Well, Tesla is getting into the large vehicle industry, so it's not crazy to think they'd make autonomous vehicles for public transit if there was a market for it.
2,031 karma · joined June 26, 2013
paul at blacksheepwall dot com
This is a one-sided filing by one party to litigation, and we will respond at the appropriate time in the appropriate forum. We disagree with much of what PFM alleges in its complaint. This is not, however, the time or place to contest their mischaracterizations of the record. We will litigate this case in court, where it belongs. What we will say now is that the items on which PFM focuses have nothing to do with why PFM invested, and they amount to a repackaging of allegations the media have already reported for nearly two years.
As for the tender offer: As previously disclosed, Theranos is in the midst of a tender offer involving its most significant shareholders. Elizabeth Holmes’ use of her own shares to recapitalize our C-2 and C-1 investors—and thereby prevent dilution to our other shareholders—is consistent with her longstanding, personal commitment to doing the right thing for the Theranos shareholder base. This tender offer has been in discussion between Theranos and its shareholders since July 2016. To date, more than 99% of C-2 and C-1 investors other than PFM have chosen to participate.
PFM, a multi-billion dollar hedge fund, opposes the transaction, and is asking the Court to stop the tender offer because it is “unfair” specifically and only to PFM. In response to PFM’s suit, the Court suspended the tender offer for a month in order to permit sufficient time for the court to review the transaction. PFM’s effort to enjoin the tender offer is meritless; their legal theories are self-serving and would harm the rest of the Theranos shareholders. The Company is vigorously opposing PFM’s new suit and looks forward to completing the transaction with its shareholders.
From: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/21/theranos-says-it-has-been-...
There will never be enough popcorn for the Theranos saga.
All sorts of interesting setups could come out of this, with the rich paying the (compatible) poor for their youthful blood. Especially if compatibility is genetic, you'd potentially have multiple generations of a poor family existing specifically to support an aging rich person (and potentially the rich person's offspring).
Depending on how time consuming the blood contributions are, this could turn into a vampire-esque caste system, with the poor being blood cattle.
It's interesting that HRC makes relatively significantly optimized programs (up to 2x), but that GHC's runtime (which HRC is not using) is so well optimized that the performance of HRC programs is roughly on par with those from GHC, despite the programs themselves being more performant.
I find stuff like this to be a testament to the practicality of great design in functional programming language ecosystems: Even the compilers are composable!
[0]: For those unfamiliar with what GHC does/how it's designed, this talk gives a great overview of the Core language that is the optimized IR of GHC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR_VzYxvbxg
If you find yourself repeating the same thing a lot in chat, it would be a good idea to document it somewhere and just paste a link. With a link to the relevant documentation, a lot of people will just do the rest of the legwork on their own, and will now be able to quickly reference it going forward, and hopefully bug you less in chat (you can always be explicit and refuse to answer people, asking them to read the docs instead).
If you find you're pasting too many links too frequently, then it's time to make an FAQ with those links, and start linking to that.
So the natural response to that is to force businesses to have greater value? Is this not exactly what market forces would do naturally? A business with insufficient parking would have less value than one with, and would therefore compete less effectively.
If the site doesn't want to leak that information, it doesn't participate in cache sharing. Since sharing is opt-in, sites won't unknowingly leak this information.
Edit: whoops. I see what you mean. I missed an edit while modifying an earlier draft and left the opt-in only on one side, the sharer.
As a caveat, there's info leaking here depending on whether the cache hits/misses, so this would need to be opt-in from the cache source, e.g. You set up subresource integrity and also say "allow other domains to load this resource from the cache."
Call it subresource sharing?
Edit: opt-in would need to be on both "sides" (sharer and sharee).
> Category theory is extreme in the sense that it actively discourages us from looking inside the objects. An object in category theory is an abstract nebulous entity. All you can ever know about it is how it relates to other object — how it connects with them using arrows.
I think it's a great way to learn a different approach to solving math problems and, more importantly, computer science problems. When you start to think of objects not as what they are but what they can be, you get an extremely natural inclination towards immutability and, assuming your chosen language has a powerful type system, an awesome "free" mitigation against programming errors.
With category theory, you easily formulate your thoughts into function composition, and can more readily rely on the type system to validate your code. This is pretty much what you must do in Haskell, but it's useful in imperative languages as well. There's a reason functional paradigms are leaking into Java, C++, Python, etc: they're mighty useful.
And as more and more ads are viewed and not clicked, (there's probably some adtech term for this) the price per view is going to go down, which will encourage more clickbait, which will drive the value of an impression down, etc.
