Outsourcing a specific task to a deterministic tool you own is clearly not the same thing as outsourcing all of your cognition to a probabilistic tool owned by people with ongoing political and revenue motives that don’t align with your own.
This is an enormously disingenuous take. When Usenet was the only game in town, children were not stumbling into hyperoptimized addictive experiences tailored to every flick of their eyes. You don’t think that thousands of engineers building TikTok or Instagram to hijack your child’s literal capacity for attention and healthy social development “externalizes your locus of control”?
Reducing the algorithmic targeting of children (by taking away phones or otherwise) is no more censorship than telling someone to stop standing in front of you and shouting in your face.
Most consumer PTFE coatings are declared to be safe up to 450°F. It is trivially easy to heat a pan beyond that temperature on modern gas, electric, and induction ranges in less than ten minutes. The margin of safety is demonstrably nonexistent and it’s wild to me that we just accept this risk constantly, everywhere, anytime we eat food (whether at home or from a restaurant).
It's easy to learn how your cooking setup responds using a cheap IR thermometer. You can check it's working correctly by boiling water in the pan and confirming the temperature is close enough to the expected boiling point for your local air pressure. The risk depends greatly on both the construction of the pan (poor heat conductivity means hot spots from uneven heating) and cooking technique. Using high heat, heating empty pans, and neglecting stirring are all dangerous. Leaving heated pans unattended is especially dangerous, and anecdotally appears to be responsible for most severe overheating events. With correct technique I believe the risk is negligible and well worth the greater convenience of non-stick pans. But I don't trust third parties to use correct technique.
It’s not super clear what you’re getting at here. The choice isn’t teflon or oil. Everyone uses fat to sear food in a pan, whether or not it’s a nonstick pan. Cooking with a high-smoke-point oil which is low in saturated fat, such as avocado oil, with stainless steel, is strictly better than cooking with teflon pans by every measurable health metric.
Searing food in a PTFE pan almost certainly involves overheating it. Depending on what you're cooking you don't necessarily need oil (e.g. you don't need it for cooking eggs), although you might want to use some at moderate temperature for flavor. And for some foods oil is necessary to avoid overheating the pan, because it improves heat transfer from the pan to the food. Check with an IR thermometer every time you cook something new.
Assuming you're serious, I'm curious why you think Reddit's CEO shouldn't be chastised under that same category. Selling ads next to user-generated content, rent seeking with demands of extortionate API fees to serve that content, relying on unpaid volunteers to operate the site, proudly shipping terrible first-party UX, all while providing zero additional value sure doesn’t sound like a sustainable business. But maybe it’s the `hard hitting memo` obstinacy of a CEO that seems the biggest feature here?
2) Building and maintaining an API is as rent seeking as building any kind of subscription service, I don’t see the issue.
3) Why would you pay a volunteer? They’re volunteering. In exchange they wield incredible power over the community, which is the real reason they volunteer.
4) The UX sucks, but there’s still old.reddit.com, so you have options.
5) What additional value can be provided? It’s a giant forum and people post comments, there’s not much more you need, that is the value.
Third party apps can just raise their fees and users will pay a couple more dollars. But it’s not about money, it’s about power. Reddit users are very entitled and care more about optics. They don’t want to surrender a fist full of dollars for a website they use everyday and probably are addicted to.
Charging for the API wouldn't be a problem if it was either cheap and short term notice, or expensive and long term notice. The biggest problem is that it is both extremely short term notice (a month) and expensive as hell. You don't do this in good faith if the goal is to provide a sustainable business; you do it if you want to kill the API, but have a fallback "despite our best efforts" angle to work in PR pieces.
Providing a per app, per user API key would be the most sustainable way of doing business with 3rd party app developers while keeping users that are willing to pay happy. Plenty of the users that use 3rd party apps already pay something to use them, so it's not out of the question that they would be willing to pay even more to keep using them. I know I would.
Yes, but all other social networks are GOOD at it and make a fuck ton of money. That’s the issue. Reddit has had plenty of chances to turn profitable, but they can’t seem to figure it out. Now they’ve run down the checklist and apparently “kill 3rd party apps” is their newest brilliant idea to make money.
