randerson

IMHO digital entertainment doesn't make up for being stuck in a cramped cabin for up to 19 hours (the longest international flight) around people (with varying levels of considerateness, contagiousness, and personal hygiene). Not to mention the increased risks of DVT and radiation exposure.

I travel each year to see family abroad, a minimum 2-leg trip totaling at least 27 hours. I can't sleep on planes so I arrive exhausted and am useless and cranky for the first 2 days after this trip. I would happily pay 2x the fare to cut that trip in half.

Under the assumption that it was a suicide, there have been changes that resulted from the similar Germanwings incident. Most airlines adopted a policy of requiring at least 2 people in the cockpit at all times.

Edited to add: There are also discussions underway on how to better handle pilots suffering from depression, since pilots are currently incentivized to never disclose mental health problems for fear of losing their livelihoods. Mentour Pilot talks about this too at the end of his Germanwings video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotcRYD42e0

I'd pay good money for a dumb 4K OLED TV that does nothing but show whatever is coming in through the HDMI port.

I use a Playstation 5 for everything including Netflix, Apple TV and so on. But every time I turn on the PS5, my TV detects the Playstation and automatically changes the TV's Sound and Video modes to "Gaming", which makes dialog difficult to hear on TV. So I change the setting manually using its horrible remote control, only for it to change back to Gaming the next time I use it.

I see no reason not to believe them. This is the company that invented the seat belt and made the patent free to all other manufacturers. They seem genuinely passionate about reducing road deaths regardless of make.

Volvo is technically capable of making a car that drives 250 kph. That was the top speed of the Volvo 850 T-5R way back in 1995, so its a bold claim to suggest that lowering their top speeds is because they're incapable.

But "250 without issues" is easy to achieve under perfect conditions, but it is far from safe. The driver only has to sneeze at that speed, or hit a puddle of oil or some debris dropped by another car, and it is game over. They're right that safety tech won't save you at those speeds.

Volvo doesn't want anyone dying in their cars, regardless of whether its the driver's fault. Nobody needs to drive that fast and "people who will drive at >180 on the autobahn" is not a common enough use case worldwide to be worth optimizing for.

Thanks for clarifying and agree with that.

Having owned a few Miatas I can attest that they spin if you're not careful on slippery surfaces. :) TC/DSC is a lifesafer particularly when driving at normal speeds.

Driving my NA (pre-TC) was a pleasure in part because it had so little grip and so little power, that it would let go progressively and at low enough speeds that I could always catch it and not risk a serious crash. Between the squealing of tires and the immense body roll, I always knew how much grip I had left to play with. I now drive a 911, and stability control stays on permanently because I'm not confident I'd always catch it if I accidentally give it too much power (or lift off too quickly) in a turn.

If you do hit gravel/oil, tracks at least have runoff areas or soft barriers, and no oncoming traffic or cliffs to worry about.

Every track day I've attended required the cars to have been inspected for leaks and loose components. And they were quick to clean up any debris or oil.

Not that tracking cars is the safest hobby, but if someone is gonna drive like that regardless its far safer at a track than on public roads.

I think this understates just how fast modern performance cars have gotten and how unsuitable they are for public roads.

A Ferrari 296GTB sprints from 0-100mph in 4.7s. The 1983 Lamborghini Countach I had a wall poster of as a kid, took 12.1s (and a relatively leisurely 5.4s to get to 60mph). The Ferrari is pulling well over 1G longitudinally during this time, enough to induce tunnel vision in some people and warp your perception of speed and distance.

Compare someone accelerating at full throttle through that tunnel in the Countach versus the 296. The 296 would reach 2-3x the speed the Lambo did by the time they reach the curve where he crashed. Human brains can't process and react to surprises 3x as fast as they could in 1983. Even if they could, at 2x the speed your braking distance increases 4x. No amount of traction control or electronic nannies can make up for this. Nor can the electronics bypass the laws of physics - I think for many they provide a false sense of security.

And while there have been huge improvements in passive safety too, they are tested at speeds like 40mph, not the 90mph+ it is estimated Vince's car was going. This is why Teslas have the highest crash safety ratings there is, while also have the highest rate of fatal accidents.

Not to take away from the tragedy that is Vince's death. I enjoyed many hours playing MoH and CoD as a youth and this is extremely sad news. But as a car enthusiast, I am using this as a sober reminder of how quickly things can go wrong at speed.

