|
enki42 posted:The only people who end up screwed in this scenario are employees, who take below market pay and equity that's almost certainly worthless, even in the majority of favourable outcomes. If a startup goes public and then later flops, investors in the general public and pension funds among others can also take a hit.
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Fair enough, but there's not a lot of evidence of any of these "smart X" type startups having any hope of an IPO.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:BART dunks on Musk. Christ does Musk literally believe you can just tunnel anywhere anytime? I thought very little of him before, but now this guy might literally collapse a city or something worse.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Musk, like Donnie probably thinks modern digging is like old fashion pick axes and shovels , and red stickss of TNT branded dynamite
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Christ does Musk literally believe you can just tunnel anywhere anytime? I thought very little of him before, but now this guy might literally collapse a city or something worse. yes, the only thing with layers on layers is musk's flagrant ignorance of how transportation infrastructure works. i kid you not, nearly everything the man says is objectively dumb as gently caress. he's the mediocre rationalist's idea of what a smart person sounds like PhazonLink posted:Musk, like Donnie probably thinks modern digging is like old fashion pick axes and shovels , and red stickss of TNT branded dynamite his idea to get cheaper tunnels is to overclock tunnel machines, and to put people into sewer sized tunnels which are hideously unsafe (which is why we use small bore tunnels for pipes and poops, not people)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah confined space work is incredibly dangerous and the inattention to detail that Musk continually displays is not at all tolerable in anything connected to it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:BART dunks on Musk. Tag yourself. I'm the self-serving assumption that surface traffic can't be layered masked by science-talk: "to first approximation."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Another cool thing is that we don’t have to go fully one way or the other. I love pen and paper for taking notes quickly and being able to draw diagrams quickly and brainstorm, but I have a problem keeping paper organised and being able to find things when I need them. So, I bought a super fast scanner and now I have the ease of being able to jot poo poo down and the backup/storage/indexing features that digital media affords compared to a traditional filing cabinet. I'm hearing this argument sloshing around among the dads at work now. This is the opposite of the truth. History contains endless examples of useful technologies that have laid by the wayside, sometimes for decades or even longer, until someone who could see their usefulness got into the right position to spread the tech, even if it gets rediscovered at all. loving Ada Lovelace saw that Babbages inventions could be used to perform something like modern computation but the tech was just dropped because people found Babbage too obnoxious and the technology too expensive and baffling. What you are arguing is purely anti-technology. It's people who are to blame for using tech to do harm instead of trying to find a way to usefully apply it, or for otherwise loving up so it all goes wrong. Historically underinvesting in tech has been seen as an advantage to people who want to the under-investors harm. The tyrants of the last century took hold of the cutting edge of technology while everyone else mimbled around whining about how sad the decline in horse populations were or whatever. It took huge investment to catach up to them and it would be insane to let them do the same with the sort of tech that's on the horizon now. You can't just sit around bemoaning how tech industry bros are so crazy about pushing tech instead of changing people, then expect the people who need to change or be stopped not to pull ahead of you using the tech you didn't want. Surprise Giraffe fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:I'm hearing this argument sloshing around among the dads at work now. This is the opposite of the truth. History contains endless examples of useful technologies that have laid by the wayside, sometimes for decades or even longer, until someone who could see their usefulness got into the right position to spread the tech, even if it gets rediscovered at all. loving Ada Lovelace saw that Babbages inventions could be used to perform something like modern computation but the tech was just dropped because people found Babbage too obnoxious and the technology too expensive and baffling. The argument between this post and the previous one is a very fundamental one, I think. There's a difference in opinion here between how much technology should enhance one's current way of life versus how much technology should change it. Should society reinforce and refine the existing status quo through the use of technology, or is societal upheaval a necessary and welcome part of the adoption of new tech?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:I'm hearing this argument sloshing around among the dads at work now. This is the opposite of the truth. History contains endless examples of useful technologies that have laid by the wayside, sometimes for decades or even longer, until someone who could see their usefulness got into the right position to spread the tech, even if it gets rediscovered at all. loving Ada Lovelace saw that Babbages inventions could be used to perform something like modern computation but the tech was just dropped because people found Babbage too obnoxious and the technology too expensive and baffling. I think you will find this line of argument will convince virtually nobody because your arguments are rhetorically appealing but ultimately meaningless. Starting with your claim that "[i]t's people who are to blame for using tech to do harm": If, in say 1800, I invent a new weaving machine and fire most of my workers and clothe most of the world's poor, have I done good or harm with technology? If I believe in a risky cure for cancer but I can't get test volunteers because it is so risky and I test it on the unaware, have I done good or harm with technology? Does the answer depend on whether the cure works? If I try to reduce the injury rate in a factory by automating the worst tasks but end up replacing acute short-term injuries with chronic long term injuries or eliminate the jobs entirely, have I done good or harm with technology? You further claim that technology that causes harm isn't useful when you say that people shouldn't be "using tech to do harm instead of trying to find a way to usefully apply it": What about nuclear weapons? The Japanese have a very different view on whether or not the invention of nuclear weapons was harmful than, say, the US service members who didn't have to invade Japan. The latter group would also argue that nuclear weapons were extremely useful. Settlers in the American West found the technology of germ warfare (think polio blankets) pretty useful for depopulating the people that got there first. Finally, you haven't even defined what technology is. Does it include ideas or does a physical thing have to be manifested? Is dynamic programming a technology? Getting back to nuclear weapons, in order to end the threat of nuclear war, do we simply dismantle the existing weapons and production infrastructure, or do we have to burn the books, execute the experts, and ban related technologies? What even is the "technology of nuclear weapons"? Your entire argument is specious as it relies on ill-defined concepts to ignore that technology does not exist in a vacuum, it exists right here in the real world with us deeply flawed people. A world where harm, good and usefulness are matters of perspective that are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Tag yourself. I'm the self-serving assumption that surface traffic can't be layered masked by science-talk: "to first approximation." im not entirely sure i understand musk's word salad but, like just on a surface layer buses and trains pass by each other all the time, that's the entire gist of how transfers work. does elon litterally believe that he can make a billion tunnels which connect every possible point of interest to make it so transfers never happen
