|
Munkeymon posted:Opera on WinMo was a faster, more capable browser before the iPhone came out, but you had to know to seek it out and install it. Exactly this I had a samsung windows phone back in the day that was great. Ran age of empires and with Opera mobile you had a legitimate desktop browsing experience that was good on the mobile device. Of course the downside there was thst you had to pay for Opera after a certain point and buying a browser always felt wrong for some reason.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:The result is surprising to me. Usually when you make something cheaper and more convenient (Uber is cheaper and more convenient than taxis) its use becomes more widespread. Ot maybe it is that the premise that Uber makes it easier or more convenient is largely untrue? Or as the results of that study indicate are statistically insignificant if it does exist. The fact is that in most major cities getting a taxi is as easy as hailing one or calling a dispatch. Uber did create an app but that requires one to have a phone and hands already so the increase in convenience is pretty minimal. The next aspect then is cost and with surge pricing during the peak hours (bar close) Uber really isn't cheaper than a taxi. And of course tipsy taxis are usually cheaper than either since they're run as a public service. So ya not surprising at all even with your dnd hive mind conspiracy. Raldikuk fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is actually illegal in aviation - you can't chip in for gas for your buddy's cessna unless he has a commercial pilot's license. This isn't quite true. For private pilots in the US you can accept money for transporting a friend around that does not exceed the cost that would be incurred flying them. This has to also be part of an actual joint effort, such as everyone flying to the same place on vacation. Soliciting fares in any way would require a commercial license as you mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah, there's at least ten years difference i'd say. well put What other clouds did you yell at today, Gramps?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:...Why the fuckballs would they put anything in Dayton, never mind this? Ohio has a rich history of being a key part of the US aerospace industry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Blut posted:uber's resistance to proper driver background checks is one of their more egregious stances, I think. Are they that desperate for drivers? It seems to have more to do with Uber just not wishing to capitulate to any regulation at all rather than any sort of need. This is just like them not filing for an autonomous vehicle permit. They can easily afford to pay it and there's no good reason for them not to. They just don't want to set the precedent that they're willing to actually oblige local authorities.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:What? A user-assembled computer kit consisting of a bare circuit board and off-the-shelf parts was Apple's first product. That Woz designed....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
sarehu posted:The worst thing is the leather jackets. It's like they're actively trying to make their employees hate the place. And there's a simple solution. Charge fatties an extra fee to subsidize the ladies, sheesh. Funny too because if they really wanted to be such dicks about cost they could have gotten the women mens leather jackets in their sizes. I also suspect whatever manager came up with the unit cost zinger was basing it on averages since clothing is sold in sizes. So no doubt they paid twice as much for 1 gigantic leather jacket for treebeard and more than the womens jackets would have costed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
Antti posted:Actually it's more like "we'll take over 100% of your income in health insurance premiums and then we dump you if you actually get sick." Seriously. 5% of lifetime earnings would be a steal in comparison. For the average family making 50k per year working for 47 years will make $2.35 million. 5% of that is $117500 which is much less than a lot of cancer treatments. Current average premium per year for a family that has employer coverage is about $4700 or $235k over the same frame. Include the employer portion of it and the insurance itself would cost $814,134.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:I've had two notices like this for my Volkswagen over the years. Generally minor stuff; you just go in and they apply the fix for free. I'm not sure why this is a big deal? How many of those affected 70% of its fleet though? That itself seems like a pretty big deal, and the problem that Tesla specifically faces is that they are currently very low volume and are hoping to ramp that up with their Model 3 and beyond and these types of issues could potentially scale with their production. If it does then they'll be a complete joke compared to their competition. Of course with this low volume a single issue will also affect a larger base so it isn't exactly easy to translate it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I don't think it's useful to count supplier issues like this against the manufacturer at large, especially when it hit so many different manufacturers at the same time. That's like blaming Boeing for an engine failure when they're designed and built by Pratt & Witney, GE, Rolls Royce, etc. That isn't the best comparison because when airlines lease an airplane from Boeing they select a config including the manufacturer which come with its own warranties etc. So of course Boeing isn't responsible if GE borks it hard and needs to recall a bunch of turbines. But for parts that the manufacturer is sourcing themselves to assemble into a final product that they guarantee then they most certainly are on the hook for supplier issues. Part of sourcing such parts is testing them out and seeing if they'll be acceptable. Once you determine that you do ongoing QA for parts to make sure they meet the specs you know work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:kuerig pods cause an insane amount of disposable packaging pollution You can recycle or compost most kcups now though????
