It seems, however, that Project Titan lacks that most basic of Apple qualities, as people working on the project said they are not sure what, exactly, would set Apple Car apart from similar vehicles currently in development by would-be competitors, the NYT report said.
What's wrong with cars today? And what could we be doing to change it?
1. Too many cars on the roads, creating jams. - Uber car pool? 2. Too many cars not in use, is a waste. - Uber car pool? 3. Too many cars with one person, (creating jams). - Uber car pool? 4. Most cars fuelled by phossile fuel. Emissions. - Electric? 5. Good cars are for the rich, not helping at a broad scale. - Uber car pool? 6. Batteries of electric vehicles, are they really that environmentally friendly to produce? - Nano Flow Cell perhaps? 7. Autonomous tech is perhaps too immature to work under extreme or unforeseen conditions: rain, snow, mud, old roads, old towns, protesters, countryside, road blocks, no proper roads, places with bad or non existing map data? - Nail it! Until nailed, only authorised roads can be driven autonomously.. 8. Difficult to find a parking spot, (due to too many inactive cars) - Uber car pool.
I've heard some startups working on electric autonomous cars that you don't own, but share in a car pool and access like Uber. This would be contributing. But more one-passenger cars on the roads won't change or contribute in any way. It's only gonna make things worse. So what if the make a really beautiful wonder, if they don't contribute to cleaning up the infrastructure car mess, it's gonna make things worse. the strongest indication we have is Apple's partnership with Didi.
Uber is a maggot company, we're kicking their ass here (Quebec) so they become less maggot like and actually follow rules, pay all their taxes (the drivers too).
I'd prefer that public transit not be privatized thank you. Cause, they don't give a shit about the 40% of poor who won't be able to afford them.
Why would they license tech and not develop their own product?
Apple excels at the combination of hardware, software and services. If they don't think they can create that magic here I think they should shut the whole thing down. All the big car companies are far down the road of autonomous and self driving vehicles. Even Uber is testing vehicles. What do they need Apple for? To provide a nice looking dashboard UI?
What confuses me is if Apple has decided to shift focus to providing software to existing manufacturers why did Cook put a former hardware executive in charge of the project?
Eventually Apple will give up on car/autonomous driving, because there is a Tesla. Shutting down now would be a smart thing to do, but they can't do that yet. That's like saying "I was wrong, go find another CEO".
People look at Tesla as if they're the holy grail for the future of the automobile.
How are they not? What Tesla has done as a start up has changed the future of the automotive industry. They are now following Tesla's lead into the future.
Lots of companies have been working on autonomous driving. Just because Tesla has been making a big noise and being public about it doesn't necessarily mean that they are at the forefront, "...lead[ing] into the future". We all know know that there's the Google approach to shouting from a rooftops about the latest and the greatest, and Apple's more subdued approach of waiting until they actually have something close to perfect. The auto industry is no different.
So Tesla is simply louder than the big car companies when it comes to designing a quality electric car that looks great, is fast, and has great range? Tesla is simply the vocal of the giant car companies when it comes to using modern technology in the cockpit, like a giant IPS display for displaying data to cab? Tesla is simply louder than the giant car companies when it comes to implementing an Autopilot service that allows for useful autonomous, safe driving?
Can you remind me again as to all these other companies and their products that have beaten Tesla and this apparent snake oil salesman that is Elon Musk to the punch at every time in making a truly modern automobile?
You must remember that the major auto manufacturers are beholden to big oil whereas Tesla is not. Moves that jeopardize that relationship are done quietly, and slowly.
1) Oil companies are beholden to those that use oil, not the other way around. If Ford had the technology Tesla did today a decade ago they would had it on the market because that would push them ahead of all the other automotive companies.
2) Jets use fuel and they still have an autopilot option. Are you saying that jet fuel isn't made from petroleum?
GM made the EV1 in 1999. Had they continued researching, and pushing the tech back then they'd probably be way ahead of where Tesla is now.
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
Tesla's finance are BAD; if they hit any major problems in the next 2 years, they're close to gone (or will need to bought out to survive). They're coasting on good will but they've been using quite a bit and by the time they're actually making money it may be gone. You can hand wave that if you wish, but that's a fact.
