I love that they're hosted on their own websits, too. Like the hamsterdance and other stupid things from the 90s.
So much fun stuff nowadays is just memes on Reddit, fb or other social networks. They're still fun, but they close the gardens one joke at a time. Can you imagine how much less conformity there would be if even 10% of fb users also had fun on their own website or self-hosted blog?
>You can see this in how ArianneSpace and ULA are trying to get to their next generation of vehicles (which won't be competitive in terms of re-usability)
Arianespace is a company run by bureaucrats. Incredibly frustrating environment. If you ever thought space was exciting, Arianespace will suck the life out of you. Even the areas where the top management know they need deep and impactful change, they'll bring in an outsider or two to bring "a new vision", then tell the outsider to keep working with all the old people who've built their mini-empire around methods that make no sense and keep them in a perpetual state of "irreplaceable ball and chain" on the company.
Are you saying resources get hurled into space when we use them?
Also, value can increase in a finite resources environment. For example, my iphone is worth a lot more, and is a lot more useful, than the materials it's made of.
So, if you're looking at .gov as a service provider, why give it a monopoly on providing those services if that makes its users dependent on it? Roads may be a little tricky, of course, but some services like US Mail could surely do with a few competitors to bring prices down and service up.
UPS and FedEx. They don't do individual letters, of course, but they compete with the US Mail on packages, and compete by offering better service, not on price.
>not once did I see someone question if the government even has a right to determine who is allowed to be married, and why is should be involved at all.
This has literally been the Libertarian Party's position since the early 70s: it's none of government's business deciding whom one is or isn't allowed to marry.
>Euro as a common currency makes travel super convenient for example, not to mention the Schengen area and open borders.
Perhaps the various recommendations made in the late 80s and early 90s would be useful to reconsider. Hayek, for example, often suggested that the EEC could make every member nation's currency legal tender in all the others, to create a free market of currencies. He was a big fan of denationalising currencies anyway, and of having currencies compete against each other.
Another proposal on the table for many years was the idea of launching the Euro as a parallel currency to every nation's own currency. So, you could still pay your restaurant bills accross Europe with a single currency if you wanted to, but nations would still be able to fluctuate against it in case of trade surplus or deficit, the very thing that has been putting so much stress on the Euro's frequent deficit members (i.e. Greece, Portugal and Spain), and stress on the Euro itself.
I'm not sure. I was in Maastricht for a few months in 92 when the treaty was being signed. Maastricht is a border town between Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Every bar and restaurant I went to, every market stall, and many shops easily accepted 3 or 4 different currencies. Today this would be even easier, since so many people just pay with plastic.
You might be right. Very unusual comments indeed. And ridiculous, too. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but so much commenting here is literally just a catalogue of received ideas.
Tesla are on a mission to solve massive problems for humankind while taking into account modern humans' lack of commitment to solving those problems in a way that would feel like a step back, or that would create discomfort. Tesla's existence as a market solution to the oil and pollution problems is evidence that you don't always need political coercion to solve problems like externalities: Tesla's cars are not only electric cars - i.e. the answer to a problem that could potentially destroy civilisation as we know it - they are also great cars, by any "petrolhead" standard.
As a company and an investment, Tesla's long term mission, its strategy and its step-by-step tactics have been presented in a way that is extremely rare for a company. Most of the work I do for brands this size involves working with a 5-year plan that is nowhere near as clear as Tesla's, and the plans are 5-years because that's when the owners' exit plan kicks in. Tesla's strategy set a clear path for 15 years at least.
So what's not's not to like? I think many investors feel they may have missed the boat on the next great world company. It's quite normal to sit on the edge for a while, to miss out on the opportunity, and to then find a dozen reasons to tell oneself it was good to pass on it.
I hate to be a cynic, but, you know that your idealist, optimistic post could be seen as propaganda intended to boost trust (and by extension the price) in/of Tesla's stocks, right?
Just trolling, I agree with your points. I'm just saying that any posts about publicly traded companies should be taken with a grain of salt.
Like others here, I don't think WP is terrible if you look at it through the eyes of their typical users.
I also disagree that nobody is building a better WP: I recently started working with Webflow, which is very good, quite powerful, and writes very clean code (better than most developers could write themselves).
And, on a more wysiwyg level, there are plenty of new companies like Squarespace offering a service targeting the same user-base as WP.
I love that they're hosted on their own websits, too. Like the hamsterdance and other stupid things from the 90s.
So much fun stuff nowadays is just memes on Reddit, fb or other social networks. They're still fun, but they close the gardens one joke at a time. Can you imagine how much less conformity there would be if even 10% of fb users also had fun on their own website or self-hosted blog?