kbos87

I think this says more about the cost relative to the value of running a website in 2024 than anything else.

This hits hard. As I've gotten older I've accumulated a lot more complexity in my life. Finances that I need to take seriously, properties, family stuff, a decade+ of depth in my career... it takes a lot to keep track of everything, and to make it legible when you come back to it a year or 5 years later.

Completely fair, but the fact that this “problem” was so ubiquitous for so long should be factored into the decision of whether or not to issue a recall. Recalls aren’t without negative consequences - huge effort and actual cost, opportunity cost of other things regulators could focus on, and the impact to what it means to the term “recall”.

NHTSA instead focuses its resources on forcing a draconian “recall” on Tesla to increase the font size of the brake icon.

I know these aren’t one and the same and they should be able to do two things at once, but there are choices being made about where to put resources.

Yeah, but there are standard ways to slice the pie. An equivalent approach would be comparing multiple Ford vehicles to Tesla’s entire lineup. They are about as similar to one another as Ford’s trucks are.

Of course standardized test performance correlates with test performance a year later when someone arrives at a college or university. That's the wrong question to be asking ourselves.

This discussion is maddening to me because it assumes that what colleges and universities should optimize for is test performance, full stop.

I've never been a strong test taker, but I gained a lot from my time in college and I've done objectively well in my career. The way colleges, universities, and some of the people commenting here are willing to limit access to education and life-changing opportunity based on one narrow measure is antiquated and narrow-minded.

If I had to give advice to someone who is motivated and interested in higher education but doesn't perform particularly well on standardized tests, it would be to feel no shame in doing whatever it takes to find your way through or around the arbitrary barriers like standardized tests that are going to be put in front of you.

It’s really easy to spot effective vs. ineffective/“empty calorie” growth channels when you look at them through the lens of a single word - intent.

Ads appearing alongside search results are among the highest intent, which is why they perform well and are thus so expensive.

Referral programs and coupons are people looking for generic deals. You might form habits among a few of them, but the likelihood is low. Free trials are probably more dependent on the context.

It feels like regulators are at risk of crossing into the territory of issuing “recalls” against Tesla that they wouldn’t otherwise because 1) it’s actually possible for them to edit minuscule details through OTA updates, and 2) Tesla is against the ropes and they can score points by making it look like they are doing something.

As an aside, I find the media fervor around any Tesla recall more ironic because of the fact that my Model Y is likely the safest car I’ve ever driven.

It’s a IIHS top pick, is insanely good at detecting dangerous situations related to pedestrians and other vehicles, and there are so many software-based safety enhancements in this car that I’ve never seen in other vehicles.

I feel like the obvious effect of this is that gymnastics becomes all about testing against and optimizing for an algorithm. That sounds sterile and lacking any of the romance (best word I can think of) that goes into physical competition. Then I remind myself that optimizing for the opinions of judges is the status quo. Judges that are susceptible to wild bias in all sorts of undetectable ways. This will change the sport for sure, but I can't say that I think it will be all bad.

> “…tested the model on a part of our sample that it was not trained on and found that it achieves a 98% accuracy rate in replicating the human classifications. Armed with our highly accurate LLM…”

So concerned with checking the box of incorporating AI into their work, the writer managed to quickly associate AI’s classification with “must be right”.

I'm going to admit being wrong about this after looking into it further. I saw a video of a Rivian's protection against a similar problem. I wasn't drawing the distinction of manually closing vs. automatically closing.

I will say that the automatically closing Tesla trunks I've seen won't crush someone if you get in its way. The video in question implies it would crush anything in the path of the hood when they actually found a very particular unprotected spot. But, Rivian for example does protect against this happening at that particular location, so it's still a fair criticism.

I find that I'm becoming really averse to this sort of content. It's popular because it has a level of truth to it, but it's a tiny sliver of truth that leaves out a much larger picture. That's true of a lot of quippy, attention optimized content, and I don't think all of it is bad. But I read the responses to this post on X and I wonder what utility it actually provides. It seems like it's mainly acting as a vessel for peoples' feelings and past workplace traumas.

I've seen that video. Are you honestly going to tell me that there aren't similar pinch points on nearly every other vehicle on the road?

I'm sorry that happened to you. I can say that having an EV in a place you know and as part of a familiar routine is a very different experience.

