cornellwright

It's funny - I've only caved a bit, but I watch that video and think "wow that looks fun." There's something so exciting about getting right up to the edge of what's possible for a human to do.

It won't be right for everyone, but if you aren't driving more than a couple hundred miles in a day, being able to charge it at night vs driving a long ways to the one overpriced rural gas station sounds pretty appealing to me.

Also there's better torque for towing and lower maintenance.

Still sounds like quite an adventure.

Large parts of adventures are basically boredom in poor conditions.

While I did not apply, I can see the appeal. In one word: Adventure

I generally agree with all of these, however demand is not uniform which results in some vehicles having to be parked while they're not needed.

As another commented, it will be a very interesting optimization problem to figure out how to efficiently use the underutilized time of the fleet. There are a lot of things which are done at peak times now only because the owner of the car has to physically drive it there that could easily be moved to non-peak.

I don't have time to dig into it, but $0.50 seems like a wishfully low number.

I would love it if it cost me only $0.50/hour to operate my car. Conservatively I'd go with more like $5/hour (assume 10mph average at $0.50 per mile).

According to [1], median daily unreserved parking in SF is $29/day, so at 6 hours you break even. You can likely get much cheaper than this by driving a bit further away. Even at the $38 for New York and $42 for Honolulu you still break even around 8 hours.

[1] https://investinganswers.com/articles/most-ridiculously-expe...

This seems needlessly alarmist. If this is a problem it will get solved. It's probably not a big problem because:

1. Cars can go off and park somewhere further away. Cruising around the city isn't free (fuel, maintenance, risk of damage)

2. We should be able to get more density out of our existing parking lots if cars can park each other in and shuffle around to let each other out.

3. Cars can go do something more useful (run errands, work for ride share).

Sure, you can come up with an algorithm question hard and obscure enough that no one will be able to answer it in the time given and no one will have bothered to memorize it because it's so obscure.

That doesn't mean all "implement X algorithm questions" are categorically bad.

Sure, but that's my point. So long as the interviewer is telling you what they'd actually like you to do, you should be able to just derive the algorithm you need to do it. At some point the algorithms become difficult enough (particularly if you add lots of constraints like efficiency) that it's pretty unreasonable to expect that in an interview though, and at that point it's a bad question.

Rather than memorizing a thousand algorithms, I generally focus on being able to solve problems simply, quickly, and elegantly, which will help in actually doing most jobs.

Is BFS really that hard, especially if the interviewer is willing to talk it out with you and doesn't care a lot about finding the most efficient solution possible?

I've been out of college more than 10 years now, do a mix of hardware and software (so am not coding all day everyday) and I can hack together algorithms like BFS if I spend a couple of minutes thinking about it.

I get that there are many awful interviewers out there and that hiring is pretty broken, but BFS seems like a pretty reasonable interview question, so long as the interviewer talks through what it actually needs to do and isn't only looking for a memorized answer. The question is well contained, doesn't require the candidate to know any specific API or framework, and can be implemented in pretty much any language. Probably the biggest downside to it is it's such a common question that many candidates study it ahead of time which makes it a worse filter.

Given that these NCs are generally negotiated as part of the sale of the company I don't really see a problem. If what you're being offered isn't worth agreeing not to compete then keep negotiating or walk away.

And 9/11 was still a prelude to a shooting war.

I've always really liked this story.

As it mentions at the end of the article you can see the airplane hanging from the ceiling in the Las Vegas airport. There's a little mini air museum in there too with a few other aviation related artifacts. If you have a long layover it's worth seeing even though it's outside security.

Reboots are actually fine as ephemeral data will persist through a reboot on an EC2 instance. Your question is still valid though in case of halting and how you deal with it is specific to your application, but you have to be able to handle all the data on that ephemeral disk disappearing without warning.

One way in the case of a database could be a second EC2 instance configured as a read replica in a different AZ.

I've used it on medical devices.

I don't see how the market is winner take all and it's certainly big enough for more than one player. Everyone who comes after whoever's first to market will have the advantage of a clear regulatory pathway and an example of what works, simplifying many (though clearly not all) decisions.

It probably depends on the domain - I've hired people domestically across a few different fields for rates in the $50 - $150/hr range when I was looking for specific expertise that I wasn't able to find in my network. It's sort of niche and I don't know if they were making a full time living from it, but I think we paid fair and got what we paid for.

Given the number of times I've personally almost hit birds while flying small aircraft, I'll take the downside risk. Give the tower some sort of override to require the drone to land if it's doing more harm than good.

There's lots of easier ways to hack our fragile ATC system than herding birds at airplanes that I'd worry about first.

While I agree that health care shouldn't be tied to your job, employers still have a responsibility for worker safety and should still be responsible for any injuries that happen in their workplace.

I think it's a terrible idea in theory. In practice it probably won't be as bad as companies find loopholes and exceptions. (For example, is having food delivered a cafeteria?)

Still, companies should be able to decide what they want to offer their workers.

Also I wonder how they authenticate the "alums" who sign up. Who's to say it's not someone posing as a founder from a YC company after setting up a plausible gmail address?

This is interesting, but you will probably get better reviews and feedback through your network. It is probably better than sending generic cold emails to YC founders though (which happens and I would discourage).

While I am open to giving back to the community, this should really have a little more information on who's behind it, what a sample review looks like, etc. Also if the reviews are truly double-blind, it seems to take a lot out of the value for the founder. One of the big reasons I help many startups I don't already know is simply to expand my network.

61C, and it will come sooner or later at rush hour, but there's no point in looking at the schedule.

I agree with having a way to report people, but not with giving the reporter a share of the fine.

While I agree with the objective - that cars/trucks should shutdown instead of idling, I have to wonder, do we really want to a society where people are paid to report their neighbors? Sure it seems like this guy is doing everything properly (documenting real cases of random idling), but what happens when people start using things like this for harassment/revenge, fabricating idling cases (similar to the Uber vomit cleanup scam), and generally making a living off getting people fined.

Compare this to a trained law enforcement officer who doesn't personally make money on every fine who will take the whole situation into account, rather than just trying to make a buck.

This make work out fine at this small scale, but we should be cautious when it comes to creating untrained citizen bounty hunters.

I'm not sure that most skilled drivers to could reliably drive through SF 100,000 times in all weather without some sort of incident. Autonomous would be more impressive.

One useful way I've heard to remember it is the rule of 3's:

You can survive approximately: 3 minutes without oxygen, 3 hours of exposure (core temperature), 3 days without water, 3 weeks without food

Supposedly the special forces add to this "3 seconds after a bad decision."

Sure, it won't be phrased that way and so obvious when presented. But I guess that's my point: Have a conscience, pay attention, and don't build anything illegal or unethical. Management may be sanctioning it now, but they won't have your back once the music stops.

The other thing I'd add to this is if you look at the VW and other scandals, you'll see "rogue engineers" are the first ones executives will try to throw under the bus. Ethics aside, you're taking a huge risk in order to inflate someone else's bonus.

In the end if things go sideways the company won't have your back. That boss who told you to cheat (verbally of course) will suddenly have "no recollection" of the conversation.