Honestly, the blurry photos somehow make this even more charming 😂😂😂😂😂

He looks like he has completely mastered the art of doing absolutely nothing 😂😂😂😂😂

Exactly. The technology itself is probably the easier part. Getting people comfortable with a completely different workflow is where things can get complicated

Yeah, I can see the point. Moving away from Microsoft sounds good in theory, but actually replacing everything without causing problems is probably the hard part

I’d definitely ask her about it first 😂 That’s one book I wouldn’t pretend I didn’t see

Honestly, I’d probably do the same thing 😂🤣😂🤣😂

😂😂😂😂😂, I think we all know where this is going

@HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world KKKKKKKKKK

Yeah, that’s probably the biggest challenge. It’s not just replacing the main apps it’s all those smaller integrations and workflows people rely on every day

I was wondering about this too. Does anyone know what happened to m/law, or if there’s another active community for the same topics?

Thanks for sharing this list. I was mainly looking for an active community where people still discuss legal issues and current developments. I’ll check some of these out. Appreciate the help!

I usually prefer text. It’s much easier to skim and decide quickly whether the topic is worth my time. I’ll watch a video if the topic really catches my attention.

So yes, Eberhard and Tarpenning were there at the beginning. But Tesla’s own historical descriptions have also recognized Musk and others as part of the broader founding team. The disagreement is really about what we mean by “founder,” not about whether Musk was involved in Tesla’s early creation.

I understand that you see it that way, but calling it a lie doesn’t really address the historical distinction I’m pointing out. I’m not arguing that Musk was there when Tesla was legally incorporated. I’m saying that there is a broader historical discussion about the people involved in Tesla’s early development. That’s the point I’m trying to clarify.

That’s fair, but historical facts and terminology aren’t always as straightforward as you’re making them sound. The important thing is to distinguish between the documented role someone played in a company’s creation and how the term “founder” is used later. That’s why I think the context matters rather than treating the term as having only one possible interpretation

I’m not ignoring the timeline. In fact, the timeline is exactly why the distinction matters. Musk did not create Tesla from nothing in 2003 Eberhard and Tarpenning were already involved in founding the company. Musk joined in 2004, led the Series A investment, became chairman, and later became CEO

So the point isn’t to rewrite the timeline. It’s to acknowledge that the word “founderhas been used differently in different historical accounts. The documented facts are more nuanced than either side of this argument suggests

But saying that his role in Tesla’s creation is simply alie is also an oversimplification. Tesla itself has historically described Musk and JB Straubel as part of a broader founding team, and Tesla’s current filings describe Musk as “one of our founders

I think we’re actually closer on the facts than you realize. I never said Musk founded Tesla by himself or that he was there from day one. My point is that reducing his role to simply “being on paper” is also inaccurate. He joined very early, led the Series A investment, became chairman, and played a major role in shaping the company that Tesla became

That makes sense. I think context makes a big difference too. If someone recommends a specific video during a discussion I’m already interested in, I’m much more likely to watch it