Am I? The second paragraph is about how to get around legally if you don't have a license. First and third paragraphs are about not making the bad decisions that you get into that situation in the first place (prevention is better than cure). What am I missing?

This thread is about driving without a license, but from the perspective of enforcing the laws to keep unlicensed drivers (who are generally more dangerous) off the roads to make the community safer. The point I'm trying to make is that while yes its unrealistic to expect 100% of unlicensed drivers to stay off the road (for reasons you have outlined), there is a large enough % of unlicensed drivers for whom visible law enforcement would be a deterrent and that would at least be an improvement over today.

> The crime under discussion is not driving while intoxicated but driving without a license.

How did these people lose their license in the first place? The most common reason is DUIs. Followed by multiple instances of reckless driving. People are less likely to lose their license to begin with if they know there will be real consequences.

And there's a large enough population for whom driving without a license is not a crime of desperation. In many places there _is_ a public transport alternative (even if its slow and crappy). I used to give a lift every day to a colleague who had lost his license. I enjoyed the company and he paid for my gas. Many people can make an arrangement like this.

> But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?

Having been in this position many times: take an Uber, then Uber back to get your car the next day and plan better (or don't drink) next time.

The cops will never deter everyone from breaking the law, but they don't have to. They just need to deter a large enough % of the population to have a positive effect.

Driving while intoxicated is not a crime of desperation. Even celebrities are often caught for DUI despite being able to afford a full-time limo driver.

Most people who drive intoxicated have jobs and reputations they'd prefer to keep, and families at home they would rather not be separated from or have to explain an arrest to.

And to be clear, we can't solve all the problems with a single measure. I'd like to see not just better law enforcement, but also a social safety net that ensures nobody is ever starving or homeless.

Alcohol will likely always be a factor in the worst accidents. But France is doing something right because your fatal accident rate per capita is one third that of America's [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Plenty of wealthy people are bad at delegating. The part that amazed me is him buying the cheap unpronounceable Amazon brands for medical equipment, like "DEDAKJ Oxygen Concentrator 2-9L/min Adjustable Portable Oxygen Machine for Home and Travel Use". I would've thought a billionaire would be surrounded by the best name brands in everything.

He also seemed bad at delegating his interior decorating to a professional, judging by the photos of his island.

If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it.

I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication. When there's a real risk of waking up in a jail cell you're less likely to order that third beer. But in the US when renewing my tabs I feel like the joke's on me because half the cars here seem to have expired tabs or illegal plates and nobody ever checks.

As a lowly retail investor, I'm only investing in AI because everyone else is investing in AI. I hope for a greater fool to dump my AI stocks on before the music stops. I am sure plenty of Wall Street sees it the same way.

We're certainly seeing short term value at companies who grew profits by replacing workers with cheap AI tools. But the true cost of those AI tools is still being paid by investors, not customers. (Not to mention the indirect costs being paid by society, from the rising cost of RAM & electricity to global warming.)

In the long term these AI companies will need to raise their prices substantially if they're to break even. Will the value still be there for their customers when its no longer cheap?

And if AI puts enough people permanently out of work, the GDP will drop, leading to demand for any product made with AI dropping too. It is an industry that could eventually eat itself.

Given how many people are getting rich from the inflated stock prices of every AI-adjacent company right now, including the ones with no obvious path to profitability, I could make the argument that they're already in a short term extraction phase.

(I'm also not sure if putting a significant % of the population out of work will create long term value to society.)

If they deviate from their flight plan, don't they have to at least inform ATC to basically update the flight plan? I vaguely recall this from my PPL training about 20 years ago (I haven't been current for a long time) but I also never had to fly over international waters where I'd imagine you can't radio anyone so I don't know that that works.

Yes, opaque accounting was a real problem. I would love to see a more streamlined, modern take on SOX. Today's SOX, in practice feels like a box-checking exercise and mandatory funneling of money to accounting firms who don't understand the intricacies of (among other things) modern software development. They forced inefficient processes on my company and weren't willing to discuss smarter solutions. No doubt there are better SOX auditors & consultants than I dealt with. But its part of the reason companies now stay private for longer and prefer secondary rounds for employee liquidity. So now retail investors miss out on the action, while accredited investors have even less transparency than a pre-SOX public company.

Almost all insiders file trading plans far in advance as a defense against accusations of insider trading. Twice-a-year reporting actually makes it harder for insiders because they will have to file their trading plans further in advance. And it doesn't stop shareholders from suing insiders if they believe there was actual insider trading.