Debt is not an issue if you have cash flow to pay for it. That's why the US can have such a big debt load and interest rates of US Bonds are so low.
Autonomous vehicles = unproven market. That's one reason for Apple to reign it in. What reason is there to believe that consumers will want to use autonomous vehicles on a regular basis? I think everyone knows that they'll be slower and more prone to errors than a human driver. The AI just isn't going to be sophisticated enough within the next 5 years. Maybe in 20.
WTH, Slower and more prone to error? Huh? Have you actually driven on an actual road with people?
They won't be "more prone to errors" but people will sure make a big deal of any "error" that does occur. That would be a more accurate description.
If enough money is spent on a car RIGHT NOW, it can be fully autonomous. The only obstacle is making one that's doesn't cost 1 million dollar.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
There's nothing ridiculous about it. Its charging network is a phenomenal advantage.
An advantage I'd be more impressed with if there weren't 168,000 gas stations in the United States alone.
But there are way more electrical outlets. Gas stations are necessary for all the energy an ICE needs. Super chargers are for long distance travel. Once you own an EV, you understand that the concept of "filling up" is very different. Go to the store, then "fill up" at home. Go to work, then fill up at home. Etc...
The importance of the range of the car becomes less relevant because 99.9% of the time drivers are making short trips.
Until you want to (or need to) go on a long-term road trip, be it on vacation or for business.
If only there was a business where one could acquire temporary possession of a motor vehicle for such specific activities. They could be called "short term motor vehicle loaner shops". If they were established at airtransport locations I could save vast amounts I now spend air freighting my personal motor vehicle so it may, just may, prove useful to other such travelers desiring a motor vehicle after flying somewhere? Just spitballing here but there may be something to this. Nah, everyone already has a motor vehicle.
1) Oil companies are beholden to those that use oil, not the other way around. If Ford had the technology Tesla did today a decade ago they would had it on the market because that would push them ahead of all the other automotive companies.
2) Jets use fuel and they still have an autopilot option. Are you saying that jet fuel isn't made from petroleum?
GM made the EV1 in 1999. Had they continued researching, and pushing the tech back then they'd probably be way ahead of where Tesla is now.
1) Why are you bolding your comments?
2) You're actually arguing for GM and against Tesla, that GM is somehow better for dropping the ball when it came to R&D with electric cars? If anything, EV1 is proof of how lazy, myopic, and inept GM has been. Your argument is the same as when Apple came out with Apple Pay or Touch ID, for example, and others said, "Yeah, but, no but, yeah, but, Samsung was doing that years ago." Poorly thought-out, shit features are not how I want technology to proceed. Didn't you suffer enough wth IE6?
There's no there there. Yes, a car could leverage many technology investments Apple has to make anyway, but the trend in travel is "as a service" and that's not going to be good for high-end, distinctive vehicles. The travel experience and transport ownership are diverging. The experience will become more personal, the rest will become more corporate. In such a future, there's a place for the Apple experience but not a dedicated, Apple-supplied car.
Expect to see cars from existing manufacturers that offer the Apple experience as an option. The Subaru Outback Apple Edition, the Chevy Volt Apple Edition, even an Apple experience in Uber travel. But no Apple Car.
1) Oil companies are beholden to those that use oil, not the other way around. If Ford had the technology Tesla did today a decade ago they would had it on the market because that would push them ahead of all the other automotive companies.
2) Jets use fuel and they still have an autopilot option. Are you saying that jet fuel isn't made from petroleum?
GM made the EV1 in 1999. Had they continued researching, and pushing the tech back then they'd probably be way ahead of where Tesla is now.
1) Why are you bolding your comments?
2) You're actually arguing for GM and against Tesla, that GM is somehow better for dropping the ball when it came to R&D with electric cars? If anything, EV1 is proof of how lazy, myopic, and inept GM has been. Your argument is the same as when Apple came out with Apple Pay or Touch ID, for example, and others said, "Yeah, but, no but, yeah, but, Samsung was doing that years ago." Poorly thought-out, shit features are not how I want technology to proceed. Didn't you suffer enough wth IE6?
