2,399 karma · joined September 22, 2011
They don't even work in California. I bought a new Pixel last summer and a few weeks later, was running around San Jose on a day that was around 95-100F (car doesn't have working AC). I left my phone on the front passenger seat in the sun for a few minutes and was getting warnings about the device overheating, apps were running terribly, and I had issues for some weeks after.
And that's in the Bay - most of my friends live outside of it, where highs of 110F aren't uncommon.
On the other hand, Tesla (and the other new electric companies) have nothing else. It's electric or die. It's carve a space out in the market now, while the legacy players are still dragging their feet, still figuring out battery issues or production issues Tesla dealt with 5-10 years ago, still figuring out how to make good software for the last 20 years, still trudging along as if things haven't much changed. Kodak didn't lose because digital cameras were harder, they lost because they didn't want to cannibalize their existing products with something easier and cheaper.
Improving infrastructure for bikes in a serious, not-just-paint-on-a-road kind of way would result in higher density, which is also better for walking, scooters, public transport - basically _all_ forms of transport aside from cars. It would likely _reduce_ costs on infra in the long run, by virtue of having less paved area that has to be maintained.
> But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries,
Encouraging greater mobility through walking or biking would likely result is lower obesity and better health for people in general. I have two uncles that bike heavily, both 65+. Neither has ever mentioned serious injuries from biking, but both have had incidents due to having to share the road with large personal vehicles.
> live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way
That's... the issue in a nutshell and the reason to make serious adjustments to infrastructure?
> or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) we’ll still take our cars thank you.
Does investing in biking infra mean people are going to be required to bike year-around or something? Is snow even a serious consideration for the majority of the country? I'm not really understanding your point here. (Heck, I did some googling and the nordic countries do 10% of trips by bike to the US at 1%, so it seems like even countries with a lot of snow can make this work.)
> Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike.
No, they aren't great in every other way. They encourage terrible urban design that works against every other common mode of transportation. They require parking, which has always been a tremendous waste of space, especially in urban cores or downtown areas. They are safer only for the people inside them, and more dangerous for everyone around that chooses to bike, walk, etc., and this goes double for the ever-larger designs rolled out in the US. Human-powered transport effectively requires reasonable limits on distance - no one is going to be making a 3 or 4 hour commute walking or biking, and yet this isn't even uncommon for places people can get to by car. Cars may be great on the individual scale, taken in isolation; their effects in volume are bad at best.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that if we want effective recycling solutions for stuff like this, one of the biggest steps we could take is strong right-to-repair laws. There should be a push for designing things in such a way that they are easy to disassemble, part out, and replace pieces of. Not only does this make things easier to fix and extend their lifespan, but it also would make them easier to disassemble for recycling/waste purposes.
Requiring manufacturers to release documentation (design, components, most common failure modes, common repairs) on their products at some point after they no longer manufacture them is probably a harder sell but would be pretty nice - trawling old forums to figure out how to repair my 12-year-old subwoofer is a pain and unreliable, and having manufacturers responsible for hosting that information would make it more consistently available.
That's not what it is. Whataboutism is generally an effort to paint someone making an argument as hypocritical by citing other incidents that are similar and by drawing attention away from the original argument, eg. Republicans are bad because X; what about Democrats that do X?
The top comment isn't saying this is acceptable because other car companies do this. They're saying this is a manufacturing defect, and as is often the case when manufacturing items in the millions, defects happen. Mistakes get made. And unless the statistics of an incident are known, a single isolated data point tells us very little, and attempting to draw general conclusions from it is bad practice at best.
Further, I wouldn't expect to hear about recalls about steering wheels from other car companies (unless it was a very common issue), or incidents where their cars caught fire, or just crashes in general - and yet it seems articles crop up regularly about such events as they apply to Teslas. Going by media attention alone, one would expect Teslas to be 10x less reliable as any other car, which just doesn't seem to be the case.
> In this case, it doesn't matter if every company had a steering wheel recall. Tesla didn't and hasn't owned up to this mistake, and it's notably egregious even if other companies have had a similar issue.
Dude, it's been _one day_. Literally.
The Ford recall article notes "The automaker says it is aware of two accidents and one injury that may have been caused by the problem." So far for this case, we have one incident and no accidents. I'm genuinely curious how many incident reports Ford received before they decided to do the recall - but its pretty obvious its more than a single case.
It isn't whataboutism to expect the same standards to be applied to all car companies.
I've largely stuck with strong passwords for most of my accounts because of issues like these, and others I saw first hand - such as when my dad used to have a password db on a palm pilot. He had no backups, some point the device fails, everything was lost. I only felt comfortable moving to a password db once dropbox became a thing as a result - the balance of security vs. usability is pretty shit if there's a single point of failure with no recovery possible, and I'm not inclined to set up some backup process manually (dropbox has reliably been something I haven't had to think about for a decade.)
2FA feels a lot like that to me, except now with multiple points of failure that can be difficult to recover. Backup codes feel half-baked; it strikes me as the kind of thing that was tacked on to help the issues around hardware failure/human error that one _should expect and design for_; instead, we put the onus on the user with "your account may be unrecoverable" warnings as an excuse.
A better system, IMO, would have N factors and require one less. Keepass is the place where this has bothered me for some time - I can configure things so my db requires a password, and a file, and a Yubikey - but why can't I have two of three? Hell, why can't I have _one_ of two? If I'm in a car crash and die and I want one particular person to cleanup some aspects of my virtual life, it'd be nice if I could give them a key file and let them know there's a Yubikey in a safe deposit box. I feel secure, as no one has all three tokens but me and two are always needed; but I also feel the system is durable, in case something is forgotten, crushed, lost, etc. I dunno, maybe there's people or companies that already do stuff like this and I just don't know about it.