I rarely agree with Trump, but I'm a former exec at a public company and he's not wrong. You need a horde of lawyers and accountants and investor relations and SOX compliance people and auditors etc for the earnings reports. SOX adds burdensome processes at every layer of the organization. Your CFO and CEO will be preoccupied by earnings. It's a real disincentive for a small/medium cap company to go (or stay) public. A PE firm taking a company private can get rid of all this overhead on Day 1.

Not to mention, quarterly reports incentivize a company to focus on the current quarter instead of longer-term sustainability. Reporting twice a year doesn't solve all the above problems, but it sure would reduce them a little.

I've long wondered what would happen if, say, NYT sued me for blocking their many ads (despite being a paying subscriber). My argument would be that I'd never click on the ads anyway out of principle, so the ad blocker is just me delegating the ignoring of ads that I would've done myself regardless. Also that if I couldn't turn off ads, I wouldn't have subscribed and they'd make even less revenue.

That said, I doubt these companies would sue because of the risk of setting a precedent in favor of the consumer. Scary legal letters (e.g. cease & desist letters) perhaps. But given enough customers, at least one will have the resources to hire a good lawyer and fight it all the way to court.

As someone with a septic tank, I'd rather spend more on a system that won't fail and won't kill anyone. I'd grumble while paying so much but I'd still do it. Just like I'd rather pay more for a car from the over-regulated EU than one for half the price from a country with no safety or quality regulations.

I realize I don't speak for the more cash strapped population, and I agree that overbearing regulation can be a problem. The problem is not regulations themselves, which save lives, but the perverse execution of new regulations in countries like the US (often written by market leaders to cement their moat, with the power of lobbying.)

There is still $5K more _economic_ value created, in that +$5K went to people who might otherwise be jobless. They'll in turn spend that money at businesses in the private sector, reaching more people, and so on. If the man with the septic tank runs a coffee shop, he will see extra value from more coffee sales.

The extra taxes paid by all will (theoretically) improve the schools, roads, military, and services. The regulations will (theoretically) decrease the risk of poisoning ground water and injuring someone, which adds even more value to the local community.

The distinction is just that the septic tank is twice as expensive in the developed country. But that money can lift people out of poverty. The exception is when the company owner is hoarding the majority of the money tax-free instead of paying it to people who will spend it.

I guess there's a paradox in that we'd only make the progress needed to overtake if we are still launching throughout those 600 years and iteratively improving and getting feedback along the way.

Because the alternative is everyone waiting on one big 600-year government project. Hard to imagine that going well. (And it has to be government, because no private company could raise funds with its potential payback centuries after the investors die. For that matter, I can't see a democratic government selling that to taxpayers for 150 straight election cycles either.)

And yet, Sony Pictures is working on a Labubu movie. The meme-fuelled peak may be over, but the final death of the labubu is a long way in the future.

Microwave Popcorn containers are also coated with PFAs.

I have "Night Vision Assist" on my car. It has an IR sensor up front and displays a live image on the instrument cluster. It uses AI to highlight pedestrians and animals. When I'm being blinded by lights I rely on Night Vision far more than I wish I had to. It would be even better if it were integrated into a head-up display, overlaying objects on the windshield. (I suppose it would need to track the driver's eyes to know where to display them.)

#3 Plenty of drivers have difficulty spotting a gray/silver/black car under low or high-contrast lighting. Highly visible colors (yellow, orange, white) have a 7-12% lower chance of getting into an accident during the day and up to 47% lower at dusk.[0] Keeping your headlights on at all times reduces this risk.

#7 In many states (e.g. [1]) if two lanes are merging you're expected to merge at the last possible point. This allows more cars to fit on the road to reduce congestion, and it reduces sudden stops.

[0] https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/216475/An...

[1] https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/traffic-safety-methods/work-zone...

Not if one of those companies patents the cure.

This problem is easily solved in countries that use VAT

Ex-CTO here. A CTO doesn't have to be a people manager. It certainly makes it easier to staff pet projects if you have direct reports (rather than having to convince a VP Engineering to give you resources). But just know that many CTOs (especially co-founder CTOs) focus on technical vision & strategy, being the engineering representative in the C-Suite and vice versa, overseeing architecture and innovation, and perhaps even write code. As the CTO you should be able to decide how many meetings you need to be in, and for that matter you could set policies that eliminate pointless meetings across the board.