EV driver for 10 years, and that is absolutely the big difference maker. The economics and time savings disappear if you have to use public charging infrastructure. I feel like it is almost like a tax that is put on people who can only afford to rent an apartment.
I've had two EVs and have been driving EV only for about 10 years. I've been driving an ICE vehicle lately due to an issue with a wiring harness on my EV that it is getting service for. It's been so long since I regularly drove an ICE that it has been an unpleasantly shocking experience.
- The cost savings are as much as a car payment. >$100/week in gas when my entire household electric bill averages only $200/month. Up until this recent issue at 85k miles, I've had $0 in maintenance costs (excluding tires). Those same miles in an ICE would have cost me about $2000 in oil changes and brakes by now.
- Getting gas sucks. Sure, it is easier to get gas than charge an EV at a public charger. But it is far more convenient to charge at home every day. In 10 years, I've used a public charger maybe 10 times, but I have to get gas at least once a week. Would you rather have a phone with 6-7 days of energy but you had to drive to a dirty gas station to fill it, or just plug it in every night?
- ICE range anxiety when I have a quarter tank left. I know I can get gas all over the place, but it is pretty rare that my EV has as little range in it at the start of the day as this ICE vehicle with a quarter tank left. Either I go to the gas station more frequently, or I have to account for going to a gas station before driving 30-40 miles away.
- EV powertrains are so much better than gas powertrains. More powerful, smoother, quieter, drive better especially due to the better weight distribution (front to back, and height of the center of gravity).
Not many. Elon said their plan was to produce 500k per year and they did less than 5% (15k) of that over the last year. Their installed production capacity is 125k.
The Ford Edsel is widely regarded as one of the greatest car flops of all time and it sold 60k cars per year for their 2-year production run.
The CyberTruck is a massively bigger flop than that.
Batteries are just not there. Rivian is not selling that well, Lightning got cancelled. New Ford truck looks interesting tho.
As for Cybertruck - they don't seem to be dropping the prices just yet and prices on secondary market haven't collapsed either. Like it or not - it's here to stay.
They first started taking deposits on the Roadster 9 years ago in 2017 with a 2020 production date. It’ll be shocking if they ever sell this car they showed today. If they do, it’ll be many years late, not fly, and cost twice what they are saying. Just like the CyberTruck.
Shameless plug for my web video player that is especially designed for self-hosting situations. Drop a single html file in your web server folder with your videos and you get thumbnails, library, search, subtitle support, etc.
No required third-party dependencies (just the optional Google Drive and OneDrive features). Highly customizable (colors, site logo, default features) with a JSON file the player can produce. Responsively scales for any web browser: laptop, mobile, smart TVs, game consoles, even built-in in-car tablet browsers.
If we're plugging stuff, here's my little ecosystem I've been working on for about 8 months. It replaces (but is fully compatible with) navidrome/subsonic, iOS client, macOS client, tvOS client (with modern QR/code based login flow), WebUI, and soon, Android clients. Also supports local libraries.
Has neat stuff like remote-controlling other clients (zero conf/mdns/server relayed), modern user management (invite links, app passwords, api keys), the apps are pretty, low-resource, and consistent. Normal stuff like gapless, bit-perfect, share links, file-watching that is solid, etc.
Other killer feature is DSP/EQing that supports stuff like importing (or building) squig presets (great for IEM users), UPnP devices (from desktop, and
supports DSP for room corrections etc). Should be a tad more lightweight than navidrome (though I do love navidrome <3).
This looks awesome. Very quickly read the Github page. It does seems to need a webserver. Would i just drop the html file in a smb shared folder and open it in a webbrowser, could that work ? Apologies for asking weird questions.
The main use for it is as a webpage you can serve with any web server. If the folder for your smb video share is also served with any web server, drop player.html in there, access it from the webserver URL, and it'll work great.
It is also a PWA though, so you can install the player (e.g. from my github pages test version: https://pseudosavant.github.io/player.html/player.html), and then use it as a local video player for any video file in your OS, like directly from the smb share if it is mounted.
For context, the first Grace Hopper Celebration was 1994, and had been held for the last 20 consecutive years. Long before DEI.
But when the powers that be are intent to kill off "DEI", and their definition includes anything related to women, this is what happens. Too many business cowards don't want to have problems with their merger, acquisition, IPO, FCC license, etc for supporting celebrating a great American like this, just because she was a woman.
There was definitely gender-based affirmative action benefitting women in 1994 - the term DEI is newer than that (as far as I'm aware), but the concept is definitely not.
