It could cause some very strange behavior in minified code. JS allows chained assignment like so:
a = b = c = 4
Is totally valid, and assigns 4 to all three variables. It could cause all sorts of undefined behavior, and plenty of interesting, almost undetectable obfuscation. XSS is just the tip of the iceberg.
The article seems to be poorly written. It just appears to say diet sodas do not trigger normal caloric intake responses in the brain but really why would they? The drinks themselves have 0 calories, there is nothing to metabolize.
Yes, it is poorly written. But the idea is that you wouldn't properly metabolize whatever you're eating with the drink. Or whatever is floating in your bloodstream when you're drinking.
The article doesn't seem to indicate that though? It only mentions the brains response to sugary and diet drinks. Any inferred response in how the body performs alongside food seems to be at best a guess (at least from the article itself and not from the paper).
Sure Tesla is in a 'war' against the existing auto-industry but I wouldn't say it is one that they won yet. From a canceled-reservation holder, I'm not quite sure if they will.
They did a pseudo-release to employees only, as the article mentioned, that never even gave the final specs out to customers with existing orders. Not a single order has been delivered to a real customer nor have they even accepted orders yet. Sure reservations can continue to climb but we're still waiting around for an actual delivered car. If you are adding more orders in a week than you expect to produce in a week at the end of next year, those reservations are pointless.
Reading through Tesla forums, you'll quickly find out that Tesla has a service problem. A lack of centers, parts and awfully slow turnaround times. It doesn't appear that they really figured this one out yet. Sure they may be doubling stores, but they will be more than doubling cars in that same period. How will they manage all their new cars, with new customers who aren't as welcoming as the early S/X owners?
I feel like I just sound like one of the doubters mentioned in the article now, just slightly longer term. Oh well, I guess we'll see if Tesla can actually manage it soon.
People keep saying these first 30 aren't "real customers." They paid full price for the car just like anyone else would. Employees got first dibs because Tesla put them at the front of the line as a way to thank them. Compare with the Model X launch, where they delivered a mere six cars, all to prominent executives or investors.
Service is definitely a big problem they need to solve. Appointments for non-urgent issues are several weeks out at my local service center. I'm hopeful that they'll solve it, but it's going to take a lot of work. Drowning because you're inundated with customers is sort of a good problem to have, but it's still a problem.
> Not a single order has been delivered to a real customer nor have they even accepted orders yet.
And even if the first 30 truly weren't real customers, whatever that means, what is the point of that assertion from the OP? Is that supposed to imply that no Model 3's will ever be delivered? Musk said they're starting the ramp now. Does OP think he's just straight-up lying? What does the fact that deliveries are just starting have to do with anything at all? They're exactly on schedule.
Worth noting that volume production starting in September has been the plan for quite a while. In fact, at the initial reveal last year, the only promise was "deliveries begin at the end of next year," so September will be somewhat ahead of the game.
Getting 30 cars out at the end of July wasn't a last-ditch attempt to make a deadline (the way the Model X seemed to be), it's actually getting things moving a little early.
That was not the point of that at all, I just doubt that will be able to meet their expected output and deliver a car that isn't plagued with issues (employees can't/won't complain but your standard customer would).
How do I know this? Because Musk has too perfect of a record on taking care of every important detail in his projects. He didn't develop the world's most advanced space program, in a decade, from scratch, by accident.
He didn't create a car company and scale it to 100k cars annually, all to the tune of spectacular reviews and overwhelmingly positive customer reception, in a decade, from scratch, by accident.
And I really think people undervalue the fact that he did these two things simultaneously, as though it were an unimportant detail. It's perhaps the most important detail. It drives home the sheer quantity of problems he can take on all at once without dropping any balls.
He's not about to forget about reliability for the Model 3, or fuck it up, and throw all his efforts to waste. The idea of it just doesn't make any god damn sense when held up against his record. It's total nonsense and I just don't buy it.
Model X was plagued with issues for about the first year. Especially those crazy doors. So it's not a given.
At the same time, I think what happened with the X is actually promising for the 3. Musk has said that they went overboard with the X, and it was a lesson learned for the future.
We're months away from a ramp-up in production on the Model 3 - a vehicle that has demonstrated dramatic commercial interest and received wide-spread extraordinary praise from early reviews [1][2] - and some posters in this thread seemingly are attempting to have a bogus debate over whether the Model 3 is even going to sell any vehicles at all.
This is simultaneously hilarious and absurd. It's as if we're back in 2010/2011 again and Tesla has yet to ship the Model S; except that's not the reality, the Model S succeeded and here we are anyway with some people attempting to pretend the Model 3 might just be quasi-vaporware and that there will be very little buyer interest and that Tesla can't mass produce electric vehicles (which they already do).
> Reading through Tesla forums, you'll quickly find out that Tesla has a service problem. A lack of centers, parts and awfully slow turnaround times. It doesn't appear that they really figured this one out yet.
Unsurprising since there really isn't any way for people to work on the car themselves or have an independent mechanic do it.
