HN user
I don't think _every post_ whining about the lies of the health authorities has a libertarian "fuck everyone else" subtext.
It seems to me that the original misinformation on this subject has caused a continued belief that masks are not helpful in reducing transmission. Initial public health recommendations cannot easily be walked back. Once the meme is sufficiently embedded, it's nearly impossible to dislodge.
Not sure if something has changed, but I spent the better part of 3 years taking my electric skateboard on planes regularly.
Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening.
Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.
I suppose it depends on your neighborhood, but I don't recall even once being hindered by a parked scooter in SF.
The sidewalk hazards I _do_ encounter (in the Mission), are tent encampments, open drug use, and (occasionally violent) crazy people.
I'd much prefer we prioritize those issues.
I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both:
• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).
Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.
If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome.
Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.
In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.
The bill imposes criminal penalties -- Section 230 does not shield platforms from liability under federal criminal law.
The bill also carves out exceptions weakening Section 230 protections.
[1] https://www.eff.org//deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored... [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
In Arizona,
28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.
Ignorance of IP laws would help the developing economy, while hurting the developed economy. Copying is cheap, original invention is expensive, and developed countries have more to lose.
In a somewhat relevant WTO dispute between US and China,
"The International Intellectual Property Alliance, a coalition of U.S. entertainment and software industry groups, has claimed piracy in China costs them more than $3.7 billion in lost sales." [1]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-wto/china-u-s-t...
I believe the corporate sponsor deserves credit (and protection) for work created under its direction.
The problem is that the Constitution specifies "exclusive rights for a limited time", which the supreme court appears to have interpreted as _any finite timespan_ [1].
Of course, that only establishes an upper bound. congress is free to introduce legislation to weaken current protections.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft#Supreme_Cou...
Leg room can be purchased, if you're willing to spend more. Airlines attempt to satisfy both those who prefer leg room (premium economy), and those who prefer cost savings (economy).
In my experience, the TSA experience is consistently inefficient, with (occasionally severe) bottlenecks. But more frustrating than inefficiency is a sense of apathy radiated by many TSA agents.
Whereas the airlines compete to serve us, the TSA feels vaguely like a slaughterhouse, in which we are the livestock.
Aside from energy efficiency, the semi would be an attractive vector to introduce fully autonomous driving:
1. Feasibility: Many trucking routes avoid some of the most complex driving tasks (e.g. dealing with pedestrians, city traffic).
2. Labor Cost: In commuter travel, the driver _is_ the cargo, so the utility gain is offset:
utility = cost(operation) - cost(occupancy)
utility = cost(operation)Blisters are another deal breaker. As a new golfer I've been feeling this. I imagine people who work with their hands all day (e.g. construction) may have a similar issue.
Even steel frames are unnecessary in a lot of cities with a housing shortage. A cheaper wood frame can get you up to 5 stories at a fraction of the cost. I'd say a bigger problem is local low-density zoning restrictions, where it's legally prohibited to build more than one or two units per lot.
And for us! Uber pool lowers prices, surge pricing increases availability. Uber would not let passengers ride in an autonomous deathtrap -- the negative publicity would be disastrous to their goals. If this is our libertarian dystopia, I welcome it with open arms.
Generally yes, but another quote from the call: "We are making important investments in data centers because we want to support our services business." Maybe that's taken some of their hardware resources.
They're working on services. From the Q4 earnings call,
"What should we read into the fact that R&D has more than doubled over the past three years while sales growth was sort of a fifth of that? Are R&D investments just less efficient than they were in the company's history, or should we think about that as incremental spend for products that haven't yet come to market?
Timothy Donald Cook - Apple, Inc.
There's clearly some amount of R&D that are on products that today are in the development phase that have not reached the market, and so that's a part of it. And we feel really great about the things that we've got. We've also put a lot of emphasis on our Services business as well and on making the ecosystem even better. And so we're very much, we're confidently investing in the future, and that's the reason you see the R&D spend increasing."
My super informal analysis of where Apple's priorities are:
Term Count
iPhone 64
Mac/macOS 17
Services 16
iPad 15
Watch 8
To be clear, the input just times out, likely because they don't expect a long random password input. I don't think it's evidence that they can verify a substring of your password.
The worst feeling is getting halfway through keying out your password on the number keys when the Fidelity robot tells you that's not the right password. I just say operator now until they transfer me to a human.
Here's a full list of SF public toilets: http://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/5196-public_toi...
There are multiple 24 hour facilities in the downtown / tenderloin area (94102).
return all([is_valid_answer(q, a) for q, a in params])Admission to all the Ivy League schools is need blind, so I don't think letting in too many poor people is a big concern for them.
My claim may have been somewhat unclear. More precisely... a photo that is intended to portray the subject's physical characteristics in a negative light has no place supporting an article about the subject's non-physical characteristics. Photos are great for adding informational content to new stories (e.g. http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/wabc/images/cms/1408319_1...).
To be clear, I have no opinion about this photo (see my other comments on this thread). * Original commenter highlights their observation that the degree to which a photo is 'flattering' is correlated with the author's desired characterization of the story subject. * Child commenter responds that it is reasonable to attempt to sway the reader's opinion by including an unflattering photo. * I respond that I don't think this is fair.
The question related to gender seems to be somewhat out-of-left-field
I think it's equivalent to ad hominem, pushing in a direction that should be irrelevant. This example isn't egregious (I didn't have any particular reaction to the picture, personally), but it's unsavory to attempt to build a negative association by spotlighting someone's unflattering physical characteristics.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just took issue with the suggestion that an unflattering picture somehow supports an article about shady business practices.
It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.
To elaborate on the sibling, comparing multiples of your salary is irrelevant. The question is, how much does the company stand to gain by putting this CEO in place? Imagine this CEO is just 1% better than you; they've just made the company millions.
Yes, you could argue that. But a _nation_ could improve its proportions by restricting immigration to a subset of the _global_ population.
To a certain extent, this principle is applied today. But I imagine it could be scaled up to something akin to highly selective university admissions process (e.g. interviews, standardized testing, resume critique, references). If a country starts with sufficient desirability, this could result in a positive feedback loop -- an increasingly competent and productive society.
I think it would be reasonable to claim that the larger the proportion of smart people in your population, the better. If that's true, than any number of below average intelligence people would be a surplus.
Link to the bill itself: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Some interesting notes:
-require the operator of an electrically motorized board to wear a helmet
-require an operator to be at least 16 years of age