don't even link to the actual tweets so that I can read what other discussion might have happened/click the link that he has in his second tweet.
These types of stories are extremely frustrating, they're basically TMZ for tech. I feel like there are very few publications that are willing to publish real stories any more, not just the minimum work that will get clicks. I used to think the BBC was one of them.
I'm familiar with the idea, but if people run a red light 100% of the time, that becomes the new norm and therefore what is safe and expected. Don't forget that we're driving around in metal boxes powered by explosions, that didn't always seem safe (and certainly wouldn't to people if we suddenly introduced them to a society hundreds of years ago) but now it does seem safe.
One study with a grand total of 50 subjects and we're already saying that readers absorb less on Kindles? While interesting, the headline is click-bait and is not something we can say without further study.
Probably they want to appeal more to people that are a slightly outside the bitcoin realm. They would be less likely to have coinbase accounts and they would get some bonus user acquisition while they're at it.
Yeah that's a good point. Although, we don't make it very clear, you can connect your Google account and then opt to only get changes from your Basecamp account. But yes, you would always need to sign in using your Google account. Thanks a lot for the feedback.
We're super excited to launch this and itching to get some feedback. Please let us know here or through email ([email protected]) and we can set you up with a free account in exchange for helping us test everything out.
Sure, but it also explicitly compared two cities, Boston and New York. Parent threw in a new area, Silicon Valley, which indisputably has a stronger tech ecosystem. My point is that, comparing 2nd and 3rd place in tech ecosystem is still interesting if other aspects of cities are important to you, and they are in my case. A similar article comparing Silicon Valley to New York wouldn't be as interesting to me because I refuse to move to Silicon Valley.
It's possible to, you know, not actually like Silicon Valley. That seems like a pretty good reason to live elsewhere.
Personally, I don't care for SF and it's surrounding cities. They feel small to me (they are, compared to NYC), I haven't been nearly as intrigued by the culture as I am in NYC or in Boston, I hate cars, I need the seasons, it's far from the rest of my family, etc.. This makes me very interested in ecosystems outside of Silicon Valley.
The easiest way to avoid responsibility is to not talk about the issue all together. Here he managed to outline the positives and negatives of both cases. If his view of whiskey's positives and negatives line up with yours, perhaps he understands and feels about the issue the same way you do and might make the decision that you would make in the same position. If not, you actually don't like his stance on the issue.
I think it's more interesting to consider the concept he isolates, though, and it's bothersome that we can so cleanly map the concept he considers to issues we have today.