Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cyberax's comments login

Tesla has long been experimenting on customers to see how much abuse they can suffer: bad service center experience, bad software updates that degrade functionality, stout refusal to introduce features that people want, braindead decisions like removing turn stalks and ultrasonic sensors, constant assembly quality issues, etc.

Turns out, that customers do have a limit on the amount of abuse they can take.

I own a 2018 Model 3, after owning a Model S. I would love to upgrade, but new Model 3 cars are just inferior to what I have (except for the range).


He probably meant cable conduits. Basically, just empty pipes.

Yes, you dig a cable trench, you put a pipe into it and you cover it back up. Then there are access hatches near street intersections etc.

> Lots of graft and favoritism will go in on that.

That's so much better than just not having support that works!

My friend had his Comcast line damaged. It required him 2 _months_ to get that fixed, and he was not able to work from home during that time.

Of course, you can always switch ISPs, right? Oh, yep. No, most of the US has only one _wired_ ISP.


The thing is, the vast majority of convicts in jail are genuinely guilty. I'd put it at 99% at least, probably more. And even many of the "innocent" people there are more likely to be of the kind: "I did not rob and kill this guy, I only fenced his watch".

What can be done with it? I now believe that the only way is more aggressive policing with almost zero tolerance. At the same time, the jail terms need to go _down_.

So if you steal bread to feed your sister's starving children, you WILL go to jail, just like Jean Valjean. But only for a couple of days, not 19 years.

Additionally, prisons and jails need to become _better_. No unpaid labor, better conditions, different tiers of jails for different offenders. Mental health resources and job training.

Oh, and alternatives to jail such as community service are great too.


I think you underestimate the rate of wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Estimates vary, iirc I've seen some papers claiming 5% and others claiming as high as 20%. There is a lot of over-charging going on too.

Then, most cases don't get to trial, so you have people pleading guilty to things they did not do because they fear wrongful conviction for something worse.


Sorry, not buying it. There's no way 20% of convictions are wrong. Even 1% is honestly pushing it, especially these days. Extrapolation from convictions overturned via the DNA evidence also results in about 0.5-1%.

I volunteered as an unpaid IT support at a non-profit working with ex-cons who were trying to get back to normal life. So I got to speak with lots of people who were actively trying to get away from the prison life. Some of _them_ were saying that _they_ met no innocent people in jail.

And this is not really an exaggeration. You can pull up a roster of prisoners in your local jail and try to do a search for their names. You'll find that pretty much everyone there has a loooong rap sheet, with jail time merely being the "crowning achievement".

And it's always the same pattern: a long list of crimes that result in no punishment (ignored fines, ignored community service, probation, ignored bench warrants, etc.) until they get unlucky and encounter a prosecutor or a judge who is not willing to tolerate bullshit. Or if they commit a grave crime that can't be ignored.

That's why I think that we should absolutely make jail time one of the _first_ deterrents. And this also should absolutely apply to juveniles (yes, "jail our kids").

HOWEVER, the jail terms also need to go down. Especially for the first time offenders. Not years and months, but days or weeks.

And there is solid research backing that up. It's the _inevitability_ of punishment that is the best deterrent, not the strictness of it (that's also why the death penalty is useless, btw).


You can keep believing this and being confidently wrong.

Seems like my point about plea deals blew past you. Repeat: Innocent people often plead guilty to lesser charges because they fear wrongful convictions for something more serious. The system is set up around this.

When wrongfully convicted, it's also very common to get denied parole because you don't admit to doing something wrong. From what I've heard it's very very hard to overturn a wrongful conviction, even in the presence of new evidence or signs of misconduct the system fights it at every turn.


Sorry, but YOU are wrong. Go on, do the experiment I mentioned.

Plea deals don't change anything, the vast majority of takers are guilty. It's just a method of cutting down on the cost of the trial.

Wrongful convictions certainly exist, but they are not even close to the main reason for the prison population.


>>Plea deals don't change anything, the vast majority of takers are guilty.

So all these stories where someone is put in jail, spends months waiting for trial, then the DA comes around and says "look you can go to trial and maybe get few years in prison, or you can plead guilty and we'll count your time in jail as time served so you can go home tomorrow"

1) Do you think these stories are wrong? Or rare?

