Trying to mock someone for the absolutely valid tactic of wanting to be anonymous due to the very real threat of life-ruining retaliation is extremely childish and short-sighted.
Is making note of the fact that an individual was convicted of raping a child now the same as "accusing everyone of being some kind of Nazi or sexual predator"?
Do you have some information that would lead to doubt on Arthur's conviction?
Can you elaborate on what "sort of person" means exactly? Is that just to refer to people who point out that someone in a community has raped a child, been convicted of raping a child and is on a sex offenders register? Or some other category?
I think it's troubling that so many people in the replies are seemingly more offended over some swear words than the literal rape of a child.
Sex offender information is public so we can keep those people far away from children. There aren't any children on the C++ standards committee. You can actually be criminally prosecuted if you use someone's status to harass or injure them. So the organizers weren't really protecting him, they were protecting themselves.
No, the headline makes it sound like someone paid for YouTube Premium which is repeatedly marketed as not having ads and is still being shown ads. Which is exactly what is happening.
Go and watch the videos of him touring SpaceX. He's clearly involved in the engineering.
You just don't want to believe that because it complicates your view of him as a purely worthless arsehole. You can't accept that he's an arsehole and a skilled engineer (or project manager if you want to gatekeep "engineering").
Imagine him coming up with the spaceship equivalent of the CyberTruck at SpaceX. Even Boeing would seem like being great at what they do at that point…
You read any biography of him any testimonials from people who've been with him. It's well known and obvious he gets into the weeds. THATS why his companies are successful.
> It's well known and obvious he gets into the weeds. THATS why his companies are successful.
What about the PayPal stories? Or those are all supposedly “not fair and balanced”?
> It's well known and obvious he gets into the weeds
That’s why the Cybetruck looks like it was draw by a 3 year old?
> THATS why his companies are successful.
Why? You don’t have to pretend you are an engineer to build an extremely successful company as CEO while having significant impact on the products it designs. Just look at Apple.
>What about the PayPal stories? Or those are all supposedly “not fair and balanced”?
What stories?
>That’s why the Cybetruck looks like it was draw by a 3 year old?
So? This doesn't serve to disprove my point. Elon gets into the weeds. Your opinion of it doesn't change the success of the company and the technology.
>Why? You don’t have to pretend you are an engineer to build an extremely successful company as CEO while having significant impact on the products it designs. Just look at Apple.
I never said anything about apple. I said that's why HIS companies are successful. There's plenty of reasons why other companies are successful.
It's a well known fact Elon Gets into the weeds of engineering and tech. Just watch the video.
the parent comment already explained how extremely deceptive and dishonest the article is so what else is there to add? this is like complaining about someone not wanting to bother refuting every individual thing a pathological liar has said when their lies are so obvious
You asked whether or not the FSD ran the red lights safely. You were given the answer of "No". You never, at any point, asked whether or not "it's traversing red lights while they are otherwise safe to traverse (no lateral traffic)" which is a question that contradicts itself.
If you ask a question, someone answers, and you start berating them because they were either not able to read your mind to determine what the actual question you're asking is or gave you an answer you did not like, then why ask the question?
The article you posted a comment to shows a video of numerous instances of the FSD trying to run a red light when it is absolutely "not safe" to do so.
Trying to mock someone for the absolutely valid tactic of wanting to be anonymous due to the very real threat of life-ruining retaliation is extremely childish and short-sighted.
reply