I suspect that the Model 3 is going to bring that to a head. I predict a lawsuit in Massachusetts.
This sums up my feelings as someone who made a reservation as well. Every article I read about the Model 3 seems detached from reality, as if all 500,000 reservation holders have already bought something already.
I don't think he did get his yet? For example, he mentions that because the Model 3 won't be arriving in Canada until 2018 he "ticked all the boxes" on his including options like AWD that aren't being made yet: https://twitter.com/Model3Owners/status/892898412307390465
> Sure Tesla is in a 'war' against the existing auto-industry but I wouldn't say it is one that they won yet.
As the author states, the auto industry is acting like the allies in the early parts of the second world war. We all know how that ended.
We haven't gotten to the beginning of the end for this "war", in fact I don't think we've gotten to the end of the beginning. We're witnessing opening feints in the battle for supremacy in a nexus of advanced automation, sharing economy, and high availability networks.
Musk is the first one to couch the automotive industry in these terms. He won't get it perfectly, no one will, but the others will catch up. This is going to be a very interesting space for the next few decades.
However, to take the analogy further, the aim of Musk isn't to put the other manufacturers out of business. He has openly stated that his aim is to increase the baseline of technology expectations. And WW2 most certainly did that.
The day after that event is when I cancelled. All of the first 30 cars went to employees, none have actually been released to 'customers'. I wouldn't attribute it to the event alone though!
They're also using this as a 'public beta' I think. The idea is that employees could get the car back to the factory if they had to fix something faster than the general public (and is probably more willing to forgive issues).
In software terms, it's an inhouse beta. None of the people who have received "access" to it are unrelated to Tesla. In automotive industry terms, it's low-rate initial production. Every car manufacturer does this in the lead-up to high volume production, so that any issues in the process, materials, robot coding etc. can be ironned out before they try producing one car a minute. They just don't make a big deal about it.
I was probably in the last quarter or so reservations before the event which left me at a mid-2018 release date. After the event I think it was moved to a late 2018 release date, so right on track for the most part. That of course, is if they can actually produce at their estimated rate.
Yep, as of June 2016, they were planning on shipping 100,000 Model 3s in 2017.
Per Musk's tweets this week, they're going to deliver 100 in August, and 1,500 in September, and they're aiming for a monthly rate of 20,000 by December. If you give them the benefit of the doubt and say they'll ship 10,000 in October and 15,000 in November, you're only looking at ~45,000 in total this year. The plant capacity is allegedly 35,000/month, so it'll take several years to work through their backlog.
In the longer term tesla only needs to survive long enough until autonomous fleets can take over.
Musk's masterplan "Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it" seems like a feint, considering that individual car ownership might go the way of the dodo, outside the luxury segment.
Then again, if residential solar and utility installations can coexist so maybe can different autonomous car utilization models.
People keep saying that individual car ownership will go away. I don't think they understand how most Americans actually use their cars as rolling storage lockers filled with child seats, strollers, snacks, gym bags, tools, firearms, etc. The rental on demand model only works well for childless urbanites. For everyone else it's a huge hassle and not worth the minor cost savings.
In addition to keeping their stuff in their car, people also want:
* Reliable transportation that is there for them instantly 24/7. A fleet service can not possibly offer this, since they would have so much capacity in reserve for peak usage that they would replicate the whole "cars are only used 4% of the time" inefficiency from the eradication of which they are supposedly going to get their price advantage.
* A status symbol to both feel validated and to "keep up with the Joneses".
* Not share their vehicle with unknown other - possibly "smelly" or "dirty" - people.
* Be able to modify their car as part of expressing themselves.
* The option of driving their car hard on a winding road or taking it to autocross.
Not everyone will care about everything to the same degree an there will be people who will be willing to compromise, if the price is good enough. But you will not see the majority of people stop at least desiring to own a car. I could see the mass market, i.e. the "appliance cars" that are only used to get from A to B, errode away and be replaced by some form of fleet model (ride hailing, leasing, whatever...), while the premium, utility vehicle and sportscar markets are unlikely be threatened.
Let's take a family with two employed parents. They may commute with two sedans to work because either of them might need to pick up the kids or go shopping at a given time.
That's at least one sedan that could be replaced with a ridesharing or 1/2-seater commuter vehicle (based on preference and how shared the route is) and freed up once they're at work. The one that needs to pick up kids can call one a N minutes in advance when they leave work.
Also consider that kids may need to be picked up less often as they grow up and might even be allowed to call their own vehicles as needed, thus freeing up the parents and the need for a sedan. So as the time-window becomes shorter where a family vehicle is needed to be available 24/7 it may become a lot cheaper not owning one.
Autonomous vehicles might also have an indirect impact on shopping behavior if delivery to the home will become cheaper, again reducing the need for large vehicles to transport groceries and other purchases.
There is a lot of optimization potential. But I'll grant that this might take more time to percolate through society longer than tesla can ride on debt, so in the near term they certainly will have to keep delivering owned vehicles.
