handy2000

> In any case, _THIS_ is innovation. Actually playing with models and finding things that are better for everyone

Yup, that's a good point. The current model doesn't seem to be sustinable.

Does this also introduce a bad incentive for drivers to delivery food slowly? Or do delivery apps account for that somehow already?..

You are partially correct describing that some delivery drivers already batch their orders. But that's still a different use case. Foodsby can't scale to 15 min increments for all restaurants in the city. While some people can preplan and are OK ordering food from a specific restaurant that Foodsby works with, most people don't want that. How many people want to order food from an expensive Spanish (i.e. Spanish, not Mexican) restaurant I order from sometimes? So my options are going to be: #1 not ordering from this restaurant because it's not a common food preference and is expensive or #2 wait for 15 people to join the order for this restaurant and get food hours or days later.

It's a good business idea, it's just a different usage pattern. I order food when I am hungry. I don't preplan, don't like food from the majority of popular local places (pizza, Mexican, Chinese).

At the end of the day this is all driven by market dynamics that affect everyone. Uber Eats doesn't have a secret sauce that makes it cheaper for drivers to deliver food in cities with lower restaurant density. Someone has to pay for gas, someone has to pay for drivers' time. Even in large cities Uber Eats is now more expensive than ordering directly from restaurants in the past, why would it be different for cities with fewer restaurants?

You are describing a completely different service though. Prep-meal delivery also works, but it's addressing a different usage pattern.

In the same way you could propose to replace Uber with... buses? 15 people get on the same bus at a specific time and get dropped off within 5 miles, thus optimizing the process.

I guess this answers the question: "Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels" (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-int...)

Do you know by any chance if wiim is capable of streaming music independently, without relying on a separate computer? I.e. my smart Denon speaker can stream Spotify, so if I start playing on my laptop through that speaker and then close the laptop, streaming continues. I don't have to keep my laptop running. This doesn't work for Apple Music and I am looking for a device that can stream Apple Music without an additional computer.

I see, thanks. So basically a suite of networking hardware solutions? What I found the most confusing is that they sort of differentiate UniFi from WiFi. E.g. "Instant WiFi for retail POS" - yes, like any other WiFi router? Or is this box going to connect to a global mesh that's called UniFi?..

OK, as an engineer with decades of experience, I give up. What is "Unify AP for WiFi"?

Exactly, I only understood that it's basically a WiFi router by reading this thread. I guess I am not their target buyer... still, would appreciate more clarity.

Read this several times. Still don't know what I am looking at. What is "UniFi Networking stack", what is "UniFi Network"? Is it a WiFi router? I use a TP-Link router at home, and they don't sell it as "TP-Link Networking stack".

There is a distinction to be made between a parseable string and a valid URL in more complete terms. While it's nice to have a new standard function that checks whether a string is parseable as a URL, it can't, of course, validate that string in terms of whether the TLD is a real one, and not something like "https://super.hacker/".

So maybe the post should have called it what it is: validating parse-ability, since the method itself is called "canParse()".

I had success in the past hampering the process by linking to various legislations (e.g. GDPR, CCPA) and asking my PM to reach out to legal to approve the implementation. At larger companies legal is usually pretty cautious and takes a very long time to respond.

My guess is that the author chose to approach this in a softer way, without shaming the designers. He is leaning into education without assuming bad intent.

Not going to lie, this might be more effective than shaming designers.

> A username form only

This is such an annoying pattern that was adopted by almost all websites. It almost always breaks password managers (requiring 2 invocations). I guess it "helps" people who can't differentiate between "log in" and "sign up"... at the cost of annoying everyone else.

I read about Prime being hard to cancel several times now. It's not harder than any other membership. It feels weird defending Amazon, but just go to your Account, you will see a large card right at the top saying Prime. Click that, on the next screen, again, right at the top it says "Membership. Update, cancel, and more". Click that and it will open a large popup with the End membership button.

Yes, it's true, that on the next screen it will tell you how much you saved using Prime and will offer to look at other plans or to continue cancelling. So this screen is sort of a dark pattern, I guess. Even then, privacy-oriented companies like Proton show a similar upsell screen on cancellation.

