Also they will likely take less than the 25% margin they take on the model S. So if they shoot for a 10% margin @ $35K they need to build it for $31.5K vs. $26K for a 25% margin.
I'm working on some rather large scale parallel network operations, btw.
I suspect we'd get along pretty well. Hit me up if you're ever in Dallas, TX.
While my personal observations in this context are overwhelmingly in agreement with yours, I'll add that there is a subtle difference between office cultures which display visceral disdain for formality and those which merely disregard it as being irrelevant to the core mission of the business. The former may be summarized as "damn the man, we're hip and trendy and full of venture capital, and can you please repeat the question" whereas the latter may be closer to "the attire of a particular group of people only becomes a relevant factor if a strong correlation between utility/intelligence/incompetence is simultaneously noted, and said correlation should not necessarily be assumed to extend to other groups of people."
Given that you bothered to reference "lenght (sic) of time," I find it disheartening that you have also demonstrated apparent failure to comprehend or intelligently consider bounding problems, population density, transmission risks and rates, practical effects of seemingly low mutation rates, microbiology, and systems thinking. In short, all activities involving large scale administration of antibiotics to livestock at dosages resulting in appreciable treatment/prevention efficacy are practices which drive substantial and increasing risks to public health.
The math doesn't lie, and the trending curves of probabilities associated with widespread epidemics aren't exactly uplifting. I'll make a preemptive recommendation that you suppress the urge to post anything resembling a cliché "citation needed" response here. Given the circumstances at hand, devotion of your time to even a cursory review of the aforementioned subject matter would likely be a more productive activity. Such study will necessarily involve your review of all citations referenced in said materials, review of nested citations, etc. You wouldn't want to compound foolishness with yet more foolishness, would you?
I'm willing to admit that I may be entirely wrong in my assessment of your level of knowledge, with the corollary that you are simply betting that your benefits will outweigh your risk in this area for the duration of your lifespan. However, given that I know nothing of your mode of living or the measures of your personal resource reserves on hand for reaction/relocation/adaptation/insulation in response a large scale communicable disease crisis, I must hazard a guess that you're either (A) dangerously ignorant of reality or (B) very well prepared to deal with things turning shitty in a hurry. It is my measured estimation that the odds of your membership in the intersecting set are quite low, given your mid-range UID and the generally incongruous nature of the respective attributes of the A and B sets.
If you work in any field involving network infrastructure, software development, information services, or data management/warehousing and your salary is at all dependent upon your attire, I strongly suggest you inquire with competing firms. You may well find they're paying better and place fewer arbitrary burdens upon their personnel.
Every professional workplace has an expectation of a formal atire. What is wrong with requiring suits over the usual office shirts and pants?
I'm not opposed to wearing a well-tailored suit. I've worn many suits over the years, and I once wore a Navy uniform for a living. These facts notwithstanding, your view on this topic is plainly distorted. My professional workplace doesn't have this expectation, and our average employee salary is considerably higher than that of a great many companies with dress codes. Our expectations are that reasonable personal hygiene is attended to and that our employees bring brains and dedication to work every day. As for clothes, the policy is generally "yes, please, nudity might be distracting." This workplace is a rather large, professionally designed, thoughtfully laid out office space. Lunch is also catered every day. You might be doing it wrong.
That's harsh I remember when a 3 day weather forecast was crazy talk, not they do 10 day with reasonable accuracy.
Of course, the suffer from pedantics in they if they say it's going to be 93, and it's actually 94, people are like see, wrong again!
They do OK here in Colorado during the top of summer and the bottom of winter. Spring and fall they might get the current conditions right if they looked out the door... but it would probably change before they could report it. But they still try to do a 7 or 10 day forecast. Once in a while they get it right but don't plan on it.
This is the best post I've seen on
As part of Mr. Lee's good neighbor policy, all Rat Things are programmed never to break the sound barrier in a populated area. But Fido's in too much of a hurry to worry about the good neighbor policy. Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise.
Two very different things: why does the universe exist and how did the universe come to exist. There is no why for the universe. It is. Looking for a why is what theists do.
Clarifying the clarification: I was only attempting to answer the question, "Why do atheists flock to science?" My answer was simply that, rather than arguing something vacuous, they simply say, "Meh, the scientific explanation will do for me." That is hardly flocking but just throwing a "good enough" explanation back at the theist that they will hopefully leave us alone.
Last year's winter was not fun in PA. We had basically no summer, with very few hot days. I suspect this winter will be a little worse.
Same here in Colorado. We had a cool, wet summer. I think we only had one day that broke 100F. Saved a bunch on the water bill though. Barely had to water the lawn.
There, now I'm a weather man!
No. You have a better chance of being right.
What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.
If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."
Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.
Seems silly to point out but, if you don't believe some god created the universe, life, etc. then you need some explanation for the universe around us and us as observers of that universe. The flying spaghetti monster is one alternative but it sort of makes sense that quite a few atheists will just say that the scientific explanation of the universe works for them; no more, no less. It's not something to be carried on your sleeve. I'd hardly call that "flocking to science." I haven't heard of too many militant atheists picketing some religious get together with signs saying, "Believe in string theory!" or "Quantum Gravity has the Answer!"