This might be a naive question but what's to stop a company from telling a city or municipality that they meet the percentage? Not like there's any way the city can verify.
I suppose parking lot occupancy would give it away for the big businesses that have their own parking. One could probably cheat this by getting car fleet purchasing power and storing vehicles in said lots but I think that may be obvious and getting caught would be quite the scandal.
Once again, its no ones job to enforce this much less inspect parking lots. You could go all “well they could mine satellite data” and sure they could but they could do that for a lot of issues that they don’t currently. Like how you can see that many homes are hoarder houses/illegal dumps just from a cursory panning of satellite imagery and the city doesn’t do anything.
If you have been in the SV area too long, it is easy to forget this but in most places most companies strive to obey the law. Because social compact and a predictable regime of how people behave and all that.
I think the US was very concerned at the time that Chile under Allende would become a client state or a vassal of the Soviet Union similar to Cuba. The US still upholds the Monroe Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the New World by foreign powers is a threat to the US. The US does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
I think that's an accurate explanation that many people will take as an excuse or justification.
The short of it is "the US (like all powers which can afford to, but more) will do whatever it needs to do for its benefit while crucifying the same actions from anyone else".
That sounds scarily familiar to how Russia sees Ukraine today, and I'm unable to see how it could justify what happened in the past or justify what is happening now.
From a HN commentator in 2054:
> I think Russia was very concerned at the time that Ukraine under Zelensky would become a client state or a vassal of the US. Russia still upholds the "No outsiders" Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the Russian World by foreign powers is a threat to Russia. Russia does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
Yes, it's pretty much identical to Russia-Ukraine. And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.
There is no morality in geopolitics. In the anarchic international system, there is no global enforcement mechanism, so states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others. In short, might makes right in this system.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
Compared to other prospects for that 18 year old? College is out of reach without help and the military is a good way to get the help needed to go there.
> And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.
Yeah, I guess it's a thin line between "providing neutral historical context and reasoning" and "implicitly suggesting that the reasoning makes the actions acceptable or understandable". I'll trust what you're saying though and assume you're not actually trying to justifying it.
> states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others
I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
> I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
For some countries, maximizing their security simply means trying to survive and not get taken over. These are typically smaller countries such as Armenia. They can't afford to focus on their economic well-being or working with other nations if their existence is threatened. For other countries that are established powers, maximizing security can mean anything from securing the territory it currently holds (India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea) to expanding its territory (Russia, Azerbaijan) to getting or maintaining a sphere of influence (US, Russia, China).
The "Russia is just defending their geographical sphere of interest" argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine only comes from Western isolationists and pro-Russia activists.
The actual internal political communication within Russia makes it clear that they don't consider Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity as legitimate. That is why they want to annex Ukraine. Putin launched the invasion in a speech where called Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist.
But more importantly, from a "realpolitik" International Relations perspective, the biggest problem with the invasion of Ukraine is that Russia couldn't win it as swiftly as it believed it could. If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it. Because they failed, they get the US and other Western allies supporting a resistance for the stated goal of defending Ukraine's sovereignty but for the true goal of not allowing Russia to grow stronger.
> If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it.
Show me one instance in which a permanent member of the UN security council successfully invaded another country and suffered any real repercussion other than political backlash.
Downvoting me and saying "not true" doesn't make it less true.
It was in fact a Soviet client state, but the Soviets themselves were starving in 1973 (they were actually importing US grains) and couldn't provide enough assistance to both Cuba and Chile.
I understand that companies need some sort of SAT/ACT-like method to rank candidates. I completely understand that part since there aren't really licenses in software engineering like other engineering fields. But I feel like a better way would be to present candidates with questions and problems actually related to the job. For example, if the job requires an understanding of Pandas, perhaps giving candidates actual tasks in Pandas would be better than asking them to traverse a binary tree.
They don't want to hire someone who knows Pandas specifically. They want someone who can identify this technology, learn it and then possibly implement it. And more importantly - someone who can do the same when the situation calls for some other technology. This is the crux imo.
There are many fields of engineering where practicing without a license is against the law, with licensing exams directly related to education and skill.
Technology has more or less co-opted the term but it used to be that “engineer” was fairly synonymous with licensed professions.
Where is this? My experience is in the US and my background is physical engineering. A license does not confer competency. Competency is not testable except at the most rudimentary levels. I wouldn't trust an engineer with anything important because they were licensed. Licensing is about liability, not competency.
It would be useful if we could devise a filter for engineers in software but it hasn't proven effective in any other engineering discipline in my experience. Software is even more prone to cargo-culting fashions than more traditional engineering disciplines and I would hate to see them enforced as "best practice" with the force of law.
Why can't the US treat education seriously the way East Asian countries do? Or hell, even the way Germany does with its emphasis on vocational schooling as an alternative to university?
Feels like the US picked the worst of both these systems.
> Or hell, even the way Germany does with its emphasis on vocational schooling as an alternative to university?
