Issuing shares often increases valuations, and Tesla is more than just a car company because they have invested in electric drivetrains, battery technology, and self-driving, as well as other product and manufacturing improvements.
“That does leave open the question of Musk, and the way he seemed to meme Tesla into existence, while building a rocket ship on the side…”
Meme Tesla into existence? He bought in to an already existing electric car company and then managed it very well in ways that had already been demonstrated by Apple. The idea that he ‘memed’ it into existence seems like utter gibberish.
> No matter the logical mistakes people are doing while reading your comment, that's not what is important.
It's not the only thing that is important, but it is still important. If you can't understand the logic of something, that is on you to improve your skills. If you made this mistake with what I wrote, then you will be making the same mistake elsewhere, often without knowing it.
> What is important is understanding each other, and we apparently didn't get your point.
People don't get each other's points all the time. This a is normal part of discussion.
> You could rephrase it so we can understand what you want to say. You are telling us that we are wrong in our interpretation of your logical statement but that won't help us understand it.
Are you saying you still don't understand it now that it has been explained?
> We are not trolling you or in bad faith.
How do you know what is going on inside other commenters heads?
> Because he referenced the GPL, which includes such a clause indicating that there is no quality beyond the source that constitutes the property.
That clause means that the author of the code isn’t legally liable for defects.
How is this relevant at all to the article? Nobody is talking about legal action.
>> He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
> That's circumstantial, like most things in life.
Obviously. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, nor that we shouldn’t discuss it.
> You continue to argue in bad faith along every one of these digressions from the article.
Generally when someone complains about an argument being in bad faith it means they are personally invested in defending something they think is under attack. It’s not clear to me what you think you are defending.
Also, aside from credit, it just makes it harder to research the history. I mean did someone else discover Maxwell’s equations, and Plank’s constant who we are overlooking?
Do we need to stop using the word algorithm, and replace it with say, “procedural recipe”?
Worth noting that around $3M a day of twitter’s losses exist only to pay the debt Elon himself took on. Why would Twitter employees be working to pay for Elon to be CEO rather than for their own lunches?
It’s not clear why you’re taking about warranties.
It’s strange to suggest that bad code is good because it provides a chance for others to fix it.
It’s also obviously not true that if developers wrote great code the first time we wouldn’t need open source.
On the contrary, that would make open source far more valuable because it would be easier for people to add to or modify, and a better example for newcomers.
The author is not attacking the existence of open source. He is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for empowering people.
> I don't think it's reasonable to expect an open-source maintainer to create a better development experience for you than the one they use themselves.
This is clearly true. I didn’t read him as demanding that. I think his point is that the fact that something is FOSS doesn’t alone imply that anyone else can actually do anything with it, so people should either not make that claim, or acknowledge what else is needed.
> Where the critique doesn't make sense is trying to say these issues are specific to FOSS
This is just not a logical reading of his argument. He is saying FOSS is necessary but not sufficient. His argument can clearly only apply to FOSS and doesn’t apply to other kinds of software.
> Saying that's "not enough" is very entitled, and missing the point.
Except that’s not what he’s saying. You are responding to the title of the piece but not that argument it makes.
He’s saying FOSS is not enough to empower people in general to hack on software and bend it to their will.
It’s not clear what you mean by ‘entitled’ in this context.
You seem to be validating the original complaint - that FOSS alone doesn’t empower people the way it is often claimed.
As for looking a gift horse in the mouth, you may not be aware of how much that sentiment devalues FOSS. The implication being that as long as it’s free, it doesn’t matter how bad it is.
> None of these issues are specific to F/LOSS, so the post reads like a rant from an entitled user.
> The right mindset to begin with should be one of gratitude that developers are granting you these freedoms which you don't get with the majority of consumer software nowadays.
By this logic, FOSS is always impervious to criticism because non FOSS is worse.
That’s not an argument against the premise of the article.
Issuing shares often increases valuations, and Tesla is more than just a car company because they have invested in electric drivetrains, battery technology, and self-driving, as well as other product and manufacturing improvements.
“Memed it into existence” is still gibberish.