The article struck me as a bit weird, it complains about yellow journalism, but it doesn't really dig into why it's happening. It just declares that shitty articles are written for the metrics, and leaves it at that. As if "metrics" had any intrinsic value. The mapping of metrics to money, as done by internet advertisements, is the actual problem.
While engagement is certainly a way to get more people to view more ads, it's but a tool and symptom of the system it's a part of, not the genesis of it.
That's still extremely anti-competitive. Incumbents are in an much better position to pay large sums of money to have relatively minor services stream for free. People will flock to those services and a small competitor will have no viable option of paying for the fees and remaining profitable.
You might counter that with "get funding!" But I think the internet is amazing because of it's low barrier to entry. Blocking that might not prevent "disruption" from startups, but it sure as hell will prevent many people from casually trying things.
Is there a better way to ask this? It would be relatively awkward for the candidate to bring up on their own, so it seems like a good idea to make sure nothing unexpected has occurred since the call was planned.
> Alright, that's enough chit chat. Curtly prod them to submit to the interrogation.
Assuming it's still good to have the call, why would you not just jump in? The call can't last forever, and I'd rather have a solid ~40 minutes of technical content with time for questions than an opening of awkward forced small talk that, especially in the context of technical candidates, there's a good chance neither of us find pleasing.
Anecdotally, I've found that most good candidates will "small talk" about the technical subject matter that gets brought up during the call, if only to appear as a person familiar with it. (Although I do get a little lucky with security related things occurring pretty regularly in the news, so it's easy to reference.)
Correct. It is likely users allow their primary browser full access to all hosts on ports 80 and 443, if not all ports.
Additionally, launching the browser gives you easy access to all the tastey session cookies and access to their keychain (I assume a lot of people give their default browser on OSX keychain access).
I don't think you can stop at drug use and claim "root cause." There's a variety of motivating factors involved in using particular drugs, and ignoring those is what leads to things like Prohibition, The War on Drugs, and other related failures.
If you want to stop people from doing something, you need to look at their motivations for doing it.
And yet, here we are, with a building build after the ADA, that is noncompliant. It's too expensive to make it compliant, so the only legal option is to tear it down.
While I understand the strive for equality, the destruction of information is a price that should not have to be paid in today's world.
Not among allies. If you can spy on everyone but your own citizens, you only need 2 nation-states cooperating to spy on everyone. Which is already occurring at a minimum between Britain and the U.S.
There's no easy way to prevent the sharing of the private information of civilians without some kind of exception, and that exception cannot be precise without artificially limiting the intelligence capabilities of a country, which in practice will mean such a limit will be ignored, or, more likely, will have an easily abused exception (i.e. terrorism) to make it more or less toothless.
It's like someone responding to the suggestion to "use strong/unique passwords" with "but what if I don't have any authentication?"
a person regarded as stupid or incompetent.
"“Do not give me orders, mutt.”"Virtually the only way to lose data is to not have backups. We live in such fancy times that there's no reason to ever lose data that you care about.
Seems like you'd be in favor of banning peanuts and their related products, as well as guns, considering how many accidental deaths occur from both each year. And of course, who could forget the dreaded and somehow still legal dihydrogen monoxoide...
> It doesn't sound like the two individuals in the article are actual persecuted refugees. The article doesn't elaborate on that. We're just expected to assume that. But we're told what amazing humans they are and how much they helped the US. That sounds more like a dishing out of green card favors in return for services.
Generally speaking, it's implicit that their lives are at risk because they helped the United States, a country that tends not to get much love in the Middle East.
I think "fit" is a cop-out when left unspecified. It's a reasonable way to reject someone when you can clarify why someone is unfit. I think rejecting a hire because you don't like them isn't okay unless you understand why you don't like them.
Understanding that someone would be bad because they're overly argumentative, can't take criticism in a calm or level-headed manner, or because they're prone to interpersonal conflict is a legitimate way to reach the conclusion that they would be a bad fit. But if you get the cabal together and accept a simple "I don't like them" without requiring details, it becomes ripe for abuse; if only by your own subconscious judgements.
I wonder what excuses we'll here this time, and if we'll lose a CA in the process.
I see this a lot when I'm trying to help people who "should" know what they're doing. I focus on trying to identify what they're not noticing, and then bringing it to their attention. It makes for great light-touch teaching and lets me, in retrospec, provide better introductions/instructions/documentation/whatever by adding in whatever stimuli they overlooked.
OT: the article has a terrible introduction. almost entirely unrelated to the article, and non-sequitorial. It's like they did a keyword search for quotes with "attention":
The Wizard of Oz told Dorothy to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” in an effort to distract her, but a new Princeton University study sheds light on how people learn and make decisions in real-world situations.