I can’t really respond with my thoughts here because I’m licensed in four states and all of them are experiencing different shifts in real estate, which I find odd.
California listings are selling quick while Utah is taking a long time to get sold. Just an example.
Around here I’d say the average price dropped about 10-15% and it’s pretty slow. My neighbor sold in a week for over asking a few months ago, now my other neighbor is only getting lowballs and it’s been on the market for 3 weeks.
I’m not a realtor but I’ve been in the market for the past few months so I’m on redfin daily
He is the presumptive GOP nominee. He is making history with 80+ felonies and a century of prison time in the sentencing guidelines. It’s not free. He’s paying.
It’s time for the Merchant Marines if that’s the case, those guys are actually trained for exactly this stuff, and most are former Sailors, Coasties, and Marines.
I genuinely believe that they are hoping, if not praying that RTO results in a huge chunk of people leaving. Alongside forcing people back to the office, they’re now pushing people to relocate to main offices, and limiting teams from hiring internally.
I’d say the same is for many big companies. They’re absolutely desperate for people to leave in order to cut costs and look lean to investors while they take in record profits.
Not everyone can have the luxury of working from home. Most knowledge workers can. Cooks and waitstaff, teachers, mechanics, etc. have to work at the “office”.
Are you talking about the toddler targeting vehicular assault package? That is some top notch programming, if we ever go to war with little kids, you can bet the DOD will buy up a fleet of Teslas in a heartbeat!
The feature isn't worth $15,000. They charge you that much to send a small, very specific sequence of bits to your car. That's what you're paying for because the feature's already built in.
I feel a bit conflicted on this. On the one hand, charging for heated seats that are already there and which is a purely hardware feature is bullshit.
Other things like Full Self Driving aren’t as black and white. Sure, the sensors are there but those are relatively cheap. A massive part of FSD is the software, and developing this kind of software is extremely expensive.
Should everyone get a copy of Windows and Office for free because it’s ‘just some bits’ and the hardware is already there?
The programmers who wrote the code were already paid, this argument doesn’t really hold up.
They can be paid because the company they work for charges money for what they produce.
The programmers who wrote the code were already paid, this argument doesn’t really hold up.
The idea that all, or even most, software should be open source is also ridiculous.
I think OSS is great, but it’s mainly suitable for a specific class of software. Specifically: software that everyone needs and where there is no point in having a lot of different implementations. If something is needed by everyone, then everyone should pitch in share the cost and effort. Take operating systems: everyone needs a general purpose OS, so having something like Linux makes sense. Everyone needs a HTML rendering engine, so that also makes sense as an OSS project. More specific software with a small target audience is better suited as closed software.
I think OSS is great, but it’s mainly suitable for a specific class of software. Specifically: software that everyone needs and where there is no point in having a lot of different implementations.
Tell me you don’t understand OSS without telling me you don’t understand OSS.
I don't think licenses and/or subscriptions should be allowable on cars. Selling the car means it might not transfer and there's little way to ensure it has the software you need.
I’d agree with your claim of it being fraudulent if you’d paid for FSD and didn’t live up to what you expect FSD to be. But in this case you didn’t pay for the feature so nothing was promised to you that wasn’t delivered on.
To use your microphone analogy: someone is claiming to sell high-end audiophile-grade microphones, you think they are actually shit quality and that somehow gives you the right to steal one.
There have been subscriptions for navigational systems for a long time. It makes sense to me that software that needs constant updates or has stuff run server-side would be licensed. Unlocking hardware features not so much. I don’t see heated seats getting a lot of updates.
The pricing and resale structure for “full self driving” is insane and anti-consumer so I lean towards enabling the software with a jailbreak not being a horrible thing. I certainly would have no issue with this being done on a used car that had the paid “full self driving” software removed by the mothership.
It should be illegal to sell someone something they do not own. In your windows/office example, I’d say it should be illegal to crack/copy the software, but it should also be illegal to sell the software without an offline method of permanent and irrevocable activation (think offline cd keys), and it should be illegal for a company to put any barriers in front of use (vm, laptop, server, cpu cores, memory limits, etc) and illegal to put any barriers in front of resale. Selling a windows update, or a subscription model to updates seems completely reasonable (and probably should do online blacklists for shared keys) but the fundamentals of ownership shouldn’t be eroded in law.
In the tesla example, your car should be your car. If you can modify the software to give you more features that’s your car. If tesla wants to sell a subscription to incremental upgrades on their self-driving algorithms that’s fine, but they should be liable for any faults in older revisions if they paywall updates. That incentivizes them to do the software equivalent of a recall when something is egregiously or dangerously broken, and also incentivizes innovation because they can’t sell you an update if it doesn’t contain anything valuable.
