I agree that many officeplaces are "intense" or downright toxic. But keep in mind that the diversity initiatives you are concerned about are actual attempts to make the workplace less intense and toxic -- for women, people of color, anyone in the LGBTQ+ community, people from minority religions, people with disabilities and anyone else who hasn't typically been welcome in offices.
The depictions of goofing off and office romances make for nice sitcoms, but a full picture would also show you the people who were sexually harassed, verbally abused, denied promotions, denied time off to care for loved ones, and more.
Are the diversity initiatives sometimes awkward, sometimes uncomfortable, and sometimes possible even ineffective? Sure, it's a difficult process and there's no guidebook. But it's certainly far better than continuing to ignore the real problems because some voters aren't aware of them (and some are downright hostile to change because it affects their economic interests or perceived status.)
And I am LGBTQ+ so I get it, I really do. It’s still a little intimidating keeping up with an ever changing landscape of shibboleths. And you can never assume people’s pure intentions either. Being part of a minority group does not mean you can’t play politics. I have absolutely watched these things weaponized in HR complaints and people being branded as biased. We don’t have a culture of teaching and forgiveness but of shaming and reprimand.
the best way to to navigate that landscape is to be professional, keep sexual innuendo to a minimum, and treat people with respect. that reduces your risk profile to a manageable level. If someone is truly weaponizing HR with false complaints and getting away with it, you should look for a different office. That is not acceptable and not typical and you should be able to find better.
I buy film from Film Photography Project, B&H, Adorama, and FreeStyle Photo. Most of the brick and mortar camera stores that still exist sell some film. For development I do black and white at home and send color out to thedarkroom.com because I don't shoot enough color to make the chemistry cost effective. I print black and white in my bathroom darkroom.
I'm still able to find 35mm, 120 and 4x5 film easily. I have a 127 camera that is a bit harder to find film for.
Glad to see there are others on HN that are keeping film alive. The great thing about film cameras is they aren't obsolete until the film is impossible to find. Even then there are work arounds and modifications that can be made. A local shop used to sand 120 roles to fit 620 cameras for example. They also cut film to fit Minox cartridges.
Frequently, Amazon. I also buy from a local shop but Amazon usually has better prices as much as it pains me. The film I shoot is usually 400TX or HP5 for B&W. For color I usually shoot Ektar 100 or Porta. I shoot both 35mm and 120 format film.
> and are you developing on your own in a darkroom or sending it out to a lab
Lately I use a local lab.
I also have all of the equipment to develop and print B&W film. My plan is to build complete darkroom in my basement. The pandemic has put my plans on hold for the time being though.
Apple //c from 1984 (with the original receipt!) The composite video output means I can plug it right into my 50" tv without any special hardware and everything looks great.
I removed the disk drive cable from the motherboard and plugged a floppy EMU in, and now my kids play Lemonade Stand, Dig Dug, Oregon Trail, Carmen San Diego, and dozens of other classic games.
https://www.bigmessowires.com/floppy-emu/
This is only a video quality thing, but you might consider getting an upscaler to get better quality video out of your composite output. I use this one for composite sources: https://www.retrotink.com/product-page/retrotink-2x
The TV by itself might do it just fine! They often have good analog to digital converters built in as shown by Technology Connections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY
I just got a Floppy EMU for my Macintosh SE, and it’s working great! Have been playing many memorable games from my childhood with the next generation of computer users.
The composite video output on the back of a computer at a time when many televisions didn't have composite inputs was pretty advanced. At the time, we had to use a converter (I believe to UHF) that screwed on to two terminals on the back of our tv set.
The fact that, 36 years later, I can plug the //c straight into the composite input on a modern LCD tv and have everything work just fine is impressive to me.
Riverside California also performed tests showing high levels of perchlorate in the drinking water at about the same time. The test results have not slowed residential growth in Riverside.
I'd love to see test results from Lompoc. Actually, anyone living within 10 miles of a military base needs to pay attention to their water quality.
Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks."
There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? Someone who commutes an hour to work each way in a car that has a poor safety rating?
The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.
Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.
> The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.
That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In other I can freely decide not to strap my kid in a car seat but that doesn't mean I won't get a ticket or my child won't be seriously injured or worse in a car accident.
> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.
In all seriousness, I do have a hard time guessing which one most children would pick. I can see reasonable arguments made on either side. Personally, I think it would be far more inspiring to have a father who died pursuing his passion, then one who gave it up to stay at home.
My father died when I was 8 and I know a number of others who lost a parent as a child and, while I know this is anecdotal, every single one would rather have their parent. Every single one would rather have a dead-beat (but not abusive, I imagine that would change the equation) dad over no dad.
Also, from the article: "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it"
> Every single one would rather have a dead-beat (but not abusive, I imagine that would change the equation) dad over no dad.
This is demonstrably untrue in my social network. Just in my own friend group I know a handful of folks who would much rather their father simply didn't exist, rather than having this effectively random person they now owe some supposed family obligation to. Basically they got all the responsibilities of having a father, and none of the benefit.
> This is demonstrably untrue in my social network.
I don't know what problems your network face, so I'm not judging, but in my own experience, people who haven't lost a parent sometimes think that maybe they'd be better off. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where this is actually true and I can see why having someone who you're meant to care about but who is essentially a stranger isn't a particularly nice thing, but at the same time, having grown up without a father, I and those I know who lost a parent, would rather have someone than not have someone. Maybe its a "you don't know what you've got until it's gone" kind of thing (or maybe those people in your network really do have shitty family).
If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad after he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.
The 'choice' isn't between "dull and alive" and "adventurous and dead", but between "dull, 99.9% chance of living to an old age" and "adventurous, 95% chance of living to an old age" (actual percentages for illustration only)
I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"
The top-GP didn't say "adventurous", they said chasing "adrenaline fix". You can be adventurous without exposing yourself to fatal danger (and you can be an adrenaline fix chaser and be a really, really dull person to be around).
> I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"
Not this guy's:
> "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it," he says.
Most adults don't really understand how likely 5% is. You're ascribing a level of mathematical sophistication and risk assessment to children that they simply don't possess -- not even close.
Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it's called the micromort. 1 micromort equates to a 1 in 1 million chance of death. Each activity that has been engaged in widely enough to be measured will have a micromort value and, while the math is a bit more complicated, they mostly just add up. Just because he engages in an exotic activity that carries some risk, doesn't mean he's being reckless.
Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless? No doubt you can find countless children who lost a parent in an auto accident who would tell you they would have wanted their father to have a shorter commute and still be with them. But since driving is a familiar activity, no one questions the risk that someone is incurring with that kind of decision. And yet that 2-hours to work and 2-hours back drive is, based on the stats that I've been able to find, around 1 micromort. Over the course of a year, that adds up to around 200 micromorts, or roughly 1/5000 chance of dying. I can't find the data on cave diving, which is no doubt higher than recreational diving, but SCUBA has a value of 5 micromorts per dive, so it's roughly equivalent to driving 1250 miles on a highway. Someone doing 40 dives per year is taking on roughly the same risk as that 50,000 mi/year driver.
Humans are really bad about estimating risk. We do it by equating risk to the ease in which we can imagine something happening. It's why so many people are afraid of statistically safe activities like air travel while underestimating much more serious dangers. We need a framework, like micromorts, for thinking about risk logically to better determine what amount of risk to take on and then "spend" that risk budget in whatever way helps us get the most out of life. Parents can say, "I'd like a 90% chance of being alive when my kids turn 10, a 75% chance of being alive when they turn 18 and a 50% chance of being alive when they turn 30." Once you've decided on a risk threshold, you can work backwards to determine how many micromorts you're allowed to take on each year.
Otherwise, you're just living your life based on irrational fears.
This reads like the most sophistic argument to the point he was trying to make. The diver was a cave diver, not a regular scuba diver. It's very different and notoriously risky. He almost died in the same cave previously. His point was well taken.
It doesn't mean that being risk averse is the right way to live. It's a fair point and a good thing to consider when you are a parent. That's all.
While I get the emotional impact of this, it really shouldn't be an argument either way once you begin using some framework to judge decisions.
Think of it this way, if I nearly died in a car wreck on the way to work, would it be fine for me to never get in a car again? I almost died doing that once!
It would make more sense to determine the risk. That he already nearly died doesn't really change the risk profile. Cave diving is extremely risky. That should be the important factor. Having nearly died should not.