1) The only way to keep my cursor from jumping into previous comment bubble is by choosing the bold option.
2) I was merely reminding you that GM had a head start in electric car tech, and blamed the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road thus they killed the project.
The importance of the range of the car becomes less relevant because 99.9% of the time drivers are making short trips.
"Keep a gas car if you actually want to go anywhere" isn't that good a selling point. Never mind the speed of charging.
Speed of charging is irrelevant for most situations. You seem to presume always a "charging from empty" scenario, which isn't at all reality. But if you don't have an EV you won't seem to get it. As for long distance, 250+ mile EVs with the 100+ KWh charging (and increasing to 120 at some Superchargers and 150 for CCS) just makes that argument disappear. That's 20m to 80%.
But if you love oil, none of that will break your relationship.
There's no guarantee Tesla will even be around in 5-10 years. The company just sought out another 1/2 billion in new loans. They seem to be teetering on the edge of failure more often and if they miss their deliveries or sales goals too often, they're toast. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Musk is working like a man possessed to make Tesla and SpaceX work, but he's rushing it because he has to rush it. He has almost no cushion.
No guarantee, yes. But I wouldn't bet against Tesla. He took out some new big loans but the company is far in the lead in the electric car market and that market is set to explode with the launch of the Model 3. All up side. They'll also be selling people home batteries and solar panels to charge their car and power their home. They are well positioned.
[Tesla] have built a large charging network across the world.
What a ridiculous, laughable assertion. Stopped reading right there.
What's ridiculous about it? There are 703 Supercharger stations with 4,343 Superchargers on 4 continents: North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It's not everywhere in the world, but it's across the world, in the same vein that Apple Stores across the world—only 486 of those and they had a much longer head start. You might as well say that McDonald's being world-wide is a laughable assertion because there isn't a restaurant on the summit of Everest (there is a Starbucks¡).
There's 10,000 Seven Eleven's in North America, not to count all the other gas stations, restaurants, fast food establishments, any of which are primed for EV charging stations.
Um, you do understand that this helps Tesla sell more cars, not hinders it. One the main reasons people who can afford and want a Tesla are still holding back is because gas stations are so commonplace right now. When that increases then interest in Tesla also increases.
Tesla could as easily end up as Saturn, which never made any money and was heavily subsidized by GM.
1) What did Saturn ever do to revolutionize the automobile's underlying technologies? Again, whether Tesla as a company grows into a juggernaut that can buy, say, GM, or whether they are eventually sold to, say, Ford, it makes no difference when your argument is that Tesla is a "ridiculous" and "pointless" company that has "done nothing" for the automotive industry.
2) It's a weird argument when your claim that Tesla sucks is because a) they have debt, and 2) they aren't the biggest. Perhaps you should stop looking at every company like its Apple, and maybe do a little research to see that the Big 3 in the US and Japan have had massive debts, been on the brink of bankruptcy, and many have taken bailouts. Additionally, you should look at what automobile brands have the largest mindshare that sell considerably fewer units than Tesla.
Tesla's finance are BAD; if they hit any major problems in the next 2 years, they're close to gone (or will need to bought out to survive). They're coasting on good will but they've been using quite a bit and by the time they're actually making money it may be gone. You can hand wave that if you wish, but that's a fact.
Debt is not an issue if you have cash flow to pay for it. That's why the US can have such a big debt load and interest rates of US Bonds are so low.
Tesla has 400k reservations for a car that doesn't yet exist. Their standing in the capital markets is just fine.
Funny how how some of the biggest car manufacturers were in ACTUAL bankruptcy a few years ago (meaning the private capital markets weren't interested in them) but a Tesla is seemingly perpetuated argued to be on the border of insolvency. Yet they have plenty of investors willing to write them checks.
so a rumoured department, rumoured to be working on a rumoured "apple-car", rumoured to have hired certain people for certain tasks, is now rumoured to be firing those people in a rumour that the rumoured plans are changing following rumoured speculation.
I think the that when electric cars become main stream, they will quickly become highly commoditized with low margins, like televisions; so I can see why Apple may wish to avoid that particular market. But Apple can still contribute like they are doing with AppleTV and HomeKit, ResearchKit etc...
