I've been in one and it's kinda meh? Its fine for what it is, but it's also filled with buggy bizarre issues on a level of VW ID.3 and doesn't match up with even something basic like latest Peugeot models.
Rely on your network. This idea you’re going to email someone you never met and they’re going to agree to wire you 10k is as fanciful as it sounds.
As others have mentioned, it’s a super crowded space and based on my experience and metrics, in the last year has become 4-5x more crowded.
Your offer of 10 free hours sounds great and if you’ve read Alex hormozis books you’re thinking you’re on the right path. 10 hours isn’t free though. It’s 10 hours of my time to support someone who probably has no idea what they’re doing (business wise, I’m sure technically you have skill but that’s not enough.)
Once you’ve got some case studies from people you know. Figure out where the money is and where it’s going. Then give it away for free as lead magnets with value. Charge to do hands on implementation and get your foot in the door there. Make it blatantly obvious you have skills wider than just implementing your lead magnet and look for legitimate opportunities to help their business.
Once you’re at this stage, you can start emailing warm leads.
You need to be likeable, extremely reliable, technical, up to date and be able to deliver value to clients that can afford you.
Lastly, this is an incredibly difficult space to be in. If you don’t have a network that you can rely on to generate leads, you’re sunk. Change tact and focus on the job market.
The good thing is, you probably do have a network, you’ve just never thought of them like that before.
Probably referring to crew rest hours (esp. a problem in the late 2010s, near-misses at DXB etc.
Not having had passenger fatalities is a bad indicator for safety records in the 21st century.
The ek521 report is a good example documenting systemic failures at EK
Well, if not ever having a fatality isn’t good enough, they’re consistently top 10 rated for safety. I just don’t buy ops criticism. It’s fine to not like Dubai, but emirates are provably one of the best airlines.
They got lucky to keep their 0 fatalities, could have easily been 300 if one of their significant near misses went slightly different. Their crew rest rules are dangerous, Middle Eastern crew resource management is much worse than US and EASA, and airline oversight in the region is much less independent. Sure it hasn't gone wrong yet, but with how low the number of fatalities is overall that's a bad metric.
Edit: Just to quote the official investigation on an Emirates fuckup: "The flight crew reliance on automation and lack of training in flying go-arounds from close to the runway significantly affected the flight crew performance in a critical flight situation which was different to that experienced by them during their simulated training flights."
That reflects exactly how the rest of the industry thinks about the gulf carriers and their crews. Combine that with non optimal CRM and you have a disaster waiting to happen. They already did this twice, not understanding automation and (nearly) flying a jet into the ground.
There isn’t a single FAA or EASA airline in the top 5. Maybe they’re just unlucky? And emirates, which has been going since 1985, one of the busiest airlines in the world, still waiting for it to all go wrong. Delusional to try and spin this as ME bad at safety, when Qatar is the other major airline flying the region.
Industry bodies that rate airlines on safety. Last year Emirates, third equal.
The criteria is safety.
No legitimate response has been received, there's no debate here. This isn't some obscure knowledge thing, these ratings come out every year. You can go and look them up, it took me all of 15 seconds to confirm this.
And I'll even go one further, there isn't a single airline in the Americas, Africa or Europe that rates higher than Emirates on safety.
"Safety" is far too nebulous for that to be a criterion. Safety would be a conclusion reached from analyzing other factors.
I'm guessing you're referring to the rankings from airlineratings.com, since their list last year put Emirates tied for third place. They don't appear to be an industry body, or really much of anything. Their rankings get cited all over the place but I can't figure out why, other than it being convenient, and media not really caring about authoritativeness or accuracy. It's just an aviation journalist and a few employees with, as far as I can tell, no real connection to the industry.
Their list doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. They describe their methodology at https://www.airlineratings.com/safety-ratings. The rating is out of seven, with five criteria contributing one or two points each. Very coarse, but reasonable enough. Then they add on a PLUS for airlines that max out the points and also pass an onboard audit focused on safety within the cabin.
"Airlines that already excel in safety and hold a Seven Star safety rating who successfully complete these anonymous audits, conducted over six flights (including a mix of overnight, day, domestic, international, short-haul, and long-haul journeys), will earn special recognition as a Seven Star Plus airline, the highest accolade we now offer."
There's a lot of fluff and very little detail about exactly what these audits entail.
Looking at their full list of ratings, there are five airlines rated Seven Star Plus. Yet there are not five airlines tied for first place. The full list doesn't match their announcement of their top rankings, probably because things have changed since the top rankings were announced. But their methodology doesn't line up with the structure of their list at all. There are 5 airlines rated Seven Star Plus, and an additional 145 airlines rated 7/7. How, then, are they producing a ranked list of 25 that isn't just two sets of ties?
Interesting note in how they evaluate incidents: "We do not deduct stars for accidents caused by terrorism, hijacking, or pilot suicide." I can see why they'd exclude terrorism and hijacking, although I disagree with that choice. But pilot suicide? That's absolutely something that should be included. Pilot evaluation and well-being is completely within the airline's purview.
