shituonui

I don't really believe that luxury cars or jewelry are inherently evil and won't defend those claims. I gave those as examples of (obvious) reasons people might object to those things.

>Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean.

I don't think it matters what the intention is. Our society universally denigrates the poor and elevates wealth to a virtue. Anything that contributes to that has got to go.

>They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence.

You are getting increasingly metaphysical.

These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation.

These watches are so rare that they can provide very little beauty. The vast majority of people will never lay eyes on one.

Let me ask you a question: would you support the government purchasing Patek Philippe watches and putting them in libraries for the common people to check out? This would lead to much more beauty than letting them sit in rich people's collections and would encourage even more "human excellence". But I suspect you'd find it a waste of tax money.

Sarcasm is a perfectly valid rhetorical device. If you find it rude, I apologize.

Some luxury goods are beautiful. Some are high-performance. However, many of them are prized merely because they are exclusive.

I find very expensive jewelry, almost without exception, to be gaudy and hideous. Even if it were tasteful, it could be made with artificial or semiprecious gems and clad base metals with no change in appearance.

There is nothing from high-end jewelry that can trickle down to the mass market. The entire industry is, by design, based around the work of skilled artisans. If it were possible to mass-produce jewelry, it would no longer be exclusive and would thus be less desirable.

Luxury cars are an interesting example. They are usually prized for their technical excellence. Some of the innovations may actually make it to market. The same definitely does not apply to fashion or to the majority of other luxury goods.

They made a tradeoff of having higher and less uniform memory access. This was not a failure. It was a decision that paid off.

I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.

Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.

>Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:

1. Luxury cars are often wasteful or dangerous to be around.

2. The resources for jewelry are scarce and often extracted with slave labor.

3. Both are often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them.

I love fast cars and I wear jewelry. I hate the fact that these beautiful things are corrupted by their use as tools of oppression.

In what universe did Zen 1 fail? Zen 1 was one of the best-performing designs in the world and scaled very well to high core counts.

The fact that Zen 2 is better doesn't reduce the excellence of Zen 1.

It works really, really well for libraries. Research libraries (and research librarians) are phenomenally valuable. I've missed them any time I'm not at a university.

Both curators and algorithms are valuable. This goes for finding books, for finding facts and figures, for finding clothes, for finding dishwashers, and for pretty much everything else.

I love the fact that I have search engines and online shopping, but that shouldn't displace libraries and brick-and-mortar. Curation and the ability to talk to a person are complementary to the algorithmic approach.

The phasing of that is obviously tone-deaf, but I can't object to the principle. Would you read something that mentioned "the narrow, slit-like eyes of Chin Loo"? Didn't think so.

The better solution is obviously to include whatever characters you want but write them well. However, since the authors of that time seemingly couldn't write Chinese characters well, leaving Chinese people out entirely makes for better literature.

Range absolutely is an issue for people who have owned an EV. More importantly, it is an issue for people who haven't owned an EV. Claiming it isn't a problem because current EV owners are OK with it is preaching to the choir.

But even if range really isn't a problem, a PHEV makes more sense to me because they are cheaper and make better use of our limited battery supply. A PHEV with 50 miles range will be just about as efficient as a BEV for the vast majority of driving, but it gets by with a much smaller battery pack. We have the battery supply to make nearly every new car a PHEV, but we could only make a small fraction of them BEVs.

PHEVs make more sense to me anyway. For the majority of trips they run off the battery which makes them just as good as a BEV, but they have no problems with range and they are a whole lot cheaper.

>Autopilot works great.

I don't think anyone claims otherwise on the older models. The problem is twofold:

1. They promised "Full Self Driving" and delivered ordinary driver assistance.

2. The vision-based approach just plain does not work.