Increasing emphasis on vocational schooling would probably be a good idea from an economic (when viewed outside the narrow free market lens) and national competitiveness standpoint.
I kind of feel like there may be some ideological factors going on, but I don't know enough about Germany or East Asia to comment. Are those countries more comfortable with certain kinds of inequality or are vocational professions more respected (or a little bit of both)?
In Germany I think it's a bit of both. Beginning in 5th grade, pupils attend different schools. It differs a bit between the states, but generally those in the university track schools (gymnasium) will attend secondary school until 12th or 13th grade then go on to university while the other schools finish at 9th or 10th grade. Those students can then begin working, take an apprenticeship or attend vocational school.
While it may be beneficial to have support for apprenticeships and vocational training, it's controversial that the decision point is made so early. At that age, it may be less about the child's ambitions and abilities and more about the family's resources and social class.
> While it may be beneficial to have support for apprenticeships and vocational training, it's controversial that the decision point is made so early. At that age, it may be less about the child's ambitions and abilities and more about the family's resources and social class.
Part of me thinks that may not be such a bad thing. It's very meritocratic thinking to assume that the smartest ("best") kids should always bubble to the top, but that also probably has some perverse consequences. All parts of society need and benefit from talent (e.g. becoming a union leader or a really skilled mechanic), and concentrating talent at the top helps tell a (false) moral story that only those at the top are really deserving of the rewards.
A lot of Americans don't actually value education, as in learning, they value the degrees. Once you understand this, you understand why parents push for backwards things such as grade inflation.
Education in the abstract is good, but East Asia is probably not the model to emulate. IMO East Asia has Goodharted "education" to the point of being acutely destructive to society. South Korea treats education so seriously that the endless death march of cram school is widely cited as a primary cause of their cratering birth rate. China recently realized the zero-sum rat race of private school tutoring was causing a similar effect and is trying to ban it. There are fixes to be applied to US education but East Asia isn't where to look to.
There's a very interesting book related to this called "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene that looks at the Tao Te Ching from the perspective of Orthodox Christianity.
> Linguicism is an idea invented by human-rights activist and linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas to describe discrimination based on language or dialect. The prejudice around “aks” is an example of linguicism.
> Decades of research shows that the idea that any variation from standard English is incorrect (or, worse, unprofessional or uneducated) is a smokescreen for prejudice. Linguicism can have serious consequences by worsening existing socio-economic and racial inequalities.
No, this is utter rubbish. While languages do change over time, most modern languages have their own standard form. You can't just say that it's prejudicial just because someone gets called out or judged for mispronouncing a word. In fact, they should be. Proficiency in the standard form of a nation-state's language is crucial to being an informed citizen.
Not everybody's whim should be accommodated. At some point, people need to take personal responsibility. Leave this ideological post-modern woke BS out of linguistics.
As much as I'm a prescriptivist, the particular case of "aks" has just as much historical correctness as "ask" in English. The only place that "ask" wins is when comparing similar words in Continental languages.
"Chaucer used ask, ax, and axe interchangeably." but ask was the original form: "From Middle English asken (also esken, aschen, eschen, etc.), from Old English āscian, from Proto-West Germanic aiskōn" -- wictionary
Linguistics as practiced for a long time is descriptive. It is the only practice that makes any sense given the extreme diversity of linguistic forms present in the world.
How about you leave your pre-modern prescriptive prejudice out of linguistics.
If you want to discriminate against people for how they speak, that's your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with linguistics as practiced.
How about this: Yes, linguistics is descriptive. In the world we live in, some people say "aks". And that is regarded as a marker of lower class/uneducated people, and is not generally used by educated/upper class/professional people.
It seems to me that linguistics should note that, yes, it is used, and it has a very definite meaning, and it has a connotation about the social class and education of the speaker, and is therefore considered socially improper even if it is linguistically proper.
Sure, maybe it ought to be denoted in academic terms that in a particular geographical area that a particular linguistic form is reflective of certain socio-economic attributes of the speaker.
The comment I was responding to was deriving moral law from a "standard form" and shaming those who were grown or educated in an alternative form. In fact not just shaming, but proclaiming the righteousness of discrimination based upon one's dialect.
A linguist or sociologist would describe that some form does get used and discrimination happens because of it. But they would not be prescriptive in either, and especially not the latter.
Related note: car stealerships are a relic of the past. There is no reason why a middleman should exist when buying a car. Consumers should have the option to purchase directly from the manufacturer.
I am personally not a fan of Tesla as a vehicle, but I admire the business model of buying directly from Tesla. Stealerships are a drain on the consumer. All that land they own can be used for productive economic activity or housing.
> All that land they own can be used for productive economic activity or housing.
No it can't. You still need places where cars can be repaired as well as storage for parts/cars inventory. The only way you reclaim some land is if service gets worse.
