41–50 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government funded is incompatible with independent. By definition such an organization is dependent on continued government funding.
Aren't PBS and NPR government funded and independent?
Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $450 million/year.
PBS: “less than 1%” of its “operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.”
This isn't news, it's gossip. ~200 instead of ~1500 means the bootstrapping is a little off schedule. It's stories like this and the attitude that they're important which gets us very destructive behaviors like putting production quota ahead of quality. Production misses are news when they're for substantial cause. Like a 10% miss for an S or X might be news.
Based on his track record, Musk often sets unrealistic timeline goals (and unrealistic engineering goals, but he usually meets those). This has happened multiple times with both Tesla and SpaceX, not surprised this happened.
You understand that missing material estimates has legal implications if you do it too many times? Regulators can and do start thinking that you have something to hide. Tesla isn't a startup working out of someone's garage -- it is a large player in a heavily regulated capital market. Estimates and guidance are for investors, not for people on the street: they are supposed to mean something.
Are you sure about that? The only thing I start thinking is that the person making the estimates is being consistent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.
Government funded is incompatible with independent. By definition such an organization is dependent on continued government funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.
Government funded is incompatible with independent. By definition such an organization is dependent on continued government funding.
Consider this: The funding of the judiciary comes from the executive and legislative branches of government. Yet, funding is never brought up as an argument in discussions of whether the judiciary is independent.
The reason is of course threefold: there is a large societal consensus that the judiciary should be independent; the independence of the judiciary is established in constitutions; and political norms, as eroded as they may be in some parts of the West, aren't sufficiently eroded that politicians feel like they can play hardball over funding with the judiciary.
All these factors could be established for an independent, government funded media as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't PBS and NPR government funded and independent?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-npr-and-pbs-should-stop-ta... Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $450 million/year. PBS: “less than 1%” of its “operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments.”
1. http://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/financials/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca...
Actual source: http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449 OT: Sad how difficult it was to find this. The media avoids linking to primary sources. For example, Engadget's 3 paragraph article contains no less than 5 links back to engadget.com and not a single mention of this source.
This is a press release which was likely delivered to wsj et al through a wire service they pay to deliver them piles and piles of press releases. Nobody quotes those as sources because nobody but news organizations that pay for them has access to them. A press release is also a rather bad primary source unlike, say, a research paper or a blog post.
Based on his track record, Musk often sets unrealistic timeline goals (and unrealistic engineering goals, but he usually meets those). This has happened multiple times with both Tesla and SpaceX, not surprised this happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a press release which was likely delivered to wsj et al through a wire service they pay to deliver them piles and piles of press releases. Nobody quotes those as sources because nobody but news organizations that pay for them has access to them. A press release is also a rather bad primary source unlike, say, a research paper or a blog post.
The press release was created to provide information to news organizations. It is extremely odd to say they are not good sources.
Of course, in this case it's a bit hard, since the only insight into Tesla's production goals is what they report externally, barring leaks and whatnot. A press release from the company is pretty much the best we can get. But just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good.