zcw100

I’m not sure the, everyone is in debt, is a good explanation for what you’re seeing. Everyone is in debt but that doesn’t allow you to sustainably live beyond your means. Sure you’ll get a small bump on your way to maxing out your credit cards but it won’t take long to reach your limit and then you’re worse off than you were before.

I think a better explanation is small inheritances. I think there are a number of people that have come into small inheritances. Enough to change their situation but not enough to move out of their social circles and because of that they’re very unlikely to let you know.

Say someone gets $500k from their uncle. Not a small sum of money but not a gigantic inheritance. You’re not going to immediately retire if you get that but you might pay off your mortgage. Now ask yourself what your lifestyle might be if someone came along and wiped out your mortgage. Now that Jeep or Audi might not be such a big deal and your looking at them thinking, “how on earth can they be doing that? They’re working the same job I am and I can’t do that”.

If you make a personal post any response that disagrees or is critical can be framed as a personal attack and your admonition to either say something that agrees with the post or go somewhere else is against the rules as well.

Maybe the problem this person is having is that everyone around them is telling them what they want to hear?

What exactly don’t you like? Your comment doesn’t even make any criticisms. Do you not like I suggested that someone try being introspective rather than blame everyone else but themselves for their problem?

I know someone who was doing the equivalent of the bartending thing. Her grandfather was loaded and all major expenses taken care of. She kept it quiet but would give coworkers a ton of shit for general life things that she didn’t have to worry about. “sorry I’m late I had a flat tire.” “That’s not an excuse. You should have found a way to get new tires so you’re not late like me.”

It’s based on what the OP said which was pretty shitty.

Because you’re not just buying a car, you’re buying into the company that makes the car. You need a company that’s going to be around to do recalls, repairs, parts, service the warranty. It supports your continuing to operate the vehicle and contributes to its resale value.

This is even more important with BEV. There are very few, if anyone outside the company that can work on repairs and no non-OEM parts suppliers. It’s more like a laptop with wheels than a car with a computer.

The “antics” matter because it is a sign of instability. I’m not buying a car from a company that’s going to turn out to be the next Enron. If that happens to Tesla your car is going to be worth close to zero.

The Bobs appreciate you noticing the reference ;)

So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Since the new owner bought it thinking it was a 90, because it was enabled to be a 90, presumably paid for it assuming this was the case and is now upset because they don't have what they thought they bought.

Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy. How exactly are people supposed to abuse this? Tesla put the 90 in there and they're the only ones who are going to be doing that. Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"

I've always felt like there was something wrong with how outliers were framed, as though they were wrong, errors, illegitimate, mistakes, noise, etc. They are just, possibly, points from some other process than the one you're interested in.

Seems like a very unscientific way to conveniently ignore something that doesn't fit into the way you want it to be. "Look at all this rigorous math I'm doing! Oh, those points? In my expert opinion they're no good. Just delete them"

This question reminded me of a show that I used to love watching, Connections with James Burke. I'm sure there are aspects that it is missing but it's a very well told story of what needed to come together for the invention of the steam engine.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68mfbf

“Just want to get paid for doing as little as possible” Ya, no kidding and the employer wants to get as much as they can while paying as little as possible. That’s how it works. It’s Econ 101.

Hiring employees is like buying fruit. You don’t have some right to a perfect basket of peaches.

Why do anything then? It's a very nihilistic attitude and a very narrow conception of what "smart" is. How do you even begin to compare? How can you say that one author is smarter than another and why use some abstract metric that attempts to measure a characteristic of the author and not the works themselves? How do you not consider the audience when assessing the quality of the writing? And then there will be just personal preference.

How are you going to test the gas to make sure they delivered refrigerant and not just a cheap bottle of propane or other gas. How does the agency issuing the carbon credits verify that you were in possession of the refrigerant and it was indeed destroyed? Why don’t you recycle it rather than destroy it?

Right, not semantic web technologies and not very often used. Before someone jumps in with, "but it's used at....", I'm not saying people aren't using it but in the grand scheme they are extremely niche products.

That so beautifully captures the attitude of the semantic web community, "What people miss...". Didn't miss anything. It's this attitude, that the problem isn't with what's been done, it's that other people have failed to recognize how brilliant it all is.

Perhaps use two stacked meshes and allow it to create a moiré pattern. I'd imagine that would be fairly unique and difficult to reproduce.

