[News] The Internet Was a Mistake

A thread for updates on the various ways the internet is destroying everything and the undying hellsites of social media. Let's all laugh at the abyss.

The people who are angriest about removing likes are those who, like Pred said, go through the timeline of people they hate looking for something they did that was "wrong". Granted, most of the time it was GOP folks liking KKK tweets or Elmo liking tweets that make it clear he is what really, really dumb people think really, really smart people act like.

Chipotle is fine. The quality has dipped and the staff seem less-capable which I attribute to people rightly deciding they’re not going to go hard in the paint for corporate profits. More power to them!

McDonald’s owned Chipotle for a couple years then I think sold it back to the original owners. Or someone. Who knows.

The fascination with doing a gotcha about skimping is new to me. They’re not paid or supported enough to deal with people’s sh*tty behavior. It also buys into the asymmetric expectation of perfect work performance of others while almost certainly balking at similar expectations of themselves.

The article mentions this as well, that we consistently take out our frustrations on the rank-and-file workers instead of the Corporate Execs, primarily because we cannot access the latter to yell at, so instead, we yell at the people with no power in this situation.

muraii wrote:

The fascination with doing a gotcha about skimping is new to me. They’re not paid or supported enough to deal with people’s sh*tty behavior. It also buys into the asymmetric expectation of perfect work performance of others while almost certainly balking at similar expectations of themselves.

I've never been to one (once one finally opened near me there were a lot of food poisoning issues its first few months, so I wrote it off completely), but I get the rationale behind the trend even if I don't like it. I know Subway deliberately skimps on ingredients by default, so it's not surprising Chipotle does too, but you can also just ask for more pickles or black olives on your sandwich if they don't put enough on for you by default and they'll happily do it. But I suppose a video of someone politely asking for more and then getting it has no chance to go viral like videos that assume it's the employee trying to rip you off and not their boss or the corporation setting the default amount they're supposed to give. It's not really a TikTok problem though, it's just that TikTok is where people are so that's where it becomes a thing. If we were using MySpace still it'd be there instead.

Not sure where else to express my disappointment that the Tesla shareholders voted to restore the 40 or so billion dollar pay package to Elmo.

Nevin73 wrote:

Not sure where else to express my disappointment that the Tesla shareholders voted to restore the 40 or so billion dollar pay package to Elmo.

I am too unsurprised to register any disappointment at it.

Musk literally told everyone he'd sabotage the company if they didn't pass it. It's insane.

Isn't that illegal?

Man who knows anymore.

I know, right?
I almost wanted to say that question was rhetorical

Delaware judge has to be convinced to change the ruling, I believe.

The Tesla Party Was Fun; Now Comes the Hangover

The shareholder vote is Elon's last hurrah. Now comes a tsunami of lawsuits and a world of hurt for the company, the directors, and especially the shareholders.
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Delaware judge has to be convinced to change the ruling, I believe.

And they're planning to reincorporate in Texas, where they get to choose something called a "Business Court" to handle internal governance disputes (pissed off shareholders). This is something so new it has no judges attached to it and guess who assigns the judges? Governor Abbot.

The Texas governor (currently, Greg Abbott) will appoint the Business Court judges for two-year renewable terms. The Third Business Court, which covers Travis County, will have two judges. I don’t think it is fanciful to imagine that Elon Musk and his proxies will have some very precise suggestions for Governor Abbott about the identity of the Third Business Court appointees. In fact, it would be naive to imagine otherwise.

Remember, this is the same Texas administration who started bogus investigations into Media Matters because they hurt Musk's feelings. This "business court" will be 100% corruption.

Stockton Rush thought he was Elon. He didn't realize how right he was.

The intro and the last paragraph of the article:

Wired wrote:

A year after OceanGate’s sub imploded, thousands of leaked documents and interviews with ex-employees reveal how the company’s CEO cut corners, ignored warnings, and lied in his fatal quest to reach the Titanic.

...

Now the bottom of the North Atlantic is littered with more evidence of human hubris, tiny pieces of a plastic video-game controller nestling among the barnacle-encrusted gold fixtures of the Titanic. Both vessels were at the cutting edge of technology, both exemplars of safety in the eyes of their overconfident creators. And in both cases, their passengers paid the price.

I mean, he and his ship will forever be associated with the Titanic, so Mission Accomplished, I guess?

Watched a YouTube video last night from 60 Minutes Australia. They interviewed James Cameron and the Coast Guard captain who was in charge of the "rescue." Cameron said that at the time he had information from a reliable source in the US Navy that they had recorded an implosion in the vicinity of the Titanic shortly after the submersible started descent. So the rescue operation and all the breathless news reports of "96 hours of air" were total BS. The worst part of it was the Coast Guard making the families wait for several days when they were pretty sure everyone had died instantly.

Cameron is considering funding another Titanic expedition (which would be his 34th trip to it), just to show that it is possible to do it safely if the submersible is designed and operated sanely.