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:does elon litterally believe that he can make a billion tunnels which connect every possible point of interest to make it so transfers never happen yes also, re: surface transport can't be layered 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:The argument between this post and the previous one is a very fundamental one, I think. There's a difference in opinion here between how much technology should enhance one's current way of life versus how much technology should change it. It's probably going to be both, but you can't control whether tech advances on a global scale at least, since it provides material power. Someone, somewhere will use that to out compete anti-technologists. There doesn't exist a viable choice about whether to try and stay as close the the cutting edge of technology as possible while trying as hard as you can to change your society for the better (preferably using tech; I wonder if #metoo for example was really possible before the internet).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
"anti-technologists" is a step up at least from the extremely tired "luddites"
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:It's probably going to be both, but you can't control whether tech advances on a global scale at least, since it provides material power. Someone, somewhere will use that to out compete anti-technologists. There doesn't exist a viable choice about whether to try and stay as close the the cutting edge of technology as possible while trying as hard as you can to change your society for the better (preferably using tech; I wonder if #metoo for example was really possible before the internet). If technological advancement is fait accompli then we should use force on the world's population to prevent them from getting the bomb. Your posts do nothing except demonstrate your bias for and strongly held opinions of some kinds of technology that you cannot name. mandatory lesbian posted:im not entirely sure i understand musk's word salad but, like just on a surface layer buses and trains pass by each other all the time, that's the entire gist of how transfers work. does elon litterally believe that he can make a billion tunnels which connect every possible point of interest to make it so transfers never happen What he is, presumably, trying to say is that the cost of overpasses and bridges and other "layers" on the surface don't scale very well. The ground layer is cheaper than the first over-layer and so on, which is true. What he isn't mentioning is that the through put of one of his tunnels is so bad that the scaling has to be fantastic just to reach competition with the ground layer transportation. He is trying to make a scaling argument but he doesn't want to talk about where both technologies start, because that makes his tunnel systems look stupid on cost per passenger-mile traveled.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:What he is, presumably, trying to say is that the cost of overpasses and bridges and other "layers" on the surface don't scale very well. The ground layer is cheaper than the first over-layer and so on, which is true. What he isn't mentioning is that the through put of one of his tunnels is so bad that the scaling has to be fantastic just to reach competition with the ground layer transportation. He is trying to make a scaling argument but he doesn't want to talk about where both technologies start, because that makes his tunnel systems look stupid on cost per passenger-mile traveled. he's also ignoring the cost of infrastructure to service the tunnels, elevators (hah!) and ramps and so forth. he's assuming his tunnels are just easily bored one after the other, ignoring inconveniences like property easements, existing infrastructure, how the tunnels will be accessed, etc. it's as if someone were advocating elevated roadways but just assumed they would float in the sky and be accessed with like ladders, or something
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Don't need no expensive to maintain ventilation, just assume that everyone will carry oxygen tanks in their cars and that there won't be any accidents trapping people inside for more than a couple minutes, we've got an industry to disrupt here come on chop chop
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:"anti-technologists" is a step up at least from the extremely tired "luddites" Call me old-fashioned, but "luddite" has served me right my whole life, and I see no reason to change it now.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
At least your car doors wont be able to open and you are hundreds of feet underground so you have a ready made coffin! Of course, a car fire or a 100 mile per hour impact means you wont have identifiable remains anyway. Disrupt
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
We don't need no ventilation We don't need no car control No evac routes or service access Elon's tunnels are a go! NHTSA, leave Elon alone! SEC, leave Elon alone!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
prisoner of waffles posted:We don't need no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn6ZVpJLxs Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Call me old-fashioned, but "luddite" has served me right my whole life, and I see no reason to change it now. Fool! Don't you see that you will be conquered in someway by someone if you aren't spending all your time on the tech ladder! There is no alternative, code a fart app or die. Either way, you work for mankind. Is that groverhaus at 23:01? MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/1132448907210813440
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Shiny new startup Kiwibots tests food-delivery robots on UC Berkeley campus.quote:Kiwi strives to make the robots endearing, like little R2-D2s.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Shiny new startup Kiwibots tests food-delivery robots on UC Berkeley campus. loving love how this is written as though paying above the minimum wage (only by 25 percent based on a bit of googling) is in itself worthy of praise. But here is the best part: quote:Traveling at 1 to 1½ mph, the bots would take too long to chug to local restaurants, so Kiwi workers pick up the food at restaurants and take it via bikes or scooters to meeting spots around campus to insert into an insulated bag in the bots’ storage compartment.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Snapchat Employees Abused Data Access to Spy on Users It's the usual: internal tool supposed to be only used for law enforcement blah blah isn't. quote:Two former employees said multiple Snap employees abused their access to Snapchat user data several years ago. Those sources, as well as an additional two former employees, a current employee, and a cache of internal company emails obtained by Motherboard, described internal tools that allowed Snap employees at the time to access user data, including in some cases location information, their own saved Snaps and personal information such as phone numbers and email addresses. Snaps are photos or videos that, if not saved, typically disappear after being received (or after 24 hours if posted to a user's Story).