Honestly I thought I was only exaggerating a bit.. I thought it was top 3. Crazy how far off it is from the top half. Not to say that’s any excuse for them failing to turn a profit for so long but damn I thought they had more users they could shovel ads onto.
It had just started to become profitable right before Elon bought it. Granted that’s like 1 or 2 profitable quarters out of dozens, but still counts I guess
Is this actually a reinvention of the browser, or just another self-interested organization trying to grab a slice of the pie?
I download Arc and am immediately greeted with a mandatory account creation page (which asks for my name, even) with a footnote that says `tl;dr we don't spy on you`.
A web browser should be a purely clientside application; no logins required. Building a chromium riff that maintains serverside state about you as a user while saying "trust us :)" is in no way revolutionary, it's just another player in the nightmarish arena that is the modern web.
Given your comment history, it’s clear that you’re driven by motivations that aren’t at all universal.
More bluntly, you’ve decided that consumer-surveillance-as-a-service is harmless. I’m thankful that the European regulatory apparatus disagrees. Now if only we could remind the American federal government why regulation is a worthwhile effort.
Charitably, this is a goofy take. Less charitably, your reference to a "vocal urbanist activist crowd" suggests that you're leaning more on partisan talking points than evidence.
More to the point, here's where this argument breaks down:
> If a city is not overbuilt and overpopulated to the point where the road infrastructure is overwhelmed
Given current demographic trends within the United States, major cities are guaranteed to see population growth beyond what current American public infrastructure can sustain.
Compounding this problem is the fact that there's significant overlap between the segment of the population which thinks that driving is a sacred right and folks who think that spending public money on efficient public transit is unacceptable.
I enjoy driving. It doesn't work for major cities. And those same cities are inevitably going to get denser if trends continue. Everyone driving his or her own car to their job (or to "the things they want to do") in the name of personal convenience is not the answer.
> Given current demographic trends within the United States, major cities are guaranteed to see population growth beyond what current American public infrastructure can sustain.
Not speaking for parent but the typical response would be "but then people should stop moving there", to which I reply that any utopia can sound good if you disregard people's incentives, desires and needs. Let me try: communism is in fact great, it's just that every time the people at the top end up corrupt for unrelated reasons.
What's interesting is that most thoughtful people in the industry agree that our conventions around interviewing make for an almost hilariously arbitrary hiring process, but very few large software orgs have actually changed the way they hire.
What's your source for the claim that Tesla's system "doesn't detect stationary objects"? From the reference frame of a moving Tesla, both globally stationary and globally moving objects will appear to be in motion.
Teslas on autopilot have collided with many stationary objects that were partially blocking a lane. Known incidents include a street sweeper at the left edge of a highway (China, fatal, video available), a construction barrier in the US (video), a fire truck in the SF bay area (press coverage), a stalled car in Germany (video), a crossing semitrailer (NTSB investigation), and last month, a fire company truck in Utah.
Yes, but the radar has poor angular resolution (but a good idea of relative velocity), so it cannot tell the difference between a stationary object at the side of the road and one in the middle of it, so it must ignore all stationary object (by ignoring all objects with an apparent velocity approximately equal to the speed of the vehicle) in order to avoid constant false positives.
It's good at determining whether something is moving towards it or away from it, but bad at determining where that object is; whether it's directly in front or slightly to the left or far to the left. Its "vision" in that sense is blurry.
Poor angular resolution means you can't tell if an object is at 12 o'clock vs 1 o'clock. It means you can tell there are things, but you don't accurately know what angle they're at.
The NTSB report said that the system didn't apply the automatic emergency braking. That either means it didn't detect the stationary object or did it on purpose.
You can argue something between those two options, but ultimately it is just a semantic argument (e.g. "it just chose to ignore it" which is effectively the same as a non-detection, since the response is identical).
Given this man's established ideological record, I think this article reveals more about Jason Furman's personal philosophical baises than it does about the objective costs and benefits of UBI: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/nation/na-furman11
