mstachowiak

Sadly, consumer goods are the new arms (drones, batteries, etc)

You can finance the purchase to avoid upfront payments. And in many cases, the energy savings exceed the finance payments, resulting in a net monthly gain from a cash flow basis with no upfront payment.

I'm the author of the article. Yes, I agree. I think AI reviewers, in their current state, are essentially glorified linters. Much of what they excel at can already be achieved with linting. However, I believe their edge lies in spotting semantic mistakes, whereas linters are ideally suited for syntactic or stylistic issues.

It's always exciting to see new approaches to code reviews - GitHub has its strengths, but it’s far from perfect.

For the scenario you’ve outlined, have you thought about splitting the 3 patches into separate, dependent pull requests? While GitHub doesn’t natively support this, the right code review tool (shameless plug - I’m part of a team building one called GitContext) should allow you to keep pull requests small while maintaining dependencies between them. For example, patch 3 can depend on patch 2, which in turn depends on patch 1. The dependency tracking between them - provided by the code review tool - can ensure everything is released in unison if that's required.

Each patch can then be reviewed on its own, making feedback more targeted and easier to respond to. You can even squash commits within a pull request, ensuring a clean commit history with messages that accurately reflect the individual changes. Better still, with the right tool, you can use AI to summarize your pull request and review, streamlining the creation of accurate commit messages without all the manual effort.

A good code review tool also won’t get bogged down by git operations like rebases, merges, or force pushes. Reviewers should always see only the changes since their last review, no matter how many crazy git operations happen behind the scenes. That way, you avoid having to re-review large diffs and can focus on what’s new. The review history stays clean, separate from the commit history.

I'd be curious if this approach to splitting up pull requests and tracking their inter-dependencies would address your needs?

Agreed, that's a tough pill to swallow. We envisioned trial period to let people make up there mind, but free for the first few users is another route. We'll noodle it when we loop back to pricing. Appreciate the feedback, it's helpful.

We agree! Thanks for adding yourself to the waitlist, I'll make sure you're granted access

Fair question. We're aiming to provide enough value for the price we'll ultimate target. We aren't charging yet, but wanted to provide people with some of our rough thoughts on pricing since it's a common question. For now, it's free for folks who want to kick the tires.

Thanks for highlighting, we're investigating and should have a fix shortly.

Sorry for the confusion. It's currently only offered as a web application and only works with GitHub. We are working to expand beyond these limitations based on customer needs / interest. I assume your interest is in a desktop application?

Shameless plug - I'm one of the creators of GitContext (https://gitcontext.com), a code review tool which has drawn much inspiration from Critique and others, and would love feedback from anyone who's interested in kicking the tires. We just launched in private alpha.

We're putting a maniacal focus into the user experience of code reviews, which we feel is overlooked by most tools. Many of the features of Critique that developers enjoy have been included in our first release... - A focus on only the latest changes - A familiar, side-by-side diffing interface - show 'diff from the last review' by default - Tight integration with other tooling - 'Action set' tracking - we allow you to pinpoint and assign line-level issues to relevant team members and track who's turn it is to act - Satisfying gamification - plenty of buttons that go green and even some fun visual rewards for merging

Additionally, we've layered in... - A beautiful, modern UX that provides light or dark mode - Comments that never become outdated and reposition/evolve with the review - Smart version tracking that handles rebases, merges, and force-pushes gracefully - Progress tracking that allows you to see what each participant has left to complete down to the file revision level. - A real focus on trying to get turn tracking right

We're just getting started and have a ton of ideas we can't wait to layer on. If anyone is up for giving it a try, we're actively seeking feedback. If you mention 'Hacker News' in the waitlist form we'll let you in right away.

I tend to agree, because if Google doesn't, OpenAI et al will. The real question is how does Google balance this against the loss in advertising revenue?

Reminds me of Charlie Munger's belief that the world is driven by envy, not greed. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/10/billionaire-charlie-munger-w...

