Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Less "Worked-Hard" (Score 4, Interesting) 158

Additionally, working hard doesn't necessarily mean being more productive either. For example, Norway's productivity per hour worked is estimated at $100.3 whereas the USA's is at $73.7. That's quite a big gap from anyone's perspective. I guess Norwegian workers are just better at it. In fact US workers are behind Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, & Denmark in productivity. And guess which countries have better quality of life* ratings than the USA?

*Not to be confused with the materialistic, vacuous "standard of living" metric.

Comment "Thanks, Americans!" (Score 1) 158

Sure, Americans pay taxes and inflated costs of goods to provide military security for Europe, drug development, technology development, etc. so they have more money for healthcare, arts, and leisure.

Everybody should need to work less as technology and productivity increases while maintaining the same standard of living, but nooooo, we can't have nice things.

Materialism plays a small part but GenZ has correctly realized that they can never live as well as their grandparents under this regime.

Boomers are happy to shout "avacado toast!" at them from their country-club golf carts.

I wrote here about coming Age Wars a decade ago. Let's hope somebody comes to thier senses.

Comment Re:Yes, with lots of subsidies (Score 1) 122

Well, splitting up countries into smaller, autonomous, isolated states, provinces, & territories with as little federal oversight as possible creates opportunities for corporations & other countries' governments to play of those states, provinces, & territories against each other. It also makes it an advantage for corporations & other countries' governments to sow division & conflict between states, provinces, & territories. Just as unity is strength, disunity is weakness, which makes their bargaining power so much less. But, you know, freedom!

Comment Re:Honda should listen better (Score 1) 122

Yeah but those EVs run on renewable energy... socialist energy! This is the biggest socialist conspiracy to sap US citizens' precious bodily fluids since the last one. 'Murican cars will be driven by socialist electricity. Cars that drive children to school! Oh, the children, will no one think of the children! Freedom!

Comment Re:Teachers seem dumb (Score 1) 105

Yes, this. Teachers do a lot of work, essentially for free, & supply materials to students out of their own pockets because they want them to succeed as much as they can. If you were looking for a profession with the highest amount of good will, I reckon teaching would be in the top 10.

It's become fashionable, since the Reagan era "A Nation at Risk" report, to gaslight teachers. If you want to run public education into the ground & destroy younger generations' futures, this is a great way to go about it. The USA doesn't need Russian or North Korean interference to fail. They can do it all by themselves.

Comment Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score 1) 146

Ford has always been the 'more bling than sense' option, at least as long as I've been alive. Some are very nice vehicles, and their interiors are top notch for an American vehicle (vs like, a Land Rover), and they're often the vehicle most purchased by people who aren't smart enough to connect the dots or pay attention to their environment enough to not buy a vehicle which is obviously not well built. Case in point - middle aged Karens buying gutless Mustangs. Their reliability is even worse than VW.

Comment Re:Gotta start somewhere (Score 3, Informative) 146

No, Ford is bad at it. They're bad at it because FOrd isn't good at making reliable vehicles. Ask anyone who's had to get work done on their Ford's, or a Ford mechanic.

The engineering culture at Ford is such taht they design things to be sold, not maintained. This is true for all Fords, with things like having to completely disassemble large parts of the vehicle to do basic maintenance being commonplace, even on ICE. Little things change sometimes multiple times per year on the same model year, so you're never sure if you need parts from one year or the other until you try to fit them. This leads to some really horrible QC, with vehicles often failing straight off the lot. I've known 2 people in the last several years to have their brand new Ford have major mechanical failure, and heard a number of other anecdotal stories from others.

If you need more anecdotes, just hop over to Facebook Marketplace or Craigslist and look at the used price and condition of Fords vs comparable Chevy, etc. vehicles. Pick one - Ford trucks, midsize/small cars, SUVs, hatchbacks. You'll pay significantly less for the Ford, which will likely be in "better condition" with fewer miles, than the comparable vehicle for this very reason. Case in point: old Broncos vs Ramchargers or K5 Blazers, or trucks in general. There's a definite pecking order and it is largely based on the reality of overall vehicle quality. A 25 year old rusted out Toyota with 250k+ would go for 8k, where a similar truck from Chevy S10 $4k, but the Ford Ranger - which may not be rusted out or have any visible issues - sits around at $1500-2000 for months unsold. (I say this as someone who buys, repairs, and flips old vehicles.)

Now imagine those problems when you add software computing parts to every component in the operation of the vehicle...

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...