According to the Wikipedia article on the event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper_Celebration_of_Wo...), "In 1994, Anita Borg and Telle Whitney founded the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. With the initial idea of creating a conference by and for women computer scientists, Borg and Whitney met over dinner, with a blank sheet of paper, having no idea how to start a conference, and started to plan out their vision. The first Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing was held in Washington, D.C., in June 1994, and brought together 500 technical women.".
Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern; from the very beginning, the entire point of having a formal celebration of Grace Hopper was to be a locus for this female-specific conference. Grace Hopper's importance to this conference is that she was a woman, not that she invented FLOW-MATIC.
Grace Hopper graduated from Yale with a PhD in 1933. In 1952, Professor Bessie Lee Gambrill became the first woman at receive tenure at Yale.
Many women mathematicians in computer science worked in the field because they were denied a university career path because of their gender.
As an example of how late gender equality arrived, Olga Taussky-Todd (Caltech) held only a “research associate” title from 1957 until Caltech made her its first female full professor in 1971.
It is not wrong to celebrate a more enlightened world by highlighting its trailblazers and encouraging others to follow their footsteps in breaking barriers.
If I ever got famous, I would hope that people would remember me posthumously by what I did rather than by the fact that I was the "first Bangladeshi" to do whatever. You just mentioned two women professors at Yale and Caltech. I am sure they did amazing things. But your post just says they were women and contains no reference to their actual lives' work.
It is useful to study both their inventions and to learn about the history of discrimination against women. One doesn't make the other more or less valuable to understand. I was responding to a post about gender discrimination with examples.
Both are quite famous. Their work, and summaries of their work, are easily found if you are legitimately curious. Olga Taussky-Todd was a pioneer in matrices theory - certainly relevant and impactful in today's AI, LLM world. I see someone gave a separate synopsis of Admiral Grace Hopper's accomplishments.
Grace Hopper invented COBOL (or its direct predecessor anyway), did a lot of foundational work with compiler design, and generally (if you'll pardon the pun) led the deep integration of computer systems and programs into the military in the very early days. but yes, we should be focusing on what they've done, not just who they are.
I don’t think they were expressing concern, just the fact.
I read it as a damning indictment against anti-“DEI” fanatics that they’re on the wrong side of history when they push the envelope too far in the direction of “merit-based hiring”, as if DEI was something relatively-recently concocted.
Laughably, in the days before “DEI”, “merit-based hiring” usually equated to “good old boys club”. Based on the industries in which I’ve been involved, it’s still very much “good old boys club”, despite best efforts for DEI to try to make things more merit-based.
Nobody claims that political appointments are "merit based." They're by definition political. But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
He’s a carnival barker. That doesn’t change the fact that political appointments are political—they don’t have any relevance to merit-based admissions to universities or job hiring.
In fact, the distinction between political appointments and those other things is critical. In politics, you appoint people to reward your various constituencies. That’s just how politics works. But jobs and universities shouldn’t work that way.
> But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
University admissions were not part of the DEI movement, they were part of the affirmative action movement. By conflating the two you’re unfairly grouping things of different types to tear them down together.
In "Having a specific conference for women in computing is definitely a DEI concern" I take concern to be the noun, Mirriam-Webster (1a) or (2) has something that relates or belongs to one : affair, from the context this would seem to be the definition that fits: DEI relates to such a conference, they're interested in it, rather than definition (1b) an uneasy state of blended interest, uncertainty, and apprehension which would lead to "concerning" but makes no sense in the context, as you note.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” — Anatole France
Treating people equally does not mean treating them the same (or, why don't healthy people get to be hospital patients, too?).
> You're talking about a generation of white men who were told growing up that treating people differently based on skin color was the worst thing they could do.
There’s a linguistic sleight of hand that you’re using here that belies your emotional attachment to this topic.
It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination, harassment, and even violence was the worst thing you could do.
You’re equating these two things:
- giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions
- lynching
… which I find laughably monstrous and points to a convenient ignorance of history
> It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination
Those are the same thing. "Discrimination" literally means "treating people differently based on skin color." Which is what the universities were doing.
> giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions
That's not what universities were doing. We know that because they said so! In Harvard's brief to the Supreme Court, for example, Harvard argued that it had no "workable race-neutral alternative" that would achieve its goal of "diversity." Harvard.Br.52-53.
What you're describing--"giving children who grew up in zip code with terrible education outcomes a handicap"--is a race-neutral approach that focuses on socioeconomic factors. Harvard told the Supreme Court that such approaches would not work to achieve its goals: To achieve diversity targets without considering race, "Harvard would have to give socioeconomic tips of disproportionate magnitude ... so large that they would 'essentially automatically put[] in any applicant ... with an average probability of admission.'" Harvard.Br.53.