Edit: For example, Tesla sells direct to consumers but there's still a Tesla "showroom" in my town. In terms of footprint/appearance it's basically a dealership. So where are the land savings?
> No it can't. You still need places where cars can be repaired as well as storage for parts/cars inventory. The only way you reclaim some land is if service gets worse.
You probably aren't going to have 10 Ford dealerships in town all selling the same models of cars. That's where the space savings comes in.
As for parts/service, that also gets more streamlined as you aren't likely to have the audi/ford/dodge dealerships and instead just the 1 ford manufacturer in town.
What competition? We are talking about ford. It's not like these dealers are making ford vehicles or getting different prices from the manufacture.
The competition is that besides ford there's going to be a GM, stellates, and Audi lot (probably).
If we want more competition, we get it not by having dealers competing over who can screw you the most with the best hidden fee, we get it by adding more car manufacturers.
Yeah, the footprint of my local mechanics are peanuts compared to the gigantic parking lots gobbled up by dealerships. Parts take space, but not 5 acres of space.
The difference is those places could be relocated to where all the other warehouses are, out in the boonies, rather in the city where we want housing and business. The only places that can't move are repair shops, which have a much smaller footprint than an entire dealership and are thus not a problem to keep around
The original purpose of dealerships was to isolate "vehicle manufacturer going bankrupt" from "organization you bought your car from going bankrupt" events.
The idea was "if you buy a VinFast" from vinfast and they exit the market, you're 100% hosed, but if you buy a VinFast from "Karl Marx VinFast and Fiskar Dealerships of North Idaho" you can go back and talk to KMoNI Inc about your new car.
The dealership model was established a very long time ago back in the cambrian explosion era of car manufacterers and people were buying cars from companies like Auburn, Cole, Crow, Davis, Dixie, Durant, Elcar, Grant, King, Kline, Lafayette, Kurtz, Marmon, Mercer, Overland, Peerless, Pilot, Roamer, Saxon, Stearns, Velie, Wescott and Winton [1] and then the company would vanish and there would be no support.
Towns don’t all need one Unilever store to sell your Ben&Jerry’s, your Dove body wash, and your Hellmans Mayo, then a separate Procter and Gamble store that sells Tide, Pampers and Bounty.
Why can’t you just get all the main car brands at Costco?
>Consumers should have the option to purchase directly from the manufacturer.
They should have the option, sure.
But what difference do you think this makes in reality? The process ends up being the similar.
>but I admire the business model of buying directly from Tesla
A lot of people don't want to buy a $40,000+ item online. Tesla understands this, which is why they opened "showrooms" to have real people walk you through the process.
Oh, and let's not get started on surprise repair costs from Tesla, as if they are immune to that ridiculousness.
Saying "no stealerships" (so clever) doesn't change the fact that there's a manual process involved with buying a car.
> But what difference do you think this makes in reality? The process ends up being the similar.
But there isn't a middleman with big facilities and staff to feed, so the resulting product can be cheaper, with the process being streamlined because the middleman's job is to milk you for all they can, meanwhile the original vendor just wants to sell their product.
> But what difference do you think this makes in reality? The process ends up being the similar.
The difference is the price listed is the price you pay. There's not an environment where the dealer is injecting whatever BS fee or piss poor financing they can to milk out every extra cent from the customer.
The manufacture is incentivized to sell these cars at the advertised price.
>The difference is the price listed is the price you pay. There's not an environment where the dealer is injecting whatever BS fee or piss poor financing they can to milk out every extra cent from the customer.
What does the "advertised price" mean, when companies like Tesla can, and do, change it on a whim? Is that really better?
No one is stopping you from walking into a dealership and paying sticker/MSRP.
What does Tesla do differently regarding changing product prices that they're worth calling out compared to other companies?
My personal experience is that they honoured my order and delivered a vehicle superior in every metric but "turning radius". (Which has a far higher price if ordered again on my delivery day)
Every company in every industry modifies products and pricing? See e.g. "shrinkflation"
I think you go too far. I too have a deep dislike for dealerships, but they are not useless. Specifically, it's a place you can go to test drive cars and they have OEM-certified garages for warranty repairs. Can't test drive when you buy online.
I think the main problem with dealerships is the government granted monopoly. If a dealership is in a region, most states prevent any other dealership from setting up shop in that region. That's why so many of them are passed from father to son like a dynasty. No competition at all -- and they act like it.
Restore competition and the "stealership" aspect should go away.
>Specifically, it's a place you can go to test drive cars and they have OEM-certified garages for warranty repairs. Can't test drive when you buy online.
Tesla doesn't have independent dealerships and it's quite easy to test drive their cars before you buy.
To be fair, how many copies of one car do you need? Once you got 15 models on display you should be good to go for testing purposes. You don’t need a parking lot with a hundred cars.
Some people want to buy a car _today_. Lots of people want to buy a car this week. Fewer people have the patience and funds to pay and wait for car on order.
