birken

My Commas are bulletproof at doing what I expect them to do, and they don't do what I don't expect them to do. And from my perspective as a driver, it's incredibly, incredibly useful. When driving is easy and mundane I can trust that Comma can handle it (and Comma will tell me if it can't), and when driving is hard then I don't expect Comma to do handle every complex situation (though it does do a good job most of the time). They don't overpromise, and they deliver what they promise.

I'm not convinced this method will get to FSB, but I from my perspective I don't think that is necessary. I genuinely believe if every car on the road only had Comma's capabilities and no more, that would on its own reduce highway accidents by like 50%. I really wish some car manufacturers would lean into this and work with Comma on making a first-hand integration. I would 100% buy any type of car from any manufacturer if it had first-hand Comma support.

If you want to stay up to date on vaccine effectiveness without wading through a bunch of misinformation, just listen to the weekly "TWIV Clinical update with Dr. Daniel Griffin" podcasts. Here is the most recent one: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-967/

For a slightly different perspective on the bivalent boosters, here is Paul Offit (member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee, and one of the two votes against authorizing the bivalent boosters for everybody) talking in detail a couple weeks ago about his current view of the bivalent boosters: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-special-offit/.

I would try to summarize what I think is the most accurate view right now based on the science, but honestly there is just too much nuance and too many unknowns to do so concisely, other than I don't think saying they are "duds" makes a whole lot of sense. But I would just listen to the experts on the podcasts who will go into the nuance better than I can.

The initial comment says government has always used their influence through "newspapers", "television" and "social media", all of which have historically been non-government entities who take the government's input and decide if they want to follow it or not. There are obviously major historical cases in which private companies have defied what the government wanted them to do (NYT v Sullivan, NYT vs US, etc), but I'm sure there are countless examples throughout Twitter's history of the government asking for something and then not getting it, but I assume that isn't something those instances are not being highlighted that much as they don't fit the narrative.

Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person. That is a completely different situation than what you are alluding to. I can just as easily prevent the reverse question: I have a blog with a comment section, and somebody I don't know posts a horrific, rude and distasteful comment that I don't want associated with my blog post. Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?

The OP also specifically says the point of the charade is to "make huge amounts of money for the founder and the initial VCs". Uber/Doordash didn't just make huge amounts of money for the founders and initial VCs, it made huge amounts of money for early employees, later employees, current employees, the initial VCs, the later VCs. People have had years to exit their positions and unlimited liquidity to do so... some other rational actor was happy to buy the shares they were selling. If you say these companies are charades than so is every publicly traded company.

Doordash has been a publicly traded company for ~2 years and has a market cap of ~20B.

You really have a generous definition of "charade," as I think the public market valuations seem to imply there is some incredibly massive true value in these businesses.

It also is difficult position for health agencies to be in, because they want to make clear guidelines to prevent confusion, but there are gray areas. For example, it's completely possible that:

(a) The benefits outweigh the risks of a 4th shot for any age group

or

(b) The risks outweigh the benefits of a 4th shot for some or all age groups [not because the risk are high, but the benefits so low]

AFAIK, there aren't any super high quality studies anywhere in the world that have robust data on the 4th shot in particular for all age groups. So one health agency might guess one way, another health agency might guess another way. Reasonable people can disagree. The CDC got a little bit ahead of the science when they were initially recommending the 3rd shot, but in the long run it was proven to be a good gamble that no doubt saved thousands of lives. But now maybe that same logic is a mistake for the 4th shot.

But regardless of the CDC's recommendations, most people seem to have figured out the cost/benefit for themselves: The vast majority of people in the US have 2 shots, a little under half have the booster, and very few have the 4th shot. Most people probably have made the right choices for themselves given the various risks and benefits for them personally.

Additionally, I think it's very easy to see something like "Denmark doesn't recommend the vaccines to anybody under 50" and conflate that it means that Denmark doesn't think vaccines were ever beneficial to people under the age of 50 (which is the leap in logic you often see on anti-vax sites). But that isn't the case. What was good health policy in 2021 is different from good health policy now, because we have way more information about the virus, better and more effective drug to treat it, new variants, etc.

Two things can be true at the same time: The vaccines are (on net) incredibly beneficial to people and the population as a whole, and yet at the present time there are certain specific populations of people whose optimal number of doses might be fewer than others.

Could I have made more selling privately? I don't know, but I can tell you that Carvana paid very handsomely to do all the work involved with buying your car.

And either way, the author isn't making a legal or moral argument one way or the other. He's just telling a story about his emotional response to this complicated and unique situation. The fact that the people on the other side of the story effectively have infinite wealth and still made the decisions they did is important to the story! It makes it easier for us to understand their motivations. He's a writer who wrote a story, it's not a wikipedia entry.

The multiples and orders of magnitude of difference in the payouts are what make the decisions that the various people make interesting and complicated. The author did what he needed to do to make you feel those orders of magnitude in difference.

Also it is very funny to think that somebody who has 1.8 billion dollars is not greedy. I don't think that is impugning their character to point out something obvious.

As far as I could tell there were a bunch of very talented, very senior engineer who could basically just do whatever they wanted as 100% time, and they did a lot of really great stuff that was helpful to the company as a whole but didn't fit neatly into a specific team. But it didn't seem like that was accessible for mere mortals, nor would you be able to make as large an impact if you were only working on it one day a week.

