He's talking about Tesla.

According to Yahoo Finance, Tesla is still losing money and recording a -6.82% profit margin. Their margin per car may be positive, but the company isn't making a profit yet. (Key word, yet).

Absolutely, I want a Tesla Model S - I would gladly buy one if I could. I would joyously be part of Telsa's sales - but that doesn't change the numbers. Tesla is a tiny player making big waves - hopefully its just the signs of a new beast rising from the deep - but companies should be evaluated based on their numbers, their vision and their leadership - Tesla has only two of those going for it right now.

Check out the chart at Wikipedia the Model S sold about 40,000 cars this year. Compare that to the significantly less sexy Nissan leaf with its 130,000 sales - or GM's total sales for 2014 January - June of 4.9 Million vehicles. See, GM's sales report for Q2-14.

Tesla is a great car company and likely to be an even bigger deal in the battery market - but compared to GM, it's sales barely register.

On the stock front - GM's market cap is 51.8B, Tesla's is 30B. So, yes, Tesla is probably a bit overpriced right now - people are buying what Tesla will be, not the company it is today.

You did read the title of this post at least - right? This wasn't "angry 4-chan" it was "asshole marketing team."

Yep. Basically. That and the fact that we're comfortable going into Court and performing in front of a judge and client, putting our knowledge of the law out there and giving advice to people in the most stressful moments of their lives. Ever had a bad day specifically because you knew you had to go confront someone for being a jerk / doing something stupid? That's about 50% of my job. The other 50% is mostly research and writing.

That whooshing sound you hear is dozens of people reading your post and saying "this idiot knows nothing about genetics. "

Removing features that degrade a tool should be praised. I say this as a dyed in the wool android fan boy.

Sounds like maybe they put the cart before the horse. "Intelligence," of the kind that can be scored on academic tests, is a combination of raw potential, opportunity and effort. You can have amazing potential for intellect, but never get off the family farm - get "home schooled" and told that the earth is flat and math is a tool of the devil - you will then fail any external metric of "intelligence" that requires you to know and apply facts. Likewise, someone who has barely average potential can, given adequate opportunity and effort, develop the skills and abilities to do well on academic tests or external measures of "intelligence."

"Intelligence" as measured by academic performance would thus not correlate well with raw genetic markers (i.e. raw potential). First they'd need to define what capacity of the person they want to deem "intelligence" e.g. - are we talking logical deductive capacity, ability with mathematical computation, the ability to communicate effectively, problem solving skills - what is "intelligence?" Second, they would need to find some way to test that capacity that isn't commonly understood and used outside the study, so, for example, not asking participants to take a math test because then the opportunity and effort elements interfere with the measure of raw capacity - you'd need a test that challenged the ability to learn and comprehend without falling back on existent structures; this would be very difficult to formulate well, and any test taker could only use that test once. Third, they'd need to look for common physical markers in the developed body / brain for those that demonstrate whatever capacity they've defined as intelligence - e.g. nerve density, size of the brain cavity, etc. Only then can you look for a genetic source for that physical marker.

"Intelligence" isn't height or weight or eye color - it is too subjective a quality to seek out before defining your term very narrowly.

That's not states rights. State's rights is the argument that the State's have the right to nullify federal law. You're talking about limit principles on federal power - different part of the constitution.

This just isn't true - Thunderf00t makes a lot of hay out of doing to the Tropes videos what he accuses her of. For example, she talks about Hitman encouraging gamers to use women as objects, TF goes off about how she used video of two girls you're not supposed to kill - but the video refers not to those two strippers, but to the dead girl you're supposed to throw over a balcony to distract cops in a different part of the game. The part with the strippers was used to highlight where the game enables players to engage in voyeuristic fantasy - hiding in the box and watching the girls. She also shows the character beating the girls down and moving them around - but that isn't required to support either of her other theses.

I still haven't heard anyone that can explain the purpose of the Dastardly achievement in Red Dead Redemption - I played that game for well over a hundred hours - it never would have occurred to me to hog tie a girl and toss her on the tracks - but the developer actually encourages the act through the achievement system. Did she misrepresent that? What percentage of her examples have to be correct before she's allowed to have an opinion?

Pot legalization.

One of the other articles on the L.A. times is reporting that "U.S. auto sales surge in August to month's highest level in years" so - it's lies, damn lies and statistics time. Electric car sales fell 0.1% as a proportion of total car sales during a period that included the car sales at the "highest level in years."

Consider also that Tesla is still on back-order status and they are gearing up to release two new models of cars. Other than the Tesla, only Nissan has a pure electric generally available on the market - the Leaf - which sold over 120,000 cars last year. See, Wikipedia. Ford's focus is also out there, but only in select markets.

Shorter: there's only one mass-market electric car on the market. The Tesla Model S, while definitely a beautiful car, doesn't have the production volume to compete in a market share battle - that's not Tesla's bag - yet. The "stagnation" story is more of the knee-jerk car guy rejection of electrics that has been bouncing around in the media for 30 years now.

Cool - it's not an issue for you. You don't agree with her point. Your response appears to be "that's not important to me." That is a perfectly acceptable response.

Can we agree death threats and rape threats are not an appropriate response?

Who are *these people* who cannot be provoked? People that play video games? Are we really going to say that we cannot even talk about video games now without signing our own death warrants? Is that your point?

Take her work at face value or call it part of a conspiracy - all she's doing is speaking into a camera on the internet. Ms. Sarkesian is *not* a legislator, she's not out there suing companies and telling them what to do or what not to do. She's just stating her opinion and raising what she considers issues with the messaging of video games.

WTF is wrong with you?