What's to stop someone putting some Terms of Service clause on their site, or creating a license which guarantees the site owners ownership of any content generated by scraping their site?
Any tips or "get your foot in the door" advice on how someone currently in a CS career, but interested in biology could make this career transition? As a simple CS-minded person, I don't see any LeetCode for synthetic biology sites :)
Reading life science textbooks and substacks is a great way to get started (see [1], [2]).
Also, there is a major deficit of software engineering talent in biology research (probably because pro SWEs are too expensive for academic labs, and those labs are where much of the foundational research is done). If you have the bandwidth, part time / volunteer work with an academic lab in your area could be a great way in the door.
* Except no manufacturer sells the base model. Plus they'll add their own add-ons like anti-rust that has no scientific basis. Also doesn't include the shipping cost. Also AC tax isn't included despite literally all cars having AC
The only manufacturer website I've seen that isn't super shady and actually includes shipping costs by default is Subaru for some reason.
If you shop around, I have always found a base model. 4 of the last 5 new cars I bought were base models. The exception was probably a mistake on my part. (It had a dealer installed sun roof that popped out on the highway at 6 years.)
I think they do it for the intentional Streisand effect.
In other words it generates a new thread on social media once in a while, with people talking about whether or not there are cost of ownership savings, with the truth generally coming down in Tesla's favor. And still regardless of how you interpret the cost equation, the controversy brings attention.
And more in line with Occam's razor it just spurs awareness in the user reading the web page. You could say "no, it deceives the user." I think it doesn't; more deceptive is having a published MSRP when dealers add thousands to that published price and lie about EVs while they sell legacy cars.
It wasn’t a direct quote but did you edit your comment? Pretty sure it was originally framed that MSRP was somehow evidence Tesla’s behavior is not simply misleading the customer. Apologies if you didn't edit and I just misread it the first go-around.
Anyway, it’s kind of silly to say MSRP is “more misleading” when MSRP literally stands for “manufacturer suggested retail price.” It says right there in the name the retail price may be higher or lower.
I don’t think this is some clever Streisand effect marketing ploy. It’s just slimy pricing practices.
If anything I’ve saved more on maintenance than is reflected in Tesla’s claims so really the savings they show don’t go far enough. Not to mention the savings from accidents averted by the automated active accident avoidance systems. It’s insane really how much better value for money there is.
Indeed... Pretty annoying that they assume your alternative to be an ICE and not bike/train/ev.
Perhaps they should provide an option for a hypothetical price comparison with train/bike? Not sure the marketing team would like how that comparison turns out through...
Except that, if you own the Tesla long enough, the savings per month will eat up the difference in cost between the Tesla and significantly cheaper cars.
Appliances with better energy efficiency don’t get to advertise a price different from what’ll ring up at the register just because they’ll cost less in electricity over time.
Cost of ownership is real but advertising a sticker price and including the difference in maintenance as part of that sticker price is just bad math.
Should cheaper ICE cars subtract from their sticker price the potential investment earnings of the money that you save versus buying a Tesla? Obviously not.
They don’t actually advertise that as the sticker price, for one thing: the page clearly states what the price is and gives you the option to switch to sticker price.
Secondly, I think the selling point of EVs is the TCO, even with today’s relatively expensive EVs, significantly less expensive all-gas cars end up being cheaper (and the Tesla is more appealing to me than hybrids, which frequently feel bad as someone who really likes to drive). But, it makes sense to me for the landing page to instruct the users about this (like Energy Star appliances do): the UX design might not be the best here, but it’s pretty hard to get all the way through the Tesla sales flow without being told clearly what the actual cost is.
Yes, but you are still paying $x. It's not savings and they should not mislead people in this way. You can have the _actual_ cost posted _and_ your "potential savings" but they should be separate.
FWIW: I've owned a Tesla for 6 years now and I'm pretty sure I still spent more than I would have buying like a Prius or Volt or one of the other hybrid vehicles I was looking at at the time.
