This is the type of question that calls out of the basement all the Emacs and Vi nerds, and bring the associated editor wars with them.

REMOVE THIS POST BEFORE ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE!

Every single political science should have this subject in their curriculum. It just makes me wonder of the remaining, confidential arsenal most democratic states use to fight democracy in such efficient ways. Humanity really has a tendency for hypocrisy.

It could be as simple as LG Canada being influenced not to do so because of their new device sales, for a market that has tendency to refresh hardware more often (I'm guessing here but it sounds like a reason). Not shipping new software is the best way to discontinue a product and compel clients to get the new stuff.

Except maybe that one comment you had to remove from a court order or something. No, I'm not being ironical, I just remembered it now that I re-read my comment. I also know /. struggled for that.

Saying you had a "very busy weekend", to my eyes, feels just like a euphemism for "management argued a lot before this got posted, and when it did get posted, the expression modified binary had to replace bundled with malware".

Personal Note: "bundled with malware" is what every other place I read the article used to define it.

Personal Note 2: If I happened to stumble on some facts, I want to stress I understand them completely as I also happen to have a very policy-centered full time job. I'm just letting my thoughts fly in a comment, because, well, comment section is still community moderated in full that I know, thus still being free (in the extreme, FSF-like sense of the word "free").

I don't know what you mean. All base Model S's from sep. 2014 will ship with 3 out of 4 of the features you mention stock (cruise control, lane assist and self parking. Just look it up. Before that date I believe they all shipped with standard CC at least the very least). 0 cost.

The adaptive suspension is indeed extra. Just like the supercharger and the B.I.G. battery. These are the exceptions to the rule: effectively COSTLY extras that require either changes to a lot of other systems in the car, and are also very expensive by themselves and not cater to every common mortal needs. Adaptive suspension is something that will be very expensive for any car, forever and ever, no matter the brand. Only professional sports car effectively require it stock (and big trucks and buses I guess?). The large battery and the supercharger are effectively very, VERY bleeding edge technologies where Tesla pioneered, and I can accept that these have costs outside of the (already expensive) 100 grand.

Now you're gonna say I'm contradicting myself but whatever. I'm not in it for winning the argument, I'm on it because I actually care for the subject and my opinion is well formed. If you can change it with your argument, that must mean it's effectively a better opinion and I'll be glad I was here to listen to it.

I see your point, but I already considered all that beforehand. And I still can't understand it.

It's open for debate, but my view is everybody DOES want every feature they can have. Society is known for wanting more than they need. Not everybody needs them indeed. And the cost factor I already addressed - base price covers most extra BoM, R&D and then some. The only problem associated to cost is company-side: they know certain base features will atract purchase, while some extras which 99% of people will add to certain models are just their way of saying "thanks dude, we knew you'd buy that yet we keep it off stock because FU"

Different ranges will cater to different markets (more revenue), but not necessarily more profit. That's their choice because they insist on a production line that is greedy enough to want all market segments. There are profitable ways to make a car and not have 20 variants of the same model (e.g. Ferrari, Hyundai, Land Rover target very narrow market scopes, some of them keep niche products for marketing purposes only). And finally, the market of a Model S is indeed different, but the point is they didn't follow a useless segmented extra-centric strategy and focused on user experience, satisfaction and overall quality with the added perk of performance and environment-friendly engine. There are brands already segmenting their electric offer, and the thing is you don't see them selling so well, at least on units shipped vs actual units sold.

No. Most cars aren't works of art, because art is one of the few "industries" where uniqueness is key. Save for some limited-edition, luxury cars, that point is moot. Extras rarely value a car, age and exclusivity do.

Shipping full extras also keeps complexity to a manageable level, and if done right, greatly increases profit through brand recognition for having a complete car instead of one that is missing just that little extra.