Thanks for replying on this thread, PC. I'm curious to get your take on how this plays out for customers with large average transaction values ($500+)?

Stripe's cost to process and refund a payment, while not zero, is generally flat (card networks refund interchange fees, Stripe only has to cover the minimal cost of running the software to process the transaction, which is the same for all transaction sizes). Shouldn't the retained fees be flat and not a percentage?

Can't help but find it ironic the winner of the 2018 Levchin Prize for Advancements in Real-World Cryptography has an invalid SSL certificate on his research website.

For reference, the previous commenter was talking about AL's 7 congressional districts. US congressional districts are defined based on population (they're suppose to be equally sized intra-state).

MyVR | Software Developer | SF | https://myvr.com

We're building the open platform powering the vacation rental industry. Join our experienced team disrupting a massive and rapidly growing industry.

https://myvr.com/careers/

I would propose viewing Tesla as an energy storage company, not a car company (JB and Elon both think of Tesla this way). The car is a battery on wheels, and the battery is the product. They're not trying to be the next BMW, and attempts to value them through this lense will miss the mark.

In Tesla case, it's because the non-GAAP numbers represent how they view and make decisions about their business internally. It makes them look better in some dimensions and worse in others. They report on it because it gives insights into how they think about things.

Interesting hypothesis. A quick look at YC's top companies by market cap seems to back it up:

Airbnb: 3 design centric cofounders DropBox: 2 tech cofounders Stripe: 2 tech cofounders

The emoluments clause of the constitution applies to all members of government.

Just for clarification, Tesla's initial estimates for Gigafactory production was 35GW/year at the cell level and 50GW/year at the pack level (with some cells produced by other suppliers). At the shareholder meeting they speculated they could 3x those numbers with the current Gigafactory. This is at full production, which is years away.

Here's the actual data for the Tesla Model S. Far superior to the Leaf and inline with the roadster. No need to compre apples to oranges.

http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-degradation-f...

Musk is a great marketer. I would be reluctant to conclude BYD doesn't have the attention of great engineers though. There's a very large talent pool to pull from in China.

All told, more energy storage production is a good thing, regardless of the producer. There is a massive technological shift underfoot, the next 5 years are going to be fun to watch.

The amount of lithium available in known reserves that are profitable to extract at today's prices is very large. We won't be running into constraints anytime soon. And while lithium makes for a good battery anode now, it would be foolish to assume it's the preferred choice for energy storage 15 years down the road.

Agreed. CTO JB has referred to Tesla as an energy storage company for a while now.

BYD is building a similar Gigafactory. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/23/byd-gigafactory-to-be-wo...

Thanks for the response, Patrick. We run a platform with a large average transaction value, large enough that 0.5% is very meaningful. We would love to take over the onboarding process and entire user experience, but 0.5% is too much to swallow. Braintree provides us with the same functionality and a flat $0.25 payout fee, which is a better alignment of incentives for us.

If we were to use Stripe managed accounts we would start bearing all transaction risk plus a 0.5% fee. As a result our payout frequency would decrease drastically as we'd implement a huge delay, only paying out once we were positive the transaction was risk free.

Is Stripe's preference for platforms to continue to use standalone accounts vs managed account long term? We have a strong affinity to Stripe as a fellow YC company, but struggle with this offering.

Agreed. I think his arguments are very sound and rational.

For those curious to hear Elon's stance (as an electric car maker with a large bet on lithium ion batteries, he's obviously biased): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo&t=10m8s

"Good security practices require us to use different passwords for most or all of the websites .... remembering all of your passwords requires an inhuman display of memory."

It actually is possible to create unique passwords for every website and remember them without inhuman displays of memory. To do so, there are two basic things you need to remember:

1) A unique base password 2) A simple hashing function

The input to the hashing function can be the company's name or website address (an overly simplified example - your hashing function could be the first two characters of the website's domain name). A unique password for any website could then be:

password = hash_function(domain) + base_password

A very simple way to create unique passwords for every website, inhuman memorization skills not required.