The options are a) they have to decide between starving their family or continuing compromise their morals and increasing the capabilities of immoral company X, or b) a more ethically aligned company removes them from the resource pool of immoral company X. Which world do you prefer?
You're missing my point. If all 'ethical' companies treat all ex-employees of 'unethical companies' as unemployable, they are effectively only going to work at 'unethical companies' regardless of whatever mindset has shifted over time.
I agree they shouldn't become outcasts, but it feels disingenuous to say that the reason for wanting to work for palantir is anything but "they wanted A LOT of money".
It's kind of beside the point. You could argue the change of mind/heart is unlikely, but if indeed they had changed, it would be better to encourage that. Perhaps they were lured by the money, or perhaps some jingoistic impulse, but then the reality of what the company was doing became clearer? Or their world view evolved?
That said, if some ex-Palantir worker was somehow working for UNICEF – to take an extreme example – it would be a little awkward unless they had denounced their old company in a fairly public manner.
But for economics. Renewables are simply the cheapest option for generation.
For reduced land use, and hence reduced impacts (overall) on the environment and agriculture, nuclear wins hands down. But decades-long lead times, radioactive waste disposal, encumbering safety regulations, water supply etc. etc. etc. are problems you don't have with renewables.
Pretty major point of difference though isn't it? They claim this will be out there in Q1 2026, giving a chance for sceptics and industry professionals to tear it down. If this is really the long con, they'd at least give a little time for the cheques to clear before their wild claims could be assessed?
The other possibility is that they have very little moat with this new battery tech, because it's so easy to manufacture. Being the first mover might be their only play, and it's only a matter of time before someone else figures it out (or it leaks).
While we're dreaming, just have an interchangeable panel. Allow 3rd parties to make whatever dials etc. the customer wants. And if it were up to me I'd also get rid of the screen entirely and only have a HUD for navigation. It will never happen, let alone become mainstream, but dreaming is nice sometimes.
I was imagining a console that's at easy arms reach that's fixed into interior and don't require taking eyes of the road. The S3XY buttons look pretty cool, but they don't seem to be able to give you the resistive feel of something fastened to the interior. The Knob provides something like a console, but it seems pretty limited in how many tactile options it provides and you still need to take your eyes of the road. A number of simple dials with tactile clicks and fixed positions provide a user interface that don't require visual confirmation.
And touchscreens are another visual distraction. I think they're a contributor to the increasing vehicle accident and mortality rates. Ideally, nothing should take your mind/eyes off the road. A HUD for navigation and dashboard guages/alerts is about all anyone 'needs' in terms of display, but in the end it's about what individuals want, human lives be damned.
(I say kinda because you still get a bit of peripheral vision from HUD. Traditional dash behind steering wheel is undoubtedly worse - this has been proven decades ago).
This data says otherwise. I'm certain pedestrian mortality has been increasing, and by the looks of this graph it looks like 'other road user' deaths are trending up too. If you have data to support your claim, keen to see it.
The glance time might be affected by a lack of contrast? Or perhaps the novelty of using a HUD? It's possibly right, but I'd want to see more study on the 'why' it's worse and whether that's a technical thing.
This also needs to be divided per miles driven as those are constantly increasing.
Finally, my guess pedestrians are disproportionately more at fault here - mostly impairment (meth, fentanyl), but also smartphones and headphones in particular. Drivers are mostly distracted by phones mostly, not by adjusting climate controls for 2-3 seconds.
> US seems outlier while rest of the world fatalities are decreasing
Europe can be explained by pedestrianisation of cities, congestion taxes, separated bike lanes that encourage bike use, vehicle safety standards that—at least until recent loopholes have emerged—have been keeping dangerous vehicles off the road. Even still, if you look at that graph you'll notice a little uptick in the last 5 years, curiously around the time that screens became more prevalent, but also...
> my guess pedestrians are disproportionately more at fault here - mostly impairment (meth, fentanyl),
A-pillar sizes and bonnet heights have all been increasing, reducing visibility of pedestrians. Sounds like a larger factor to me. People have been getting high and drunk behind the wheel for decades, but maybe it's more prevalent now?
> not by adjusting climate controls for 2-3 seconds.
That's really all it takes if a kid decides to chase after a ball on a side street. You might have seen them before they ran from one side past behind an occluding object and emerged on the other, with not enough time for automated systems to respond (if they respond). A lot can change in 2-3 seconds, and I'd be surprised to hear an experienced driver say otherwise.
Heh. FWIW gender-affirming care has been out of vogue lately everywhere around the world, not just US.
Truck issue feels like imported here in NZ. We don't even have f150 here, most popular car is hilux and raptor which are about same height as my people mover.
Or maybe software craftmanship was always dead (and still lives on). Good enough is sometimes perfect, and a good example of that was a HN post today about how the makers of CP/M looked after their customers, and made a beautiful compiler for a new language to build their version 2, but in the end they were beaten by a hacky clone of their software which was then bought by Microsoft, and then you know the rest.
But craftmanship lives on as market differentiation, which is how Apple became dominant. It also lives on in critical software where attention to detail is vital or extremely high-value (eg. Linux kernel, cryptography libraries, aerospace/automotive, medtech), basically anything where downtime or incorrect behaviour costs money or lives.
No two ways to look at it. Electrification is the inevitable next step for mobility, and BYD are going to be top dog. It's pretty obvious why Tesla is 'diversifying'/divesting into robotics, but Asia has plenty of movers in that space too, not least BYD. SpaceX is the only moat Elon has left.
Tbf, all moats are temporary. The moat of US 'exceptionalism' and the primacy of the US dollar not excluded. However, the timeframe isn't easy to predict.
I assume Django LiveView is directly inspired by Phoenix LiveView. It's essentially diffing template expansion on the backend and sending patches to the frontend via websockets where JS then applies the patches. Clicks and other interactions are also transmitted to the backend where state for the socket is updated and the template is reevaluated, hence completing the loop.
The docs lead to a 403, but I'd be curious to know how it is simpler. I believe the Phoenix version uses Erlang iolists and immutability to make diffing more efficient, and perhaps the Django version has something similar?
reply