I'm not sure why you hate car dealerships so much, doesn't your opinion apply to any distributor between the manufacturer and the end consumer? This is a the same narrative that people said about bicycle retailers as well, but there are significant problems with the DTC model, notably service and support. And if you look where dealerships are located nobody wants to build housing in a big strip beside the freeway.
> They have considerable political influence and have lobbied for regulations that guarantee their survival and profitability. By 2010, all US states had laws that prohibited manufacturers from side-stepping independent car dealerships and selling cars directly to consumers. By 2009, most states imposed restrictions on the creation of new dealerships to compete with incumbent dealerships.
Dealerships are more entrenched, but the economics aren't that different from big box stores selling white goods, bike shops selling bikes, etc. Retailing is hard, expensive, and idiosyncratic; providing adequate after sale service is worse. A manufacturer might reasonably prefer to make and market cars, while shuffling the inventory risk and retailing cost off to someone else.
I'm not defending the dealership model but when you use the term "stealership" in any way other than making fun of people who say it unironically, you come off as the same kind of person who says "M$" when referring to Microsoft. Out of touch and impossible to reason with.
It's interesting, because in theory the requirement for independent dealerships could promote competition - they can compete to offer the lowest markup over MSRP, offer different addons, or offer better service. Just like going to a specialist shop for computer parts or audio gear or whatnot.
But instead we ended up with a system where car dealerships basically own local lawmakers and got laws passed that not only prevent the manufacturer from competing with them, but make it really hard for people to start new dealerships to compete with them. And the experience shopping for cars at a dealership is absolutely terrible, which shows you that they don't feel any pressure to compete.
>But instead we ended up with a system where car dealerships basically own local lawmakers and got laws passed that not only prevent the manufacturer from competing with them, but make it really hard for people to start new dealerships to compete with them.
There are practical reasons for this. People buy expensive items and expect to be able to get those items maintained and serviced. If the business was cutthroat, that could be more difficult. I don't want my dealer going bankrupt, frankly.
But the idea that dealerships aren't out there competing with each other is insane. Have you ever actually bought a new car?
>And the experience shopping for cars at a dealership is absolutely terrible, which shows you that they don't feel any pressure to compete.
Just the complete opposite experience I've had in my lifetime of buying new vehicles. And the idea that they don't compete is an outright fabrication. You have an incredible amount of leverage buying a car, and you can shop quotes around.
And the idea that they don't compete is an outright fabrication.
Not when almost all the dealerships in given region are own by the same family. Here the same group own the Genesis, Infiniti, Kia, Hyundai, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Volvo dealerships in a 100km radius.
If I want a Mazda I can get a quote from Joe Cardealar or I can drive 50km and get a quote from his brother Steve Cardealar.
Yes, I've bought cars a couple times, and also had to trade-in cars. Every dealership experience I had was drawn-out misery where they tried to scam me. Maybe it depends on where you live?
Carmax was fairly OK in comparison to my experience with dealers but still took like 8 hours.
Exactly. And once they know you are interested, you have all the leverage, because there are so many great cars out there. You can negotiate ferociously.
I once had the salesman turn his terminal around and say to me, "Have a look. By the time we pay the guys to detail and prep the car, we will make $700 off this sale. I have no more room."
Which was a negotiation tactic and a lie, since dealers make a lot of their money from volume bonuses and not just the price difference of a car. "Invoice price" is also often not the actual price dealerships pay for a vehicle.
> People buy expensive items and expect to be able to get those items maintained and serviced. If the business was cutthroat, that could be more difficult. I don't want my dealer going bankrupt, frankly.
It did work that way though. I've never payed MSRP on a brand new car. Good luck doing that if all you can do is order from the manufacturer's website.
It depends upon if Apple tried to set price controls and how successful they were at pursuing businesses that violated them.
For example, Games Workshop doesn't like when 3rd party retailers charge less, but it's easy to find 3rd party retailers that charge less than Games Workshop on their website.
In response they've increasingly made certain models online only and its always at full markup.
I'm not in love with dealerships, but one thing that a dealership does is provide final QA on inbound cars. They don't catch everything, but they do catch some of the things that slipped through QA at time of manufacture.
It's somewhat telling that Tesla has a bad reputation for delivered quality, and they don't have a dealership network that does final QA.
Of course, dealerships also like to install unnecessary options while they're doing the other parts of dealer prep, so it's a mixed bag.
Indeed, a good dealer will spend several hours checking out the new arrivals and then detailing them to remove the transport dirt. AFAICT Tesla doesn't do this as well themselves, both my Model 3s had some fairly obvious defects that took me under a minute to spot.
It is kind of a crazy model. You don't go to the Pepsi store for Pepsi and the Coke store for Coke. The exclusivity dealerships get enshrined in law is kinda nuts.
Still, I think there is something to be said for independent dealerships overall for service quality. Trying to get a Tesla serviced is still something of a nightmare. In comparison the service departments of dealerships have are much more robust.
