Except they aren't taking more time than other car manufacturers to get the production line up and running. Musk is just letting optimistic estimates out.
His pathological penchant for unrealistic estimates really isn't the core of the problem. Musk started actually taking orders for a mass-produced car before he even started working on the production line or even having a clue how long it would realistically take to do that. Other car manufacturers employ what Elon doubtless thinks is an old-fashioned and blinkered technique of selling mass-produced cars after they're actually being mass-produced.
Then in February, Tesla registered a new batch of Model 3 VINs, including two dozen Model 3 VINs with the dual motor powertrain. It raised Model 3 reservation holders' hope that the new configuration could soon become available, but now Musk confirmed that it is still a few months away in a series of tweets last night.
This sort of thing is a perfect example of why I crack up every time someone cites VIN registrations as anything resembling a reasonable proxy of Model 3 production rates. A vehicle corresponding to a given VIN need not be produced in a particularly tight time frame, and, more importantly, need not be produced at all. It's beyond question at this point that Elon [ab]uses the registration process as a PR lever.
The notch was a solution in search of a problem. The fact that a sizeable number of people people now think (or at least are willing to pretend) that a screen with a couple of weird looking horns on the end somehow looks better than a rectangular screen that's a bit narrower reminds me a lot of middle school dress fads.
There's nothing wrong with . . . paying for clean power to offset one's own carbon use.
There's "nothing wrong with" a lot of things, but what good comes from it? TFA describes the process as: "For every kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed, it buys a kilowatt-hour from a wind or solar farm built specifically for Google." It says nothing about anyone actually using the electricity from the wind/solar farms, and we already know Google isn't using it.
So that's not an "offset" of any sort -- it's actually worse than doing nothing (other than the positive PR Google gets out of it, of course).
So they're spending money on "clean" power they don't actually use (and apparently nobody actually uses) to somehow atone for "dirty" power they actually do use (and apparently also pay for). Who says environmentalism isn't a religion?
"After throwing practically every resource in the company at getting Model 3s out the door, we managed to make 2000 in one week."
We'll see if it sustains. Given how badly he needed some positive scrap of news to come out to try to stop the stock price, bond rating, etc., from cratering further, I remain skeptical.
If you want to route all 212 area code numbers to a specific carrier you can just enter '212' and it will route them. If you want go do a NPA-NXX, just enter '212555'. Since it's longest match it will also work for a 'thousands block' (ie, 2125551) and even down to the individual number (2125551212).
I may well be missing something, but I'm still not seeing why this scheme provides any benefit over one where you explicitly ask for a wildcard if that's what you want (using your examples, '212*' '212555*' or '212555????' and so on. A system where a blank entry means the rule will be applied to any and everything seems like it's just asking for the exact sort of trouble that arose here.
Educated but apparently not particularly smart, given that he had complained to Tesla several times about issues with the guidance system and yet continued to blindly rely on it.
Yawn. What a weak attempt to distract from the fact that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
(Amusingly, to get the CenturyLink quote in the image you posted, you had to enter that address in response to the prompt: "We need your address to give you accurate pricing and product availability. Your address is used only to provide you with the best deals available." But given your claim that you couldn't accurately click "Yes, this is my account" for xfinity, apparently it's not your address. Uh oh.)
Or nothing of course we support 1.5 Mbps DSL. Comcast has the government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, but the the city council doesn't require them to offer service for their entire monopoly area.
Hmmm... BroadbandNow says that Comcast has 95.1% coverage in Seattle. Even more relevant to your claim, when I punch 6200 53rd Ave NE, the same address in your CenturyLink screenshot, into xfinity.com, it shows options of up to 400MBps. What's the problem?
Audience matters. What offends one audience, won't offend another.
Right, so as a practical matter it's the least common denominator. Which pretty much allows MS to arbitrarily ban people at will. Which theoretically could be bad.
The great triumph of nature will be our suffering as the result of our attempts to tame it.
I'm sure we would all chuckle if we had a full view of the creature comforts you're enjoying that allow you the time and comfort to freely make silly little posts like this.
If you're truly concerned we're burdening poor Mother Earth too much with our meaningless existence, the Bloodhound Gang wrote a song just for you.
The Falcon 9 has had 51 launches of which only 2 failed giving it just over a 96% reliability. The Russian Soyuz series has had over 1700 launches with a 97.4% reliability. Hence, the Falcon 9 with far fewer launches has a reliability comparable to one of the most tried, tested and reliable launch vehicles there is (source [wikipedia.org]).
Hmmm... based on a sample size of 51, what would you say is the 95% CI for Falcon 9 failure rate over 1700 launches? Back of the envelope suggests it could be as high as ~9%.
Something tell me using a platform that serves you ads and harvests your data with full knowledge and then suing them for seeing and ads and having your data harvested won't be much of a payoff. About the only thing lawyers here will make is attorney fees.
Something tells me you've never been very close to actual litigation, much less class action. In broad strokes, the deep pocket has just been caught with its hand in the cookie jar (and, if the media accounts are close to correct, has essentially admitted it screwed up). That's a story FB will not want to reach the jury, so it'll most likely settle -- for a lot less than the potential liability in a worst-case jury verdict, but still a sizable sum in an absolute sense. The class action old hands know this well, which is why they raced to the courthouse to file and try to be the one to marshal the lead plaintiff and thus get the largest share of the settlement. There's a lot more than attorney's fees at stake here.
Fact of the matter is, in all my years of biking on the road and crossing streets illegally (whose got time for sidewalks on campus?), I haven't been hit once. I take it upon myself to ensure my own safety by not making assumptions and using the senses I was born with to accumulate data about the world going on around me. I look 2-3 times (both ways), listen to sounds, judge the relative speed and how long it would take me to cross comfortably or whether I would need to hurry it up to avoid a close call, account for visibility and night-time conditions
Funny thing is, you just unintentionally made the case for exactly how not ready for prime time this self-driving technology really is. The view from the camera clearly shows that the guidance cameras have a pitifully bad black-and-white contrast range -- probably in the order of a few thousandths of that of the human eye. The net result is that the guidance system can't "see" more than a few dozen feet down the road before all detail goes to pitch black, which explains how the bicyclist appeared to suddenly come out of nowhere in the video. Reality through human eyes would have been nothing of the sort. But in any event, had the guidance system been operating according to your level of care and respecting the limited-visibility conditions whatever their cause, it likely wouldn't have been going faster than 15-20mph and we wouldn't have had this sort of outcome.
I hate Uber too
Speak for yourself -- I use human-driven Ubers regularly. This is a completely different issue.
"I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Really? Then just go ahead and institute whatever it is you think the regulations would/should ultimately be. Not only would that significantly decrease the odds of the government stepping in and doing it for you, but we could all enjoy the supposed benefits of that regulation right now rather than years from now.
But that would mean you would own the decision (and its consequences) rather than being able to say "the government made me do it." And that would take some cajones that this last week has strongly suggested are MIA.
The difference, of course, being that an actual human driver would have actually been watching the road (imagine that) and would have, when finally seeing the pedestrian, (a) swerved; (b) slammed on the brakes, and/or (c) most likely, both, rather than plowing into her at full speed while mouthing "oh shit" after having finally looked up from staring at a smartphone in their lap. That difference might well have left her just seriously injured rather than dead.
It's not a perfect world. "SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY" doesn't come even close to excusing (a) an insufficiently designed guidance system paired with (b) an unbelievably irresponsible "safety driver."
Slashdot Mirror
Except they aren't taking more time than other car manufacturers to get the production line up and running. Musk is just letting optimistic estimates out.
His pathological penchant for unrealistic estimates really isn't the core of the problem. Musk started actually taking orders for a mass-produced car before he even started working on the production line or even having a clue how long it would realistically take to do that. Other car manufacturers employ what Elon doubtless thinks is an old-fashioned and blinkered technique of selling mass-produced cars after they're actually being mass-produced.
Then in February, Tesla registered a new batch of Model 3 VINs, including two dozen Model 3 VINs with the dual motor powertrain. It raised Model 3 reservation holders' hope that the new configuration could soon become available, but now Musk confirmed that it is still a few months away in a series of tweets last night.
This sort of thing is a perfect example of why I crack up every time someone cites VIN registrations as anything resembling a reasonable proxy of Model 3 production rates. A vehicle corresponding to a given VIN need not be produced in a particularly tight time frame, and, more importantly, need not be produced at all. It's beyond question at this point that Elon [ab]uses the registration process as a PR lever.
In an absolute sense, the technological advances over my lifetime are utterly stunning to me.
In a relative sense, it all has far too rapidly become the new normal.
Sadly, I'm not sure we're wired for it to be much different.
The notch was a solution in search of a problem. The fact that a sizeable number of people people now think (or at least are willing to pretend) that a screen with a couple of weird looking horns on the end somehow looks better than a rectangular screen that's a bit narrower reminds me a lot of middle school dress fads.
If it helps them maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio then it's fine, it's hidden by a black status bar anyway.
Seems like 16:9 video content wouldn't look so good, though.
There's nothing wrong with . . . paying for clean power to offset one's own carbon use.
There's "nothing wrong with" a lot of things, but what good comes from it? TFA describes the process as: "For every kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed, it buys a kilowatt-hour from a wind or solar farm built specifically for Google." It says nothing about anyone actually using the electricity from the wind/solar farms, and we already know Google isn't using it.
So that's not an "offset" of any sort -- it's actually worse than doing nothing (other than the positive PR Google gets out of it, of course).
So they're spending money on "clean" power they don't actually use (and apparently nobody actually uses) to somehow atone for "dirty" power they actually do use (and apparently also pay for). Who says environmentalism isn't a religion?
"After throwing practically every resource in the company at getting Model 3s out the door, we managed to make 2000 in one week."
We'll see if it sustains. Given how badly he needed some positive scrap of news to come out to try to stop the stock price, bond rating, etc., from cratering further, I remain skeptical.
If you want to route all 212 area code numbers to a specific carrier you can just enter '212' and it will route them. If you want go do a NPA-NXX, just enter '212555'. Since it's longest match it will also work for a 'thousands block' (ie, 2125551) and even down to the individual number (2125551212).
I may well be missing something, but I'm still not seeing why this scheme provides any benefit over one where you explicitly ask for a wildcard if that's what you want (using your examples, '212*' '212555*' or '212555????' and so on. A system where a blank entry means the rule will be applied to any and everything seems like it's just asking for the exact sort of trouble that arose here.
The software works as longest match of the number.
Why?
Post-tensioning that modifies the stresses in a structure is inherently risky and should be performed "in the absence of traffic," the lawsuit claims.
As they say, it it was really common sense everyone would have it.
He was an engineer, so he was educated.
Educated but apparently not particularly smart, given that he had complained to Tesla several times about issues with the guidance system and yet continued to blindly rely on it.
So you design a car that can safely drive itself in traffic
Well, that premise is under a bit of debate due to incidents like this, isn't it?
Yawn. What a weak attempt to distract from the fact that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
(Amusingly, to get the CenturyLink quote in the image you posted, you had to enter that address in response to the prompt: "We need your address to give you accurate pricing and product availability. Your address is used only to provide you with the best deals available." But given your claim that you couldn't accurately click "Yes, this is my account" for xfinity, apparently it's not your address. Uh oh.)
Or nothing of course we support 1.5 Mbps DSL. Comcast has the government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, but the the city council doesn't require them to offer service for their entire monopoly area.
Hmmm... BroadbandNow says that Comcast has 95.1% coverage in Seattle. Even more relevant to your claim, when I punch 6200 53rd Ave NE, the same address in your CenturyLink screenshot, into xfinity.com, it shows options of up to 400MBps. What's the problem?
If it works perfectly
Was it really necessary to make me spray coffee all over my screen this early in the morning?
Audience matters. What offends one audience, won't offend another.
Right, so as a practical matter it's the least common denominator. Which pretty much allows MS to arbitrarily ban people at will. Which theoretically could be bad.
The great triumph of nature will be our suffering as the result of our attempts to tame it.
I'm sure we would all chuckle if we had a full view of the creature comforts you're enjoying that allow you the time and comfort to freely make silly little posts like this.
If you're truly concerned we're burdening poor Mother Earth too much with our meaningless existence, the Bloodhound Gang wrote a song just for you.
The Falcon 9 has had 51 launches of which only 2 failed giving it just over a 96% reliability. The Russian Soyuz series has had over 1700 launches with a 97.4% reliability. Hence, the Falcon 9 with far fewer launches has a reliability comparable to one of the most tried, tested and reliable launch vehicles there is (source [wikipedia.org]).
Hmmm... based on a sample size of 51, what would you say is the 95% CI for Falcon 9 failure rate over 1700 launches? Back of the envelope suggests it could be as high as ~9%.
Something tell me using a platform that serves you ads and harvests your data with full knowledge and then suing them for seeing and ads and having your data harvested won't be much of a payoff. About the only thing lawyers here will make is attorney fees.
Something tells me you've never been very close to actual litigation, much less class action. In broad strokes, the deep pocket has just been caught with its hand in the cookie jar (and, if the media accounts are close to correct, has essentially admitted it screwed up). That's a story FB will not want to reach the jury, so it'll most likely settle -- for a lot less than the potential liability in a worst-case jury verdict, but still a sizable sum in an absolute sense. The class action old hands know this well, which is why they raced to the courthouse to file and try to be the one to marshal the lead plaintiff and thus get the largest share of the settlement. There's a lot more than attorney's fees at stake here.
Fact of the matter is, in all my years of biking on the road and crossing streets illegally (whose got time for sidewalks on campus?), I haven't been hit once. I take it upon myself to ensure my own safety by not making assumptions and using the senses I was born with to accumulate data about the world going on around me. I look 2-3 times (both ways), listen to sounds, judge the relative speed and how long it would take me to cross comfortably or whether I would need to hurry it up to avoid a close call, account for visibility and night-time conditions
Funny thing is, you just unintentionally made the case for exactly how not ready for prime time this self-driving technology really is. The view from the camera clearly shows that the guidance cameras have a pitifully bad black-and-white contrast range -- probably in the order of a few thousandths of that of the human eye. The net result is that the guidance system can't "see" more than a few dozen feet down the road before all detail goes to pitch black, which explains how the bicyclist appeared to suddenly come out of nowhere in the video. Reality through human eyes would have been nothing of the sort. But in any event, had the guidance system been operating according to your level of care and respecting the limited-visibility conditions whatever their cause, it likely wouldn't have been going faster than 15-20mph and we wouldn't have had this sort of outcome.
I hate Uber too
Speak for yourself -- I use human-driven Ubers regularly. This is a completely different issue.
Here come the class action lawyers jockeying for position. Something like this is virtually an automatic payoff for not much work.
"I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Really? Then just go ahead and institute whatever it is you think the regulations would/should ultimately be. Not only would that significantly decrease the odds of the government stepping in and doing it for you, but we could all enjoy the supposed benefits of that regulation right now rather than years from now.
But that would mean you would own the decision (and its consequences) rather than being able to say "the government made me do it." And that would take some cajones that this last week has strongly suggested are MIA.
Am I the only one who's starting to get the impression that [these other people] might not be as bright as we've been led to believe?
Could it really be that [these other people] are really just a bunch of shallow jackasses with zero self-awareness?
Projection is a treatable mental disorder, Jimbo -- it's not too late to get help.
The difference, of course, being that an actual human driver would have actually been watching the road (imagine that) and would have, when finally seeing the pedestrian, (a) swerved; (b) slammed on the brakes, and/or (c) most likely, both, rather than plowing into her at full speed while mouthing "oh shit" after having finally looked up from staring at a smartphone in their lap. That difference might well have left her just seriously injured rather than dead.
It's not a perfect world. "SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY" doesn't come even close to excusing (a) an insufficiently designed guidance system paired with (b) an unbelievably irresponsible "safety driver."