Without actual miles driven it's impossible to make a meaningful comparison. My wife spends less on her minivan than my EV - but she's not driving to work every day (and she prefers to drive the EV when she can).
Call me crazy but I suspect you and your brother drive a different amount. $100/mo in a Tesla I ballpark at driving 1900 miles per month, so you're probably driving less than him, unless you get more than 150mpg in your hybrid.
You can slap the buttons hard to get the table to wobble a bit, you can tap the cabinet with your wrists, you can grab the table tightly and move a leg or a hip in the opposite direction while keeping your body rigid, you can even slide the whole table if you're feeling desperate and want to burn a warning.
It's a super physical game if you're taking risky shots and having to recover from bad situations constantly, and the pros make it look like they're barely nudging at all by taking safe shots and making minor corrections with nudges.
I've always wondered if we could get a "good enough" general model, then add plugins for shortcomings.
E.g., Can this model solve math problems? ~%50 of the time. Can this model identify math problems? ~99.9% of the time. Ok, then divert math questions to the math plugin and mathematical-problem-language-parser which has ~99.9% accuracy on supported math problems.
I know it's a stopgap, but it seems like it'd make these models super useful on certain tasks quicker.
Generally my advice when people ask me is as follows:
1. In the beginning, going to the gym is the hardest part. Incentive: if you go to the gym consistently for a while you are rewarded with no more post workout muscle soreness, and easy newbie gains.
2. Do compound lifts if you can (squat, bench, deadlift (warning deadlifts are not for everyone, and may not be all that beneficial), pullups/pulldowns.) Add a bit of weight or reps each week. Aim for 3-6 sets. No one will care if you start with an empty bar. If you add reps, if you get up to around 10-12, add weight instead. These number are flexible and there is no right answer.
3. For accessory exercises or things that target single muscles: try a bunch of stuff and try new stuff often. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you like it, work it into your routine. These are generally fun but unnecessary until you hit a plateau/wall in another lift and do some research on what you want to do to get past that plateau/wall.
4. Good form is more important than adding weight. Don't hurt yourself.
5/Bonus. Try watching some cringey YouTube fitness influencers and see if they're doing anything that looks fun and try that.
Also follow the golden rule: clean up and put your damn weights back.
Not OP but I would add - keep some kind of written record of your progress - it can be very motivating to look back and see eg. I went 3 days per week for the last 3 weeks, or 3 months ago I could lift X, now I can lift X+30
I’m pretty sure the deadlift comment would get you into fights in most gyms with power lifters. I’m curious where you have seen that they aren’t beneficial? Everything I’ve read about them puts them firmly into the “best exercises” category.
Not sure exactly what they meant, but I assume most arguments in this vein have something to do with form. A well-executed deadlift is a great exercise, but you have to balance the risk of injury, especially for new lifters without a trainer or coach to help with their form.
A VR game where you take a snapshot or ghost of yourself performing some movement or throwing an item, which then repeats itself in the world. Then you can make more snapshots and string them together to create a Factorio-like game which uses the snapshot of those movements to assemble products.
E.g., ghost 1: pick up ore, throw ore -> ghost 2: catch ore, crush ore, throw crushed ore -> ghost 3: put ore into furnace -> ghost 4: pick up metal bar, throw metal bar, etc..
Then the player is running around building interactable buildings with produced resources and that oh so satisfying factory spaghetti starts forming.
I’ll try to find it later but one indie dev is making exactly this, where you construct elaborate machines by recording movements and item interactions in VR.
I just want to say I spend a lot of time thinking on game ideas and prototyping stuff (as well as reading most of this thread), and this is one of the most unique mechanics I've heard in years. I'm picturing some crazy Rude Goldberg style sandbox contraptions coming out of this.
This is really cool. One mechanic could be that the older ghosts start vanishing / growing weaker / corrupting the physics as you add more. Exploiting this could be part of the puzzle in some way.
I'm also interested in this topic, but can't find anything other than "Top 10 things you should STOP doing as a data engineer" etc. content-mill, clickbait on Medium and other sites.
Like some sort of legal honeypot trap.