I used to work for Pepsi-Co so I am well aware of how their distribution works.
But in this case, at the point of retail it makes no difference. The store can sell as many different brands as they want. The problem is not the middlemen, it's the exclusivity arrangements that disincentivize brand competition.
Unfortunately the soda business isn't free of noxious exclusivity deals either. Restaurants almost never have both Coke and Pepsi products, it's either one or the other. As I understand it that's because restaurants get a lower price if they agree to exclusively offer one brand.
One of my dealers locally sells both Ford and Chevy. It's great for cross shopping. There can be exclusivity arrangements, sure, but it's not set in stone. And in any case Coke & Pepsi absolutely have the same sorts of arrangements with both retailers and restaurants.
Once your car is older/out of warranty, yes. New cars under warranty pretty much go to the dealer.
Dealers actually don't know much about their older cars. Try to bring for example a 1990's era (or really anything more than 10 years old or so) Mercedes to a dealer for service, none of their techs have any idea what it is, unless they happen to have an old guy.
Dealership shops are trained and reasonably competent working on newer stuff that's under warranty coverage. Older than that, you can often get better workmanship and cheaper prices with an independent.
I never go to the local guy. My dad did, but he loved old cars more than I do. And the one time I did go to his guy, I was astonished at how much he charged. Made the dealer seem downright competitive. And the dealer definitely has better access to parts and model-specific knowledge.
Yea, I was always a "never get your car serviced at the stealership" snob, until I moved homes. Now I'm in a different city and I haven't found a trustable mechanic yet, so for things I can't repair myself, I'm going to bring it to the dealership.
Yup, I had a guy over tighten a spark plug and totally ruin my engine. Had to have the master cylinder repair then it finally crapped out... just to save some dough.
And there's a HUGE ecosystem of repair, service and resale around traditional dealer networks. I'm pretty sure Tesla would say that for their model (that doesn't have this) this is a feature - from which they benefit immensely.
> Trying to get a Tesla serviced is still something of a nightmare
They literally come to my house and fix things, it's incredibly easy for me, but I have four service locations within 30 minutes drive, so may not be the common experience.
Why is this a related note? Is the regulatory framework around car retail a contributing factor to their vulnerability to ransomware?
This feels like a reflexive response to the mention of the word ‘car dealerships’, not something that will lead to a discussion of the substance of this article.
> There is no reason why a middleman should exist when buying a car.
There are for the politicians who benefit from the lobbying the dealerships do!
I agree with you though, I just don't love the entire model of dealerships being that some local person just wants to run their own business and this is the easiest. So little brand or experience consistency across dealerships and so much perception that the person benefiting most from your transaction is the dealership itself. I have zero interest in putting any money in some locals pocket for a car transaction, I'd really rather it all just go directly to Toyota and have Toyota keep a more consistent experience across the country.
Manufacturers want to offload the customer service as it's extremely expensive as well as limit liability. That's why dealers exist and will continue to exist.
That's a hell of a purchase to make effectively "sight unseen" without the ability to test drive the vehicle first which you would do at a dealership.
The last vehicle I purchased was certified preowned and I went through several models before landing on one - much of my decision was based on how the vehicle handled to me.
I've been in rental cars that I wouldn't buy based on driving them for 5 minutes. IMHO, a test drive is to confirm the car basically works. Some of the value is just from sitting in the car, but is there any thing terrible going on with steering, visibility, pedal feel, shifting, etc.
For my car shopping, I've usually been locked into a model before I visit the dealer/private party, but if I test drive a car and it drives like some of those rentals, I'd be back to looking at other things. I also just recently test drove a lower trim / different engine/transmission configuration vehicle than I wanted, because that configuration was available to test drive and the desired one wasn't... and I was pleasantly surprised by the drivability, so I broadened my search (helps that the configuration I wanted is more expensive and less produced; it's easier to compromise towards something that I might be able to buy for less)
Yep, I've never gotten anything out of the test drive either - my mind was already made up based on price/features when I went to the dealership. I'm more-or-less just looking for something that gets me where I need to go safely, I don't care about "handling." My last car purchase (a Nissan Sentra) I didn't even bother with the test drive, I felt it would just be a waste of time.
The other thing is that some "car people" that I know will rent a car before purchasing it because the test drive is far too superficial for them.
I already answered in the comment you are replying to -
"my mind was already made up based on price/features"
and
"I'm more-or-less just looking for something that gets me where I need to go safely."
I know that "car guys" can't fathom this but I've driven a LOT of car models (as I've rented a LOT) and they are (mostly) the same to me; I consider cars almost a commodity. I wouldn't even know how to compare vehicle "handling."
>You’ve driven a lot of car models yet you wouldn’t know how to compare handling?
Correct. I've also been driving for a quarter of a century.
>That claim seems disingenuous, in order to serve up a point.