BadKen wrote:

The worst part of it was the Coast Guard making the families wait for several days when they were pretty sure everyone had died instantly.

It would be insanely unethical to announce the deaths until you're 110% sure. Hearing a sound that sounded like an implosion but could have been any number of other things is not that level of sureness.

"pretty sure" doesn't cut it.

I was looking at previous BBC coverage of this, and one of the investors they spoke to was defending Stockton Rush:

Aaron Newman told the BBC’s Michelle Fleury that the idea Rush had done anything wrong was "disingenuous".

"Stockton spoke to me for hours about ocean exploration," he said of his decision to invest in the company.

"His passion was amazing and I bought into it."

Newman credited Rush for "doing something far beyond what anybody else had" in creating a reusable sub, which he said was comfortable enough to carry several people and relied on an unconventional design.

"If the Wright brothers had crashed their plane, what would people be saying about them?" he asked.

Well, sir, the Wright Brothers were some of the first pioneers of an entirely new form of travel, so they didn't really have a whole lot knowledge or information to fall back on.

Whereas deep-sea diving had been a thing for decades prior to this incident, and Mr. Rush ignored the concerns and suggestions of multiple experts in the field who knew more than him.

So yes, if the Wright Brothers tried to "disrupt" flying by creating a new plane in 2024, cut corners and ignored regulations because they "stifled innovation" and ignored the safety advice of various pilots and aviation engineers, I would heartily approve of calling them dipsh*ts as well.

Jonman wrote:

It would be insanely unethical to announce the deaths until you're 110% sure. Hearing a sound that sounded like an implosion but could have been any number of other things is not that level of sureness.

"pretty sure" doesn't cut it.

Maybe so, but stringing people along with stories of wrench banging sounds was bad too. As Cameron put it, hearing a wrench banging on a hull while there are numerous ships circling in the area is about as likely as hearing a sparrow fart at an active airport.

Dunno who was responsible for the wrench story though.

The Coast Guard captain they interviewed for the 60 Minutes piece made it clear that the implosion detection was classified information, and that as a rescuer, if you don’t do absolutely everything in your power to be absolutely certain, you shouldn’t be involved in rescue operations.

I defer to the man with 30 years of sea rescue experience, but the whole situation just sucked for everyone.

Prederick wrote:

I was looking at previous BBC coverage of this, and one of the investors they spoke to was defending Stockton Rush:

Aaron Newman told the BBC’s Michelle Fleury that the idea Rush had done anything wrong was "disingenuous".

"Stockton spoke to me for hours about ocean exploration," he said of his decision to invest in the company.

"His passion was amazing and I bought into it."

This is the typical fallacy that being passionate and being correct are the same thing - in other words, the louder you talk about something, the more right it makes you.

Wow, ripped open wound there. I had a good friend (pretty much founded a video game start up together) that I haven't spoken to in a couple of decades because they thought that talking over people and being louder makes them right. He was a bright guy, but that was a tell tale sign he was talking out of his ass.

Prederick wrote:

So yes, if the Wright Brothers tried to "disrupt" flying by creating a new plane in 2024, cut corners and ignored regulations because they "stifled innovation" and ignored the safety advice of various pilots and aviation engineers, they would work for Boeing.

fangblackbone wrote:

I had a good friend (…) that I haven't spoken to in a couple of decades because they thought that talking over people and being louder makes them right.

“I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THIS LIVING SOUL”

Tesla's in a world of hurt.

In China's rush to find something to export which the rest of the world will buy even when every country is staring down the double barrel of either inflation or stagflation, they've done what the Japanese did to automobiles in the 70s-80s; pumped out reliable and cheap vehicles with better battery range a fraction of the market price.

It's the one thing that has seen the price of a Tesla fall so dramatically. Even with Biden's EV tariff, Tesla had to drop their prices.

I mean, whether it's a Tesla or something like a BYD, your chances are in years 5-6 the battery will be at 80% efficiency and the engineering shortfalls will show up. The only difference then is whether you paid something like 1/3 of a Tesla or the full price.

Mind you, Tesla's not the only one. You may have missed an announcement in March 2024 that Honda and Nissan are forming an EV partnership.

Bfgp wrote:

Tesla's in a world of hurt.

Supposedly Geico will not insure the Cybertruck. It's reddit so take it with a pillar of salt.

Bfgp wrote:

I mean, whether it's a Tesla or something like a BYD, your chances are in years 5-6 the battery will be at 80% efficiency and the engineering shortfalls will show up. The only difference then is whether you paid something like 1/3 of a Tesla or the full price.

This is what I've been trying to figure out. What is the total cost of ownership of a Tesla (or other EV)? I keep getting told that EVs are "better" for the environment and I understand that if the carbon emissions from driving an ICE are so bad that it makes up for all the mining (now deep sea mining at Tesla!) that goes into battery and EV production. But how long will that Tesla last? And how long will its battery last?

A buddy who works for an energy company says that there's enough value in an old battery that it can be recycled (?) because of the rare metals inside but I can't seem to find a straight answer on this.