Apple's go to market strategy may include an automotive platform including the software framework and related key components technologies such as coherent navigation technologies and power management technologies. The same way HomeKit can have all your home appliances collaborating, CarKit and related protocols compliant automobiles will be able to collaborate on the roads for safety and traffic flow advantages.
Apple is already dealing with virtually all auto makers with CarPlay where each auto maker integrate some Apple Technologies in their infotainment systems. That can eventually be extended to a core framework that allows customization and differentiation while providing vital core technologies for the auto industry.
Note that Apple has already trademarked the term Iris Engine and Iris Picture Engine, these engines could be to recognize live 3D objects like pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles and 2D images such as road signs respectively. Apple is also working very hard on camera technologies that could compete with MobileEye technologies.
Imagine your car inside your garage first telling your garage door to open up and then telling other protocol compliant cars that it see in the driveway to move so that it can get out.
Time will tell.
So why is Apple still making smartphones, tablets and personal computers. All of those are highly commoditized low margin products too. Oh and you could throw smart watches in there too.
I hate it when people call people being let go "firing" when the people being "fired" have merely been let go due to business reasons, or things that aren't their fault.
At least in the US, being "fired" means it had something to do with your performance or something you clearly did wrong: there is a requirement that the employee was not fulfilling their end of the deal as they should, as an employee, whether it's poor performance, dishonesty/insubordination or theft or something else.
When a company lets someone go for business reasons (a change of plans, financial reasons, anything that has nothing to do with the affected employee other than the fact that they get let go) that's called a layoff.
The reason these terms are important to get correct is because this affects how readily ex-employees can be rehired, as well as their ability (depending on the state) to collect unemployment benefits, long-term. It's not remotely fair to say "so-and-so got fired from XYZ company." when it had nothing to do with their behavior: that puts a black mark on that person because you were careless and/or stupid. The facts are that companies make business decisions to pivot towards something else, either because of lack of money to pursue something, perhaps because they think they have some better use of their resources, or they conclude that what they were working towards just won't work out as well as intended, so it's simply time to pull the plug. Companies would ideally repurpose employees towards some other project rather than letting them go, but we don't live in an ideal world; if this were absolutely required of companies, people would be employed far beyond what makes sense for either the company or the employees, and the company would be financially more susceptible to things going wrong and not being able to reduce expenses, which would also result in even less job security overall for employees. I say this as someone that has been laid off from multiple places through no fault of my own, and yes, I've been fired at least once in my history: it is what it is.
In the US you can use fired to refer to any discharge from a position. The NOAD simply states, "the dismissal of an employee from a job."
There's what something you refer to as NOAD calls it (New Oxford American Dictionary? Nobody Owes Anyone Dollars? You didn't spell it out) but from a legal point of view, and what people that aren't kids in the US have used it as, being "fired" is NOT the same as a layoff, as explained: the unemployment office treats being fired as a negative, being laid off as just business.
For those that have been fired, they'd want "fired" to be a distinction without a difference from being let go through no fault of their own: for those that have not been fired, but laid off (i.e. employment terminated through no fault of their own) it's a very important distinction with a HUGE difference that affects their ability to potentially collect unemployment benefits immediately, and potentially future employment.
Precision in how things are used matters. What's used in the real world for how things are decided matters far more than some arbitrary dictionary or some other silly academic thing. Words can be destructive when used incorrectly.
I hate it when people call people being let go "firing" when the people being "fired" have merely been let go due to business reasons, or things that aren't their fault.
At least in the US, being "fired" means it had something to do with your performance or something you clearly did wrong: there is a requirement that the employee was not fulfilling their end of the deal as they should, as an employee, whether it's poor performance, dishonesty/insubordination or theft or something else.
When a company lets someone go for business reasons (a change of plans, financial reasons, anything that has nothing to do with the affected employee other than the fact that they get let go) that's called a layoff.