>You most certainly would be able to differentiate and compare
No I wouldn't. I swear to you I'm not lying. A car is a car to me. There are different sizes and some are a bit more comfortable than others but they are mostly the same to me. I don't even know what "handling" even means, I've never had a car behave unexpectedly when turning the wheel.
In sure I would notice a difference if I was racing or something, but I'm not, I'm just going to the god damn grocery store.
>We buy so many things "sight unseen" because of the quality and reliability.
Name 1 or 2 other things you buy "sight unseen" that are remotely close to the cost of a new vehicle.
>I will buy a reliable car sight unseen like I bought my big screen t.v.
If you have zero preference for the multitude of ways even similar cars can vary, you aren't an average car buyer. Most people care about these things, be it sight lines, headroom, where the chargers are, driving dynamics...
>Name 1 or 2 other things you buy "sight unseen" that are remotely close to the cost of a new vehicle
That question cannot be answered, we all know that nothing is comparable to that price in an average household's shopping list.
But a few years ago a shoe purchase was in store only but a month ago I bought a new pair online. Because I knew that I could try it and return it easily.
> I will buy a reliable car sight unseen like I bought my big screen t.v.
A few years back I was convinced I wanted a certain model Hyundai (Elantra), researched the hell out of it, figured I didn't even need to test drive as I had owned the previous model. Got to the dealership, sat in the drivers seat and found there was no headroom. I'm not that tall, but the new model was so "aerodynamic" (swept back windshield) that it felt claustrophobic. I bought another model (Sonata).
There are Tesla showrooms where you can do test drives.
The key difference that the place is owned by the car company instead of rich middlemen that engage in regulatory capture, add markups that don't go the manufacturer and degrade the experience.
National Auto Dealers Association (NADA). Once there was a large number of these independent dealers, they had the political sway to get it made into law.
> car stealerships are a relic of the past. There is no reason why a middleman should exist when buying a car. Consumers should have the option to purchase directly from the manufacturer.
This is really such a classic clueless HN comment from someone who both doesn't understand business and hasn't taken the time to understand why things are done the way that they are. (My comment doesn't mean in any way that things can't and shouldn't change and/or can't be improved. But seriously calling them in part 'stealerships'. And 'there is no reason'. Thanks for having it all figured out.
...okay, and what understanding of the business and the way things are done are you bringing to bear here? I as well don't like OPs rhetoric but if you don't have a counter why...counter?
It's what we had before the laws prohibiting direct-to-consumer/manufacturer-owned dealerships. It's hard for me to find any reliable sources that explain why we got those laws though (was it because direct-to-consumer was bad?)
It seems like the EU has reined in the worst excesses of dealerships a lot, and allows direct-to-consumer. Maybe the US will follow suit in a few decades.
In the early days of the automobile, auto manufacturers didn't have the resources to have stores in every town in America. People couldn't just get a vehicle in Atlanta from Detroit if they didn't have a way to get there. Dealers both organically popped up, and some manufacturers actively engaged with local dealers to get their cars out to a broader audience (e.g. Ford with the Model T).
But as those manufacturers and dealers grew, they then had the resources to operate at broader geographies, and dealers lobbed for franchise laws to "protect local businesses", etc.
Dealerships came about because car manufacturers were demanding that all service go through their dealerships at crazy marked up prices. So dealerships started as way to "protect the consumer" but quickly because terrible places all on their own.
Hard disagree. Shitty car dealers should be a relic of the past, sure, but the business model is sound. It's basically like every other product you buy. How often are you buying from the manufacturer? Almost everything you buy from a store. That's what a dealership is.
Inventory is nice to have for all the same reasons you are happy the home store has inventory. And a built-in service department with a good parts and knowledge source is pretty important for a big expensive device which requires maintenance and that you're going to keep long enough for it to break a couple times.
The laws protecting them, I do think should be repealed. But I don't see the business model going anywhere. And I am on my second Tesla, so I see the alternative. The buying experience is easier, sure, but otherwise it's all the same shit under a different name. And some dealers can provide the same experience, frankly. In the future all of them will, or they will go out of business.
> It makes me also realize how truly deplorable Putin is for constantly threatening to recreate such a situation for his own personal gain.
I don't think Putin is doing this for his own personal gain. I think the majority of Russian leaders in Putin's place would probably have taken a similar course of action. Maybe not threatening nuclear war, but definitely having a similar Ukraine policy.
Japanese inflation is only a recent phenomenon. Prior to the pandemic, they were experiencing deflation and the BoJ was doing everything in its power to get some inflation. The falling birth rate, on the other hand, has been going on for far longer than monetary inflation.
Falling birth rates are often correlated with discretionary income levels and women's education.
> You live in a country with the wrong type of political system for that. Valuing everyone's opinion equally is called democracy.
Infrastructure should not be subject to peoples' opinions. Like utilities and defense, infrastructure is crucial for security and commerce. People simply don't know better.