My Kia is still going strong at 8 years and over 100k miles. My consumer electronics don't have that type of lifecycle. Where does Tesla fit?

Top_Shelf wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

I mean, whether it's a Tesla or something like a BYD, your chances are in years 5-6 the battery will be at 80% efficiency and the engineering shortfalls will show up. The only difference then is whether you paid something like 1/3 of a Tesla or the full price.

This is what I've been trying to figure out. What is the total cost of ownership of a Tesla (or other EV)? I keep getting told that EVs are "better" for the environment and I understand that if the carbon emissions from driving an ICE are so bad that it makes up for all the mining (now deep sea mining at Tesla!) that goes into battery and EV production. But how long will that Tesla last? And how long will its battery last?

A buddy who works for an energy company says that there's enough value in an old battery that it can be recycled (?) because of the rare metals inside but I can't seem to find a straight answer on this.

My Kia is still going strong at 8 years and over 100k miles. My consumer electronics don't have that type of lifecycle. Where does Tesla fit?

My take:

A gasoline car has so much more mechanical complexity. The engine is a bunch of hot metal moving parts. The transmission....doesn't even exist on an electric car. Lithium ion batteries can absolutely be recycled, which while it's not entirely waste-free nor cheap, is lucrative enough that there's definite interest in doing it, and once again, when compared to the wastefulness of digging oil out of the ground, refining it and distributing it, is a no-brainer. Electric motors are one of the most efficient machines that humans build, incredibly long-lasting (when compared to the thousands of parts flying in close formation that is a gasoline engine), and relatively cheap to replace if and when they do break, which will likely be 100,000's of miles further down the road than a combustion engine.

If you look after that EV, and recycle the battery every 100k-300k miles (?), you could easily see the odometer tick over at the million mile mark.

Another thing to consider - how much maintenance dollars have you put into your 8 year old Kia? Your EV would have cost significantly less over that lifespan to maintain.

Jonman wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

I mean, whether it's a Tesla or something like a BYD, your chances are in years 5-6 the battery will be at 80% efficiency and the engineering shortfalls will show up. The only difference then is whether you paid something like 1/3 of a Tesla or the full price.

This is what I've been trying to figure out. What is the total cost of ownership of a Tesla (or other EV)? I keep getting told that EVs are "better" for the environment and I understand that if the carbon emissions from driving an ICE are so bad that it makes up for all the mining (now deep sea mining at Tesla!) that goes into battery and EV production. But how long will that Tesla last? And how long will its battery last?

A buddy who works for an energy company says that there's enough value in an old battery that it can be recycled (?) because of the rare metals inside but I can't seem to find a straight answer on this.

My Kia is still going strong at 8 years and over 100k miles. My consumer electronics don't have that type of lifecycle. Where does Tesla fit?

My take:

A gasoline car has so much more mechanical complexity. The engine is a bunch of hot metal moving parts. The transmission....doesn't even exist on an electric car. Lithium ion batteries can absolutely be recycled, which while it's not entirely waste-free nor cheap, is lucrative enough that there's definite interest in doing it, and once again, when compared to the wastefulness of digging oil out of the ground, refining it and distributing it, is a no-brainer. Electric motors are one of the most efficient machines that humans build, incredibly long-lasting (when compared to the thousands of parts flying in close formation that is a gasoline engine), and relatively cheap to replace if and when they do break, which will likely be 100,000's of miles further down the road than a combustion engine.

If you look after that EV, and recycle the battery every 100k-300k miles (?), you could easily see the odometer tick over at the million mile mark.

Another thing to consider - how much maintenance dollars have you put into your 8 year old Kia? Your EV would have cost significantly less over that lifespan to maintain.

Yeah, but how much will you have to pay for software updates? I understand that Tesla charges for some software features or updates.

Not from personal experience and anecdotally from a client with a Tesla that had the extended range battery (800km), the issues are as follows:

- high acquisition cost for what you get vs what's on the market
- every car depreciates rapidly once on road
- battery needs recycling every 4-6 years
- servicing costs are higher because you also need an auto-electrician, not just your average mechanic
- less parts as Jonman pointed out, but you oddly get different issues on maintenance (apparently because of the power to weight and the general tendency of Tesla drivers to let it rip, they wear out certain parts a lot faster than an ICE vehicle)
- newer models are always going to have beter batteries and onboard electronics and safety measures as the techonology matures
+ the net annual savings of not using petrol and using off-peak (or solar) charging

The real killer from what I've heard is the battery change at the 4 to 6 year mark - AUD 25,000 to 40,000 a pop depending on standard vs extended battery range, so maybe around US 14,000 to 30,000? No idea what the prices are these days, this was a year or two ago when a client was complaining about his Tesla.

I would hazard a guess that in the past, the hidden costs of ownership would have outpriced EVs to ICE; but with the cheaper options, if you ignore the impacts of tariffs, the latest generation(s) of EVs may actually come pretty close to ICE ownership over their lifetime.