I agree. In USA you are looking at 34,000 deaths a year on the roads. I'm a diver (not caves though) but my closest shaves have been while commuting! Cycling to work is probably more dangerous than cave diving.
> Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless?
This question appears rhetorical (with an intended answer of "no"), but I absolutely think such a risk should be considered, whether or not you're a parent. The higher-order bits here are probably the time you're wasting with 100% probability, perhaps the increased life satisfaction of a great job, etc, but the p% additional chance you die in a car crash, as you said, is non-trivial, and even though I know very people incorporate such thinking into their decision making, I think they should.
That's an inherently biased question, because they've already suffered the loss, and so would've chosen not to suffer it given the chance.
The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!
I'm sorry, but this is a kind of clever sophistry that is absurd in the face of lived experience...
> The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!
Yes, each child only knows one half of the story, as it were. But the knowledge imbalance is not symmetrical. The child whose father has died understands boredom and dissatisfaction in other ways... perhaps his mother is boring, or sometimes nags him, and even his adventurous (now dead) father surely disappointed him sometimes, and so on.
The child who has not experienced death really has no idea what that suffering is like. It's just utterly callow to think his opinion has equal weight.
Personally I would feel very selfish if I asked my dad to give up his passion in life just so I know there would be a slightly greater chance of him being safe. Especially if two years later he died of cancer or something. We all die.
Depends on the kid, their age and their relationship with their father. I don't think there is any right generalized answer.
With my kids I know they would rather have me around, but they are young so I'm already "superman" to them. Who knows how our relationship will change as they grow older.
As they go through their teenage years you will get stupider and lamer in their eyes. Then sometime after they move out they will realize that you are actually quite intelligent and will, at some point, apologize for being an ass and tell you that they are proud of you. At least that was my experience with my parents and has been my experience with my kids so far.
“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” - Mark Twain
> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.
Not that it necessarily changes the argument, but the "choice" is probabilistic. That is, it isn't father at home vs. dead, but "probably boring dad but most likely alive" vs. "maybe famous dad but some chance of death".
That doesn't sound right. How many cave-going dads are there that you could make the claim? And do a majority of kids believe their fathers are boring? I just don't buy it. And is taking a risk like this the best way to be "not boring?" Definitely don't buy it.
You can have fun and be adventurous without taking heavy risks. It's fair to say that someone who continues to put himself at harm is foolish in one capacity or another.
I think the grandfather post is mainly saying that not thinking this through a lense of risk and reward, that can end up giving kids some good outcome is an error (and for sure having a happy father IS better than a depressive one, so if the cave diving risk is sufficiently low, then it makes sense to do it). This line of thought is also probably similar to what that guy thought (to think it is worth the risk to live like that). In that case, you have a slope of risk that starts reasonably and ends up unacceptable, but where you can't easily pinpoint where to draw the line.
Whether you "buy" the simple causal graph that he used as an example is a minor point.
Maybe it depends on your definition of adventure or risk. I went to an escape room recently for the first time. I considered that to be an adventure for me. But I never felt like I was taking a risk.
The risk may be: waste of time, inconvenience, being stuck in an awkward social situation. Not always death.
I'd say taking a sabatical, walking the country asking strangers personal or "deep" questions is an adventure and a risky one, yet you don't risk your life more than by just commuting to work.
I guess risks depend on the country, but are comparable.
There's also the mundane question of money. Unless you're already rich, raising a child alone is hard in many counts already; having your income halved does not help.
That is why many people have life insurance. It's probably not common in large parts of the world, and requires a certain income level to pay for, but it can make a situation where a parent dies a lot easier to cope with, at least the financial worries go away, or at least are delayed.
In my country (New Zealand) we have a government run, compulsory, insurance scheme for accidents and death. If you die by accident then your family gets a payout based on a percentage of your (former) income.
Why should it matter whether it was suicide or not?
"Heh, I'm going to kill myself so I don't have to work to support my family and they can have insurance money instead" is not a thought many people would have.
I think the better way to word this is likely "having your primary support halved does not help". It's likely to forestall the obvious insurance rebuttal by not specifically tying itself to financial concerns, as emotional and educational support are at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion.
