8,531 karma · joined September 26, 2012
A) The Economist says that article limit is 5 per month. But they waive that limit for Google Crawler. So they mislead search engine into thinking that article is accessible, when actually it is not. They intentionally misrepresent as a free service to attract free SEO traffic.
B) The person who shared link to that article was not aware people like me will not able to read it. They were also mislead into thinking is an accessible resource, to get free shares.
C) Even if you don't have a problem with A and B, their UX is ridiculous. One message to subscribe is covering another message to subscribe. As the same time there is a newsletter popup which promises you a PDF.
I hope that now you better understands what annoys people. It's is not that business are trying to make money; it is how they approach it.
Article I wrote for Vice on that topic: http://svedic.org/philosophy/car-sharing-and-the-death-of-pa...
- Truck spring wheel: http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/smw/images/thumb/a/...
- Bicycle spring wheel: http://www.oldbike.eu/museum/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/WW1-...
A) Safely store confidential data like credit card information and pins.
B) Share some data with coworkers, on a folder-by-folder basis.
C) In a case something happens to me, my friend has Emergency Access after 7 days: https://helpdesk.lastpass.com/emergency-access/
I completely agree with that. Quick check is to replace all images on a page with placeholder images—if that doesn't reduce functionality of the page then maybe you don't need that images at all.
I wanted to measure visual information content of a page, and yes, PNG is maybe not the best to do that. JPEGs are smaller, but it introduces another problem of visible artifacts around text.
If anybody knows a better way to measure visual information content, please suggest.
Author here. You are completely right, I didn't include self-driving time in the second table. To correct my omission, let's add a column for 3X utilization where self-driving cars spend half of the time driving alone.
Shared self-driving car (3x)
-----------------------------
Used: 3 x 5% x 2 = 30%
Parked: 70%
Number of cars in the city: N/3
Parking places needed: (N/3) x 70% = N x 23.3%
Parking reduction: (N x 95%) / (N x 23.3%) = 4.07x
-----------------------------
So, in that theoretical case, we would need 4x less parking. However, this is just a rough calculation, for better precision you would use some traffic simulation application.
Thanks for feedback!
It is funny to imagine how emoticons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons) would look today if one of alternative symbols was accepted?