bennyelv

Alas in the world of B2B, contracts from larger companies nearly always come with lists of specific requirements for security controls that must be implemented, which nearly always include requiring anti-virus.

It just not as simple as commenters on this thread wish!

That's the point though - if you get your fitness up then 600 kcal/hour should be possible on the bike and it should be sustainable to do day after day at that volume. Mix in the odd day of doing things super hard at 800-900kcal/hour and you're make an enormous difference to your weekly output.

If your goal is weight loss you should probably skip a mars bar every now and then, but I think you're underestimating what's possible after a bit of training and fitness improvement.

I agree with running but not cycling - I’d say it’s merely a question of how hard you try.

Cycling is one of the very few sports (along with maybe swimming) that you can do for extreme amounts of time without acutely harming your body.

The issue that does affect people is that if you started with the bad diet, you probably don’t have the fitness to produce the required output that would overcome it.

If you manage to increase your fitness so that you sustain higher outputs however you absolutely can out-train your terrible diet!

As a European I chuckled particularly at the warning about the “steep and winding nature” and “challenging drive” of highway 1.

It’a one of the easiest and most relaxing drives i’ve ever done.

Definitely not every road stage, but on a flat stage if your aim was to break away and stay away you should absolutely do surely?

Nobody ever has…

The aero drag is the elephant in the room here. By this study’s measurements there wasn’t much difference, but what was the width of the rim they used with the narrow tyre?

A narrow tyre on a wide rim is a wide tyre. They don’t explain or address this issue. I suspect they would have used a wide rim with all the tyres, which is notionally a sensible thing to do, but in reality it’s completely flawed.

What are the results if you used a narrower rim with the narrower tyre so that the frontal area was actually reduced as much as it could have been?

I hear what you're saying and that would normally make sense, but there are reasons why I don't think its true in the bike industry. It comes down to the same arguments that you often see on HN about whether or not a free market works.

Shimano can decide to stop manufacturing rim brake groupsets and spares for existing rim brake groupsets unilaterally. It doesn't matter if the customer wants it or not. The rest of the bike industry supply side won't object to it, because it pushes people towards replacing whole bicycles which benefits all of them.

Other component manufacturers can play the same games in the areas that they can control. Wheel manufacturers can start pushing to wider rims, and then increasing profitability with hookless. Benefits the frame manufacturer (oh no, you need a frame with more clearance!), the tyre manufacturer, doesn't negatively affect any other the other players who aren't directly affected, spin a marketing story about how great this new thing is based on dubious test results and claims, and off it goes.

Repeat that cycle a few times in a few different areas and you have the situation we are now currently in:

The price of a mid/high end bike has doubled in the last 5 years. The bikes have got heavier and more complicated and harder to maintain. The consumers are all pissed off with it and start leaving the sport. Sales suddenly fall off a cliff.

I'm not saying this as a conspiracy theory nut, but rather that there are a set of dynamics at play in this industry that mean that this kind of thing can happen.

>And I think you're severely overestimating wheel life span for modern models, at least due to the fact that carbon is more brittle than more pedestrian materials. Just look for Pogacar's fall earlier last week in the Giro to see how a simple flat tire makes the whole wheel a risk.

My experience is personal, but I get 50,000km out of a set of rim brake carbon wheels ridden in all terrains and conditions and through northern european winters. At that point you're also starting to lose spokes/nipples to corrosion, but the rim could be rebuilt with new spokes and a new hub if it didn't need a brake track. That riding includes racing, crashing, potholes, punctures.

Pogacar rides on Enve wheels, which are now hookless and therefore a puncture is much more likely to result in damage. Another innovation that makes life worse for the consumer and better for the manufacturer.

I don't share your optimism about the strength of the scientific method in pro-cycling :) It's not too long ago (admittedly in the pre-disc brake era) that climbers would have their bike built up to sub 6.8kg and then add weight to it to bring it up to the limit rather than use deeper wheels.

If you look at TT equipment all team members use the same helmet regardless of the fact that helmet performance varies massively from rider to rider.

The 2016 S-works Venge is 5w faster than both the SL7 and SL8, so on flat stages all specialized sponsored teams are riding it... aren't they?

Why is nobody wearing a TT Helmet and visor on a normal road stage?

You could be right about that. Hookless is an awful idea that benefits nobody...

It can't work like that in the world of mass produced equipment. You can only buy what the manufacturers are making, and as far as I'm aware there haven't been any wheels that are offered in different widths that the consumer can choose from.

It's always: this is the latest model, it has these features, thanks.

Unfortunately you cannot discount the “sponsor effect” here. Wheel manufacturers have been pushing wider rims because it helps them sell another set of wheels to everyone.

In the days of rim brakes a wheel had a finite life (the length of time it took to wear down the braking surface). Then shimano and the frame builders pushed everyone to disc brakes, so the wheels now last for ever. What do you know, 2 years later all the wheel manufacturers are claiming “wide is better” and flogging everyone new wheels.

I’ve not seen any clear evidence that they’re right, and there’s lots of intuitive reasons to think that wider tyres will be slower (aerodynamics!). I remain sceptical, but genuinely hopeful that someone who thinks that wider is faster can provide me with some solid evidence…

It is (source: I work in an org like this), but your aim as a leader, the VP in this case, is to do whatever is necessary to enable your team to succeed, given the constraints that exist.

Ineffective company operation and other people’s hangups and shortcomings are constraints. Does the nirvana where you are never limited by the ineffective operation of others exist anywhere? Some companies are better, some are worse, but all of them are collections of people with limitations at the end of the day!

To provide a counterpoint: were companies in the early days of the word wide web that started using the web to enable people do do things online that they couldn’t before not web startups?