2) If you were in that situation as an innocent person, can you not imagine yourself being tempted to accept just to go home to your family?

Edit: just to be clear - I don't think anyone is disputing the "majority" part. But I definitely don't think it's so insignificant to be completely ignored either.


> So all these stories where someone is put in jail, spends months waiting for trial

At least in West Coast states, you are almost guaranteed to get a low bail or no bail at all. You'll likely be denied bail only if you are accused of something heinous, so your sentence will be longer than the time in pre-trial. Or if you have a history of skipping bail.

So your scenario is highly unlikely, at least on the West Coast.

> 1) Do you think these stories are wrong? Or rare?

They certainly can happen and do happen, but they are rare. I dislike plea deals in general, and they certainly need to be reformed.

My personal philosophy is that laws must be written in such a way, that they don't require any prosecutorial discretion or plea deals.

> Edit: just to be clear - I don't think anyone is disputing the "majority" part. But I definitely don't think it's so insignificant to be completely ignored either.

If you are interested in criminal justice in the US, you should start communicating with prisoners. Your state department of justice will have a program that allows you to exchange letters with prisoners. Do it, it helps people to stay connected with the outside world.

I did that. I now think that prisoners definitely belong in jail, and that trying to reduce the jail population by just ignoring crimes is folly. However, we absolutely must _improve_ the jail conditions. A LOT.

And very few organizations are lobbying in this direction. Instead, we have people who want to "fix the root causes of crime" or "abolish incarceration". This is destructive, and it's not helping.


>>At least in West Coast states,

The stories I've read were mostly in New York where this kind of thing happens not infrequently, so I guess - I have no data to prove otherwise.

>>My personal philosophy is that laws must be written in such a way, that they don't require any prosecutorial discretion or plea deals.

Well, we 100% agree then.

>> Instead, we have people who want to "fix the root causes of crime" or "abolish incarceration". This is destructive, and it's not helping.

I also agree.


> The stories I've read were mostly in New York where this kind of thing happens not infrequently, so I guess - I have no data to prove otherwise.

I'm not too familiar with NY data sources, but it looks like they have reformed bail recently: https://www.fwd.us/news/new-york-bail-reform-success-story/

But even before that, they had a below-average ratio of pretrial/post-sentencing detention.


Bystander here, but I think you should open your horizon a bit.. or maybe you're a troll, who knows?

And have you tried to open _your_ horizon past the usual slogans ("mass imprisonment", "school-to-prison pipeline", etc.)?

Try it. It might help you. Or not.


> (that's also why the death penalty is useless, btw).

I’d argue that if a criminal is dead, they can’t commit future crimes, therefore the death penalty is quite useful. Why waste space and resources on prisons when there is a more efficient option?


Death penalty does not serve as a deterrent compared to life imprisonment. It also sometimes applied to innocent people.

Killing somebody for murder is called being a hypocrite.

I think your estimates are way off. A study in 2014 found that 4% of death row inmates were wrongly convicted[1]. This is likely to be the highest scrutiny cases in our system, so I'd expect that non-death penalty cases would have a wrongly convicted rate of >= 4%. And that's not even counting the people that have been leveraged into plea deals for crimes they didn't commit simply because the system is so weighted against them.

1: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111


There also was a nice game called "Parkan" (and then Parkan 2), but it's not really well-known outside of Russian-speaking markets. It looks like it's available on Steam now.

> It will go away eventually.

No. It can actually get _worse_, as you get more sensitized to VR. The recommendation seems to be to _stop_ using VR if you get motion sick, rather than trying to power through it.


Not sure if the two of you are disagreeing or not, so genuinely asking:

Could it be that you are both right? As in, you should stop right away when you start getting motion sick, but with time it will get better?

Something like: play 15 minutes everyday, stop as soon as you are sick, and after a while you will be able to play 30min, etc.

I have no idea, just asking for a friend :-).


Correct, according to general understanding from VR gamers and green my own experience. If you feel queasy stop immediately because pushing on will make it worse and cement the association in your brain. Leave it a while (a day or more ideally) then try again, repeat.

Maybe it differs on why you get motion sickness? Is it because the screens lag behind your movement with x millisecons or is it becase the eyes detect movement but the balance does not? Or a combination?

