it reminds me of the mentality of the extreme right and left wing. if they just repeat their rhetoric over and over, and in groups, it gives them a sense of solace that they aren't being inhumane, greedy pigs.
As an outsider, the discussion of San Fransisco housing seems incredibly polarized.
Are advocates of new housing talking about disenfranchising their parents, grandparents, and older aunts and uncles? Are they actually talking about tearing down their old family homes that they grew up in and putting up apartment complexes instead?
If so then... wow that's a level of forward-thinking that's truly rare.
If not ... then these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They want whatever district they move to temporarily for jobs to utterly change its character to suit them, at the expense of those already resident there. And yet anything they find sentimental, and all of their families' land assets, will remain safe in their hometowns far-far from San Fransisco.
You don't get to criticize us for being temporary when it is the policies you write that force us out.
And yes, if for some reason millions of people wanted to move to Wisconsin, I'd rather they built on the site of my family home than lived in RVs and mega-commuted. People's well being matters more than the sentimental value of manufactured goods.
I didn't win the genetic lottery to be born in a place with economic opportunity. But I am an American, and since we live in America and not 14th century feudal Europe, I am not obligated to stay put.
People's wellbeing would be served equally well by the California government designating land for development outside of the intractable San Fran polity, and encouraging tech companies, restaurants, and commercial entities to invest in the area.
The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future, not forcing it upon them due to outside interests.
We aren't 14th century serfs, and closer to home---we aren't waitresses, maintenance workers, or migrant farmers. We are tech workers in a market were demand vastly outstrips demand, so the notion that we are forced to move to San Francisco alone for work lacks perspective.
People want to live in San Fran, not merely because of work, but because of the character of the city, the trendy restaurants, etc. People want San Fran for its luxuries, and its that which I do not believe trumps the ownership stakes of the residents whom already live there.
A local's desire for a quiet street doesn't morally outweigh another American's desire to live on that street.
>The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future
Precisely! We The People determined that it would be our future to have freedom of movement, via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. When we ratified the 14th Amendment, we further reiterated that every American citizen is entitled to equal status under state laws.
That's why prosperous cities resist growth through ham-fisted but plausibly-deniable proxy measures like zoning, rent control, and environmental review. Their goals could be achieved with more elegance and fewer damaging side effects by establishing immigration controls, but they can't, because the American community says that's off-limits.
Subsets of America closing themselves off is a perversion of the right to self-determination, same as it is when people and corporations decide not to pay their federal taxes. It doesn't matter that San Franciscans don't want more neighbors, any more than it matters that the tax evader wants to keep his income. The democratic process ordained that you have to share.
Americans trying to move around America are not outside interests, they are members of the community. Local NIMBY policies transfer wealth to small subsets while harming the community in aggregate, which is right down the middle of behaviors that governments should and usually do shut down.
As people with disposable income, tech workers find a way: redirect some of it to rent. The real victims of opportunity hoarding are the others in the economically stagnant towns we come from would like to follow us but can't. And of course, locals who remain subject to the pressure-cooker housing market, because NIMBY policies are imperfect and ensnare some natives too (those who didn't lock in rent control or mortgages in time).
This is an interesting approach in the short term and could help bootstrap Starsky's business before the conversion to fully autonomous driving.
I still think driving a truck as a profession will be a thing of the past within 20 years or so. There's just too much money riding on this problem, and logistics companies are fairly ruthless about efficiency.
"I still think driving a truck as a profession will be a thing of the past within 20 years or so."
I hope so. Trucking is one of the toughest professions for a person to endure that I've ever seen. It destroys a person's body and mind...and you're lucky to end up making minimum wage when you account for how many hours they spend working.
And what job alternatives will you provide them, think specially about current long haul drivers, not future candidates you can discourage and divert to greener fields.
From whom, the govt? I don't trust that would happen (see rustbelt industries). These automation startups? What's their profit if they have to train the people they help get laid off/made redundant?
> and you're lucky to end up making minimum wage when you account for how many hours they spend working.
If you're driving fleet, that's correct; however, there are a large number of "Owner/Operators" out there and they do make significantly more than you'd expect. If you have a good freight contract and a logistical mind, an O+O can easily make around $125k/year.
It's a lot further away than 20 years. It really won't be practical for autonomous trucks to share the roads with passenger vehicles using the existing infrastructure. After a handful or more major accidents with multiple deaths involving autonomous trucks, there will be no public support for them.
And there will be major accidents with multiple deaths, since the average passenger car driver is so unskilled. No software can account for every idiotic move made by the typical car driver, and big trucks take a lot of room and time to stop. A few lawsuits later, all the financial gains will disappear for the trucking companies and drivers are back in the seat.
I could see in 20 years a system where computer assisted driving automates much of the trip, much like commercial aircraft operate now.
Self driving trucks on the highway are already legal in some states. EX: Arizona.
Yeah, city driving is hard. That might be a long ways away. But highway driving? Thats easy. You can even buy a highway driving, consumer self driving vehicle right NOW. Tesla sells them.
Self-driving is not the same as autonomous, though. There is always a human present, and sometimes that's not enough to make up for the fact that a Tesla apparently can't "see" a 75 foot long, 13 1/2 foot high truck in front of it while driving down the highway.
And while highway driving generally has fewer decision points per mile than city driving, the speeds are much higher and so the effects of errors are much greater on the highway. The worst wrecks I've seen have all been on the highway, not in cities.
How much traffic do you drive per month? There are exchanges / SSPs that would do an integration with you but that is going to require scale.
Pretty much any SSP is going to ask you for a minimum of pageurl or app-level data in order to prevent fraud on their end.
I'm sure you already know, but you are going to take a big hit on eCPMs as a lot of advertiser money is connected to behavioral segments (and thus cookie / device id data).
Is your site general focused or do you have a specific niche? Some specific niches (eg targeting programmers) will be able to pull in significantly more through direct sponsorships and/or ad networks specializing in your vertical.
I think you are looking at the arithmetic average, which isn't very useful for the following reason:
Year 1: 100% gain
Year 2: 50% loss
The arithmetic average here is 50%, which the geometric average is 0%. The CAGR listed is going the correct metric to use but that is not 9% after inflation using the date range you provided. I get 7.42% for 1/1/95 - 12/31/14 after inflation and dividends are factored in. Not bad by any stretch of the imagination, though!
Spotify uses Chromium Embedded Framework to serve a lot of UI elements via HTML/CSS/JavaScript[0]. Anecdotally, there seem to be a number of desktop apps moving in this direction.
Hi foxpc- that is a hard question to answer without knowing more specifics. Here are some of the questions that I can use to point you in the right direction.
- What kind of site(s) do you have traffic for?
- Are they in a specific niche, or is the traffic more general?
- Which ad units do you support?
- What is your estimated volume (impressions/month)?
- What is your geo breakdown?
Feel free to reach out to me directly if you don't want to share this info publicly. I would love to help!
It depends on the size of your audience. Typically if an audience is very niche (eg user demographics are similar), then selling ads to direct advertisers is more of a possibility.
What do your DAU/MAU numbers look like? How much engagement is there with your app, and how much time do users spend per session?
Feel free to reach out to me if you need more specific advice.