That's assuming a two parent income. What if one parent stays home with the children instead of working? Yes, you can get insurance. No, it doesn't replace a lost parent.
It's kind of the same in reverse - does a parent encourage their children to embrace a risky sport/activity (karting, skiing, diving etc.) or keep them in the safety of home for fear of accident or death? We wouldn't have F1 or IndyCar drivers, ski jumpers, etc. if all parents were too protective. It's difficult to find the right balance and to give a perfect recipe and it would be impossible to eliminate all risk.
I think the complaint was that the parent had a young child, not merely a child.
Without actually taking a stance on the topic, it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents, i.e. it's not just your life you're messing around with. When they stop being your dependents, do whatever you want, it's just your life now (and I guess your spouse's, who is presumably fine with what you do).
My brother did a fair amount of mountain climbing in his 20s, but stopped around the time he had kids. He specifically said "I don't want to go again until they're old enough to remember me." Done properly, the risks are limited, but they do exist no matter how careful you are.
Now he's hit about that right time and I don't know if he even still has the desire. Age changes a lot of that. Still, it does seem like he made the responsible choice to me.
"It's amazing how much mature wisdom resembles being too tired." --Lazarus Long (i.e. Heinlein, though it's arguable if everything LL says is Heinlein speaking)
I'm not certain if this is an argument for or against, given how much I'm in the same "too tired" boat.
Since I had kids, I haven't gone climbing natural rock. I still go to climbing gyms (mostly to boulder these days, for unrelated reasons), but not outside.
I've discovered that I now get too fearful while climbing, too scared something bad might happen and I'd leave my children without me in the world.
It breaks my concentration, makes my actions erratic, and most crucially, makes me not enjoy it.
Who knows how I'll feel once they're older, but I suspect it won't ever change back. And that's OK.
> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents
That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
>> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents
> That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks.
Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.
You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse and that's fine but i find it a little judgemental on other people's family lives to be saying what's reasonable and not reasonable to do as a father.
> You clearly have a belief system which is risk adverse and that's fine but i find it a little judgemental on other people's family lives to be saying what's reasonable and not reasonable to do as a father.
Well, I'm not the one who said what the father did was unreasonable, so you might have meant to reply to someone else. I merely said I thought the argument provided for that stance was reasonable. Happy to say the same about an argument for the opposite stance as well when I see it too. The fact that I might find an argument reasonable that doesn't mean I find it convincing and necessarily agree with the conclusion.
> because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.
That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father with money, but you can make the impact as bearable as possible by ensuring that money is not a problem.
Since I talked about life insurance, obviously I'm talking about cases where your life is on the line. So does that mean you should never do anything that might get you killed if you have children? Even if you have life insurance?
>So does that mean you should never do anything that might get you killed if you have children?
You should probably avoid things that cause life insurance rates to jump up. That's a good barometer for excessive risk.
>Even if you have life insurance?
Parents and money are not substitute goods. Life insurance is helpful for financial security, but it doesn't account for the detriment to being raised by a single parent.
Yeah, because I realized it's useless. Thankfully others seem to be doing it anyway. Or perhaps I should say sadly, knowing they're just feeding a troll.
There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger.
> Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? .. Someone who commutes .. in a car that has a poor safety rating?
Are those as dangerous? If so, then yes, I think so.
> People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time?
People agonise about this all the time. But seeing the kids not very often is very different from dying and never seeing them again.
> The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.
Oh, great. Does that mean we should also stop judging people about abuse and neglect too? I mean, fuck other peoples kids, right?
> There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger.
Depends on how you look at it.
We are fragile creatures and the world is a fairly dangerous place. People die every day driving cars, riding bikes, going for walks—doing things far more mundane than cave-diving.
I meant taking a risk on a new vacation, or relationship.. But when it comes to mortality, it depends.
If taking a walk is as dangerous as cave diving - then yes, I'd consider moving.
If you want to reduce the risks in riding a motorcycle, you can drive slower, in dry conditions during the day. I'm not sure exploring uncharted underwater caves is the slow lane..