And I did actually do the 120% time thing for a few months because there was a specific project I really wanted to do, and it would have been nice fit for Google, but my attempts to stir up interest within the company and get any sort of resources were basically dead ends. One of the reasons I eventually left to join a startup.

The Terrabloom stuff looks higher quality and I can't compare it directly to Vivosun, but I've got no complaints about my Vivosun duct fan or carbon filters. I'm not necessarily suggesting one brand over the other, but just to add that you can run a knockoff version of this setup for a lower cost.

I think your concerns are valid and merited for your very advanced level of diving, but at the same time the vast, vast, vast majority of divers aren't going anywhere near 130 feet. If I were going on a standard "simple" dive to <60 feet, I think I'd be pretty comfortable with just the apple watch ultra, a dumb watch + cheap depth guage and a written back-up plan.

1: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/11/diving-with-the-apple-wa...

JPEG XL's problem is that WebP has now existed for 10 years and has widespread support.

First, I have a 2022 car and a 2020 car, and in both the stock cruise control is decent and the lane minding is terrible, and neither can do stop-and-go. So already Comma's 2022 technology is far, far beyond my automobile manufacturers' 2022 technology (mid level cars - Honda and Toyota). Second, in my 2022 car and 2020 car, the cruise control and lane minding technology is going to be exactly the same 5 years from now as it is now, whereas with Comma I get multiple software updates a year and I could upgrade the hardware as well in the future (if they come out with new models) though that would have an additional cost. Either way, I won't need to buy an entirely new car to upgrade the self-driving capabilities.

Now, arguably, if the car manufacturers got to the point where their default cruise control and lane minding were as good as Comma is now, maybe that would undercut the need for people to buy Comma at all, since the capabilities of 2022 Comma are really nice to have. But I don't think so because (a) it's a hard problem and I'm not convinced car manufacturers can do it and (b) You'd assume Comma will also be much better by then [stopping at red lights, stop signs, etc].

  > dig +short gimp.monster
  
  194.110.203.75
  
  > whois 194.110.203.75
  
  ...
  role:           IT Resheniya LLC
  nic-hdl:        ITR30-RIPE
  address:        ul. Novoselov, d. 8A, of. 692
  address:        193079 Saint Petersburg
  address:        Russia
  abuse-mailbox:  abuse@rentaserv.su
  ...

If the vaccine were actually dangerous to your heart (or rather, more risky for their heart than getting COVID while being unvaccinated), they'd had have more than enough data to show it.

California has a lot of problems, but the state government at the moment is actually operating quite effectively at trying to solve them. Including the issues with the electrical grid (for example our one nuclear plant getting emergency funding to stay online to help meet our environment goals while the grid is transitioning).

When a person driving a automobile runs through a crosswalk and hits and kills an innocent child crossing the street with their bike, an accident that could and should have been avoided by automatic emergency braking, a great cost has been inflicting on society as a whole so a person could save $500 on their car.

The price of each individual car needs to be calibrated with the price to society of all the bad things cars do. And this isn't a hypothetical situation where cars might kills tens of thousands of drivers and thousands of pedestrians every year --- they already do. Mandating safer cars, even if this will increase manufacturing costs and bring up all these new data privacy issues, has a huge positive impact on the rest of the people that happen to share the world with those cars.

Comma uses a very strong adhesive for the mount, and then the Comma housing slides into that mount very securely. I don't think it is any more likely to fall off than your rear view mirror is (which also uses an adhesive).

Comma isn't a purely optical system, it also uses the car's forward radar information in addition to its cameras.

Comma does not pretend to be a fully self-driving system (yet), and in fact it has a camera facing the driver and will warn you if you are not paying attention or disengage if you are not paying attention long enough. It's a tool to make driving easier and safer.

I'm quite confident if you sat in my car while Comma was driving you would be shocked at how good it is.

If you can give me a list of 10 normal-ish queries where 9 out of the first 10 results on Google or DDG are "garbage", then I'll concede your point.

I think you are creating an impossible standard for search engines, then using it to deem the current ones as failures. While at the same time ignoring that this new search engine is, as present, unusable with no realistic argument for why it might eventually be better.

[citation needed]

The quality of the results right now are not very high, and in theory I don't understand why one would believe a search engine with a hand picked set of domains would be expected to outcompete a search engine that can crawl the entire web and determines reputation by itself. This also ignores the fact that a lot of domains have a mix of high quality content and low quality content, for example twitter or medium. If you are going to rely on domain-level reputation then your search engine is going to be way behind the search engines that can judge content more specifically, which is all of the other search engines.

If you were to tell me curated domains is just a bootstrapping method and as the search engine evolves it will change, fine, but right now the search engine is so simplistic that the theory of how it might be good is really the only point. And if that underlying theory is dubious, and the infrastructure is simplistic and obviously won't scale, then I don't know what is interesting or novel about this right now. Doesn't seem worthy of reaching the top of HN.

If you have centralized batteries, then the decisions about (a) how big they are (b) who they cut off if the battery is running out and (c) how the batteries impact the pricing of power are all made at the community level, which has value as a way to optimize the way an entire community draws from the power grid, but it lacks precision in how it helps individual households.

If you have localized batteries then people can choose (a) if they need batteries at all, (b) how many batteries they need and (c) how they want to use the batteries to offset their grid usage (some people might want to rely on batteries mainly for emergencies, others to aggressively charge and discharge based on different price levels throughout the day). It might be less efficient in aggregate but it is much more accurate in terms of delivering the benefits to the people that need them.