The reason these terms are important to get correct is because this affects how readily ex-employees can be rehired, as well as their ability (depending on the state) to collect unemployment benefits, long-term. It's not remotely fair to say "so-and-so got fired from XYZ company." when it had nothing to do with their behavior: that puts a black mark on that person because you were careless and/or stupid. The facts are that companies make business decisions to pivot towards something else, either because of lack of money to pursue something, perhaps because they think they have some better use of their resources, or they conclude that what they were working towards just won't work out as well as intended, so it's simply time to pull the plug. Companies would ideally repurpose employees towards some other project rather than letting them go, but we don't live in an ideal world; if this were absolutely required of companies, people would be employed far beyond what makes sense for either the company or the employees, and the company would be financially more susceptible to things going wrong and not being able to reduce expenses, which would also result in even less job security overall for employees. I say this as someone that has been laid off from multiple places through no fault of my own, and yes, I've been fired at least once in my history: it is what it is.
In the US you can use fired to refer to any discharge from a position. The NOAD simply states, "the dismissal of an employee from a job."
There's what something you refer to as NOAD calls it (New Oxford American Dictionary? Nobody Owes Anyone Dollars? You didn't spell it out) but from a legal point of view, and what people that aren't kids in the US have used it as, being "fired" is NOT the same as a layoff, as explained: the unemployment office treats being fired as a negative, being laid off as just business.
For those that have been fired, they'd want "fired" to be a distinction without a difference from being let go through no fault of their own: for those that have not been fired, but laid off (i.e. employment terminated through no fault of their own) it's a very important distinction with a HUGE difference that affects their ability to potentially collect unemployment benefits immediately, and potentially future employment.
Precision in how things are used matters. What's used in the real world for how things are decided matters far more than some arbitrary dictionary or some other silly academic thing. Words can be destructive when used incorrectly.
Words only have the power that we give them. Ask a person if they feel any better being laid off versus fired, and they'll answer with a resounding "No".
I hate it when people call people being let go "firing" when the people being "fired" have merely been let go due to business reasons, or things that aren't their fault.
At least in the US, being "fired" means it had something to do with your performance or something you clearly did wrong: there is a requirement that the employee was not fulfilling their end of the deal as they should, as an employee, whether it's poor performance, dishonesty/insubordination or theft or something else.
When a company lets someone go for business reasons (a change of plans, financial reasons, anything that has nothing to do with the affected employee other than the fact that they get let go) that's called a layoff.
The reason these terms are important to get correct is because this affects how readily ex-employees can be rehired, as well as their ability (depending on the state) to collect unemployment benefits, long-term. It's not remotely fair to say "so-and-so got fired from XYZ company." when it had nothing to do with their behavior: that puts a black mark on that person because you were careless and/or stupid. The facts are that companies make business decisions to pivot towards something else, either because of lack of money to pursue something, perhaps because they think they have some better use of their resources, or they conclude that what they were working towards just won't work out as well as intended, so it's simply time to pull the plug. Companies would ideally repurpose employees towards some other project rather than letting them go, but we don't live in an ideal world; if this were absolutely required of companies, people would be employed far beyond what makes sense for either the company or the employees, and the company would be financially more susceptible to things going wrong and not being able to reduce expenses, which would also result in even less job security overall for employees. I say this as someone that has been laid off from multiple places through no fault of my own, and yes, I've been fired at least once in my history: it is what it is.
In the US you can use fired to refer to any discharge from a position. The NOAD simply states, "the dismissal of an employee from a job."
There's what something you refer to as NOAD calls it (New Oxford American Dictionary? Nobody Owes Anyone Dollars? You didn't spell it out) but from a legal point of view, and what people that aren't kids in the US have used it as, being "fired" is NOT the same as a layoff, as explained: the unemployment office treats being fired as a negative, being laid off as just business.
For those that have been fired, they'd want "fired" to be a distinction without a difference from being let go through no fault of their own: for those that have not been fired, but laid off (i.e. employment terminated through no fault of their own) it's a very important distinction with a HUGE difference that affects their ability to potentially collect unemployment benefits immediately, and potentially future employment.
Precision in how things are used matters. What's used in the real world for how things are decided matters far more than some arbitrary dictionary or some other silly academic thing. Words can be destructive when used incorrectly.
Words only have the power that we give them. Ask a person if they feel any better being laid off versus fired, and they'll answer with a resounding "No".