I only recently started sticking with Hertz because I can reliably get a Tesla from them. It's easy to be a gold member, I walk in, get my car without any hassle at all, scan the QR code in the car, all of my settings magically appear, and it's like I'm driving my own car at home.

On the other hand, I think it's insane and a real shame that they just handed unsuspecting people who booked the cheapest car an EV. That's a flat out deception and a major hassle if you aren't ready for it.

As is usually the case, Hertz may have raced into the trend a little too quickly, and now they will back off for a period of time. I don't think this says much about the long term trend under which we all end up driving EVs in another 15 years.

I work for a company that is 90% remote and I think there's a lot of nuance to this conversation.

Yes, if your job mainly consists of staring at your computer all day and you work primarily with others in the same boat, you are probably going to be more productive at home.

If you work with a large cross-section of people and/or your work is dependent on relationship building, you are probably going to reap benefits from going in.

If the majority of your company is remote, all bets are off and going in to an office (if one is offered) isn't going to do much for you. I'm the exception to this rule - I prefer to be in an office even if my work is semi-solitary; it's where I'm at my best.

And most importantly of all, the most effective environment depends on the person. A majority of people understand that and know what is best for themselves - we should respect that. The benefit from making most people more productive outweighs the cost of the few who take advantage of the situation. I wish more managers understood that.

If the people with the technical skills/certifications for a particular brand are harder to come by, I think it’s a pretty pure supply/demand thing.

This is pretty common among more expensive brands from what I understand. When I had work done on my Tesla it was the first time I had encounter it, but the couple of repair shops I was referred to by Tesla also had individual hourly rates for BMW, Porsche, Land Rover, etc.

I’m not a parent nor am I a teen so take my comments with a grain of salt. The one thing that has consistently jumped out to me on this topic is how quickly people seem to jump to convenient answers. Of course you can’t ignore the rise of social media since 2010, but what about the level of control, structure, and surveillance that most young people have been subjected to over the same arc of time? That gets no attention, possibly because it’s an inconvenient truth for a lot of parents who prefer it that way.

This perspective leaves me with little hope for the future of the environment. Nobody is willing to give a single inch when it comes to their comfort, convenience, or self image, externalities be damned.

Hasn't happened just yet, they still need more time to think up their excuses as to why they finally caved and bought the clearly superior technology ;)

Jobs can be completely right about the importance of what he calls “content”, but his aversion to “process” strikes me as short sighted.

Where his philosophy usually seems to break down (when others try to apply it) is positioning those two things at odds with each other. You absolutely need both once you reach a certain scale. You also need to ensure they don’t conflict with one another.

Worth pointing out this is all about the autosteer feature, not the full self-driving feature. The screenshots in the article are of a system that is designed for much more limited use.

I use FSD daily and I’ve never seen it come anywhere close to missing a stop sign. This almost makes Tesla look a lot worse - the technology is able to provide what I would say is a relatively safe driving experience off highway, but it’s not available at the lower price point.

Love that you are paying docs more respect by giving people a leg up on how to write docs right. This isn't talked about enough as far as I know.

I will offer a point on the headline... I agree with you that docs deserve more respect, but I also think that you and I (and likely many HN readers) are a biased sample. The average user (of a non-technical product) spends a lot less time reading docs than we all probably think they do.

Docs are respected proportionally to the amount of value that can be ascribed to them. I think that value is unfortunately undercounted, but people seem to be consistently valuing "docs" in the $ resourced against them and the attention paid.

“Feeling slighted” is a gross understatement of how a lack of compensation flowing to creators has shaped the internet and the wider world over the past 25 years. If we have a problem with the way top media companies compensate their creators, that is a separate issue - not a justification for layering another issue on top.

That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t theft of their content. The internet would be a very different place if creator compensation and low friction micropayments were some of the first principles. Instead we’re left with ads as the only viable monetization model and clickbait/misinformation as a side effect.

Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.)

I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.

What about Model 3 and Model Y? Would you say the same thing aout any other manufacturer that has kept a particular model around?

All that aside, Tesla's approach is to have a few overall form factors and to innovate in software. The hardware is fine and matters a lot less.

In my experience, enough of the “news” about Tesla has proven to be strongly biased that I default to assuming this is another piece of clickbait following a narrative that reporters know has traction at this moment in time.

The tendency of the scientific community to cling to ignorant and clearly false notions about the intelligence of animals just baffles me. Its maliciously dissonant.