dopamean

And they probably don't want to leave the area. It's difficult to leave a network (familial or professional) behind. I'd love to know how many people who made that move made it to start a family.

Is it crazy to think that there should be some kind of governmental review process for _new_ products that generate tons of plastic waste? I'm imagining a consumer product version of the FDA. They'd look at something like Keurig and argue that maybe home and office coffee production is solved problem and maybe we don't need this new "innovation."

I understand that people have strong feelings about government in general so maybe some other process?

You should learn a bit about Rails. It wont be strange that people still use it.

I think all airbus commercial jets are fly by wire.

What I mean is that even for those who do things can be difficult and not as simple as "get them fed and to bed on time."

> My god. Just feed them and get them to bed at a proper hour, and turn off the blue lights.

I wish it were that simple for everyone.

This comment is such a great example of how most people would be terrible criminals.

Edit: by terrible I mean they'd be bad at not getting caught.

> the long period of ultra-low interest rates we enjoyed resulted in additional productive capacity

If there is evidence of that I'd love to see it. If this was true then we'd have a huge supply of homes all over America now which I think is not the case is it? All I hear about is undersupply driving up home prices despite demand being low. I live in Austin where this is very true so maybe I'm in a bit of a bubble?

Yes and then go on to say something they could not possibly know for a fact. In my day to day experience Cruise cars are, mile for mile, far worse than human drivers . How could I possibly know that? I've had a couple bad encounters with Cruise cars but I've had countless encounters with human drivers in between all those. How could either of us possibly know which one is better "mile for mile." It's a ridiculous thing to say. By couching it with "in my experience" they attempt to make it sound like they're just talking about their personal experience but then they go on to say something that sounds rather objective and _could_ be measured (but wasn't).

There's literally no way you know this for a fact.

Honest question because I'm not super educated on this matter... I keep hearing all this awful stuff about Hamas: they use human shields, they're launching rockets from hospitals and churches, they dont care about the lives of Palestinian people. The only people I ever hear making these claims are Israelis and pro-Israeli westerners. I haven't heard any of these claims from Palestinian people. If it was true that they're being used as human shields by these awful thugs that are ruining their lives wouldn't there be more of an outcry against them by Palestinians? Maybe that's happening and I'm just not seeing it?

They were and the ceo commented on twitter that he had no idea why that was and then rescinded offers to people who were starting the next week.

I often wonder where all the ipods went.

I think the reason for this is who the cyber weapons are pointed at. It's not common soldiers or random citizens in a war zone. It's aimed at politicians and media. I don't how much everyone else cares about this (not that they shouldn't) but if politicians and the media are worried about it then we're going to hear about it a lot and in rather breathless terms.

> It's not insane to get out in front of drone regulation

Nor is it surprising. There are a lot of regulations around aviation (though perhaps not as many as there are in other places) and safety is the reason. Every flying object in the sky is sharing the space with commercial airliners, hobbyist pilots, logistics companies, government aircraft, etc. All of which share the same regulations or have specific ones depending on the industry. It makes sense that drones would be regulated as well.

He absolutely is part of the elite as are basically everyone he associates with. In my experience when conservatives (rich or poor) start complaining about "the elites" they're almost always talking about Democrats and not always the rich Democrats. I'd bet that if polled a sizable chunk of conservatives in America wouldn't consider Trump to be one of the elites.

It seems to me that the difference between "cultural preservationist" and "opportunistic pilferer" is largely about the motivation of the would be preservationist or pilferer. Do many question that these antiquities were need of preservation?

I don't think that's a totally fair characterization of the history of air safety but I do mostly agree with your point. Government has to take action and right now they're just permitting anything... or that's what it looks like.

It wont be. It's being built in the same place this cracked Tesla was built. Also it's so over due I've got to imagine they're rushing to get it out the door.

Is there a functional difference? Would cracks from a cold shut not disqualify the product (whatever it is) from going into service?