Totally agree on this one. I am a free market proponent but when it comes to infrastructure projects, often its hard for even the free market to get it right and its often better for a central plan to work off of (roads, electrical transmission lines, etc)
Mine is we need to stop pandering to weirdos when it comes to public infrastructure projects. There is a political process for approving them. And we shouldn't let weirdos get endless do overs in the courts when they lose.
but there is a solution to this problem: education.
and i don't mean propaganda, but teaching people not to be selfish, to care for others and consider others needs, to contribute to the betterment of society. to have compassion, remove prejudice, etc.
if these values were taught in schools, then the next generation would make better choices and they would know better and vote for better infrastructure.
It's hard to educate the next generation when everyone of all ages is exposed to relentless propaganda (also known as marketing, in all forms including the fully legalized corruption of US politics) at the same time.
Oil and car companies' futures depend on continued public support for free parking, more lanes and housing far away from destinations. It's in their interest to manipulate people into opinions that are beneficial to their bottom line, and they will continue to do so.
no, it requires even more critical examination. people need to learn more about the issues involved, and try to understand the needs and fears of others, and to work out a solution that everybody can live with.
a consistent vision is that everyone has a right to live their live according to their own ideas, as long as that doesn't affect others. but this vision requires an understanding that we all are contributing with good intentions.
it is the good intentions that we need to instill in everyone.
What you’re describing absolutely does not exist if you have any of the current religions.
Look at the abortion debate. One side is about the rights of the woman and the other side is about the rights of the fetus. When people see the fetus as a baby, it suddenly becomes murder. There isn’t much nuance there for a compromise.
What you’re describing absolutely does not exist if you have any of the current religions.
what are current religions for you?
i do not want to promote a particular religion on this site, but there are options out there that you may not yet have considered.
i also believe that while peoples behavior reflects their religion, the religions do not control or limit anyones ability to examine things critically. if you are in a religious community that does that, i'd urge you to get out as soon as possible.
Look at the abortion debate
that kind of feels like moving the goalpost. just because there is one topic where a compromise is difficult, if not impossible, doesn't mean the whole idea of finding a solution that works for everyone is not possible.
i am not american, so i am observing the debate as it happens there only from the sidelines. one of the primary criticisms i see against the anti abortion crowd is that they don't consider helping parents with resources they need to raise the baby. where i come from this is mostly a solved problem, because parents, including single mothers, receive plenty of support to raise children.
but more importantly i have a problem with the major religions being obsessed with punishing people for breaking god's laws. as humans we need to concern ourselves with those crimes that actually cause problems in our society, and leave the punishment of breaking god's laws to god.
the compromise is to recognize the needs of the mother as well as that of the unborn child.
You completely lost the thread. My reply is that your notion of “education will make everyone agree on things” is childish and completely ridiculous in light of even basic religious and political debates. Very smart people on both sides are definitely empathetic yet want to vote to stop the other side.
It’s not shifting any goalposts at all. All it takes is one example to show how the idea fails and that’s what I provided.
well, one of the goals of education needs to be to show that there is no other side. we are all humans, in one global society, and thus we should all be on the same side. there should be no opposition. we need to be open to everyone. and the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself.
education means teaching people that it is desirable and beneficial to cooperate, and that it is necessary to put aside our differences in order to achieve that.
you assume that current religious doctrines trump any hope of achieving that. but i beg to differ. every religion in its core is based on love, and therefore any form rejection of non-believers is already a failure of the core beliefs of every religion.
and for every claim that their rejection or hatred is backed by their holy scripture, we can find another member of that same religion who disagrees. i have been participating in interreligious dialogue and i know that peaceful coexistence and cooperation among religions is possible.
The divine teachings are intended to create a bond of unity in the human world and establish the foundations of love and fellowship among mankind. Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred
The establishing of the divine religions is for peace, not for war and the shedding of blood. Inasmuch as all are founded upon one reality which is love and unity, the wars and dissensions which have characterized the history of religion have been due to imitations and superstitions which arise afterward. Religion is reality and reality is one. The fundamentals of the religion of God are therefore one in reality. There is neither difference nor change in the fundamentals. Variance is caused by blind imitations, prejudices and adherence to forms which appear later, and inasmuch as these differ, discord and strife result. If the religions of the world would forsake these causes of difficulty and seek the fundamentals, all would agree, and strife and dissension would pass away
>as humans we need to concern ourselves with those crimes that actually cause problems in our society, and leave the punishment of breaking god's laws to god.
Religious leaders mostly disagree with you, and in religious societies, their beliefs are reflected in public policy.
well that is something we need to fix then, isn't it?
for starters, better education will also affect future religious leaders and make them better leaders. but the religions themselves also need critical examination. examples for a better model for religions exist. we need to look at them and adopt some of their ideas.
this discussion shows how the process works. we identify a problem, look for potential solutions, and in the process we find other problems that get in the way, so we work on those problems, until we find issues we can actually fix. and once fixed earlier found issues can be fixed as well, and so on. every step along the way we are making the world a little bit better than before.
