I don’t add any ads.
Also it’s been a fun excuse to try out Cursor and other AI tools I don’t normally use in my day job.
I have 1 user - my 8 yr old son.
What about adjusted for income? Are republicans truly not buying as many electric cars? I know there’s a bunch of stereotype behind renewables and gas and such, but is that enough to explain a 5x difference?
Also I suspect big urban vs suburban vs rural differences in current EV buyers given range and charging factors. That happens to also mostly correlate to politics.
In the end, we just followed the guide, and it worked exactly as promised. In literally a day we 10x'd our RuneScape gold to well over a million and had basically unlimited funds from running the coal trading arbitrage the guide described for as long as we played the game.
It's hard for me to put this lesson into words exactly - but it's something like if something seems like it should work explore it and find out if it does. But also something like "Don't discount something for being too obvious." This has helped me in my career where it seemed like there were obvious opportunities for something that were in front of me so I just did the obvious thing and wound up getting richly rewarded for it. This kind of idea was on my mind in most of major life decisions too.
- The optimal amount of fraud in society is 0
- The optimal amount of fraud a business/industry should accept is non-zero
The simple observation that the cost to prevent each marginal fraud attempt increases; the last 0.1% of fraud costs way too much to prevent compared to the first 99%. Obviously society would be better off if fraud didn't exist, but since it does the effort expended is only worth it up until when the marginal cost of prevention exceeds an acceptable threshold (when it starts to lose you money).
The optimal amount of fraud is still 0, but the optimal amount of fraud prevention lies somewhere on the margin.
This is why important transactions like banking have KYC checks, and buying a pair of sneakers don't.
I believe buried in there is one other factor that is somewhat related:
- reducing friction helps drive more legitimate business. Accordingly, over-aggressive anti-fraud practices can result in reduced sales.
A toy example: a business could eliminate exposure to credit card fraud by not accepting credit cards. That would however reduce overall sales.
I guess this can all fit within a “marginal cost” explanation though.
When I worked for a technology analyst company, we would ask for writing samples--which most potential hires would already have. But, if someone didn't, they'd have to create one. It was very reasonably a non-negotiable requirement given that's what they'd be doing day to day.
A take home assignment only shows me that they like unpaid work.
> the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle's path. Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle. The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made.
> Following contact, the pedestrian stood up immediately, walked to the sidewalk, and we called 911. The vehicle remained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene.
> Following the event, we voluntarily contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that same day.
I honestly cannot imagine a better outcome or handling of the situation.
The question will be whether 17 mph was a reasonably cautious speed for this specific scenario. Many school zones have 15 mph limits and when there are kids about people may go even slower. At the same time, the general rule in CA for school zone is 25 mph. Clearly the car had some level of caution which is good.