For completeness, might as well add not excellent for those who have a car, find driving more convenient, but can’t afford the toll.
If you can afford a car in NYC then you can afford the toll. Cars are very expensive to own.
Readit Newsan_account commented on Changes since congestion pricing started in New York nytimes.com/interactive/2... · Posted by u/Vinnl
an_account commented on Pro bettors disguising themselves as gambling addicts bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/JumpCrisscross
I highly, highly doubt that the share of people who consistently stay in category 1 year-over-year is more than a couple percentage points. Lots of people put $50 in to try the whole thing out, lose, then never return. Extremely few people will then return in 2025 and be like "lets do that again".
I cannot for the life of me understand why these apps can't make money off the pros, and instead need to ban them. Ignoring all the dumb promotions these apps do: Sports betting is zero sum, you're betting against the other players, not the house. The odds are set by who you're betting against. Literally, how does it not work out that the profit is just the money from the losers minus the house 30%-or-whatever cut? Is "pros" in this context people who also frequently abuse the (oftentimes wild) promotions these apps run?
But, if it did work like that, the problem is even more apparent: these apps are at best a direct wealth transfer from addicts and idiots to corporations and pros. Wait, I just described the stock market, we're talking about sports betting :)
In sports betting you are betting against the house. If the sportsbook sets a bad line, you can lock it in and make money off of it.
Horse racing is what you describe, parimutuel, where the house just takes a commission. But the odds shift even after you place your bet. Very different for traditional sports betting.
an_account commented on Low Cost CO2 Sensors Comparison: Photo-Acoustic vs. NDIR airgradient.com/blog/co2-... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
Is there a consumer model that you would recommend that one can use at home?
When I looked a few years ago the Await element was best consumer grade one on the market at a good price. I’ve been happy with it so far.
an_account commented on Pixar to undergo 20% layoffs in 2024 techcrunch.com/2024/01/11... · Posted by u/mfiguiere
I don't know, but it will include...
A million for each main voice actor
$100k for supporting actors
Orchestral score (not many people can do those)
$50k per licensed song
Work on the "game engine" that supports the film (each film used to break technical ground... Fur in monsters Inc, hair in the Incredibles, etc)
Motion capture, clay modelling, 3D modelling, rigging, animating... everybody needs a studio quality machine and display...
The only thing I feel confident isn't a big chunk of the cost is the actual rendering.
Pixar famously spends quite a lot on compute for their render farm.
https://nofilmschool.com/why-pixars-24000-core-supercomputer...
I’ve gone down the air quality monitor rabbit hole and, after building my own, have settle on just buying/recommending the Awair Element.[1]
Interestingly, it’s not in the table in this article.
an_account commented on To ease the housing crunch, more places end single-family zoning npr.org/2023/02/11/115509... · Posted by u/lxm
It needs to be affordable as well as multi unit.
There is a massive influx in many burbs of "luxury apartments" with rents $2500+ and I'm not talking downtown NYC. That's more than most mortgages.
“Luxury” is often a marketing term used for very much not luxury apartments. There’s nothing “luxury” about a 900 sqft apartment that happens to have decent stainless steel appliances and a modern look.
New apartments (like new cars) are always priced higher than older buildings, but give it a few years and prices drop.
Go to a shopping center, or a sporting event, or any other place where people publicly gather en masse and ask yourself how many of them could realistically get around on a bicycle.
There are a lot of very fat people, old people, disabled people, and so forth who could not ride a bike half a mile.
This is ridiculous utopian nonsense. Society is not a blank slate, and we don't get to start over from scratch. We don't get to re-litigate the past and pretend it never happened. Some people seem to think that if something happened for bad reasons 100 years ago, we ought to just undo it, but that is not how the real world works. We have to build on what exists, no matter why or how it got to be that way.
We aren't going to rebuild our cities around bikes, and even if we did, a large number of people could not use them. On the other hand, we already built our cities around cars, and self-driving cars would fit right in (if they actually worked).
Plenty of fat or elderly people can ride bikes, especially e-assist bikes. More people can ride bikes than can drive cars… 82M people don’t have drivers licenses in America.
In fact, it’s much more devastating for elderly people in America who can no longer drive due to poor eyesight when the only mode of transportation in a city is by car.
It wouldn’t take much investment (compared to pricy car infrastructure) to make many American cities bike friendly.
Unfortunately the safeguards can also kick in with high altitude balloons which have no speed beyond ambient wind.
The GPS has to shut off when going faster than a certain speed or higher than a certain altitude. IIRC the GPS maker can decided which they want to follow, and most chose to stop working at high altitude. It’s possible but more difficult to find a GPS that will work with high altitude balloons.
an_account commented on Schwab Removes U.S. Stock, ETF and Options Commissions pressroom.aboutschwab.com... · Posted by u/lxm
Important to note: they are one of the very few banks who do reimbursement of ATM fees not just in the USA, but worldwide!
Lots of smaller regional banks pay ATM fees, as they don’t want to run their own fleet of ATMs. And they have local branches when you need it, like for a cashiers check.
The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough.
If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm cool with revisiting anything, but the common sense wisdom around environmental regulation has been corrupted by corporate public relations campaigns.
So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats.
A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.