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Didn't google maps just start recording your location at some point without making it at all clear too? I somehow discovered it pretty soon but a friend of mine just realized it now that he has years of his travel history recorded in the app. It was probably mentioned somewhere in the change log but I doubt anyone paid any attention to the regular maps update. Google also stores all of the recordings that it believes were attempts to do an ok Google command etc. I found a file that was just 5 minutes ofnidle convo between me and my friend in my car. Kind of creepy in one way but also kind of nice that Google has it available for review.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:Be fair now, he hates unions and so do Republicans. That makes at least two things he cares about. Also to be fair the article goes into detail how they fund both sides so no matter who wins they have a seat at the table.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Maybe they could stop bloody well doing that when one side is so clearly insane. I don't support their actions here but it is rational. This isn't just the tech industry but basically every major industry out there. They fund both sides of the aisle so they have a say. Sure Trump and the Republicans are awful but if they're in power you also don't want them to spite you. The good thing to come from an article like that though is revealing that of course silicon valley tech bros play the same capitalist games as everyone else and people need to stop assuming that companies they like will support their values. They don't their only value is the bottom line and they'll lie cheat and steal to improve it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Noggin Monkey posted:I had the exact same reaction to that quote. Shameless. Amusingly it is also how it is supposed to work. The difference between earnings and expenditures goes to stockholder equity. Aka they get the "scraps".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
I really doubt the price difference is due to airport surcharges. Uber really is a lot cheaper than taxis on a per mile / per minute basis. A lot of that is because they subsidize the rides, but that doesn't really matter to the consumer getting the cheaper ride. I have completely stopped using taxis and only use Lyft / Uber now if I need a taxi just because of how much cheaper and convenient they are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:People do not read instructions, but persons do. Hi! As a child I read video game instruction manuals before playing them even. As a kid the mall with decent games was 30 no idea away so I always read the instructions on the drive home. This is back when there was 30 minutes or more of material to read. I still remember the SimCity 3000 manual.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
If you goto myactivity.google.com and login you will see pretty much all of the activity Google collects. Search queries, apps used, voice commands recorded, etc. When I had ok Google enabled it would have tons if random stuff recorded. Sometimes entire conversations. You can delete the history and control it to some degree tho.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:Aside from the bankruptcies, there was also the cooling of the IPO market. The bubble was built on an expectation that you could slap .com on something and go public within 18 months for a big payout for initial investors, so bankers were shoveling huge piles of cash into the market which fed the bubble. There were also larger global economic factors going on that really hit hard. There was "bailout" after "bailout" in the 90s for emerging markets as global capital was sucking them dry (due to currency arbitrage since many of these countries pegged to the dollar or other basket currency) and each one seemed to be less effective than the next. This culminated with the Long Term Capital Management bailout which probably shook many investors especially those who assumed the problems through the 90s were just problems of those emerging markets and didn't actually affect the US or EU.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In non-Musk chat: He just lost his NLRB complaint; the lawsuit still appears to be pending. From the article it also appears that the person who they (Damore, et al) highlighted as harassing him and going unpunished... was actually punished. I can't imagine this will bode well for the lawsuit at large; especially since I cannot imagine Google would be quick to settle such a case rather than defending itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The Chrome OS project is redundant and useless. Android would do the job just as well if Google deigned to allow full Chrome functionality on it. I'm sure I'll regret asking but, is Windows 10 Mobile not a phone OS?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No auto white balancing on a camera made for a robot. Like, people can't distinguish tinted blacks at all so cameras juice up the colors and compress the color range a ton and it looks better but it loses a ton of data. A robot doesn't care at all and would rather have a full color range photo. I'm not sure posting a picture from a site explaining how to correct an underexposed picture actually proves your point. You seem to be arguing that super fancy cameras will always take underexposed pictures but this is actually a good thing because more information is available in each pixel. This isn't actually the case, the picture is just underexposed (in the examples you've given. They can just as easily be overexposed). It is easier to take lovely pictures with expensive cameras because they often give more control to the user. So the person operating the camera actually needs to know how to adjust things properly to get a good photo. This is in contrast to a more point and shoot type camera which does those functions automatically. Nevertheless, the underexposed picture isn't better because it is underexposed; that is nonsense. It also seems irrelevant when talking about uber's lovely car. That you think higher end camera will naturally be underexposed (and this is a good thing!!!!) thus that is why the image looks dark as poo poo is irrelevant to the point that the lighting conditions weren't nearly as bad as one would assume by looking at the underexposed (charitably, they might have actually darkened it purposefully but I doubt it) picture. From the video uber released + the video taken by others showing the lighting conditions, even without LIDAR it should have seen the person. But it didn't, because uber's system is poo poo. That the LIDAR system also failed is just further proof of how lovely uber's system is. Then we can top it off with the interior video of the "safety engineer" who clearly was just dicking around until the car hit the pedestrian. Before all of this evidence we could give you the tiny benefit of the doubt that maybe someone did just jump out and there wasn't even enough time to initiate braking. But now, we know this complete bullshit--dumb arguments about underexposed images not withstanding.