Indeed, although I can see why most american would fear this business model, because it sounds oh-so-much like some weird form of communism applied to automotive. There is no reason to fear standardization here. Same for healthcare. Same for education. NOT the same for salary ceilings or price capping, because that is real communism. Embrace the fact that uniqueness you seek only applies in your neighborhood - someone, elsewhere will most likely have the exact same model and extras as you.

You're confusing extras with customization, which are mainly aesthetic/ergonomic, or very niche tweaks that have wide degree of functionality across different end users. Unlike the memory foam of a seat or the color/paint of the exterior, features like ABS, cruise control, (well implemented) navigation or this specific human detection system will ALWAYS bring an advantage to the client as long as they can be turned on/off or outright ignored when not necessary (where applicable, as I wouldn't want that human detection off to have a toggle, but hey, I'm not a psychopath). And you also missed the main argument: you already pay full price (and then some) for those extras on the base price, even though you won't have them. Or do you think an M5 really costs double to make than a standard 5 series, and yet you still have to pay extra for improved headlights...

No matter how old it is, I still can't fathom the "extra" scheme applied to the automotive industry. It's not enough that most companies (especially luxury brands) already price their cars exorbitantly high, covering most R&D cost for technology it does not ship with as stock, yet they keep multiplying and over-complicating the extra packages in ways that if you want to add a single extra essential feature, you are pretty much forced to add 10 more (I guess Volvo guys forgot it this time but I bet they intended to do it). Why can't all cars be more like a Model S and ship with the most relevant technological developments "out of the box" (as there is no stand per se, it must come in a box). And I'm not even talking about the fact it's an electric car.

Man, that first result BS is so deep, I'm even starting to believe it myself. They say dinossaurs were the big creatures from the genesis that got wiped out by Noah's flood. Then they go in to praise (what they deem as) good science for computers, electricity, junk food (yeah, they praised junk food. Honest.), and even space exploration. Then like a two-punch, they discredit all history-related kinds of sciences (even inventing new definitions of it), with arguments about them dealing with the past only with present facts, which makes some sense. But then I see this amazing quoted comparison...

And I felt just like waking up from a priest/pastor's best wet dream (sans pre-pubescent kids). Lord Baby Jesus. Fucking politics. I think I laughed for like 2 minutes straight like a nutcase. Imagine voting for your favorite paleontologist for the best excavation. Creationists have THE best comparisons ever. Period.

With all the talk going on around UK's adult content policies, it was only natural to remove some social-centric articles which directly impact on public opinion. It just doesn't seem like the British thing to do, does it?

Well, I guess the way they are heading, any censorship is good censorship. Might as well make it a totalitarian state sooner better than later. How anyone in there is outraged that the EU is eye-browing such policies, that is the actual surprise... But then again, who would want freedom of speech, when freedom of speech can have such influence on these fascists jobs? It's understandable that state entities such as the parliament are editing wikipedia. Wouldn't you do anything it takes to keep your salary? Especially if such censorship action happens to coincide with your political view? Man I know I would. If my first name was Adolf and my last name rimmed with shittler I definitely would.