> What you're describing--"giving children who grew up in zip code with terrible education outcomes a handicap"--is a race-neutral approach that focuses on socioeconomic factors.
Well you also conveniently ignore that it would be an instant victim of Goodhart’s law. There are few, if any, race neutral approaches that can’t be gamed - and the only motivation for such approaches is to satisfy those who are so fervently against the idea of affirmative action. In fact, whenever such approaches are attempted, we see that the rich continue to game the system and the expense of the lower middle class (see Lori Laughlin), so it’s really just the stupid rich kids who benefit the most from “merit-based” admissions, not some humble, poor, but brilliant, child of the wrong race.
Did you go to school in the US? There’s absolutely no shortage of educational opportunities. I’m not sure why you’re arguing about Harvard. It impacts such a small percentage of the population. It’s also hilariously one of the institutions most mired by legacy admissions and admissions based on donations. Maybe use the California system instead?
Edit: also I’m not going to get in some autistic Twitter debate about what “discrimination” means. It’s convenient for those opposed to systems and regulations that benefit an oppressed people that anything not immaculately meritocratic can be described as “discriminatory”. Am I “discriminating” against my child Peter when I give his brother Paul a cookie because his other brother Pedro stole Paul’s cookie at lunch?
> There are few, if any, race neutral approaches that can’t be gamed
The race-conscious approaches are heavily gamed too. The minority students at elite universities are rarely people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most often, they’re the children of affluent minorities, often elites from latin america or africa who have no connection to discrimination in the U.S.
Ironically, you’re engaged in some wild racial stereotyping by flipping back and forth between race and economic circumstances. Do you think there aren’t lots of affluent minorities in the U.S.? Harvard doesn’t let in poor minorities.
> the only motivation for such approaches is to satisfy those who are so fervently against the idea of affirmative action
Yes, institutions must satisfy those who are against grouping people together by race and treating them differently on that basis. That’s not only the law, but the law is correct.
> so it’s really just the stupid rich kids who benefit the most from “merit-based” admissions, not some humble, poor, but brilliant, child of the wrong race.
The evidence shows that the people who benefit the most from objective, merit-based admissions is smart lower-class kids of all races.
> There’s absolutely no shortage of educational opportunities.
That doesn’t justify grouping people based on race and treating them differently.
> I’m not sure why you’re arguing about Harvard. It impacts such a small percentage of the population.
Have you read any of the record in SFFA? Harvard just happened to be the headline name. Almost every institution does it. The medical school data I posted up thread is aggregated across all medical schools.
And elite institutions like Harvard are especially important because they’re gatekeepers. That’s how racial preferences jumped the air gap from universities to corporations. While universities had a carve out for affirmative action, employers never did. Race-conscious policies have always been illegal in the employment context (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed 9-0). But Ivy-educated people took those ideas from universities into the workplace and a bunch of Harvard-educated lawyers gave very bad advice.
> Am I “discriminating” against my child Peter when I give his brother Paul a cookie because his other brother Pedro stole Paul’s cookie at lunch
In this hypo, neither Paul nor Peter’s cookie was stolen. People aren’t reincarnations of their oppressed ancestors.
Everything about your argument hinges on your core take that "making decisions based on race" is fundamentally wrong, no matter the decision. Since I disagree with you on that, mostly on the basis that the world didn't pop into existence yesterday and I believe that we have a moral and ethical duty to make the best of the shit situation that we and our ancestors have created, there's really no purpose about arguing about stupid specifics on a point-by-point basis.
Especially since your arguments often contradict themselves and you transparently use specific details not because they are strong but because they are rhetorically useful (e.g. referring to "elite" institutions in the case of certain races being less likely to be admitted, but then referring to all institutions when speaking about whether merit-based admissions improve outcomes for lower income students). This is a form of gish-galloping.
Zip codes with terrible education outcomes are almost certainly proxies for zip codes with lots of black and hispanic students living in them. The fact that race correlates highly with zip code is why it is illegal under laws banning racial discrimination in financial services for banks and other loan-granting financial service companies to use zip code data as an input for computing the likelihood that a borrower will repay their loan. And if it's reasonable to legally ban moneylenders from looking at zip code data to determine likelihood of paying back a loan because it's a good proxy for race, it's reasonable to ban colleges from using it as a reason to give a handicap to college admissions for the same reason.
Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Given all the other advantages my male whiteness has benefited me, I think I can look past that.
(Not willfully blind, just keeping everything in perspective.)
> Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Yes, not because you’re white, but because as a citizen you have a moral obligation to help ensure that our institutions treat citizens as individuals, not as “groups.” Individuals living today shouldn’t be treated as if they personally suffered that discrimination by grouping them together based on skin color with people in the past who did. That doesn’t mean ignoring the effects of past discrimination. But those effects are baked into people’s individual circumstances and can be evaluated in those terms. Rich people should be treated alike morally and poor people should be treated alike morally regardless of the individual path dependency that led them both to the same place.
You can’t have your group identity cake and eat it too. I can’t demand better treatment than a similarly situated white person because other Bangladeshis are poor. I’m not them any more than you are them. Conversely, it’s wrong to discriminate against my wife’s poor white extended family members because other white people are rich. My kids go to private school with WASPs, some of whom definitely have slave owner legacy money. My wife’s family aren’t those people, and it’s racism to arbitrarily group them together.
Don't confuse rational discourse for "victimhood". Finding reasoned discourse difficult to understand and centering it around "victimhood" is ironically an effeminate trait.
It’s not really that simple. Read some of the accounts of the conference from recent years. The conference was falling apart even when companies were sponsoring it. I don’t know about last year’s conference but before that there were a lot of bad experiences and reports that it was turning into more of a job fair than tech conference, but even that wasn’t going well.
It was also getting very expensive. When a conference has a long list of sponsors and tickets also start at $600 minimum, it’s hard to keep that going in a year like this when everyone is dealing with large token spend budgets.
They likely could have survived with a right-sized event but they aimed higher than their budget allowed and hoped the money would appear at the last minute. It did not.
> It was also getting very expensive. When a conference has a long list of sponsors and tickets also start at $600 minimum
im in the conference business but just fyi thats actually cheap - venue, av and f&b alone cost many millions for a conference this size. a good rule of thumb on cost is $1-2000 per head depending on quality of event.
> But when the powers that be are intent to kill off "DEI", and their definition includes anything related to women, this is what happens.
It's the other way around -- they want to do away with anything to do with women, and they used this DEI boogeyman to get everyone scared enough to go along with it.
> Before we try to rehabilitate "DEI" let's not forget what it was and is: universities and employers grouping people together based on skin color and treating them differently based on it, by applying wildly different standards.
One of the major problems with "DEI" as used in the vernacular is that people have trouble agreeing on the meaning of the term.
This results in partisans inventing their own fantastical definitions of it, which they use as bogeymen to encourage misogyny or race baiting.
DEI practices I've witnessed at the companies I've worked at include:
* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).
* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.
* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.
What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.
The confusion is the point. People who want to have racial preferences in admissions and hiring can’t use the phrase “racial preferences,” because it’s always been unpopular. So they used the term “affirmative action” instead. But that also came to be understood as meaning racial preferences. So then they switched to “DEI.” Now they’re throwing that label under the bus too. I suspect within a few years we’ll have a different label.
IME black corporate board members typically come from a military, law, or medical background. White board members have a much more diverse set of backgrounds, including "son of former board member".
Your 85% white figure doesn’t tell you anything. Educated and liberal white people have an out-group preference, which is why universities and medical schools discriminate against white people despite being run by white people.
1. Since the chords are all within a specific key, have you considered using the numbers 1 through 7 to play the respective chords? That way playing a 1-4-5 or a 2-5-1 would be very intuitive?
2. Have you considered using modifier keys (shift, ctrl, alt) to control whether a chord is strummed down versus up (e.g. pressing A would be down, but Shift+A would be up) or major/minor (A would be major, Alt+A would be minor)? I guess Ctrl could be a 7th chord modifier too.
It was successful for the Node community, but not for Deno the runtime or business. Deno launched with many features Node didn't have, but that it has now adopted: ES Modules, fetch(), .ts file support, web streams, web crypto, a built-in test runner, file watching, etc. Node's APIs didn't even use Promises/async/await, they were all callback-based.
Ultimately, it was easier for the Node ecosystem to adopt those changes into Node than it was to migrate to a different JS runtime like Deno. Bun would likely not exist without Deno too.
I'm sorry, but this is Anthropic being the volunteer thought police right? This woman is being charged with a felony for expressing a thought to Claude. Not because she tried to plan an attack with it.
It is like Anthropic wants Claud to be the pious antithesis of Grok. Although their ideals are far apart, the end result is they'll both violate your privacy if its suits their worldview.
reply