somi,

Didn't spot his original usage. With you on that.

Not enough love for confusing "term of art" for an art book analogy tho. That was amazing.

Mihkel,
I think you have some form of Aspergers. Gradations of meaning and subtleties are beyond you. You're overly attached to abstractions over the concrete in a way that's pretty dysfunctional.
No, it wasn't.
This is so astoundingly daft I didn't even respond to it - Spurious might be a little naive but at least his brain functions - but I will since you doubled down. Your comment contains an implied analogy - that the example you're giving is analogous to the usage at hand. Else why say it? Yet your example was not in any way analogous.

I'll break it down for you. You said:
This is basically saying:

1 Here's an example usage of abstruse
2. I'm implying that your usage was like this
3. You wouldn't be an idiot this situation
4. Hence you're not an idiot in this one.
5. But the person who thought you were is

That's the written-out version of the argument you gave. That you don't see that implicit analogy in what you're writing is just more evidence that you have low verbal intelligence.

This situation has completely, comically gone right over your head, because your can't understand subtleties. You even double down twice after being told you were wrong. The humor here is really simple bro.

1. Spurious calls easy to understand and simple and not esoteric sources "abstruse"
2. I joke that he actually insulted his own intelligence by calling them abstruse. The joke is that I pretended that he knew what the word meant, and that if he knew what the word meant, the only way the sources could be abstruse to him is if he had an 80 IQ or so.
3. You completely misunderstand everything thanks to piss poor reading comprehension, and come in like Don Quixote to defend your lady in waiting, making a total fool of yourself.
So you chose to weigh in and offer your worthless and wrong opinion without even reading the usage in question? Then double down and get yet another thing wrong? I'll give you the last word:

TS,

We're all aware you're a poseur of the highest order, but could you explain what exactly made you think I was talking about an art book?

I'll consider this your version of "touche".
You managed to be completely wrong (twice) and made yourself look like a moron (twice). You really want to go three for three?

One of your many problems is that you far too quickly jump to conclusions from insufficient evidence. This makes you hilarious wrong very often. It's classic narrow focus Aspergers. The above is yet another example. You're focusing on irrelevant ambiguous detail that no one cares about while missing the big picture horribly, and using that erroneous conclusion to make yourself feel better about missing the big picture horribly. Let me explain:
There are four ways to interpret my response:

a) I took your example and extended it to a slightly different (stronger - steelmanned) one to show I agree with you on that particular point, rather than just repeat what you said verbatim, which is boring.

b) Books often contain essays, so it's the same point just worded slightly differently

c) I misread essay while getting the gist of your point. Something of zero consequence.

d) I misread essay while getting the gist of your point, and that shows I have horrible reading comprehension.

All sane people choose a, b or c. You chose to infer(d) from this, something unsupported and having the most bad faith.

The hilarious thing is that you've misread the entire exchange and gotten everything wrong, because your reading comprehension and understanding of subtlety is piss poor. You're an intellectual turd, sir, and you will continue to be while you fail to understand this fact because of your hubris. I'm actually trying to help you. You either need to fix your stupidity or lower your hubris or stop being so caustic.The three together (stupid, full of hubris, caustic) are no way to go through life, son. Each reinforces the other. Pick one and fix it if want people to treat you other than an unpleasant curiosity.

Between Elon Musk and the posters, this thread is lighting up the DSM-V like a pinball machine. I must admit I'm thoroughly enjoying it tho (popcorn.gif)

How tf does Musk spread his time managing all these projects???

Glad to see you taking the standard coward approach. You do you.

Feel free to let me know how you somehow thought I meant his original usage when I was obviously referring to his literal copying of a dictionary that you disagreed with.

Or I guess how you don't know what terms of art means.

will they still have the money to be able to service the cars under the factory warranty when the company goes under?? that will kill the value for most the cars I would imagine except for the super rich who perhaps don't care for the 200k+ limited edition roadsters perhaps if those ever come out

Why doesn't Musk just become a conglomerate and merge all his companies? Bad idea? I'm only suggesting the idea bc if he can raise capital with TSLA through seemingly pure hysteria, how much would he be able to raise if you added BoringCo and SolarCity to that mix? I left out SpaceX bc that, to my understanding, is doing well. They'd raise capital on merit alone easily if I'm not mistaken.

SolarCity is part of Tesla. Musk had Tesla shareholders buy it out because it was near bankruptcy and his cousins and him were major owners and about to lose their shirts. He's since fired a lot of the staff and scaled down operations, and Tesla shareholders have taken on its huge debt load and negative equity.

The Boring Company is worthless and a meaningless sideshow.