Sorry, no. What you write makes absolutely no sense to a religious person. A religion (any religion) is, by definition, correct, and doesn't have any problems. It's not a thing based on any kind of rational thought, but rather pure fantastical belief. You can't "fix" that, when its believers don't think there's anything to fix.
Of course, you're looking at this as an outsider who doesn't believe the religion, so you don't see it this way, and you have entirely different goals in mind. You're probably thinking about people living together in a pluralistic world or something like that, but that's not a concern to a True Believer in a religion, where anyone who disagrees with the religion either needs to stay out of the way or be killed if necessary.
so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok, and reformation was unnecessary? have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? same for other religions too. is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture? i think not. and until it is, there is room for improvement.
i am a religious person, btw. and i absolutely believe that religion needs to change and advance just like everything else on this planet. the purpose of religion is to address the problems a society faces in its time. as our society advances, so must religion, to be ready to address the problems of a modern changing society. if it can't do that it needs to be replaced by another. this is exactly what jesus did, and the reason why he came to earth. and it is the reason why he promised to return. it is the purpose of all of god's messengers to advance and reform our religious beliefs.
>so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok
Absolutely, yes, if you ask the religious people who did those things. Of course, non-religious people (or people of a different religion) disagree, but that's simply a difference of opinion.
>have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time?
It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at. Are you looking at the Mormons, the "supply side Christians" that are popular in American mega-churches, the rather liberal Presbyterians, or what?
>is everything religious leaders and people do in the name of religion today backed by their holy scripture?
I'm pretty sure it is. You can interpret that scripture an infinite number of ways, so they always seem to find some way of supporting their claims.
>there is room for improvement.
"improvement" is your opinion only. For them, your idea of "needed changes" are anathema.
>this is exactly what jesus did,
Jesus specifically said (if you believe the quotes in the bible are true) that he did NOT come to replace anything. Of course, the teachings attributed to him are quite different from the religion he claimed not to be replacing. And of course, there's no real evidence to support any of this, either his existence, the words claimed to have been said by him, the previous religion the people in that region followed, etc.
It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries.
Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything
and as for the words, well, the bible is authentically almost 2000 years old. so someone must have said the words that the people in the bible report. of course, given how the bible was written it is hard to find real evidence for that. so i am not faulting you for not believing it to be real.
to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world.
alternatively, it's time to look for their replacement. it is possible that jesus already came back and the majority of the world missed it.
It sounds like all you need is some education. From first principals you should immediately discard a book filled with nonsense to a modern day society, especially when the veracity of the authors can’t be verified.
If that sounds ridiculous to you, it’s not. It’s what all of the other religions that don’t stem from Christianity think of it.
This is why “education” will not fix any of this. There are very fundamental rifts in what the truth even is.
again, you can't simply reject a book that has dominated europe for two millenia. whether it is nonsense or not. if it was pure nonsense then it would never had a chance at dominating our culture for that long.
the legitimacy of the bible or of christianity has also been confirmed in the koran as one of the religions of the book.
i agree with you that this book and others are not suitable for our modern day society. hence the need for reform or replacement.
but the interesting part is that the replacement has been announced in the bible itself. in it jesus states that he will return.
and in the past 200 years some people have made the claim to be the return of jesus. it is now up to us to investigate these claims and find out which of these, if any, is genuine.
the primary goal of education here is that everyone needs to learn and understand that they need to critically investigate and search for the truth. all of us. and that search is not done as long as there are conflicting ideas of what the truth is. so we need to keep searching.
>to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world.
Why do they need to stay relevant? If you're willing to accept they're fantasy, then it'd be better for everyone to read Lord of the Rings instead. At least it actually promotes wholesome values and thinking, unlike the Bible which promotes rape, slavery, and genocide. The god of LotR is consistent, whereas the god of the Bible seems to be narcissistic, sociopathic, and worse, schizophrenic (somehow going from directing his followers to commit genocide, to later reproducing somehow and then promoting peace and tolerace, but only sometimes).
And at least with fantasy epics, everyone knows they're not real, so no one is setting up theocracies based on their interpretations of them and committing atrocities to support these.
they don't need to stay relevant. reform is what they need to do if they want to stay relevant. otherwise they will soon stop being relevant. however as long as they continue to have a strong influence, we need to keep an eye on them and look for their replacement
It is crazy to honestly believe that those living in car dependent areas lack empathy. I'm sorry as someone who loves transit and will wax poetic on my lovely light rail, I am not okay with literally dehumanizing people I disagree with and saying they lack the ability to feel compassion.
Come on.. you're better than that. Compassion, empathy, etc are found almost anywhere.
Do people need to be shown it could work? Yes. They don't need to thought of as deficient people.
i am sorry, but from personal experience, inside a car as a passenger and outside as a pedestrian or cyclist, many drivers believe they own the road. that's not dehumanizing them. that's reality.
-no%20footnote.png/width3840.png){kind=link}