How you personally feel about whether you've been fired or laid off is only your personal opinion, and you only speak for yourself in this matter. Your personal opinion has no bearing on the fact that: Lawyers Governments Potential employers
All make the distinction as to their meaning, in ways that affect your ability to be paid unemployment benefits or not, more readily find your next employment, and, as much as you'd not want to think it to be true, making untrue statements about others regarding their ability to do their work (claiming they were fired when they were laid off) can count as defamation of character in many jurisdictions.
You went out of your way to dispute verifiable facts with personal opinion. How can I be certain? Simple: I don't feel nearly as bad about being laid off for things not attributable to bad performance or something else that's legally allowable to fire someone for, because you don't need to worry nearly as much about getting your next employment. If you're a contractor, getting laid off at the end of the contract is normal and expected, and it may happen before the full hoped-for term is completed. In such cases, you may very well work another contract at that employer, or even hired full-time after that, if you were laid off: if you were fired, that typically removes you from ever working there again.
I have worked multiple contracts, and in 2 cases, twice at 2 well-known software/tech companies, and been asked to interview for FTE roles at both of them, and got hired FTE at the most recent one.
Comments
I'd prefer that public transit not be privatized thank you. Cause, they don't give a shit about the 40% of poor who won't be able to afford them.
They're coasting on good will but they've been using quite a bit and by the time they're actually making money it may be gone.
You can hand wave that if you wish, but that's a fact.
Debt is not an issue if you have cash flow to pay for it. That's why the US can have such a big debt load and interest rates of US Bonds are so low.
They won't be "more prone to errors" but people will sure make a big deal of any "error" that does occur. That would be a more accurate description.
If enough money is spent on a car RIGHT NOW, it can be fully autonomous. The only obstacle is making one that's doesn't cost 1 million dollar.
2) You're actually arguing for GM and against Tesla, that GM is somehow better for dropping the ball when it came to R&D with electric cars? If anything, EV1 is proof of how lazy, myopic, and inept GM has been. Your argument is the same as when Apple came out with Apple Pay or Touch ID, for example, and others said, "Yeah, but, no but, yeah, but, Samsung was doing that years ago." Poorly thought-out, shit features are not how I want technology to proceed. Didn't you suffer enough wth IE6?
Could just be my memory, but fog, snow, rain, and night still give those systems problems, last I heard.
2) I was merely reminding you that GM had a head start in electric car tech, and blamed the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road thus they killed the project.
But if you love oil, none of that will break your relationship.
Funny how how some of the biggest car manufacturers were in ACTUAL bankruptcy a few years ago (meaning the private capital markets weren't interested in them) but a Tesla is seemingly perpetuated argued to be on the border of insolvency. Yet they have plenty of investors willing to write them checks.
wow, this is what news is like these days.
For those that have been fired, they'd want "fired" to be a distinction without a difference from being let go through no fault of their own: for those that have not been fired, but laid off (i.e. employment terminated through no fault of their own) it's a very important distinction with a HUGE difference that affects their ability to potentially collect unemployment benefits immediately, and potentially future employment.
Precision in how things are used matters. What's used in the real world for how things are decided matters far more than some arbitrary dictionary or some other silly academic thing. Words can be destructive when used incorrectly.
Lawyers
Governments
Potential employers
All make the distinction as to their meaning, in ways that affect your ability to be paid unemployment benefits or not, more readily find your next employment, and, as much as you'd not want to think it to be true, making untrue statements about others regarding their ability to do their work (claiming they were fired when they were laid off) can count as defamation of character in many jurisdictions.
You went out of your way to dispute verifiable facts with personal opinion. How can I be certain? Simple: I don't feel nearly as bad about being laid off for things not attributable to bad performance or something else that's legally allowable to fire someone for, because you don't need to worry nearly as much about getting your next employment. If you're a contractor, getting laid off at the end of the contract is normal and expected, and it may happen before the full hoped-for term is completed. In such cases, you may very well work another contract at that employer, or even hired full-time after that, if you were laid off: if you were fired, that typically removes you from ever working there again.
I have worked multiple contracts, and in 2 cases, twice at 2 well-known software/tech companies, and been asked to interview for FTE roles at both of them, and got hired FTE at the most recent one.
Precise language usage matters!