And yeah, as you note, Musk would be crazy to join SpaceX - which has a reliable flow of government money now - with Tesla, which like SolarCity is a bankruptcy waiting to happen.

Here's an article if you want to read about SolarCity's huge decline. Tesla still on the hook for its billion in debts while basically winding up the business.

Acquisition Gone Wrong: Tesla Can't Find a Home For Solar Energy

TeslaCharts on Twitter has a lot of raw numbers. They're a disaster all over.

One very interesting thing at the moment is that Model 3 seems to have a lot of problems of a very large variety, as you'd expect when a fraudster desperate to pump his stock moves production announcements forward and tries to make a mass model car without industry standard beta testing. That's to be expected...but the interesting thing is that people can't get service center appointments without waiting for many weeks. This is happening while Tesla has as yet built very few Model 3s and has a slow production rate (and S & X are actually in decline).

What happens as they ramp up, and to increasingly less tolerant customers who aren't in the alpha tester class of current employees and current S/X owners and insane Musk devotees who would pay Musk to take a dump in their mouth? How do they ramp without a disaster if they're already hugely backlogged on service with few Model 3s out, given the certainty that their product will predictably suck on defect rates?

lol I had no idea what TSLA stand for and came away from this thread realizing how toothsayer is almost as enthusiastic in Elon Musk demise as in Elon Musk/Jeff bozos working on their company. I think it awesome to have that kind of passion in life. In the end all three are doing something great.

edit: I forgot to add in the list of Bill Ackman I think he also show the same kind of enthusiasm . Another guy I look up to in life

That's a solid burn. Bravo.

My passion is arguing with morons. Tesla and Musk I don't even care about much.

Tesla news is something I spend a lot of time keeping abreast of because it was the most tradable ticker on the market up until about a year ago when Trump killed vol. There are going to be many more 5 and 6 and even 7 figure trades on Tesla in the coming years...so if you trade options it's well worth following.

Nah. It was a weak burn. A solid burn/take is that you are, at best, a fanboy of populists to your core. "**** intellectualism"

I'll reduce your payout on our bet by $10 if you respond by saying "crikey, you've got me pegged." An additional $10 if you respond by saying "that is a big knife." One time only offer. $20 must mean a lot to you by now, so I assume you will suck it up if you care at least a little about proper capitalism and charity.

Could spend it on a dictionary.

Edmund's article basically says Model 3 is awesome to drive but has quality control issues.

Quality control issues? Nice euphemism.

Based on the first paragraph of that article there's no way I'd buy a Tesla. I don't care how awesome a car is to drive I'm not putting up with that much bull**** over the inability to have my **** repaired, easily, for weeks potentially months.

You probably aren't their target consumer. People buy cars for the badge.

Just to state for the record:
I didn't mean a source that noone has heard of. I used the German word abstrus as the base which means something slightly different it seems.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstruse
It says there is a connection to the German word abstrus.

https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstrus
It means incoherent, not necessarily structured, misguided, fatuous. His sources are usually based on flawed assumptions that are then extrapolated and as such come to a conclusion that - I think - a normal person would never come to if provided with the same facts.

Spurious,

It isn't a bad idea to assume a cognate has the same meaning, but in this case it'd be inaccurate. That being said, I've never used abstruse before while writing and can't really see myself using it.

My example (I did enjoy the entirely fictitious term "implied analogy") was ironic in that term of art has a specific meaning that could be considered abstruse. This was humorous due to the fact that TS obviously didn't know the meaning and started rambling about art terms, which is the entire point of the example. Anyway, glad you learned some more English and we all got a good laugh out of TS being TS.

I guess I should note that words do have shades of meaning. However, that doesn't supplant what they actually mean. The whole concept of shade doesn't mean turning red into green, it is gradations of the color red. His prior comments where he lacks understanding of basic finance terminology show his lack of expertise in the field and where his English is woefully inadequate for a discussion where some expertise is required. (IE Cognate means something specific when we're talking about linguistics. Abstrus (DE) is a cognate of abstruse, but English has evolved the meaning of the term whereas German still has the original Latin meaning.)

to be fair, this wasn't obvious. SPurious quoted a list of synonyms, and you came in to say that Oxford had a nice list?

He literally posted a dictionary link.

I assumed that Spurious updated his knowledge after reading the dictionary, but I have been wrong on these sort of assumptions before.

It was a damn fine list

well clearly you recognized there was a debate over the understanding of a word. And clearly Spurious' list was by itself insufficient (evidenced by the thread). your post is just kind of pointless

side question(maybe I should ask in SMP):
Am I understanding this right?