This was my grad school commencement. One thing that really stuck out was how many folks I knew where either themselves or their families complained about the Car Talk guys giving commencement instead of some head of state or what have you. Ray and Tom’s speech was thoroughly entertaining and humble.
Yes. Emphasis state. Recently passed AADC legislation (Age Appropriate Design Code for the UK) and CA-AADC (same thing, California) are going to make these kinds of design patterns common.
With the passing of the Age Appropriate Design Code (AADC) in the UK and the California Age Appropriate Design Code expect to see this is a general design pattern across the internet.
Part of the disconnect here is that the oft-repeated claims of how many miles have been safely driven by FSD versus humans is a bullshit number. Nearly every mile driven by FSD was driven by FSD AND a human that had to take the wheel when FSD failed.
> In studies of willingness to pay for autonomous driving, the range tends to be $1,000–$7,000, which would buy you between 120–820 hours on Volkswagen’s plan. In 2018, commuters drove an average of 225 hours per year. Drivers typically value their time at 20–40 percent of their wages, and given that the average American wage is around $52,000 per year, or about $26 per hour, Volkswagen isn’t necessarily being unreasonable with its pricing.
The price may or may not be correct, but it doesn't appear to be fabricated out of pure intuition. It seems good to see an alternative pricing option on the table to Tesla's current single, up-front purchase price. As more players enter the market, some amount of economics should finally start to take hold such that the right price and model emerges. As they say, you have to start somewhere.
All of that said, at some level it feels like cars are headed to a place where autonomous driving is no longer an option, but an inseparable feature to the concept of owning a car. At that point, are you subscribing to the car or are you subscribing to the autonomous driving system?
This is the opposite of a map. A map helps you build a mental model for how you navigate space by showing you a broad view of the land, potentially enabling you to navigate to anywhere. This offloads the effort of learning, such that you don’t learn to navigate the space yourself, and only gets you from one point to another.
This is article is pretty light on details. There may be many reasons for the recent spat of records (most of the ones mentioned, btw, are regional), but the shoes are definitely a big contributor.
It's worth noting that 9(!) world records in track and field were set in 2020 (https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/mens-world-records/). Two of those were not on the track (pole vault, shot), and thee were set by a single individual (Cheptegei). I'm too lazy to try to dig up and chart the historical record progressions, but that does seem like a fair blip.
At the end of the day, none of these shoes is actually giving you any energy for free- they're just much less lossy than the previous generation of shoes. This feels like the right direction of progress to me.
So you'd propose jamming the GPS satellite broadcast signals? That would pretty much just break GPS for everything nearby. Or do you mean just outbound communication from wrist devices? How are you going to prevent people from just going home with their Apple/Garmin watches and connecting/uploading from there (which is, presumably, what they already do)?
Deleting older reviews isn't the only mechanism for handling stale reviews. They could add a decay function to the weighting in average review rating and leave the contents of the original review in place, for example. New versions of products could be treated as unique products, and thus reviews could be forked.
I'm surprised they didn't compare the Vaporfly 4% to two other shoes: the Nike Zoom Fly and the Reebok Floatride Run Fast. The former is an identical shoe, but with the Pebax replaced with another foam (Lunarlon?). The latter is another Pebax foam shoe, but in a different form factor. That way they could tease out of it is the material or the shoe design.
Alas, the actual examples aren't fully enumerated (to the tune of some 4,500 complaints). The syntax of "slow service" in the cited examples is in seating customers.
The reasons outlined on that thread are very specific to the Los Angeles area. Not that crazy regulations don't exist in SF, but the car-centric parking space regulations in Los Angeles are a huge part of the outlined cost. I don't think that applies broadly.
So far, all I've found is some research that artificially lowering LDL or raising HDL may not show clear correlation to lower heart disease risk- not quite the same thing as saying LDL isn't generally correlated to heart disease risk:
It's the profiling part that's the problem- you can determine through trial and error if you are likely to be interviewed, and adjust your resources accordingly. As noted in the paper, the 9/11 hijackers appeared to do exactly that.
Completely random interviews can't be gamed the same way.
From the article: "The geolocalized app offers the same basic services as Uber; users can hail black cars, rate their drivers, and drink free bottled water."
Does the app also remove drivers with consistently low ratings from the system? From where I stand, _that_ is the killer feature of Uber. In the early days, I was happy to pay a premium to Uber not to put up with the typical crap you get from cabbies in Los Angeles. For example, swearing the entire duration of a cab ride from LAX to El Segundo or Manhattan Beach because they were hoping to go for a longer ride.
I've never had an Uber or Lyft driver that was anything but pleasant to talk to.
https://www.focus2move.com/world-car-market/