I'm guessing it's easier to get used to the motion/display lag than the balance sence issues.


> I'm guessing it's easier to get used to the motion/display lag than the balance sence issues.

Maybe, but people who work on boats surely get used to it. So it seems like it is possible for some people to some extent :-).


I remember playing VR games with my HP Reverb G2 years ago and I did initially power through the motion sickness for a bit, but it did get better over the weeks until it just wasn't an issue at all.

This is interesting for me to, but I'd be surprised to learn someone actually has an authoritative answer.

Data points would be interesting too. Someone saying "I used to get sick after 15min, and now I can play for 60min without a problem. I always stop playing right when I start getting sick".

You know, just to see that it has happened to someone :-)


edit: well this became a bit longer than I initially planned, I think I just had a lot to share when it comes to my recent VR adventures.

Well here I am: I initially got queasy as soon as I moved, then I'd immediately stop and take a break, longer breaks in the beginning. Initially I got a strong sense of de-realization / depersonalization after getting out of the digital world (i.e. looking at your hands and your brain being confused if they're real) But that also went away very quickly. The nausea, and 'am I still in the matrix' feeling got better within days, and went away within weeks. Now I can stomach any crazy topsy-turvy locomotion in any game. But I still feel the sweat and excitement, when swinging off 1000 feet high cliffs in Jet Island, or diving hundreds of meters deep in Subnautica.

It's just amazing how immersive it can be. I think you can only get there by having it at home and really giving yourself the time to get into it.

It's also re-ignited my love for single player games, especially modded triple A titles like Dragon Quest XI, or Resident Evil 2 (Remake) for example.

And btw, I run all of this on (arch) linux, on a Valve Index kit, using both SteamVR and OpenXR through Envision (Monado). It's been a bit of tinkering but that's only made it more satisfying for me. Plus, there are great communities like the Linux VR Adventure group: https://lvra.gitlab.io/


My experience is analogous to yours. Initial motion sickness, *strong* de-realization and de-personalization (especially with hands, but also my torso and legs).

Nausea didn't get better and seemed to be present when my head was turning but the camera was moving either the opposite way or in the same direction but too fast.

I have some really good memories of spending hours inside of Obduction VR (highly recommended if you liked Myst / Riven / The Witness / etc), but the de-realization was so severe that I ended up abandoning that form of entertainment out of concern for my sanity.


Yeah, add me to the list of people who have used the "stop immediately when you're getting noticeably queasy" technique to train my stupid brain to realize that no, it's not actually being poisoned, so it should stop fucking thinking it is and grow the fuck up. ;)

There are still some sorts of games that will make me queasy (games that have a lot of uncontrollable-by-me jumping around (think "leaping ninja fighting games') for instance), but by and large, I've no trouble.

I also found Dramamine to be helpful during the intermediate period where I'd still otherwise get nauseous after a while. I find it continues to be helpful for things like those stupid "leaping ninja fighting games".


Here's my experience.. got a Vive, ZERO motion sickness, was developing some games and toys with it for 6 months or so. Played about 20 minutes of some Resident Evil game on PSVR and got REALLY motion sick around the 10 minute mark and just powered through for another 10 minutes. I had to lay down and it took a good hour to fully recover. Now I can't play VR at all without getting sick, start getting the sweats and nausea as soon as I put my vive headset on. completely ruined VR for me, never finished my game I was working on, VIVE just collecting dust. Fuck the PSVR, I'm still mad about it.

No. It's not energy-positive, fusion provides less powe than is put in. Instead it's a way to produce very energetic exhaust, resulting in better fuel economy.

Wasn't it worse fuel economy (lower ISP) but higher thrust?

No, this would be heating the propellant to higher temperatures than chemical reactions can get -- in principle one could get much more than 50% extra ISP for the same propellant mass. In rocketry/satellites/deep space propellant mass is a big deal -- anything you can do to reduce the amount you need without having to gain even more mass in other ways is a big win.

Most economists? BS.

Most economists understand that ISPs in the US are a natural monopoly, you simply can not have more than 1 or 2 choices in most locations.

And when there is no possibility of competition, regulation becomes necessary.


Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly. What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account.