Yeah, except it's kinda hard to find jobs/stores/daily-places-that-you-need-to-go that don't require transportation on the road, but it's kind of easy to find jobs/stores that don't require going into underwater caves or jumping off cliffs/airplanes or the like. If only one out of thousands of people ever needed to drive on the road, we'd probably criticize them too. The entire argument is so ridiculous that I can't even believe I have to lay it out like this.
Taken to the extreme, your suggestion would be to never drive a car (or indeed go anywhere near a public road), as that is one of the most dangerous things we do every day. Travelling for a holiday would be a definite no-no, as it's likely more dangerous than staying at home. And so on and so forth.
True, so let's not take to the extreme. Risk-adversion is a quantitative, not qualitative, practise.
I'm not saying minimising risk is the only goal in life, but avoiding very high risks is - do you think cave diving is no riskier than driving a car on the motorway?
In that case, we have to define "very high risks" - is it literally just anything more dangerous than driving? if so, why do we stop at driving, why couldn't we be safer? - and then compare "number of cave divers" vs "number of deaths", and then figure out the subcategories of cave divers who're most likely to die and figure out whether this theoretical person falls into them, and so on and so forth.
Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous" is not likely to come up with anything meaningful.
Well, that was an example, not a proposal to an official risk limit.
But maybe - you'd need a proper analysis of the relative risk. Isn't that done with cars/driving? All sorts of vehicle legislation may be driven (npi) by driving incident data / risk analysis.
> Taking a specific incident and combining it with "that sounds dangerous"
I'm not. I think it sounds dangerous before this specific incident. But you are right - a meaningful, proper analysis would be appropriate. I'm not saying my suggestion is enough, I am saying, maybe something formal would be appropriate.
This is a pet peeve as a climber. The article lists "free climbing" as something that an insurer might refuse to cover. This is most likely incorrect, as the immediately preceding section suggests it would cost you an extra $1500 a year if you engage in rock climbing.
The bit that's incorrect here is that "free climbing" encompasses many forms of rock climbing. "Free" in the context of "free climbing" means that vertical progress is made solely by climbing the rock itself.
This is as compared to "aid climbing", wherein vertical progress may be made by affixing some form of gear to the rock, and climbing said gear, or something attached to it.
The article most likely means that if you free solo, you're uninsurable. Solo in this case meaning, without a partner to catch your falls.
E.T.A. Note also the existence of "aid soloing", and "rope soloing", both of which are done without a partner, but with varying degrees of gear in place to catch you should you fall.
Also note that absent the qualification of "soloing", rock climbing is generally understood among climbers to mean the kind that is done with a partner and a rope. Among climbers, bouldering is understood to include climbing routes of low height ("problems") without the protection of a rope, but generally with the protection of a crash pad (big foam thing to land on).
The point is mostly to show that we consider a lot of things "safe" that are actually really dangerous. We then do those things with absolutely no regard to the people around us. But as soon as someone does something different that's dangerous to pretty much any degree, people start to care. It makes no sense.
You got a $12K quote for tile? How long is the warranty? Remember that the 80K quote includes solar, so you'd have to add a standard solar install of the same KW capacity to your initial quote to really compare apples to apples. You'll probably still pay a premium to go with Tesla, but the no-profile solar integration and lifetime warranty really look attractive. Some people are probably willing to pay for it, similar to people willing to pay a premium for the cars.
No, I just want a new roof. I wasn't planning on installing Solar. Solar was supposed to be a perk of buying the roof from Tesla...and all of this was supposed to cost as much as a roof alone.
Not sure why you got downvoted. But the point is that if you weren't planning on solar in the first place, the long-term economics of a Tesla roof look even better. Your 30-year net cost is $12K + maintenance on the standard roof you got quoted on. Tesla is saying their 30-year net cost is -$50K or -$100K or whatever, to be paid to you in what is essentially credits against your electricity bill.
In either case, you can finance the costs. Given how Solar City usually operates, I imagine they'll roll the costs in a lease or power purchase agreement where you send them a check each month for an amount less than your current electricity bill.
I'm not saying it's the best deal around. You could come away with an even better net total by re-roofing and putting on traditional solar panels. But then you've got an uglier roof, if you care about that sort of thing -- and there are definitely people who do.
Exactly...cost was supposed to be a new premium roof (just the roof, no solar panels) and they are about 3 times more expensive than "just the roof".