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Fool! Don't you see that you will be conquered in someway by someone if you aren't spending all your time on the tech ladder! There is no alternative, code a fart app or die. Either way, you work for mankind. The channel owner is a goon, so probably? I never followed the Groverhaus saga, and only know of it because of the old F35 thread.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Baronash posted:loving love how this is written as though paying above the minimum wage (only by 25 percent based on a bit of googling) is in itself worthy of praise. lol, im glad tech start-ups have become so incestuous that now they need to start disrupting other start-ups in order to succeed like this is just grubhup, doordash, etc but now you have to wait an extra 5 minutes for a robot to be handed food and get it too you
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Also a little extra sucky because they could just make it a good side job for students instead of finding ways to ring every loving dollar out of it. My college had a student-run almost co-op that did grubhub stuff for the campus with local places. It was a decent way for students with bikes to pick up a little cash and they used it as a way for business and econ majors to get experience running a business on the orders and admin side. But hey, gently caress it, outsource it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Baronash posted:loving love how this is written as though paying above the minimum wage (only by 25 percent based on a bit of googling) is in itself worthy of praise. This sounds like it's literally just a scheme to cut off delivery people from tips so to effectively bring the cost down for the consumer. What an rear end in a top hat thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 05:42
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:I'm hearing this argument sloshing around among the dads at work now. This is the opposite of the truth. History contains endless examples of useful technologies that have laid by the wayside, sometimes for decades or even longer, until someone who could see their usefulness got into the right position to spread the tech, even if it gets rediscovered at all. loving Ada Lovelace saw that Babbages inventions could be used to perform something like modern computation but the tech was just dropped because people found Babbage too obnoxious and the technology too expensive and baffling. There's a difference between investing in tech research for its own sake, which is good, and hurrying useless poo poo to market for VC money, which is bad. The idea that every iteration of technology can or should be commercialized immediately is toxic to the development you talk about -- sometimes important things are not going to recognized, or be immediately useful, upon their initial discovery, and that doesn't represent a failure. Maybe the technology in a Smart Toaster or Juicero or whatever is going to end up being important for the distribution of food aid in areas afflicted by disasters or something, but that doesn't make the Smart Toaster itself any less of a stupid loving idea as a consumer product, and the ability to usefully commercialize an invention must absolutely not be taken as the measurement of the value of that innovation itself.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Shiny new startup Kiwibots tests food-delivery robots on UC Berkeley campus. It's worth noting that $2.00/hr does seem to be pretty substantially above Colombian minimum wage. (As opposed to, say, the "above minimum" here that is often $7.35). It's also worth noting that according to these people, a studio can run you $282/mo, or 141 hours of work at this place.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
So...a little over 3 1/2 weeks at 40 hours per and you're still living from paycheque to paycheque when also accounting for utilities, food and transportation over the entire month. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:It's worth noting that $2.00/hr does seem to be pretty substantially above Colombian minimum wage. (As opposed to, say, the "above minimum" here that is often $7.35). It's also worth noting that according to these people, a studio can run you $282/mo, or 141 hours of work at this place. The revenue (read: stock and IPO valuation) they generate for the company is worth much much more than 2$ an hour.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Sage Grimm posted:So...a little over 3 1/2 weeks at 40 hours per and you're still living from paycheque to paycheque when also accounting for utilities, food and transportation over the entire month. Also tax. Ideally rent is 1/3rd or below of your take home, not gross, income.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Christ does Musk literally believe you can just tunnel anywhere anytime? I thought very little of him before, but now this guy might literally collapse a city or something worse. Thankfully, the engineers employed by local government have legal liabilities so they won't sign off on any of Musk's insanity.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
After some thought, I've decided I'm a fan of the hyperloop. Billionaires getting trapped in their personal little rat tunnels would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Wouldn't they just be using future helicopters instead? Only plebs would use an elevator to get to their office in 2035. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1132018613790154752 Facebook policy is interpreted by the ref from Air Bud.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:BART dunks on Musk. As a geoscientist, no. No, you can't have hundreds of layers of tunnels. That's a terrible idea.. It's not even worth thinking about in depth (pun!)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2019 20:25
|
|
