I firmly believe that the reason most major religions standardized a sabbath day was for mental health reasons. There's a lot of value to taking a day for yourself in which you do no work.
Even if you love what you do, you can't do it for 10 hours every single day for years.
I've heard something similar suggested as part of the reason for the spread of Islam. 5 prayer-breaks per day where you get to chill out in the shade for a bit is a pretty compelling offer in a hot part of the world. Especially if you are doing manual labour.
It's a business concern for a lot of us, and not only those of us using OAuth as an option for login. We use facebook pretty heavily for marketing and advertising.
This is really great. If you're ever interested in expanding into the environmental sector we're at the intersection of both environment and community development and would love to chat.
> The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.
I actually don't think the target audience is families living in suburban areas. That's not the target audience of the BMW 3 series or Benz C class. I think their target audience is young professionals who can't afford a car that quickly costs over $100k but care about driving a practical, electric, professional car.
Even though I could (barely) afford a Model S, I don't want one due to size. I think that is a market; people who like small, sporty, luxury cars, are relatively price insensitive ($40k vs. $60k for the Model III is insignificant to me; I'll keep it for 5-10y and drive 150-200k miles, so fuel/maintenance/etc. savings dominate purchase price), etc.
Not just young professionals but technology lovers who are not millionaires. The car has it's own API and the cost savings verses a normal ICE vehicle could really add up in this newer low cost vehicle. No oil, gasoline, etc.
It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this. Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.
Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future. I'd strongly encourage anyone who has a stake in this fight (most of HN's audience) to submit their thoughts to the FCC and your congressional representatives.
>Wheeler seems to genuinely have consumers's interests in mind, but they're going to have to push back against a _lot_ of business pressure from some of the largest lobbyists in Washington.
Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for National Cable Television Association, and the Cellular Telephone & Internet Association; genuinely cares what I think? You can't be serious.
>Don't get cynical, your words matter and enough voices coming together on an issue has worked in the past (SOPA) and will work in the future.
What are you talking about COPPA/DOPA/COICA/SOPA/CISPA/CIPA/PIPA keeps getting resurrected, time after time, they've tried everything. Anybody who has been paying attention is right to be cynical.
>>I have met with the Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and I believe he is a good actor who wants to do the right thing. But he is fighting against very powerful lobbyists and large companies that want to disrupt the freedom of the Internet. We should help him defend it.
That's not nothing, but is Altman merely being diplomatic and trying to appeal to Wheeler's good nature, or could he be a dupe? Either could be the case.
I met a few well connected political types myself, and my impression is that many of them are very good at being likeable. As an example, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, and George W. Bush; all three are strongly controversial public figures who have been reported as being likeable people even by staunch critics who have met them.
Wheeler's long and profitable career investing in and advancing the interests (as a lobbyist) of wireless and cable companies excludes him from the list of people who I would expect to advocate for my personal interests in any case other than when his and my interests intersect, which are few if any.
The president is a malicious actor who is also a lame duck-- he's protected corporate interest at every step, and this step in his presidency will likely be no different. He campaigned on promoting net neutrality, and has of course stayed aloof/ineffectual/silent/absent during net neutrality's fulcrum moment so far.
As for Wheeler, he was a lobbyist before he had this job, and will likely return to lobbying after his tenure as director ends. Wheeler also proposed the fast-lane, aka the death of net neutrality, which passed a vote. In summary: a lobbyist who lobbied for the cable companies he is now "regulating" and who is now pushing a proposal against net neutrality. Where do you think his allegiances really are? He's acting strongly and specifically against our collective interests regardless of anyone's personal judgments.
Our voices matter only in the sense that we can use our voices to organize with each other and effect change as a bloc by raising money and threatening the status quo.
> It's worth noting that both the President of the US and the FCC Chairman have not taken a side in this
The FCC Chairman -- as part of the 3-2 majority of the commission that keeps adopting pro-neutrality regulations -- has taken a pro-neutrality side repeatedly. The current anger from some neutrality proponents is that the particular approach the majority of the commission has taken to rescue some neutrality provisions from the most recent court decision isn't the mechanism that those proponents prefer (for those that actually are objecting based on the real legal situation) or doesn't just reinstate what the court struck down (for those that are reacting to the content without considering the context).
The former is a real and meaningful objection -- but its simply not the case that the FCC Chair hasn't taken a side.
16 year old here, I've got a few thoughts on this from being in the middle of it. Background: I live in a moderately sized urban center (Austin).
First, some anecdotal data: roughly half my friends have no plans to even get a license before they're 18, many of the rest (including myself) regularly borrow a parent's car, a smaller sub-set have parents who bought them cars, and a couple have bought cars with earned money.
> Yup, the road trip is as dead as the western
This is plainly wrong. Myself, and most of my friends grew up going on road trips with parents and now we're starting to take them ourselves.
> To the younger generation cars are transportation, nothing more. They take you from a to b.
This is 100% on-point. They're a convenient tool, and not much more. Granted, we still appreciate a Porsche, but we don't fantasize about them in the way I think previous generations did. They still represent some freedom, because they provide a space that's not controlled by authority figures in our lives, along with mobility. But we feel no need to own that car, it can just as easily be a parent's.
> So long Ferrari. So long Aston Martin.
I'm not sure this is true. My friends and I occasionally talk about, and appreciate things like the Model S, McLarens, and Ferraris. I don't doubt that several of my friends would buy them as successful adults. But given the choice of a nice apartment in NYC or SF or the nice car, almost all of us would take the better living location.
My job is three miles away, and my other work is all remote. Enough of my friends have cars, or access to family cars, that for any social outing someone can get access to a car. So buying a car doesn't provide much value to me. It's expensive, stressful, and any car a teenager can afford is mediocre at best. So instead of buying a car, I'm spending time in Europe with my two best friends next summer.
Cars are still viewed as a nice thing to have, but to us they're not worth working for months and months to buy. Driving is still very much a thing that many teenagers are interested in.
> Driving is still very much a thing that many teenagers are interested in.
> Myself, and most of my friends grew up going on road trips with parents and now we're starting to take them ourselves.
> we feel no need to own that car, it can just as easily be a parent's.
> buying a car doesn't provide much value to me
I must say that many adults (older than you, but younger than the boomers) feel exactly the same. Driving is fun. Traveling is fun. No amount of web browsing and online social networking can replace the actual, physical experience of traveling and seeing the country for yourself. Moreover, there are so many cool places in America that you can only get to by driving. So the road trip is definitely alive and well.
And yet, many people in their 30s and 40s have chosen to forgo car ownership. Because they aren't going on road trips all time. They rent a vehicle when they need one, or maybe lease a car for a while. This is the grown-up equivalent of borrowing your parent's car, and it comes with all the same benefits, too: renting can be less expensive, less stressful, and lower maintenance than full ownership, even if you rent a car every single weekend. (A rental location near my University used to have a special where you could rent a mid-size car for three weekends for less than $200.)
I'm also 16. To be completely honest, the only reason I haven't got my license is due to laziness, but living in Denver, my needs are served by Uber, Lyft, and public transportation (buses/lite rail). Many would say that it would be cheaper in the long run to just buy a car, but personally there isn't much of an ROI for me.
Even if you love what you do, you can't do it for 10 hours every single day for years.