Long story short, this ranking seems like a bunch of BS.
Hauntingly, they’re actually calling the ME “west asia” now.
In my copy of animal farm, there’s actually a foreword relevant for this discussion. It goes into Orwells difficulty getting things published around ww2 as there was speech that whilst legal was frowned upon during wartime.
> In every case, when you dig deeper, the story is one of two things: either what they built could already be done with standard AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, any decent LLM with a simple integration), or it’s aspirational
All your use cases are fairly well handled by conventional LLM's. OpenClaw is a security nightmare, so it's probably worth switching away.
OpenClaw was never meant to be a tool that could do things you couldn't do without it.
Also, whenever someone points out you could accomplish something without it, he underestimates the effort needed. In the examples I'm thinking of, someone simply asked OpenClaw to do something, had a few back and forths with it, and it was done. I have yet to see someone say "Oh, I can do that without OpenClaw" and go ahead and do it within 10 minutes.
Not once.
OpenClaw is flawed, but the convenience is an order of magnitude higher than anything else.
> the convenience is an order of magnitude higher than anything else.
You offered nothing to support this. My openclaw is realistically just an agent in discord versus the CLI. That's not an "order of magnitude" more convenient. Anthropic already has a tool for it https://code.claude.com/docs/en/remote-control
You've got it inverted. My point is the people saying "You could have done that just as easily with ..." are the ones not supporting it. The commenter has already built that thing with OpenClaw. If someone is saying it could easily have done without it - well, demonstrate it!
What a bizarre article. The morality of recreational torture is not a matter of factual correctness. Burden of proof is not a concept that makes any sense when there’s a disagreement over morality. You can make arguments for your position and those arguments may involve factual claims which can be proven or disproven, but the underlying morality can’t.
And then it ends with that sudden left turn into denouncing atheists as inherently irrational and evil. WTF?
Congratulations on bringing an argument so terrible that I’m actually more convinced of my position after having read it than I was before.
The difference is I would have to do that myself. It has access to gdrive and cc and does it for me when I send it a message in chat. Sometimes when I’m out I even just send it voicys.
I can have multiple conversations on multiple topics always accessible via different discord channels, all with a shared memory, without that memory being held in a continually degrading context window.
One channel - reminders for medications, and recording my dosage. Another - "research this fancy new tech thing for me". Another - "let's continue work on that side project we started last week". And then in another - "create a dashboard of my meds dosage using that fancy new tech thing we were talking about yesterday". And of course finally "any urgent emails this morning?".
All without finding, creating, or setting up multiple apps or scripts for each individual task. If I have another idea, I just tell it what I want it to do, or ask it how we can make it happen.
Just an example of how I would accomplish them. The obsession with openclaw is generally misguided. The 'magic' is the LLM. I'm running an OC instance on a server in my home, I have experience here.
I think people are just tired of the fire hose of posts that have been showing up since it came out. It’s so annoying. Why does everyone need to pimp it so hard? It’s like your aunt trying to push Herbalife on you every time you see her.
Nothing of what my agents do, we didn’t previously do. But now I can get moderate to good results with a lot less effort. Allowing the business to expand whilst keeping costs controlled.
Nz farmers will milk twice a day, early morning and afternoon. In the middle of the day the cows return to their paddock from the morning. In the evening they’re moved to a new paddock.
Grass consumption is the aim of the game. If you let cows out on a full paddock for the day they’ll partially graze and then starve themselves (relatively speaking) in the afternoon.
This is bad for milk production and also pasture quality for the next rotation.
The solution to this is to set a break, a temporary electric fence in the middle of the paddock. So, they arrive to half a paddock then in the morning the farm worker takes it down for the afternoon and sets it up in the next paddock for the night. Probably takes 30-45 minutes depending on paddock size, weather and enthusiasm of the farm hand.
x2 for 2 herds, 7 days a week for 8 months a year.
Now, my brother just draws a line on a map and it takes care of itself.
This applies well enough with beef. You still want to maximize pasture rotation and quick moves improve feed quality and speeds recovery between grazing.
Source: have 320 Angus/Simmental pairs. Working on an opensource cow collar (agopencollar.com)
Hence the Carney strategy up here in Canada. We can realize in hindsight that we were far too dependent on a single ally. We're diversifying - and even if America wants to become reliable again we've learned and will (hopefully) never be so dependent again.
In the post WW2 era most western countries grew lazy about sovereignty due to America's open-handed approach - this has been a wake up call and has severely lowered America's soft-power globally.
Who said we'd assume China will defend Canadian interests? The current strategy is focused on growing much closer to the EU while becoming a trade bridge for Atlantic/Pacific relations. Canada has a lot of clout on the international stage so we've been able to match-make trade linkages while expanding our market.
Canada isn't a first rate power - if the US or China decided to unilaterally target us it'd be deeply damaging. The hope is that working in concert with other middle powers we can form a cushion to soften a blow - not fully turn it.
reply