1,853 karma · joined March 24, 2013
Personal: erictj@gmail.com Twitter: @etjossem
For many reasons, I don't believe it's responsible to link people there.
Some starting points below, but please do your own research:
Point about importance vs. endorsement is well taken; I would rather not give any publicity to this project without couching it in explicit criticism, but that's a personal choice.
As a reader, there's a real difference between deciding to upvote the original title (an observer's description of an inherently deceptive project) versus casting a vote on what it's been changed to (a brand name used to promote that project). I would absolutely upvote an article critical of The Spinner - while at the same time, I'd downvote a promotional submission.
OP did not intend to advertise The Spinner, they intended to expose it as a deceptive project without linking to third-party press coverage. The submission title absolutely matters.
If this changes your mind, please go with the original again.
In fact, if people are making use of that option unusually often, economists get worried. Prior to a recession, consumers often feel more confident (and take on more financial obligations) than they have the resources to keep up with.
In the risks section, Peloton says that their revenue could decline due to changes in credit markets and decisions made by credit providers - a.k.a. if a bunch of people start to default on their expensive luxuries.
"In the future, we cannot be assured that third-party financing providers will continue to provide consumers with access to credit or that available credit limits will not be reduced. Such restrictions or reductions in the availability of consumer credit, or the loss of our relationship with our current financing partners, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, and operating results."
Muphry's law: "anything that can be mispelled, will be mispelled"
Join YIMBY Action. Support pro-housing candidates at the polls. Tell your friends.
"Politics is an organizational problem, not a technological one."
If we could just build more houses by saying that we decree them into existence, we wouldn't have this problem. The author proposes some ways to bolster the pro-housing community and get tech voters involved in local politics (including joining https://yimbyaction.org/), and here we are still wondering whether we want to have lower rents or not.
Some folks are going to say "let's have high affordable housing requirements in new projects." They may genuinely want lots of affordable units, or they may want to freeze housing supply and thus preserve the value of their single-family homes. Pro-tenant renter groups may not care about a "neighborhood character" argument, but they may care quite a bit about a "gentrification" argument, which is almost the same thing. Depending on what kind of YIMBY you ask, you could get someone who cares deeply about affordability, or someone who believes the market will fix everything.
All of this to say: this is a political problem about getting enough different groups with distinct interests to work together. Nobody gets a magic wand to deregulate everything, nor would it help.
If creating that coalition is something you care about, join the group the author recommended: https://yimbyaction.org/
Lots of possible roles, take a look!
Some folks on the email thread were personally involved in handling major outages in the early days. We've had to learn a lot of hard lessons since then. Even when everything seems like it's going fine ("wow, we're growing so fast, good problems!"), scaling issues could be right around the corner.
Anyone with a large enough installation of Postgres could've had the wraparound issue we're seeing right now. That's why it's important to monitor for what could go wrong, detect these issues early, and provide customers with rapid communication so they can plan around it.
Sending our best wishes to the MailChimp engineering teams working on the problem right now. Good luck, you've got this!
But it's awful for any supplier who hasn't found a way to be better than the best yet - and that in turn can encourage unhealthy consolidation of large businesses at the expense of small ones.
Put another way: let's face it, some of Adam Smith's predictions about the risks of monopoly were right too.
The last thing you want to do is turn them off entirely, or gatekeep the profession to exclude people who aren't good at reading dense documentation.
The best way to teach git is to get them comfortable with "Add, Commit, and Push" and then explain what's happening at each stage.
A reasonable person would not take this to mean that the car is driverless.
But in my view, the name "autopilot" itself describes a device for pilots, providing a very similar level of partial assistance to Tesla's current feature. It is accurate. The problem arises when it's sold beyond its traditional meaning.
To call the Tesla Model S an "autonomous vehicle" simply because it has a feature called autopilot is disingenuous.
These are not hard stats, they’re self reports from people who had occasions where they felt safer carrying. Peak confirmation bias. Of course we can find 100k people whose guns made them feel safer once.
But that’s not the question we are trying to answer. We want to know if you are actually protected by owning a firearm. The evidence suggests it has quite the opposite effect.
In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1]
Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule: guns escalate conflict, especially when both parties have them.
It's all very well for us to imagine legalized drugs would be safer and more easy to regulate, but a majority of people disagree - so for the time being, they will continue being sold out of the boots of cars.