All they were doing was using the technology innovations of other companies (browsers, ISPs, etc) applying a thin slice on top that targeted them at a particular problem.

I see the AI/LLM world as much the same. You’ve got some companies building the infrastructure (OpenAI etc) that enables others to layer bits on top to solve human/business problems.

I guess the argument is that “couldn’t the LLM just do the whole thing on its own”, but the reality of that is no.

Now you just can't get a plumber at all. I'm not sure they really were "taking British jobs" after all.

Well it was wasn’t it? There was a massive boom where loads of companies over promised what they would achieve, followed by a crash when everyone realised lots of them couldn’t, followed by stability for the smaller number that could.

It was the very definition of a hype cycle as far as I can see. Hype cycle doesn’t mean “useless and will go away”, you have the second upward curve and then productivity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

Fair point - it should do. However if you've already accepted the risk that a 3rd party dependency might contain a vulnerability that has been undiscovered and you don't do any deep analysis of them, then you're still making your system more secure by at least getting the fixes for known vulnerabilities out of the door.

Neither of those is the right answer! I'm dealing with the fallout of 10 years of "add whatever you want", and it's a unsolvable problem given the state of the system.

The answer is devops:

You build your system in a way that it's nearly effortless to test and deploy, then you can upgrade your dependency tree continually with minimal effort.

I just rented an Airbnb that used "Nuki" door looks and they were absolute garbage as well.

I never appreciated what an excellent solution a physical lock and key is until I experienced: - The paranoia when my phone was low on battery that I'm not going to be able to get back into the house. - The refusal of the stupid app to connect to the lock, requiring 5 attempts, turning things off and on again. Whilst standing in the street with all my stuff. Several times. Which causes... - Paranoia that the thing is just not going to work.

A smart lock needs to match the reliability and convenience of the thing it replaces. The reliability of a physical lock and key is so high that I'd describe it with a 1 rather than 9's.

A counterpoint would be: if you kept the same number of engineers and increased their productivity with AI, rather than keeping output the same and reducing the number of engineers, wouldn't you be producing more value overall?

I have evidence to support this - I lost people from my team who were offered "senior" or "lead" developer roles when they were nowhere near the level required for that kind of job. The level they were at was already a a stretch that they were growing into.

...and with a salary boost to match.

Now in the UK salaries have flatlined and the number of jobs is way down, and this no longer seems to be a problem.

Generally the more advanced you are as a lifter the less specialised machines are going to benefit you. Machines are there for people who don’t know what lifts to do and how to do them with proper technique.

If you glimpse inside the gym of a professional athlete you’ll generally find a comprehensive set of dumbbells, some Olympic bars + plates and a bench and not much else!

I'll second spending money on a chair. Spend as much as is required to find one that works for you.

After years of compromising and not wanting to spend what looks on the surface like silly money on a chair, I splashed out on a Herman Miller Mirra 2.

It's so comfortable that I'm pretty sure I could sit on it for the rest of my life and I'd never be in any pain, and it's in its 10th year of service without anything breaking, degrading or wobbling.

Best investment I've ever made!

A few counterpoints to offer...

>An LLM is math

Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality.

>Those things aren't alive

We don't have a universal definition of alive, or at least I'm not aware of one that isn't purely philosophical or artistic. We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence.

>both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial

Define artificial? We're made of exactly the same stuff. Complex chemical elements that were created from more basic ones in collapsing stars, arranged in a particular configuration with electricity flowing through it all and providing some kind of coordination. We're definitely a bit more "squishy", I'll give you that.

I’m convinced that some of the levels were deliberately unsolvable… get from one side of the screen to the other over a big chasm but you’ve got one exploding guy and one brick laying guy.

Maybe if I tried to play it again I’d realise that it was my limited 10 year old mind after all!

It's because it's about companies rather than private individuals.

Clearbit (nor my company) don't do anything B2C.

In the context of a business email address GDPR is far less restrictive. See GDPR Recital 47 (7): https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-47/

Direct marketing is not explicitly banned. If you have a reason to believe that the data subject in question (a B2B person operating in the context of their work) is interested in buying your stuff then you could claim "legitimate interest" and process their contact details/market to them.

That's what people are relying on at the moment. Whether all the data protection authorities in all the member states will agree with the market's assessment of this remains to be seen...

Hubspot have been working on how they improve the data that their customers have in their CRM system. The state of CRM data across companies is... variable to say the least, with a leaning towards the poor side.

It's often entered by hand, by a salesperson with a telephone handset in the other hand. Typos, inaccuracy abound, which limits the ability to analyse and gain insight from the data, as well as to use it effectively in automated processes.

Hubspot have been releasing features and changes that start to address this, and I expect powering it all with Clearbit data will be the first thing they do with this acquisition.

There are quite a few companies competing in this space, so there are options if Clearbit shut the doors to use outside of Hubspot.

My company is one of those, focusing on IP->Business matching, but also selling direct access to our database of business information in certain circumstances. (www.leadforensics.com).

I think the numbers are more than you'd think - as a cyclist who's near the top end of "keen amateur" but still nowhere near what people are capable of at the elite level my experience is that anyone of moderate fitness can do a 4 hour 100k without too much trouble...

It could depend on how you define "almost 100%" of course. There's a big difference between 5% and 0.001%.

Given that we're talking about cycling, the solution is to buy a power meter and measure rather than estimate. Unfortunately that's a rather expensive option for all but the most committed cyclists.

Being someone who has a power meter, I can say that strava's estimates over a long time period aren't that terrible, but if you're riding in a group, or there was a some wind, or a million other reasons they can be absolutely miles out.

That's hardly strava's fault, it's more about what's actually possible with an estimate.

What is completely made up and should be ignored is the calorie burn estimates you get from gym equipment.