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What? no. Of course cameras do processing as well, that is inconsequential to the underexposed example you provided where the original picture is underexposed and lovely. This frequently happens with novice photographers and fancy cameras because they have no clue how to operate the fancy camera. As we have mutually noted, the underexposure issue is tangential here; the uber car was lovely not because of the underexposed video but because its system didn't detect the pedestrian. The underexposed video was likely released to try and get people to think "wow look at how dark that area is, I doubt I would have been able to see the pedestrian." And that worked well, as is clearly demonstrated here with plenty of posters saying that. But the reality is that the road wasn't as dark as the video made it seem; it was a well lit city street. The pedestrian would have been visible to the naked eye and a driver that was paying attention (which the uber "safety engineer" clearly was not) would have seen them and at least initiated braking. The lovely uber car though also has radar and lidar sensors so even if the underexposed video was representative of the conditions (it isn't) it wouldn't matter because the radar and lidar systems should have picked it up. That across all of its systems it didn't pick the pedestrian up demonstrates without a doubt that its system is lovely. If you want to discuss the exact technicals of why you believe it is lovely, by all means do so, maybe an uber engineer will see it and improve the tech. But it is still lovely and in a just world uber would be raked over the coals for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Go outside in a well lit but nighttime area and turn off all the auto adjustment stuff stuff on your camera and it will look dark. Keep the same shutter speed and apature but turn off auto white balence and image processing. No fraud required. Being visually dark or being visually light is nothing. Its no impact on what information is in the image to be darker. And depending what processes are done to change color information is lost to make nicer visuals. It’s not a trick they are playing on you. Note the absence of me accusing them of fraud. What precisely is the relevance of your continued insistence about what might be in the lovely underexposed video? You certainly can process the image and correct the underexposure... and what? The only possible relevance the video had was trying to show the conditions of the street. It failed to do this, no fraud required. Since we know the video isn't representative it doesn't make much sense to keep defending the possibilities of what could be done with it that weren't. I refer you back to the second half of my post. The underexposed video is completely irrelevant here. The street has been shown to be well-lit, contradicting initial impressions that is was dark. The video system is also hardly what the car is relying on either; it has radar and lidar systems for that. Between the street being well lit and its sensor package we can determine that if uber's car didn't detect the pedestrian and begin avoidance procedures that it is lovely and needs to be fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:either way uber builds lovely robots but will probably be fined $50 or something like lovely humans Uber itself will probably skate and if anyone gets the hammer put down on it will be the driver in the car. Uber will make a big thing about how she was derelict in duty and violated company policy. Luckily for her AZ laws are such poo poo in this regard what she was doing probably is a slap on the wrist anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
His problem isn't with generating demand for the product though, it is with actually shipping it out the door.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
I like the part where production of the battery packs has gone from 7 hours to 17 minutes seemingly by not having to put a front cover on an unnecessary port. That must have been one hell of a cover.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
The fastest acceleration times and the longest stopping distances.... really speaks volumes about Tesla's commitment to safety.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 00:42
|
|
|
T.C. posted:Wait... What receipts does she think will prove that no antiunion behavior is happening? I think she means that she has receipts to prove she visited the factories? I still love the idea that she could visit a factory and determine if there were anti union activities going on. I guess as long as she didn't see people getting shot by Pinkertons she can conclude no anti-union activity occurs? Even if she actually interviewed a bunch of workers, what worker contemplating unionizing would tell their anti-employee boss' girlfriend about any of it?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I doubt it, it's probably just an ABS issue that happens under some specific circumstances, otherwise it would've been noticed before. That's not good obviously, but it's not the first time this happens. Why would we assume this? From the report it is pretty clear that there are times that it can brake within a reasonable distance, but once you average them out it is terrible. What is more likely is Tesla underspecced poo poo, did a bunch of braking tests and picked the best number. Even if it were an ABS issue, it isn't a fluke "under some specific circumstances" as the report details. It simply has lovely braking distance. If Tesla actually put the car through the ringer to test it and it was a software issue, it should have never been released. Why should we give Tesla the benefit of the doubt when their response to comment was that they probably tested wrong and also OTA updates give them an edge for fixing such issues? duz posted:No no, it is the unions that pit management against the workers. If he hates managing so much why doesn't he retire? Surely has has enough liquid capital to live comfortably for the rest of his life. And hell, he can even work on the floor I bet if he wanted (he doesn't). I would also love to see the UAW contracts that stipulate that workers cannot have stock options.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
