Re: Start it off with an easier challenge
An AI to interpret amanfromMars first please
3200 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jun 2009
At least in my neck of the woods, in assessing consumer law the courts tend to take the view that a promise doesn't need to be written in the contract to be considered an enforceable condition of that contract. It just needs to have been made by the seller. If, as in this case, it was written down, so much the better (and easier).
If the contract contradicts a promise the seller made, a bit like children crossing their fingers behind their back, I believe the courts often side with the customer too.
Preface: IANAL.
When you enter into a contract (such as when you buy a car), all parties make certain representations. For example, the buyer promises to pay the seller a certain amount and the seller promises that the car has particular performance and features etc.
In this case, the customers paid extra for the promise that they would receive certain additional features by a specified date*. Tesla appears to believe that it's operating in the wild west of software, where features are added and removed at a whim, might not even be fit for purpose and promises of delivery dates are ethereal. I doesn't work that way with motor vehicles.
* While perhaps not common for motor vehicles, this is not an unusual clause to see in a contract. Once when I bought a property, the seller promised to have certain structural certification work completed by a particular date after the contract settlement. There was a financial penalty associated with them failing to do so.
I also began wearing wristwatches again after many years as a result of the smartphone. In the last few years I replaced a very old Nokia with a 5" smartphone and found that digging it out of my trouser pocket just to know the time was often a major PITA.
Since then I've spent many times the value of the phone on watches, but that's a different problem.
The environmental impact is about the same as for SpaceX, but with much less publicity. But since these guys don't have a narcissist fronting them, this question is asked of these guys but not of the cool kids.
I see you've never read the comments section on an article about a SpaceX operation.
It used to be that only governments could "create" or issue money. With Bitcoin, et al, that has left the hands of government. So maybe that's a use?
Bitcoin (and all other cryptocoins) aren't creating any money. They're just moving existing money into the hands of early adopters and electricity generators. There's no economic productivity involved.
I remember the first time I saw GATTACA, I thought "those rocket launches look completely unconvincing". Likely because I was used to seeing grainy technical footage from the 60s-90s.
It turns out that real daytime launches of kerosene-burning rockets, shot on modern high quality equipment for publicity rather than technical purposes (Falcon Heavy being a particularly good example of this,) really do look like they do in the movies.
Blockchain is actually a useful concept.What gives the blockchain concept a bad name are the cryptocurrencies
"Blockchain" uses concepts that have been around for decades and for which there has been more than enough time for someone to find uses for them. On top of that, the only thing that makes a blockchain a blockchain is the mining of tradeable tokens. Take those away and there's nothing new under the bonnet.