Frequently the author brings up that for 2,000 euros they expect a premium experience, but no where is there an evaluation of the value granted by upgradability and repeatability of the machine, and only briefly is there mention of the configurability.

People (not necessarily the author, but likely many commentators that make similar complains about the frameworks price) will lament how manufacturers don’t have upgradable ram, etc and then turn around and are upset at the bulkiness of a repairable laptop, or the price.

I think ultimately what frustrates me is that people don’t consider the ability to repair or upgrade your machine part of a “premium” experience, but that’s is just something I have to accept. I think it is unfortunate that our consumerist culture places so little value on it though.

Rergardless, what I feel like we see here (along with a lack of scale from a small company) is the core tradeoffs that we’d have to make to get back repairability, etc. framework certainly isn’t above criticism, but if you don’t care about these things then why look at this machine? A large established brand is always going to offer a a better value on the things you care about.

This is obviously a general statement about any nation, comparing the US to its peers.

In the context of the conversation it is clearly an argument that “we don’t have to let you in, we can require whatever we want, including trampling on your rights as an individual”, which is unamerican.

As an American I am not responsible for the actions of another nation, but I am for those of my own. Therefore it is immaterial to me how Korea treats immigrants, at least not when I am discussing the morality of our system.

Either you have a sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to our fellow human beings or you don’t. Feel free to criticize the actions of the Korean government if you want, that does not absolve the US of its own transgressions.

However, it should be addressed at the corporate level, not by targeting the individual workers. They are just doing their jobs under the direction of their employers. Any fraud committed here is by the Hyundai corporation first and foremost.

The treatment of these workers has been exceedingly cruel and should be considered out of bounds in this country, but sadly it has become normalized.

My understanding is that it is fairly common practice for foreign companies to send experts from their home countries in order to do knowledge transfer, since the skill set isn’t available domestically.

https://x.com/_mm85/status/1964631794260857114

Being able to easily make small swaps like ports/batteries/RAM/etc is a much bigger value prop, along with supporting the growth of an ecosystem that still doesn’t have enough scale to get pricing down.

If you don’t value any of that, then yeah, don’t buy a framework. But to say it “makes no sense” is a bit grandiose.

“Bottom line” is a reference to costs, it doesn’t matter whether a department is a profit center. If AI is making these departments more efficient, it should show up in the bottom line.

For reference I’m on a small Data Eng/analyst team.

For reference, that will get you and your friends absolutely blasted for way more than a single evening.

8 years is standard and implies a substantially longer expected lifetime of the vehicle on average.

This is really missing the point. Tesla could have called it “unicorn mode” and the result would still be the same.

The true issue at hand is that Elon Musk has been banding about telling people that their cars are going to drive themselves completely for over a decade now and overstating teslas capabilities in this area. Based on the sum totality of the messaging, many lay consumers believe teslas have been able to safely drive themselves unsupervised for a long time.

From a culpability standpoint, you can’t put all this hype out and then claim it doesn’t matter because technically the fine print says otherwise.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DNXRSA

Environmental pollution very reasonably can be hypothesized to be a causal mechanism behind cancer rates. Exposure to which is going to be heavily correlated with race and socioeconomics.

I may be misinterpreting OP, but their statement came off as “cancer maps are just maps of where poor non white people live, so it’s not the pollution”, but you can’t just “control” for things that way. Given the fact that environmental pollution is a hazard, there’s a reason why that demographic lives there that makes the exposure to pollution not independent from the demographic characteristics of the population.