You don't have to be an ermit and you still have a choice. I leave my work phone off when I'm off work. I silence my family phone while I'm at work. I chose to do that. I opt-in and provide my contact information (work or family's) disregarding the consequences, because I'm aware the consequences aren't as bad as the EU wants to paint them. You don't need to have 2 numbers, you need to have full awareness of what your single number is subject to. Then again I don't do anything wrong so I'm not afraid of mass-collection of data, but nobody should. What they should be afraid of is two things: that this data is not used anonymously, for statistical purposes (and that is where the EU should step in, regulating such usage); and that my freedom, or an organization's freedom to use data in an anonymous fashion, for their statistical purposes, with the data's source having opted-in for (or not opted-out against) it is just as important as my freedom to do my things privately. The measures the EU always wants to undertake involve preventing companies from asking users that right - for god's sake it's not like they are soliciting for sex! You give your number to your electrical company, you water company, your cable provider, and yet I don't see you pointing out that they use that number for marketing purposes constantly, repeatedly, unceasingly against your will. They will cold call you to death, yet you are afraid facebook will somehow become this off-shore big brother you are just too attached to willingly drop, like some overpowered form of cocaine which is just as addictive but 10 times worse for your health and 100 times more illegal. I'll give you the perfect example of a state that is much more afraid of facebook than the EU: Brazil. Brazil is one of the most corrupt states in the world, and the "citizen privacy protection" argument they used to move facebook's servers to their geographical domain is the biggest scam any politician could pull off. There is no people protection, there is only systematic corruption protection on that measure, or even worse - they want to have access to that privacy infringing data so they just force it out of HTTPS through the (then) feasible physical MITM hacks, and the corruption machine spins faster. The all-in argument was meant at the market scope of things, and no, I'm not saying some social policies such as universal health care are morally wrong, but they are morally unfeasible in a perfect capitalist state, much like meritocracy is unfeasible in a perfect communist state. And that is why markets crash.

Erratum: In that last sentence, I meant "not one of the former", i.e. worth investing my time, as I deal with it easily with methods Facebook itself provides..

It's very nice to hear the system worked for you. But you have to accept that the whole environment lined up for a favorable conclusion. At quick glance I identify: you were not alone, as you ganged up a scientific group with relevant background on the matter at hand (even if students); you admittedly wasted a lot of effort for a single measure in your professional area; you are also Belgium-based, which does have an influence, be it by language barriers, or the simple fact that if a member of EU counsel needed an in-person technical assertion, it would be much easier to just holler a local.

And in my defense, I didn't say there was nothing we could do to influence such decisions - I said it was difficult. Again, your own argument assumes that difficulty. I'll give you my example: I'm a 26yo CS Researcher based in Portugal, and I vape. I have no background on vape research except articles I read for personal development, which tell me vaping is so much better than smoking. I did what I could, and what I knew was relevant for EU anti-vaping directives to not go ahead - I signed petitions that nobody cared about. The measures went ahead, and my country happened to be the first to ratify that directive last friday, under guise of tobacco product legislation. I time-shifted the entire Assembly of the Republic session to see what would happen. Portuguese people don't have much say on EU down streamed, government sanctioned projects of law, and even the represented parties have low to no opinion on it. The entire discussion point was a farce, focusing on the point of tobacco packaging imagery and completely disregarding the full scale of measures in that law bundle. It was approved unanimously. Nobody cared but the 100 vapers of my country who I predicted watched the plenary. What could I have done more? Switch my career to vape research maybe? I don't have that kind of motivation. I'd rather be arrested for buying vape products online (which is now prohibited here) than waste my life for another line of work. We also now pay 60 cents per ml of e-liquid bought nationally. And that wasn't even part of the EU directive: it was part of the annual government budget - a much larger package made into law which was highly influenced by the troika of lenders to my bankrupt country.

I'm not saying we are not to act. I am stating there are people for that. Elected officials are supposed to be those people, or the ones who connect the relevant parties so they can provide appropriate input (your specific case). But I know, for a fact, there are things worth investing your time, and others you might as well live with them. The privacy rights I lose to a US based company called Facebook are not one of them.

You do a google instead of using this comment section. If you don't have an account, it only links to a name, which is an ambiguous thing. If it uniquely links to your identity by usage of, e.g. a social security number, you can sue. But stop thinking you can preempt people from being people discriminating the platform. You can't prevent your children being bullied - you can only switch their school. Example below:

https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=10152050760878003

If the place happens to be your place, or show any item, artwork or intellectual property under any form that is yours or from your employer, you can also DMCA' it out of facebook. If it only shows your face, well, that depends on your state policy of who owns the right of your face on a picture. In the EU you most likely can use anyone's face as long as it is not unfair use that places you under some legal harm. Not much else though. The bullying argument comes to mind once again...