Unless they meant a "new roof" as in when you build a house from scratch and you don't have rafters or anything. If you have an existing roof you are redoing every 20 years or so, then this is definitely not the cost of a "new roof".
> cost was supposed to be a new premium roof (just the roof, no solar panels)
That makes very little sense. You're making an apples to oranges comparison here. It would be absolutely impossible to pull that off. It's literally the premium roof + solar and you want it to be the same price as premium roof (thus, you want the solar hardware to cost nothing.
Only one of these generates electricity, thus saving you money and that must be included in the cost calculation in order to determine the actual cost.
> It would be absolutely impossible to pull that off
And yet it was promised by Musk. Literally "a solar roof will actually cost less than a normal roof before you even take the value of electricity into account".
Sorry, where'd you get a quote for, say, a "Spanish" tile roof that inexpensive? And yeah, he did say (in the launch video) that the electricity was a part of the computation.
It's not really a lifetime warranty though. If you click through to the Tesla purchasing page, there is (only) a 30 years Power Warranty and Weatherization Warranty... which in my mind renders calling it a lifetime warranty sort of silly, as the purpose of the shingles (power generation) is not covered by the lifetime portion of the warranty. 30 years still seems like a significant warranty for a product like this though.
The odds that Tesla will be around and willing to honor their warranty 25 years from now are also nowhere near 100%. Also, if you read the fine print, you will notice that the warranty will not cover the most frequent cause of roof problems - leaks in the seams.
The same can be said for your local fly-by-night roofer, but it sounds like you can buy two roofs for the price of a SolarRoof.
Also, another thing to be concerned about is whether or not you're going to be stuck in the middle of a pass-the-blame around football match between Tesla, and their subcontractors. (I guarantee you that the people installing your roof will not be Tesla employees.) In roofs, installation mistakes can cost you dearly - they are the primary cause of roof problems.
You can readily buy a 30 year shingle roof. Calling it a lifetime warranty when it is no better than a common, good quality shingle roof is absurd. Metal roofs have even longer warranties.
Considering how long Tesla has been in existence and how financially leveraged Tesla is I would take discount warranty value (lifetime of house or infinity whatever comes first).
Can't project finances much more than 10 years max. At the moment cost of capital is low but that may well change in that time-frame. Things have to make sense in a decade or so also considering that this new technology that is obsoleted by incremental innovation.
Yeah there's a pretty legitimate possibility of Tesla/SolarCity collapsing if their stock had a long bad run, don't think your warranty is worth much at the back of the line in bankruptcy court.
Yes, this is an important comment. While it's a virtue for Silicon Valley organizations like YC to adapt quickly, adapting in this case means clearing the way for the administration to solidify its haphazard immigration policy. Hopefully the YC staff is using its connections to Peter Thiel and others who have the president's attention to lobby hard against a policy that will directly and indirectly hurt many people and businesses in Silicon Valley.
"The fact is there are women doing great work and talks. Make noise about them."
And here is a woman who did great work, and Google is making noise about her. Why is this particular case not valid, when it's doing exactly what you recommend?
Work that would be shown regardless of gender. This would not have been show on HN if the dev were a white CIS male because it is basically regular work. Good work, but nothing to show off about. We all do that everyday. It's not a complain, I'm just explaining: you don't want to hear about the regular stuff, for that you have the coffee machine.
It doesn't claim to be "journalism." This was published on Medium, which is pretty clearly for essays and opinions. I'll grant you that some of the speculation is pretty far out there (like the Rosneft sale being tied to Trump). But the author is trying to put together a cohesive theory that might explain the chaotic moves being taken by the new US executive branch. If you want to disagree with the theory, point out where it's faulty. But claiming it's "not real journalism" is a non sequitur -- it was never intended to be a reporting of the facts.
The depictions of goofing off and office romances make for nice sitcoms, but a full picture would also show you the people who were sexually harassed, verbally abused, denied promotions, denied time off to care for loved ones, and more.
Are the diversity initiatives sometimes awkward, sometimes uncomfortable, and sometimes possible even ineffective? Sure, it's a difficult process and there's no guidebook. But it's certainly far better than continuing to ignore the real problems because some voters aren't aware of them (and some are downright hostile to change because it affects their economic interests or perceived status.)