630 karma · joined March 21, 2015
Email: me@joshdickson.com Website: opennutrition.app Twitter/X: x.com/joshdickson40
I would hope these people download the free app so they can actually track their food, which has extensive tooling to track weight trends and expenditure changes over time :). But yes, you should be able to customize the assumptions, I just have about 100 more of these things to add and didn't want to wait longer to see feedback.
In the top-right of the table in the web search, you can change the toggle from "Per Serving" to "Per 100g", though this is just for the table view.
You can read about the background on how I did them in more detail in the about/methodology section: https://www.opennutrition.app/about (see "Technical Approach")
Logging foods by image is a great way to get started being accountable with eating, and I'll use it if I'm out and don't want to manually figure out all the different components of something, but it's impossible for even the most well-trained human eye to understand food composition visually. A lot of AI-focused diet apps have gone in this direction as their primary method of input because it removes the need for a database, but the marketing these apps run that this is in anyway accurate as a primary search mechanism is, to me, really borders on abject dishonesty and sets users up for long-term failure. Just because an ingredient is invisible when prepared doesn't mean it's not there.
Edit: Should be patched in Desktop Safari now.
Edit: You've edited your response so many times I can't keep up. I am not arguing any point of view. You unilaterally said that it is always a bad sign when a company brings in an experienced CEO. That is an ignorant stereotype. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. Sometimes it's a smart hire, sometimes it's not. The late Dave Goldberg taking the reigns at SurveyMonkey was an incredible turning point for the company.
Do note that it was only a proposal and nothing has been accepted yet with the deal, so it's an offer only - in fact, if you look at SolarCity's stock price, it's weighted toward investors believing that the deal does not happen.
The idea of the project is great. It can be difficult to get folks up to speed on various Node JS topics, and one of the big ones (like with any code deployed on a web framework, really) is getting people up to speed on deployment. Anything that is working on making that easier, especially for new/young developers, is great.
That being said, I really do not like the pricing strategy because I think it completely incentivizes bad behavior and optimizing your API/apps for weird things at anything past micro-project scale. Things like when database queries happen are also not entirely opaque to developers, especially new developers, which is going to lead to them not understanding charges (for instance, would a new developer understand that on a fairly basic installation of Passport and Express, every page request, logged in or not, would result in DB activity as Passport tries to figure out if the session is logged in or not? That's likely to far overshadow the single API credit needed for the API hit.) I think that Heroku's free tier would be much more attractive for small projects, and for anyone more advanced than that, a $5 Digital Ocean droplet is simple enough to learn very basic server administration and quickly deploy your application. There are a number of other Node platforms (Modulus) who will give you good service for < $15/month.
I think it would make a lot more sense to structure this more like EC2's burstable instances, which accrue CPU credits for times when they do not run at their allotted CPU, and then can expend those credits to burst above that CPU for smaller amounts of time. That achieves a lot of the good things you're working on, but doesn't push people toward minimizing trips to and from the DB or instance.
> Ms. Holmes has told employees that she plans on rehearsing her AACC presentation with them several times before the conference. When asked by an employee if the June presentation was the first of these rehearsals, she said no.
> Since most of the data from the new studies wasn’t in yet, the preliminary slide deck she showed focused instead on a timeline of the company’s 13-year history, according to the attendee.
> As employees listened in silence, she showed slides about the several generations of blood-reading devices Theranos has developed and past partnerships it has had with pharmaceutical companies, the person said.
> One slide featured the NASA logo, which struck some employees as odd because no relationship they knew of had developed following a demonstration Theranos had made of its device to representatives of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration several years ago. A spokesman for NASA said he didn’t know what relationship, if any, the agency has with Theranos.
2) Hey you're TJ Holowaychuk. I know you've since (mostly) moved on from doing a ton of Node contributing, but as someone who uses projects you've started and maintained for a long time, just wanted to say a big thank you for all your work in the open source community.
I'm also going to link your photography site (a) for those who haven't seen it. I know this it's slightly off topic, but everyone should see it.
Fortune did not "assume that Tesla had complete information from the moment this accident occurred." Fortune merely noted that there was a long period of time between the time of the accident and when the information was disclosed. Fortune is not saying that Tesla did have knowledge of what happened, it's saying that Tesla should have had knowledge. And Fortune is saying that Tesla should have investigated more quickly especially considering the impending stock sale. Perhaps they did not because Tesla feels as though the death is not "material." Musk's logic on whether the death was material is so convoluted it defies any sort of logical counterargument, and is ultimately for the courts to decide.
Regarding whether or not the accident was not an Autopilot failure, of course technically it appears that the truck should not have turned, but this is what happens in normal traffic. We do not design autonomous driving systems with the idea that nobody ever breaks driving rules or laws, rather we design them with the idea that every crazy situation that we can think of, and a lot that we cannot, are likely to happen and we should attempt to avoid or lessen the impact of a crash whenever possible. When Musk says that there is "no evidence to suggest that Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users," I seem to have missed the marketing material where they say that the features work only when other drivers follow traffic laws. It's one thing if a construction crane drops on top of the vehicle (cannot be reasonably avoided); it's another when a truck crosses in front of you (where we can take various evasive measures to lessen the impact of the crash even if we cannot entirely stop the crash from occurring, none of which were taken in this case).
Regarding vehicle accident statistics, as someone who worked in active safety for several years (i.e. systems like radar-based crash avoidance that did not trigger in this case), when we look at these numbers to make comparisons, the entire idea as of 2016 is that when we combine a human driver with a lot of electronic help, you are far safer than driving without that assistance or if the electronics were driving for you. But Musk only compares autopilot, which is only usable in certain scenarios, with the entirely of vehicular death information (which by the way, is largely much cheaper, older cars with worse safety systems that lead to more deaths). We know for a fact that autopilot lulls drivers into becoming distracted and doing other things, taking their eyes off the road, etc, because it does not enforce drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel (See NYTimes report today). The simple, obvious fact of the matter is that a Tesla would be far safer if it were using all of its accident avoidance technology and required the driver to be engaged with the steering wheel. Yet it does not.
As someone with experience with this technology (though not at/with Tesla), I would greatly like to see them push a software update that requires you to have your hands on the wheel while autopilot is engaged. Saying that you should do so is not enough when the tools to enforce it are there. Is is clear and obvious that that would make the technology even safer. Yet rather than accept even the tiniest shred of responsibility, Tesla has entirely closed ranks and blamed everyone else. I, for one, am disappointed in Tesla as a whole and Elon Musk in particular.
It is actually camera-only per comment of Mobileye's CEO.