I am one of the believers that self driving cars will one day make roads safer. I just think that the technology we have now that keeps getting called "self driving" is not there yet. If it requires the driver's full attention to keep things safe but also makes individual drivers feel like they can be a little less attentive then we don't really have a very safe situation on our hands.

When I say that the technology makes people feel like they can be less attentive I really do mean it. There was the SF tech worker who was playing candy crush or something when his Tesla smashed into a barrier on the highway. I have friends who own Teslas and talk frequently about how they like taking them on road trips because they can relax a bit more and pay less attention to the flow of traffic (it'll brake for you!!! they say). In a world where these cars have to share the road with human drivers and drive on roads that are under construction or in poor weather conditions I just don't see how we can say this is safe.

This may be a slightly weird thing to say and maybe I wont put it very eloquently but I'm somewhat of a believer in taking risks that can endanger lives now if it means doing something that is a net positive for everyone later. I'm not great historian but I think the aviation industry is a good example of this. Basically every plane crash that resulted in passengers dying has led to changes, and very often improvements, in air safety. Whether that be a change in the mechanical, software, or human systems that govern aviation. Globally these things are taken quite seriously because everyone understands how important it is. So it's odd to me to see such cavalier attitudes taken when it comes to self driving cars. Why not take safety more seriously? It will earn the industry a ton of trust and it could save lives.

> When humans make this mistake, they stop the car themselves. When this car made this mistake, someone else (Elon) had to stop it.

For me this is the important part. Too many people already drive far too distracted. Imagine giving many of those same distracted drivers a great reason to ignore what they're doing even more. Very frequently when I'm stopped at a traffic light I'll see the person next to me on their phone waiting for the light. Would we trust that someone doing that would lookup when their car starts driving into the intersection?

I really do want self driving cars to be a thing but I wish we were going about it a bit differently and I wish other people who wanted it didn't play things down as much as they do.

I'm not abandoning my observations. I'm just not willing to 100% say that something is worse than the status quo when I haven't really objectively analyzed either of case. It could be that far more human drivers roll through these stop signs in my neighborhood than I think. So is it bad that the Cruise cars did it? Absolutely. However, imo, if they do it significantly less than human drivers maybe it's better somehow? Idk. I'm not sure how to compare these things. I do know for sure that I'm not really comfortable with Cruise cars on the road but that may not be a rational feeling. I really just dont have enough information to know.

I know this is purely anecdotal but Cruise cars have begun testing in my neighborhood in Austin (they've been in the city for months already) and in two separate incidents on two nights this week I've seen one completely roll through a stop sign. In the first it seemed to know there was a stop sign because it was going along at the speed limit, slowed down like it was going to stop, and then just didn't stop. I was driving through the intersection and I had to move into the opposite lane to avoid the Cruise car. The next night I was just out for a walk and observed the same behavior at a different intersection. I've had several unpleasant run-ins with these cars over the last few months. Not sure how to feel about it all.

Sounds like the worst possible setup if you want to avoid a catastrophic loss due to fire.

That's right. An analysis I read said that the contract to give the company back to Portnoy specifically forbids him from running a sportsbook. He cannot in anyway compete with what Penn is doing. Again, according to the analysis I read.

I use visible. It has been trash basically everywhere I go. I live in austin and it's almost completely useless there. I haven't traveled to a single area yet where I've been happy with the service.

I made the switch at the end of 2021 after only having an android phone since the very first one. I wouldn't say I regret the change but I would say I'm not impressed. The way so many of my friends mocked me for having an android phone and talked up their iphones made me think I _must_ be missing something. Alas, I don't feel that I was. Every once in a while I boot up my old android phone (oneplus 6) and use it and it's snappier than I remember and feels way better in my hand than my iphone does.

I kinda want to go back but we'll see.

This reminds me of something I read many years ago as a teenager about getting inaccurate signals from analyzing phone data. The example it used was saying that the organizer of a Tupperware party's phone records would closely resemble those of a drug trafficker. I think the idea was to say emphasize that real investigations need more than just phone records.