That's hilarious that they're so out of touch that the JSON-LD and SHACL people are the realists. JSON-LD is ridiculous and a desperate attempt to attach semantic web technology to something that is actually used. It was announced with the misleading post titled "JSON-LD and Why I hate the Semantic Web". Only it's completely about the semantic web and is just a serialization format for RDF expressed in JSON. So you take JSON a format that can be described in a single page and layer this monstrosity over it. For what? The best thing that can be said for it is you can ignore it (maybe) and just treat it as JSON. There was zero need for JSON-LD. They had a perfectly good serialization format in TURTLE. It was similarly easy to describe and understand as JSON, but nooooo. They're always riding the coat tails of some other popular technology trying to get a free ride. It's like that obnoxious kid who shows up to the party and tells you how much smarter they are than you and then complains that no one will talk to them.

SHACL is almost dumber that JSON-LD, if you can believe that. At least JSON-LD is just a serialization format. If you can manage to get it to parse you can just reserialize it to a sane format like TURTLE and get rid of the stupid. With SHACL you're stuck with it. So you go and create the worlds slowest database by basically normalizing the hell out of it because if a little normalization is good a lot of normalization is better. Screw knowing anything about the world. Let's throw that all out the window and allow people to express anything.

So now you've got a database that can express anything and people say, "hey, I actually know some things about the world that seem to hold and my database is becoming a ridiculous mess. Can we make it so that people can't express something like I already can with my relational database?" Well the semantic web people went off in deep thought for a decade and finally came back with SHACL. It's a constraints language, expressed in RDF, of course, and if you express it in JSON-LD that means you've got SHACL expressed in RDF expressed in JSON, joy. I guess you could implement is in a number of different ways but it ends up firing off a series of queries saying, "Is this ok? What about that? How about this?" and if they're all successful then it will allow you to run the query you actually wanted to run. So now after all that you've got the world's slowest database that is now orders of magnitude even slower so that it operates a bit like MySQL.

Semantic web databases allow you to express just about any query you'd like but it allows you to express queries that you're never going to, and is extremely slow for the ones you are.

I think a lot of the criticisms of Java are motivated by developers trying to get paid for what they do. If you can jump to a new language while casting the old language as old, inefficient, etc you can, at least temporarily, command higher pay.

The thing is "classic old-fashioned" isn't something that is somehow timeless and is somehow outside of fashion trends. It's right in the name. It was fashionable but now it's old, old-fashioned. You can throw the "classic" in there all you want. The truth is all clothes come from some particular fashion. Some trends tend to change slower than others and that's what people seem to refer to when they say "classic" but it will change.

Wearing jeans at all is a trend. People have been wearing something other than jeans for far longer than they've been wearing them.

Data maybe the new oil, which I don't agree with, but it looked about like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Ohio#/me...

You can call data the new oil when someone invades a country to secure a data center.

I don't think anything fell out of favor and things are a long way from data being, "your data only" although you have been given some rights in that regard.

Nothing happened to it. Big data always represented pushing the boundaries of what could be done when dealing with large amounts of data. After a while the technology matured to the point where working with large datasets just became something you did. There was a lot of hype to it and many organizations unnecessarily went along for the ride. It's also a balance betwee current technology and economics of compute, storage, networking, etc. As the balance changes what and how you do things also changes.

" these symbols are designed to be memorized or looked up" ok so include it on the front of your washing machine and dryer.

" stroke width was increased so the overall shapes can still be read when details are lost to the viewing distance or blurred visions"

Increasing the stroke width isn't going to overcome this and the symbols have to be durable enough to still be read after the tag is worn and faded.

I was going to add something about improvisation and jazz. While it’s not planned out you wouldn’t describe them as “not knowing what they’re doing” nor are they just blindly mashing the keys.

They’re feeling their way through a dynamic situation guided by skill, experience and luck.

I'm going to go with "Not everything is designed, or planned. Sometimes the result is just the sum of a bunch of not necessarily coordinated decisions."

Some people know a lot about what they are doing and are highly skilled. A concert pianist doesn't just walk up on stage and wing it. What I think you realize when you grow up is not every decision or outcome was deliberately thought out and coordinated. Sometimes things just happen. They can even be the result of a collection of individual people who each is highly knowledgeable about their individual contributions with no single person responsible for the ultimate outcome. I'd imagine this is the way something like an automobile is designed.

It’s a lack of transparency. A CEO has a very different set of motivations than an employee. Just like saying they are telling you they are an employee chances you perspective on what that have to say so would telling you they’re the CEO.