By comparison, the new breville I have does everything the old one did plus air frying, and the difference is distinct - I tried making fries in the convection baking mode on the old one and the result was noticeably worse than what I get from the new one in air fry mode. Noise and heat output approaches annoying levels with either air fryer, so I'm pretty confident the experience I get is close or the same as the purpose-build one. And the ability to space things out more gives better results, at least for my purposes. (I'll note that 95% of my air fryer use is for fries.)
As a long term front-end dev who likes tailwind, I find this fairly offensive. Your second and third points sound like problems with CSS in general.
> Vanilla CSS using `:root` declaration, a fixed base size (using `rem` and `em`), CSS variables and `calc()` are SO powerful.
If I'm using tailwind on a project, I don't want more power. I want less. I want simple constraints that give me solid basic styling without constant adjustment. The adjustments I _do_ want to make should be easy. The options available should be good options, not all options. I don't feel like fussing with box-shadow for the umpteenth time to get something that looks nice, or poking at my margins or padding or gap until it works with the rest of the page. I don't want to come up with a grid system again, or a color set, or a bunch of variables to extract these from the custom classes so they see proper reuse and are easily available; I want them already done.
Look, I'm not going to say regulatory capture doesn't exist, or that the wealthy don't have advantages in getting laws passed that favor their interests, but there's a great deal of stuff that gets done that is specifically for the poor or the average citizen.
The feeling I get from the whole thing is NV doesn't care that much about consumer graphics anymore, and doesn't care about providing competitive value. More of their revenue is coming from business applications, all of which is growing, and gaming looks like its down to 1/3 and shrinking.
SOMA is a horror game that gradually reveals you are simulated person in a underwater exploration suit, and provides well-constructed and disturbing examples of what this implies - there's zero indication of time between the point where your brain in scanned initially (some point in the late 21st century) and when the simulation is booted up from that scan (a hundred years later). At one point, your character is conversing with another person running inside a small portable device; you disconnect her mid-sentence, do other stuff for half an hour, reconnect her, only to hear her continuing that sentence exactly as if no time had passed (as for her, none did). SOMA also has you move from one body to another, and shifts your perspective - but you can hear your initial self in the first body is still active, and will be trapped there forever, while you move on in the new one.
There's others - Eclipse Phase is a pen-and-paper RPG setting/ruleset with an emphasis on transhumanism and horror; Ghost in the Shell touches on some of these themes occasionally; Moon considers some of these ideas from a physical cloning aspect; and of course there's a range of SF writers. How much and how deeply this makes it into the popular consciousness is another question, of course, but I think it'll increase in the coming decades.
Not really. It feels like every few months we get another piece decrying the lack of truck drivers, only for it to gloss over issues of pay. There is no shortage of truck drivers; there's a shortage of places that don't try to exploit them.
For a long time I couldn't pin down why this stuff bugged me, but I think I finally have it: it considers people to be static and one-dimensional. Because hey, there's no way the people who are expert/genius/10x could fall off the wagon, or stop keeping up with the field, or have kids, or burn out, right?
And similarly, the reverse is also true - is it impossible to train people to be better at their jobs? Are successful startups a magical place where a couple brilliant people come together and after that, a company can never hire that level of brilliance again?
There was another article a week or two ago that spent some time discussing how software tends to be 80% reading/maintenance work and 20% (maybe) greenfield work, and how optimizing for readability, durability, easily understood code and the like is better for the long-term health of a project/company than flashes of brilliance. And I'd guess that as your product scales and matures, shipping quickly becomes more difficult because more work has to be done to prepare things; quality expectations have changed; interfacing with and matching existing components functionality becomes a bigger part of the process. Saying stuff like "we lost our most brilliant people and now things are falling apart" feels like an excuse and an organizational failure to me, rather than a talent problem.
As far as the Bay goes, it feels like decisions about office placement are made with things like management or prestige in mind, rather than the average worker. For all the growth in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area, it seems like most office buildings continue to be built on the peninsula. Hayward is one of the most central locations in the bay and is largely used for... logistics and distribution?
I miss the office, but there's no way I'd give my current remote lifestyle for the way things were before (average 1.5 hours of commute time per day). Mind you, this is _after_ optimizing my home buying process to shorten my commute as much as possible. I have a neighbor that bought a Tesla mainly for the tag that lets you use it in carpool lanes. Everyone has better things to do than sit in cars (or other transport) for hours a day, and its a sad thing that more effort hasn't been expended to improve this before now.
I have a liking for the current crop of superhero stuff because its light-hearted. The tone is hopeful. (It's ironic, honestly, that the article goes on about the mature/miserable nature of current superhero stuff when the flagship Marvel stuff is all pretty positive, with the exception of the ten-year culmination of the Avengers storyline they cite). It's a nice break from worrying about the real world, which these days seems to have this constant, vague, oppressive feeling of inevitable doom. (An exaggeration, perhaps, but the universal problems around corruption, collective action issues, personal wealth above general good, etc. is tiring and depressing.)
Selective choice of facts would seem to be applicable here, as if the vast majority of news at the time was not in favor of the Iraq war and made few bones about it. Perhaps the implication is that as the "paper of record", the NYT is expected to be better than the WSJ, or the Post, or the various news channels? Honestly, is it even worth mentioning how there are now entire spheres of news sources that don't come close to matching even the fairly low standards of the old guard and yet seem to grow day by day?
If you have a problem with misleading news, lies of omission or absent context and your first thought goes to the NYT, I'd say you're missing the forest for a single tree.
I think a lot of this comes down to generational dynamics. Boomers were until recently the largest generation and have only been passed by millennials two years ago. They have the wealth and will to be politically heard and aren't particularly concerned with the difficulties of younger generations unless they see it second-hand through their children.
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Chef-Culinary-Institute-...