So what has that got to do with the advertising campaign and calling it a shame and dystopian?
Technology is an enabler. If you want to work, the advertised technology enables you to work. If you don't want to work, the technology does not hold a knife to your throat and force you to work. This is coming from someone who refuses to take a smartphone from work because it raises expectations about answering phone calls and emails over evenings and holidays.
I do appreciate VPN though, because it means I can leave early on Friday evening if I have something fun to do, and catch up on the work on Sunday night. And that's why DHH argument comes across as so silly, because it is dystopian not to allow technology that allows me to time shift my work.
By DHH's same metric, the following are dystopian because they enable you to work outside your office: Remote desktop, VPN, Google Apps, SaaS offerings, web based tools, smartphones with work email.
Google even has a similar pitch for their Google apps:
>Need to attend a meeting from your kid’s soccer game?
>Access your work from any device with a web browser – your computer, phone or tablet – and stay productive even when you’re away from the office
>Google Apps makes it easy to stay connected to projects you’re working on and the people you work with, no matter where you are or what device you’re using.
As I noted in another comment[1], Google's pitch is this:
>For your business, this means every employee and everyone you work with can be productive from anywhere, using any device with an Internet connection.
>Free your team from cubicles
>Access your work from any device with a web browser – your computer, phone or tablet – and stay productive even when you’re away from the office.
>Need to attend a meeting from your kid’s soccer game?
>For your business, this means every employee and everyone you work with can be productive from anywhere, using any device with an Internet connection.
>Free your team from cubicles
>Access your work from any device with a web browser – your computer, phone or tablet – and stay productive even when you’re away from the office.
>Need to attend a meeting from your kid’s soccer game?
Edit a spreadsheet while at the airport waiting for a flight? Respond to an email from a hotel business center computer? Google Apps makes it easy to stay connected to projects you’re working on and the people you work with, no matter where you are or what device you’re using.
Putting Microsoft and dystopian into the headline does get a lot more clicks, upvotes and outrage though.
>Mobile carriers could offer the Moto G profitably at a negative price
Doubt US carriers are going to let that happen, I haven't seen many negative prices except on feature phones.
Only Tmobile seems to be willing to let the consumer take advantage of lower handset prices. Also, wonder how much Motorola makes(or loses) per Moto G at these prices.
Anyway I hope the Moto G does better than the Moto X. Even with the massive hype and the continuing ad blitz on TV(I see around 3 to 4 Moto X ads in about 2 hours TV viewing) about customization and the always-on voice features, it doesn't seem to be selling well[1].
Starting from the 500K sales figure in the 3rd quarter and generously adding, say, a million more in Q4, the rumored ad budget of $500M [2] would mean Google is spending ~$333 per handset in advertisements.
That would probably add more to the already heavy Motorola losses[3] and Google shareholders would soon be questioning the merits of subsidizing Motorola's losses.
That seems to be more the result of the overzealous flame-war detector rather than the effect of flagging. Only PG can truly tell, though.
The flamewar detector brings the story down if it has a lot of comments, and if not paired with lot of upvotes, takes it quickly off the front page. So, while you're right about the HN bias(lack of upvotes), you're wrong about the reason(flamewar detector rather than flagging).
It also tends to happen to Gruber articles, articles positive or neutral about Microsoft, and anti-Samsung or anti-Google articles.
That's like saying the fire alarm waking you up at the middle of the night allowing you to safely escape does not mean it is OK that there is a fire burning your house down.
It is a true statement, but the situation is definitely preferable to having no notification.
>Yes, normal combustion engines catch on fire, but they don't explode in a fireball when they hit debris on the highway (there is absolutely nothing rare about hitting debris on the highway).
That is not true. Here's a case of a car catching fire after being hit by cardboard boxes.
I find it very surprising that you think it's common for cars to run over things like that on the road and keep going. I or the people I know have never driven over something like that.
From Wikipedia:
>Road debris is a hazard[5] that can cause fishtailing and damage like a flat tire or even a traffic accident with injury[6] or death. Road debris can cause loss of control crashes, rollover crashes, or penetration of the passenger compartment by the debris.[1][7]
>Released in early 2013, NHTSA data for 2011 showed over 800 Americans were killed that year in vehicle collisions with road debris. Mississippi, Wyoming, Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana were the top five states for these crash deaths to most likely occur. Also in 2011, New York and Massachusetts saw significant increases in road debris-vehicular crash deaths, unlike other big, populated states.[8] In 2004, a AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study revealed that vehicle-related road debris caused 25,000 accidents—and nearly 100 deaths—each year
>The issue under discussion isn't the safety of the passenger versus road debris, it's the vehicle catching fire after colliding with road debris.
Says who? You? The issue under discussion is the safety of a Tesla versus other cars in similar circumstances. If I was evaluating the relative safety of cars while purchasing a car, a fire after a few minutes of striking a big piece of debris seems to be safer than major damage or loss of control(if that's the case).
Whether an equivalent non-Tesla car would actually be more dangerous is certainly up for debate, but I don't see anything insightful in your post. We can already see the domain name even before clicking on the article and we know this is Tesla publishing the letter so it's likely to be one sided. In fact, the current top comment on HN points it out.
Your comments shouting "PR! misdirection!" add nothing to the discussion. Are you arguing that a non-Tesla car would not catch fire in similar circumstances? Can you share your reasoning?
Technology is an enabler. If you want to work, the advertised technology enables you to work. If you don't want to work, the technology does not hold a knife to your throat and force you to work. This is coming from someone who refuses to take a smartphone from work because it raises expectations about answering phone calls and emails over evenings and holidays.
I do appreciate VPN though, because it means I can leave early on Friday evening if I have something fun to do, and catch up on the work on Sunday night. And that's why DHH argument comes across as so silly, because it is dystopian not to allow technology that allows me to time shift my work.
By DHH's same metric, the following are dystopian because they enable you to work outside your office: Remote desktop, VPN, Google Apps, SaaS offerings, web based tools, smartphones with work email.
Google even has a similar pitch for their Google apps:
>Need to attend a meeting from your kid’s soccer game?
>Access your work from any device with a web browser – your computer, phone or tablet – and stay productive even when you’re away from the office
>Google Apps makes it easy to stay connected to projects you’re working on and the people you work with, no matter where you are or what device you’re using.