When you need to project into an alternate universe you know you've got a weak argument. Micromanagement is a negative thing regardless of if you think the person needs and deserves it. You're not going to find anyone out there that says, "They really let me down. I mean I didn't want a lot of it but I didn't even get a little micromanagement. I'm really looking for this goldilocks micromanagement. Not too much, not too little, but just the right amount".

Self help pablum for aspiring founders. I'll just highlight a couple of the ridiculous things in there. "Minimize unnecessary micromanagement". There's just a ton in there. First, micromanagement already has a negative connotation so recommending to minimize it rather than eliminate it is just an obnoxious hedge. Then it doubles down on recommending minimizing only "unnecessary" micromanagement. You just go right ahead micromanaging those losers who deserve to be micromanaged. How else are you going to drive out the undesirables?

"Invite disagreement". All hedge. "some studies have shown", "in tern it could mean more innovative and inclusive products". Not because you want to show respect for the opinions of others or that you listen to what people have to say but because it could lead to more innovative and inclusive products ie. "I don't really care what you have to say other than how it hits my bottom line but go on talking. I'll let you know if I think you say something worthwhile"

"Keep pace with expertise" This was nice until you get to the bottom of the actual report and find out that Josh has an undergraduate degree in Biology and an MBA. I'm not sure how that shows any expertise in what is being written about but please go on nor how that could possibly qualify you as Chief of Staff at Google Research but there it is.

I think what's more interesting about stuff like this is not what they're saying but what they're selling. I can only guess that the real research Google did was that they needed more startups to get started using their products and that they would continue to use and expand their use of Google services as they grow.

What a wonderful example of corporate life. This is the type of carefully crafted political office bs I hate, from the double speak to the use of unnecessary exclamation points. Right out of the gate it starts with what they want you to do, sans exclamation point, "Don't bring your loud mechanical keyboard to the office". Then it immediately backs off with saying a couple of things to should like they're being reasonable. They "get it". They've "soared in popularity among engineers". I'm wondering why they needed to quality it as among engineers which leads me to suspect that they aren't one. "Owning a custom piece of beautifully crafted equipment is delightful!"

Now that we've stroked your ego and complimented your keyboard we get down to it "I implore you to not use them them at the office" So now we've established that you're use of a mechanical keyboard is completely frivolous and ego driven while they have a legitimate complaint. While you're just admiring your "beautifully crafted equipment" they're dealing with piercing noise.

Now that they've made their case they need to back off again to appear reasonable by offering a couple of helpful suggestions to get you comply with their demand/request with the implication that there are no compromises being made with these dampening solutions.

We follow up with denying what they're sure the reader is thinking, "This person is a dick", with, "Truly not trying to be a dick writing this". Oh, but you are. "I really get the excitement!" There's that useless exclamation point. They totally get it, not enough to get one themselves, or not write a dickish email but they get it. "The sound has been driving me up the wall, and I can't be the only one" and now we finally get to it. They just don't like it and they want you to stop. You can't be the only one because everyone is like them and they're so reasonable that there must be people out there like them.

Either take an office poll or shut the hell up. You very well may be the only one. You've completely marginalized and dismissed any serious medical advantage to the wellbeing of my fingers and wrists. Those are my money makers. Without that I'm screwed. You know what that sound is? It's the sound of money being made. It's what's probably paying your salary so no I'm not going to leave my mechanical keyboard at home and I'm not going to put those shitty o-rings on my keyboard.

I’m going to give this a big gigantic, “ who cares?” Let them burn. Here’s something I don’t hear anyone talking about. IT companies have to be among some of the easiest companies in the world to roll up right now. At least in the 90’s you had to sell off all those Herman Millar chairs and sell off the servers. What do you have to do now? Pay your last AWS bill and close the account. Done. Sure some VCs money goes up in flames but that’s how the game works. That’s the V part.

one of many reasons ;)

I don’t know where you got your data but mine would say otherwise

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

I’m getting tired of people citing the efficiency of electric vs gas without including the any of the electric production and distribution. Sure at the point of use electric is more efficient but what do you think they make that electricity with? Most likely it’s coal, after that it’s natural gas. The best argument in favor isn’t dubious claims to efficiency or even indoor combustion but that it’s fungible. Once you put the electric infrastructure you can transition from one source to another more easily. As more renewables come online you can phase out fossil fuels. I’m a little suspicious of the motivations to go all electric and rip out gas infrastructure. Enron and the recent troubles with the Texas power grid don’t bode well.