(Regulations that make market entry harder push things into the monopoly direction, but that's far from 'natural'. See some of the recent troubles SpaceX has been having.)

See also https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/net-neu... or https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2011-2012/economics-n...

> Network neutrality makes competition and consumer welfare dependent on law and lobbying, not natural competition. So you’ve chosen the area in which the telcos are strongest on which to fight!


> Huh, ISPs are far from a natural monopoly.

Black is white. War is peace. Yeah, we know that.

> What makes you think they are? Especially if you take mobile broadband, paid 'public' wifi and satellite internet into account.

Neither mobile nor satellite (even Starlink) can compete for the main Internet connection for the majority of people. Around 50-70% of the US population has exactly ONE choice of a wired broadband ISP, and maaaaybe 2 if you count ADSL as broadband.

Less than 10% of the population has access to 3 or more wired broadband ISPs.


Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only? No one cares how the internet comes into the house.

Btw, you can also do ethernet-over-powerline for the last mile. And there's tv cables, and the plain-old-telephone wires already in the ground.

If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation.


> Why do you restrict your comparison to wired connections only?

Because wireless simply is not enough. There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments.

This is not a theory, btw. I had T-Mobile 5G "fixed wireless" connection and could immediately tell when major live games were on. It also became nearly useless during the Superbowl. And that's with T-Mobile limiting the number of subscribers (there's a waitlist for 5G home Internet in my area).

> If there's not enough competition, you should perhaps looks into regulation that's strangling that competition; instead of assuming blindly that more regulation is the answer to problems caused by too much regulation.

The main problem is morons who think that you can compete within the ISP market, and thus strangling regulations meant to improve it.

After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers?


> There is a pretty fundamental limit to it, called the "sampling theorem". You simply don't have enough available bandwidth for the cell wireless to replace the wired connections, even in moderately dense environments.

I live in Singapore which is denser than basically any place in the US, and people are obsessed with their phones. Mobile bandwidth works just fine.

I suspect your underwhelming 5G experience could be related with cells in your area being rather big, so they had many people in them? If you have a higher density of people, you need a higher density of cells.

> After all, don't we all have 10 different tap water and sewage providers?

Try starting up a new tap water or sewage provider. I don't think the government will let you.

In any case, providing new 'last mile' connectivity whether with wires or with water pipes is hard to make work economically, if someone else is already there with an established service. (So in that sense I agree that last mile connectivity does have network effects. Though I wouldn't classify things binary into 'natural monopoly' or not; it's a spectrum.)

In any case, that's why I was emphasising the different wires we already have (cable tv, plain old phone cables, power line, and in some places optical fibre, etc) and the wireless options (3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, satellite, and the more directed exotic microwave transmission, etc). I probably missed a few.

If you can sort out the last mile, or you can piggy back on some already existing last mile, the tendency for what you call 'natural monopoly' drops a lot.

If there's insufficient competition in the US, perhaps don't blame 'nature'.


> I live in Singapore which is denser than basically any place in the US, and people are obsessed with their phones. Mobile bandwidth works just fine.

For 4k video? No, it doesn't. Also, Singapore is probably spammed with microcells so your phone actually connects to a 5G cell that is only a bit more away than your WiFi router.

I was in Singapore last week, and I'm writing this from China. And no, mobile Internet in both countries can't compete with wired broadband.

> I suspect your underwhelming 5G experience could be related with cells in your area being rather big, so they had many people in them? If you have a higher density of people, you need a higher density of cells.

It's both. The US favors low-density housing, as it's much more people-friendly than any other alternative. The other option is high-density Downtown hellscapes with scyscrapers. Both areas are not great for wireless.

> In any case, that's why I was emphasising the different wires we already have (cable tv, plain old phone cables, power line, and in some places optical fibre, etc) and the wireless options (3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, satellite, and the more directed exotic microwave transmission, etc). I probably missed a few.

Only cable is capable of 1G speeds. Phone wires realistically max out at ~30/10 Mbps up/down with VDSL. There is no Internet over powerlines in the US, and there'll never be because of RF leaks.

So your realistic option is either the coaxial cable or newly laid fiber. And fiber is often owned by the same company that owns the cable.

