I think its too early to declare it a fad. It hasn’t been around long enough en masse to know whether that’ll be the norm, or disappear yet. We’ll know in a year or two.
I’m not of the right age to know, honestly. That being said I have never seen a car maker ship a feature to me that is self described as a beta. Obviously mistakes happen and plenty of features fall short, but seeing a company knowingly ship a feature incomplete safety system for real world testing by their users with a mere EULA agreement seems like a step beyond the hypothetical of the ABS you raise.
I would absolutely not expect a feature attached to my car to be beta grade, no. And if early ABS systems had issues, I’d expect them to be recalled and fixed at the manufacturers cost.
> If something is safer than average, then it is objectively an improvement, and that's all it needs to be.
GP is asserting that FSD is significantly less safe than previously known, and only driver intervention is preventing FSD from killing more people. Personally I’ve heard way too many “FSD regularly tries to drive into that bridge pillar” for me to believe an assertion that FSD is safer than drivers without significant evidence.
Second, we’re talking about a case where even Tesla owners acknowledge that an update made their cars noticeably less safe. Even in cases where FSD is better than human drivers, which I don’t think is the case yet, we should be quite concerned about the possibility of software updates making vehicles less safe.
Come on, that’s blatant whataboutism. Surely we’re good enough here to realize that we can hold both Tesla and other drivers to a higher standard?
Yes, people are often bad drivers. But it doesn’t follow that we must ignore the faults of any self driving technology just because regular drivers crash too. If Tesla is pushing out updates that make their own super fans comment on the cars doing unsafe and erratic things, that’s something we should look into.
“It’s a beta” and the unsaid “and I don’t care about other peoples’ lives anyways”.
Still pretty frustrated nobody has regulated “self driving” cars off the market yet. If you’re testing it with a driver and a copilot that’s fine, but putting it in the hands of customers and using “it’s a beta” to hide behind should not be legal.
I do not find your house to be persuasive for larger trends, no. I responded to the other bit already.
> Note that I am not making a statement about every house, to rebut your assertion that all renters pay no less than the landlord's taxes + mortgage + insurance it's enough to show some (even one) counter example and not to prove that all or, even, typical renter does not do so.
Don’t be a pedant, we were clearly talking about the typical renter.
I think you’re making a lot of implicit assumptions here. For example, in this discussion there is no guarantee that the average current mortgage is the same as the mortgage held by the current landlord charging the prevailing rent. In my experience it’s pretty typical for rented houses to not be recently purchased.
If you have evidence that it’s the norm for landlords to rent below their operating costs, by all means provide it. But from what you’ve provided so far, I am unconvinced.
Yes, your landlord can rent out for a loss when the house is gaining double digit percentages per year, assuming they’re well capitalized[0]. But let’s be honest, how long can houses gain 10% per year? And how often do you really think landlords rent at a loss in such hot real estate markets?
Under less insane circumstances, a land lord who is charging less for rent than the house costs to own is going broke. As a general rule most land lords rent to make a profit, and therefore won’t charge rent below the cost of ownership.
0 - A poorly capitalized land lord will still go broke in this circumstance, since they’ll eventually fail to pay their mortgage without refinancing.
It’s true that landlords don’t directly pass property taxes down; this is part of why taxes on rent are occasionally floated as a way to make being a landlord less profitable.
But, definitionally your rent must cover the mortgage and property tax of the property you occupy, plus profit. If you rent is less than property tax and mortgage, the land lord is underwater and will soon sell to someone else who will charge more or evict you for remodeling.
The issue is that you’d have to figure out who has the right to create a NFT. The NFT solves none of the problems, rights attribution, and it creates a bunch of places for grifters and scam artists to make money doing nothing. It’s worse than our current solution.
That only works if we presume that the only way we could have discovered refrigeration was via CFCs, which seems improbable to me. My chest freezer uses propane as a refrigerant; why couldn’t we have just jumped straight to that?
You’d be surprised how many people die every year from coal power exhaust.
People naturally overweight low frequency high impact events like a nuclear meltdown but drastically undervalue high frequency low impact events. Someone dying early because they lived too close to a coal plant doesn’t make the news, but in terms of actual human impact it trounces nuclear’s impact by multiple orders of magnitude.
> I never worked like a dog for the place in my story, at least. It had a very sane work/life balance.
For sure not every single startup overworks it’s employees, and not every overworked employee works at a startup. But there is a very common (but not universal!) trend for startup employees to be encouraged to overwork themselves so that their options will be worth more in the long run.
Even when they’re not worthless, most startup options end up being worth less than the salary that one could’ve gotten at a non-startup. Last time I looked into it, and it was a while ago, the median startup option package was exercised for a profit of $30k, not nothing but far less than what one could’ve gotten at a large company like ... Microsoft.
Arguably the existence of several different types of stock options has broken the startup option system, incentivizing founders to play financial games with dilution and debt, and separating their incentive structure from that of their workers. Instead they now get paid with the VCs, which is bad for the workers.
Nothing is worth working like a dog though. That’s always a bad trade.
> My understanding is that the conspiracy must intend to break the law.
As a general rule, this is not how laws work. There are some laws that require that you know what you're doing is illegal (tax evasion is one of them), but most laws do not work this way.