SardonicTyrant posted:I get the feeling that the base Model 3 has been a lie all along, only meant to garner good publicity and vc capital. It probably isn't a lie and Musk is being pretty honest in his tweet there. They need to sell the fully loaded expensive version to pay for the tooling and learning curve and if they can actually reach the production rate they've said then they can start doing the lower end models. If there is a lie it is that they'll actually ever reach those production levels. With the money they've had access to they should have been able to but it turns out Musk is bad at what he hates doing.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
I wonder what "hardwood floors" is a euphemism for
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
It isn't like Uber disabled the computer from being able to do emergency braking maneuvers (lol that you have continued to ignore this for your own interpretation of 'they must mean something completely different'), disabled the computer from alerting the driver of any detected objects, and that they required the driver to monitor a central screen and also require them to perform all of the emergency braking maneuvers. Let's just give all of the benefit of the doubt to uber while painting a pedestrian who was killed because uber is poo poo as in the worst light possible. Why. Just why do you feel compelled to give all of the benefit of the doubt to Uber of all companies? Against all available evidence too. It's ok, just because Uber's autonomous vehicles are trash doesn't mean that we will ban all AV. It just shows that there needs to be a lot more regulation and control over the process and that Uber needs to be shut the gently caress down because they don't care about any of that.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The braking thing is just a minor Volvo system, not something related to the self driving stuff. They just turn it off. Uber isn’t writing any code for it. Lmao you keep saying this despite this requiring you to not read a single thing from the report. You continue to willfully ignore what it actually says and keep coming up with your own hypothetical to make it make sense. The report is clear: the Uber system detected the need to engage in emergency braking maneuvers. The system isn't set up to actually do that, it is left to the driver to do so. The computer system doesn't even alert the driver that the system has detected the need to brake. This is not the Volvo system that has been disengaged; this is Uber not allowing its own AV system to engage in emergency braking maneuvers. But yes, I am sure the report is completely wrong and they're making a mountain out of a molehill. You really should let them know that they're big ole idiots if you actually think your interpretation is correct.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Tesla lays off 9% of employees. Roughly 3K people, salaried mostly. Musk's letter to employees. Hopefully Tesla calls Grimes to testify she can clear this all up; she even has receipts!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:Can Uber have a "run on the bank" scenario with their investors? Any money already invested is gone unless they were able to successfully sue for breach of fiduciary duty or fraud. However, most VC works by having stages of funding and milestones for getting money released. So even if a VC hooks up for a series of funding, the actual money won't necessarily transfer over until Uber can meet whatever requirements set up for it. I'm not sure how Uber's funding is currently structured; but they have received an assload of actual money that they've burnt so there are plenty of investors who could be out significant amounts of money with zero recourse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Why do people believe that Uber is actually in bad financial shape? Because they take a loss on every sale basically. Choice quote about their 2017 numbers quote:Despite a turbulent year for the ride-hailing company, sales were $7.5 billion. But the company also posted a substantial loss of $4.5 billion. There are few historical precedents for the scale of its loss. Hmmm taking a loss of $4.5b on $7.5b of revenue? Why on Earth would anyone believe they're in bad shape. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:A guy I worked with in the 1990's became an exec at Amazon. I told him the same thing, about Amazon, in 2000. Amazon is famous for its lackluster profit #'s, but throughout its history its net income has almost always been positive. Same for their operating cash flow. They run on the razor's edge pouring everything back into the business to grow it. Like your friend said with growing into new markets. The biggest investments that they made that have paid off is with AWS. And that itself came about because their business fundamentally needed that tech infrastructure under it to handle peak loads. Uber's comparable there would be autonomous vehicles. In 18 years I might have egg on my face cuz Uber is able to pull off the impossible, but I won't hold my breath. The situation is not the same for Uber which has never had a year of positive net income and its only quarter to date where that was true was Q1'18 because of a sale of assets to a competitor. Uber loses a ton of money just offering the service they're in business for. They of course additionally lose a ton of money trying to expand into markets which they have no edge in. Their strategy is also to have their main product be a loss leader for a fantasy. Two in fact. The first is Uber's belief that they can create a monopoly in the scheduled-fare taxi market. The idea is that they can have cheap fares, get monopolistic market share, and then raise prices through the roof. As mentioned upthread, this is very unlikely because of how easy it is to copy Uber's model. There's the other problem that it simply isn't sustainable to churn through drivers at the rate Uber does. Their second fantasy is the belief that if they can hold out long enough while developing market share, that they can eventually eliminate the need for drivers with AV and solve their whole losing money on every transaction problem. Amazon ran razor thin margins in aggregate; but they never had their core business take a loss as a matter of doing business. The only reason Uber hasn't flamed out already is that they are able to cajole more VC cash. Keeping that up is their best hope of staying alive in the short & medium term. Luckily for Uber capital is actively searching for high risk endeavors in the hopes of big payoffs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If it’s physically impossible to get your mri an average of thousands of examples of cases similar to yours is likely to be meaningful. It is clearly inferior to a real mri but odds are you are not a true unique case and enough data will provide more guidance on what is likely than a doctor just personally guessing at it. Garbage in, garbage out
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2018 06:27
|
|