> Try starting up a new tap water or sewage provider. I don't think the government will let you.

Nothing stops you. There are companies that provide alternative water service, they are often used to fill or drain swimming pools. It's just not economically feasible, unless there are special circumstances.

> If there's insufficient competition in the US, perhaps don't blame 'nature'.

There are no countries that are similar to the US that have competitive "last mile" Internet. None.

All the more successful countries (e.g. Sweden) decouple the last mile, making it a state-owned (or a heavily regulated) utility. And then ISPs can just buy access to it and compete based on services/price.


> It's both. The US favors low-density housing, as it's much more people-friendly than any other alternative. The other option is high-density Downtown hellscapes with scyscrapers. Both areas are not great for wireless.

Alas, the US presents a false dilemma here: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing

> Also, Singapore is probably spammed with microcells so your phone actually connects to a 5G cell that is only a bit more away than your WiFi router.

Yes, and that's great. The density of cells goes up with the density of people.

> I was in Singapore last week, and I'm writing this from China. And no, mobile Internet in both countries can't compete with wired broadband.

The free government wifi we get here in many train stations and hawker centres regularly gives me 50 Mbps (on fast.com), and I never got less than 10 Mbps.

That's plenty fast for many applications, especially when it's free.

4G and 5G Mobile broadband is usually a lot faster than that.

> Only cable is capable of 1G speeds.

Singtel advertises that they have Gigabit mobile, and that's on 4G technology. 5G is going to be faster.

> There are companies that provide alternative water service, they are often used to fill or drain swimming pools.

Interesting. How do they get the water to you?


> Alas, the US presents a false dilemma here: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing

That's beside the point. Nobody is going to rebuild the entire US for better Internet.

> Yes, and that's great. The density of cells goes up with the density of people.

The problem here is the same. If you can get connectivity very close to consumers, you might as well just provide fiber to home.

> The free government wifi we get here in many train stations and hawker centres regularly gives me 50 Mbps (on fast.com), and I never got less than 10 Mbps.

See? Free handouts from government, not multiple competing providers.

> Singtel advertises that they have Gigabit mobile, and that's on 4G technology. 5G is going to be faster.

4G peaks at 100mbps per channel, you can use multiple channels for about 500mbps in total. But that's shared across _all_ users. 5G has better efficiency, so you can get about 2gbps in total for low-frequency (i.e. actually useful) bands.

That's why "1Gbps" mobile Internet borders on false advertising. You _can_ get that speed, but only if all the stars align. It also won't be super-reliable.

> Interesting. How do they get the water to you?

Tanker trucks. It is usually cheaper than municipal water sources because pool filling companies can reuse the water. They also don't need to purify it to drinking water standards (in fact, they can _not_, pool water has to contain fairly high levels of chlorine).


> See? Free handouts from government, not multiple competing providers.

Huh? We have multiple competing providers for normal paid Internet services.

Btw, I called it 'government wifi', but I think it's actually provided by multiple competing companies (but I don't know how it's financed. I assume the government pays for it. You can research for yourself if you care , it's called 'wireless@sgx'.)


Rail systems are not "basic", they are a superfluous technology for the US. There's simply no use-case for them outside of several population clusters.

Instead the US has the interstate freeway system that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world in size and capacity.


Rail is important in the US, it's just not for people. The highway system isn't that much better than some other places.

The US freeway (and highway) system is great because it's consistent across the entire US. I don't know any other comparable road system of that size.

E.g. German Autobahns are arguably better than Interstates, but the entire Germany could fit inside Oregon and a bit of Nevada. And nearby Polish roads are nowhere near as nice as Autobahns.


> Which pathways exist for a Chilean citizen who didn't complete their bachelor's degree on CS, but nonetheless wants to take a US job for a 501(c)(3) in a technical capacity?

You basically need 3 years of combined post-secondary educational experience to qualify for H1b. And job experience counts towards it, with 3 years of job being equivalent to 1 year at university.

So if you have, say, 2 years in a university and 3 years of job experience, it's going to be enough.


The combined education and experience needs to be the equivalent of a 4-year U.S. bachelor's degree and 3 years of professional experience count as 1 year of bachelor's degree education so 2 years of university education would require 6 years of professional experience.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: