alfl23

I really hope you charge money for it and make it awesome, it's about time Adobe gets disrupted and this is a wonderful idea!

It will take significant resources, cash and teams to make this into a serious contender, and folks that have problems to solve will always be happy to pay decent dollars for great software.

You're missing the point completely, it's not about depriving citizens of fundamental services.

- How do you know care home providers don't bribe their way through contracts? - How do you know they are not an oligopoly that sets the price under the table, and the government pays 1.5 - 2x contributions for someone to be in a care facility versus what you would pay yourself for an elderly relative going to the exact same facility?

Specific counter examples are not fruitful, people who don't have the means don't understand the economics and don't understand money, that's why they are complaining about the inequality, and they can downvote me here all they want, I truly hope it relieves their frustration even slightly.

If you've ever worked with government directly, you're expected to understand it's one of the most rigged and corrupt institutions by very far. Yes, it exists to perform universally beneficial functions, does it really do that? Hello no, in most cases it spends 2 - 3x the money it really needs to for the same service. I'm not suggesting it should cut off the elderly, just cut the waste in providing those services.

Yeah you really got the point here, it was the technology to use, not the transparency and traceability.. you're completely right, it's worth 0% of my time arguing over the internet. Thank you ever so kindly for reminding me of that.

Unlike any other organisation of its size, government is never held liable for efficiency, nobody ever questions government for "return on investment", even though it's the largest one all of us make.

What this article is suggesting is largely suicidal, taking cash from a far more efficient business community government by "laws" of competition, evolution of markets etc, the impact here would be catastrophic at best, I really don't think you can debate this in the space of one article.

My number one would be move all government money on blockchain, and make that public, then see if it's really so smart to "give them more", through any means.

Inequality has always been a constant throughout human history, and it's far better now than in the middle ages, where we are all entitled to education, healthcare, and have extremely fast access to information.

I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem, but you haven't found a solution. "Tax the rich" is something everyone can scream off the top of their lungs, until it comes to bite them hard the next day when their pay must be cut to keep the company they work for profitable.

Step 1 would be removing the biggest inefficiency of capital allocation in most of these "high growth" western economies, measure and publicise return on investment of public funds, and proceed to realise raising tax "just like that" is a very very bad idea.

Couldn't implement the tech, decides to have marketing spin off instead.

Is the money better in the hands of a super overgrown and overstaffed organisation like the US government when most of it goes to paying interest to the lovely central banks folks and the public has almost 0 transparency over its expenditure? The perfect portrayal of profound inefficiency and over-bloated corporate structure.

It's fun and easy to point fingers, and while tax avoidance should by no means by encouraged, why is 35% of your money the direct property of a government who does superb things like conjure into existence some of the most criminal oligopolies in the medical industry?

Maybe demand Apple to build the infrastructure themselves at their own expense, and let them manage it, seems they can actually get things done.

Uncle Sam's virtues seem to end with insane taxation used to bomb other countries and slowly but surely kill its citizens through rudimentary medical care bills in the hundreds of thousands, maybe leave real work to other people, who don't spend 600 mil of taxpayer dollar on a website.

- How does toxic lithium mining fair to the countless oil spillage disasters that happen every few years? It doesn't. Lithium mining is now a rising industry in the dawn of the electric era, and it is nonetheless a limited resource which will very shortly need to start being synthetical, simply out of practical necessity.

- Tesla has been profitable for numerous financial quarters, although not consistent. On that basis, neither has been GM for many quarters after the crisis, after causing an $11.2 billion loss to the American tax payer.

- Tesla is funded mostly by competitors and revenue, not by the tax payer. Read the above sentence again for contrast: GM caused a direct loss of $11.2 billion to the tax payer. Tesla only borrowed and then repaid in full.

- The subsidy granted to Tesla by the US gov, only a minuscule percentage of the GM bailout, was repaid in full with interest by Tesla, with the tax payer making a profit. The loan was around $450 million, not $11 billion.

- Does the fictional subsidy working in the favour of the so called ultra rich really work out better than the oil barons of the world? Which is really the strongly monopolised industry with price strictly regulated in favour of private interest? Does the name Rockefeller or Saud ring a bell?

- How does the net time value of a Tesla fair to a normal middle class sedan? Well, it's only the higher upfront class you pay. On a 10 year span Tesla directly competes with most mid level sedans.

- Furthermore, iteration takes a long time and cost efficiency takes the longest time in manufacturing, if you weren't be a belligerent skeptical.

- I can see your finances do not buy you a Tesla just yet and that makes you angry. The secret to changing that is to stop blaming the "ultra rich" for your problems and take a real good look in the mirror.

Do you really not sense any irony in your "ad hominem arguments"? If must warn you that a brain dead moron might be dangerously close to you.

I don't particularly care you've found fault in my logic as being belligerent makes someone like you feel good, this is the Internet after all.

But if you are a third party reading this, don't get stuck on the fact that you can't yet afford a Tesla. And when you do the math, don't look at upfront cost only, that's the worst way to do it. Add up fuel cost for your average mileage, average maintenance, repairs, insurance premiums, tax credits over the number of years you plan to keep it for and workout the real value. You will be amazed to learn a Tesla isn't that expensive after all. A 70D starts at $57k and from thereon you can start decreasing tax credits, fuel savings and so forth. Is it really more expensive or are you unaware about what the net time value of a purchase is? Time to get your economics in order.

Lastly, every business starts out with an overpriced overbloated product, even if you're launching a stupid new social network for dogs, it always takes time to become efficient. Let alone with cars. People who haven't built things from scratch often lack this sense of continuous iteration that is necessary, but I would really re-consider my position against Elon and Tesla and all the great work they have been doing.

This is a very poor interpretation of what actually happens. Elon explained it better himself in an interview. The gov isn't exactly signing a blank check for them, instead it's subsidising by allowing tax credit on land, assets and revenue.

First and foremost, do you really think the American tax payer is doing a greater favour to Elon than Elon is doing to the entire world by moving the whole lot of purely eletrical power?

This reporter is an absolute imbecile to use such titles, market pleasing as they are. If Elon wanted to get rich he would buy an island and sunbathe for the next 40 years. He's already rich.

With respect to the amount of good done, I urge this reporter in particular to join TMZ and keep up with the Kardashians.

Not sure this is really an engineering success to be shared. 400 people, of which 350 are handling Spring configuration probably. Over bloated, massive effort, with 0 innovation and 10 steps backwards, and still a very slow product. Happy you are profitable, but tech talks should be left to people who truly know what they were doing. Read Twitter's scalability story for reference.