But nothing is being sold here. Almost no one sells software nowadays. You are getting a license to use someone else’s software under certain conditions.
If you don’t own then aren’t selling it, by definition.
If you go to the movies, do you think that they should sell you the cinema? No, you’re for the right to sit in a seat in the theater for the duration of the movie. That’s it. You know what you’re getting and what you’re paying for. How is software any different?
They could sell you the software, just like they could sell you the entire cinema, but in neither case can you afford it.
I can see your argument, but I think it still stands. A ticket still qualifies as a sale. They aren’t licensing the rights to a film for an hour, they’re selling a physical voucher that grants access to a seat at a specific time during a specific showing. I own that thing and in theory, it’s irrevocable without refunding the purchase price. An operating system and a movie ticket are fundamentally different products.
In my view, the application would be that there should not be limits imposed on the resale or transfer of said ticket once purchased. To reverse the argument, should a movie theater be allowed to sell a ticket and then revoke it without compensation if you show up in a blue shirt? Current digital licensing laws allow for the equivalent; I hurt nobody by installing windows home in a VM.
It’s more like, you pay for windows home edition, which would take up 24gb in your 128gb hard drive. But nope, it’s actually taking up 89gb. Why? Because it has all the features of Windows Ultimate edition, all locked away, taking up precious space in a hard drive that you’ve paid for.
No, he’s saying that’s all the components are included to use this feature adding weight to the car and affecting your fuel (or in this case battery) milage, but you can’t use them without paying.
I’m not specifically talking about FSD, and if that is the case, then cool.
But when it’s shit like heated seats, then that’s bullshit. If you ever need to replace your seats, they will make you pay for the expensive model - with that disabled feature.
Anyway. Regardless, I’ll never buy a car with disabled features unless I pay a subscription.
It’s not my analogy, but it does make sense if you even remotely think about it. The downside is that my car carries extra weight in the form of this additional hardware. Teslas are heavy enough as-is with their giant batteries, I’d rather remove any and all unnecessary weight for the sake of my tire tread life (and battery life). Also depending on exactly what the hardware is, it can be an additional point of failure that could potentially cause things that I do have access to to break. Lastly, it’s fair to assume that the price of the car would be cheaper if Tesla didn’t have to install this hardware into every car even if it will never be used, so you are likely already paying for this in “hidden” costs that are just rolled into the total price of the car before even paying to enable the features.
The downside is that my car carries extra weight in the form of this additional hardware.
No it doesn’t. As far as I know FSD doesn’t require additional hardware. It uses the hardware already in the car for other purposes (like lane assist, emergency braking, etc).
Yeah anyone who’s familiar with the “software upgrade” know’s it’s just overpaying to be a beta tester for their self-driving. What’s more; people who don’t buy it still get auto-steer (lane maintain, car pacing & cruise control) which is what most would use self-driving for anyways. Aside from that, if it runs on code there will always be a way to beat it. People have been ripping .DLL files for enterprise software for decades that cost as much or more than this overpriced “feature.”
While I dislike this model I understand it, in the past sometimes you needed to pay more for that brand new stereo or AC. What I find it annoying is that you bought the car with the upgrades already on it, just need to open the paywall.
And at the end of the day they won’t put it from their pocket, or you already paid for them or the people that bought the upgrades are financing the unused ones from others.
It really fucks with the resale market, too. As is the intention. People will be getting used cars and being told they need to pay full, new price to unlock features.
More reasons to want right to repair and adversarial interoperability. So that if Tesla refuses to reasonable implement features that the hardware fully supports, a third-party can do it instead.
The recall doesn’t include the 2022 Santa Fe but that’s what AP uses for the photo… Great job AP. Must be too difficult to find a picture of one of the 8 other models that are actually affected.
And the line to cross may as well be a 1,000,000ft wall for right wingers since nothing seems to shake their faith no matter how awful their politicians are
Coming from the party that continues to support a billionaire, mafioso, reality television caricature as the Dear Leader just to “own the libs”. That’s the real joke.
I think it’s hilarious that Trumps cohorts are turning on him, like we always knew they would in the end. Eat a dick Trump voters! Your time is coming too
“Guy” could also be triggering for some trans folks! May want to just use gender neutral pronouns regardless of who you’re talking about because you never know who’s reading and how it could affect their day ^_^
Yesss thanks for the feedback, I’ll do better in the future. The article seemed to indicate a male identifying person, but I shouldn’t have assumed that.
While J6 did factor into it, the rating is on the governments ability to pay back its debt, aka to not default.
The bigger issue, in this context, that I’ve seen is the republicans playing with the debt ceiling and threatening to not raise it. This directly makes it more likely the US government can’t/won’t pay its debt off.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.