Overall Prime cancellation is very straightforward, compared to scummy companies that require you to email or call them to cancel membership. Unless the (unreasonable) expectation is that the CANCEL PRIME button should be front and center on every page on amazon.com. And clicking it should immediately cancel the membership without any confirmation.

Edit: the shaming element of the cancellation process was removed by Amazon long time ago.

> they have no ability to measure the effect of any given design intervention over anything more than the duration of a test

It's actually pretty common to have a holdout group that's basically a long term control group for a series of experiments. This way companies are able to measure long-term impacts, including negative ones.

It's really not about aggressive goals. OKRs are always tied to a single metric (in some cases secondary metrics exist, too). So if no one on the team has a strong ethical compass, the way that goal is reached is not a concern, the only thing that matters is reaching that goal. At every step the participating roles would bump the responsibility to think about the ethics of the proposed solution to the next role in the process. So at the end, no one cares or speaks up because the ethics are not embedded in any process, and are not included in OKRs.

Not in the HTML 4.01 spec (https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html), so probably a vendor extension (don't think I ever used these attributes).

Didn't know that! Wonder what made them choose to turn this off by default. Must be an interesting eng story.

> I don't think that's accurate. It was old Internet Explorer that wouldn't render tables progressively.

You both agree and disagree with my comment :)

If memory serves me right, I started migrating off table layouts at the time when IE6 was still by far the most popular browser (>80% of the market?).

In an odd way, I miss the time when web dev was so quirky and unpredictable. It was a never-ending process of experimentation, puzzle solving, discovery, and, once you figure out a hacky way to do something as basic as a 3-column layout, very gratifying.

I guess for me it was more of a creative outlet than just a job.

IIRC non-table based layouts are rendered progressively, while table-based layouts have to be loaded fully first, and only then rendered. At the point when this was relevant, the Web was slow (slow connections, slow rendering engines), so one of the primary motivations for ditching tables for layouts was an increase in the perceived page rendering speed, not just a purist quirk.

I get those too. Even if the founders gave away 10-20% to investors, actually building the project under the "management" of inexperienced founders and getting 1% doesn't seem like a fair deal. At this early stage when there is not even a product, hiring a founding engineer is a cheap way to sidestep the need for a technical co-founder who would be entitled for a much larger share of the company. The responsibilities are vast, I can't see that being worth 80-99x less than the contribution the founders make.

How is it ironic? Not sure I follow.

The article is making the case for challenging music. You pointed out that Brubeck made challenging music (i.e. 5/4) accessible to most people. My argument is that this is a poor example as 5/4 is not that of a challenging time signature, and most non-musicians who heard Take Five probably didn't even perceive the uncommon 5/4, and just enjoyed the tune. 5/4 is popular in progressive rock, post rock, and electronic music. In my experience most people do not pay attention to that. Similar to 3/4 - it's an uncommon but easy time signature that people in the Western world have no problem with. Basically, there is no challenge.

The worst example of this is the "founding engineer" role. I get a lot of these offers, and it just feels like a scam every single time. Founders often sell that as some incredible opportunity, zero-to-one, full codebase ownership, huge scope, no eng team, etc, etc. All of that for an amazing 1% equity.

So yeah, the expectation is that I will build the whole project, drive product decisions, help hiring the rest of the eng staff, spend the next 1-2 years basically working on this project 24/7. They keep 99% and I get 1%. Great, thanks.

I have now tried four different artists and all show very bad matches. Vaguely artists in the same genre, but still clustered by overly broad features.

Artist and music similarity is an incredibly nuanced area, I don't think any of the modern attempts worked sufficiently well (apart from the Music Genome Project, that's still in a different class to this day).

Pandora still gives the best recommendations. I doubt the Music Genome Project will be matched by a purely computation analysis any time soon.

5/4 isn't that challenging of a time signature. I would argue it's just uncommon and so most people associate it with Take Five. 3/4 was extremely popular in Europe for centuries and is not perceived as challenging.

I somewhat disagree with your assessment. I don't think the next phase after traditional Western harmony is a wider adoption of microtonal music.

What we see more and more of is an increased reliance on aspects that were previously less explored in the traditional (orchestral) Western music, such as texture and rhythm. Even in academic music, but mostly in cross-genre acoustic/electronic production.