What I was really aiming for is that the timeframe for tesla to become a global player holding a large fraction of the market share may also be the timeframe for autonomous vehicles to transform the entire transportation sector.
I tend to agree, but I wonder about the longer term economic trends here. As the middle class disappears, the segment that can't afford a car and/or a garage will grow. And as our infrastructure continues to crumble I wonder about just how much of the road system we will continue to support. We have way too many nice, expensive roads going to places that surely aren't supporting them, tax-wise.
In the past few years total new car sales have been higher than ever before, in both units and dollars. So I don't see any hard evidence for your prediction.
launching to employees is critical. they all already have non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. if they launched to real customers they would either have to force them to sign, which would be a PR nightmare, or suffer the negative blowback from a product that is not ready.
Just like all technology: wait for the independent tests and reviews before making judgements.
well, yeah, what exactly are those "reviews" of? since there are no finalized models and prices they are reviewing a bespoke demo unit not a production model that can be purchased. Even with Consumer Reports they gave an excellent review on the Model S but then withdrew it later because of reliability so even with independent credible reviewers the initial impression does not necessarily tell the whole story.
I'm curious, how much do you actually get out of each book? Even at my pace of 1-2 a month I'm barely able to retain anything. I can't imagine reading ~8 a month and being able to remember what the book was actually about.
8/mth really isn't that much. If you go to grad school for history or something you have to learn to crush whole libraries. It's a developed skill like any other, hard but achievable. Personally I closely read one dense, rich book a month or so, then alongside that another dozen or two with varying levels of thoroughness. For example, I spent about two afternoons on Happy City, but it took me several months for just Vol 1 of Schopenhauer's Parerga and Paralipomena.
Personally I've found over the years that this balance between reading a very small number of books closely and a whole lot casually has worked well and has led each set to complement the other.
I'd not worry about "retaining" in the sense of being able to mouth all sorts of facts and figures and arguments and story details several weeks later. Sometimes this stuff is important, but for me anyway I only "retain" in this sense when I take the further step of taking notes after finishing a chapter, etc. Most books aren't worth that IMO given you can just pull them off the shelf when you need to look something up. But books can affect you in other dimensions, especially in slowly enlarging your perspective in ways you hardly even notice.
(But I mean, if you literally couldn't talk -at all- for a few minutes about a book you read last month, that's a different story!)
I started doing it in 2016, so while I seem to come up with various facts that I read from the books in conversations when something related to what I have read comes up, I don't know how much of each book I actually remember. To test this, I am planning to re-read some of the books from 2016 when I am done with my 2017 list.
Love this idea! I'm going to try that too. Very soon, I'll be quitting my day job and should have a bunch free time which is currently taken up with busywork. Time to re-read and get more out of my books.
So if I read this right, I am supposed to trust a contract that sits on top of a mutable 'OS' that is managed by the community? I feel like all of these contract-as-code groups really need to have a lawyer on their team as well; for some reason, it seems like developers believe they understand the purpose of financial/other contracts and how they're actually used.
Would you sign a contract that references a contract that can be changed at anytime without your agreement?
First of all, upgrades are opt-in, so you can build on top of the OS and only switch to a new kernel version under certain conditions, such as if all parties in the contract agree.
Also, keep in mind that financial contracts are not subject to hacks, unlike smart contracts, as we have seen several times. One of the goals of upgradeability is the possibility to roll out security patches as needed.
yeah, people do this all the time, to a greater or lesser extent! referencing past or future agreements, agreements between other parties, the prime interest rate published in the WSJ, etc.
the difference is, if someone does something really abusive with one of these clauses, a judge will throw it out.
Hi all!
Despite the huge profit we earn, we are closing our activity. Let me explain why.
I'm bitcoin enthusiast since 2011. When we started this service I was convinced that any Bitcoin user has a natural right to privacy. I was totally wrong. Now I grasped that Bitcoin is transparent non-anonymous system by design. Blockchain is a great open book. I believe that Bitcoin will have a great future without dark market transactions. You may use Dash or Zerocoin if you want to buy some weed. Not Bitcoin.
I hope our decision will help to make Bitcoin ecosystem more clean and transparent. I hope our competitors will hear our message and will close their services too. Very soon this kind of activity will be considered as illegal in most of countries.
Cheers,
Bitmixer.IO
If you take what he says at face value, it's that he's no longer interested in supporting Bitcoin because it didn't live up to his privacy expectations.
Edit: commenters below are right and I was wrong. He's really saying that he no longer feels like the Bitmixer service is needed because he no longer believes that Bitcoin should be anonymous.
He said "I was convinced of a right to privacy" and "I was wrong". This is someone who has either seen (or perhaps been shown) the sort of thing that is enabled when you give criminals a way to exchange value anonymously. And found that he did not want to be the agent enabling that sort of thing.
If an officer came to you and said, "Here is a photo of a 12 year old girl who was kidnapped and sold as a sex slave. The payments were all in bitcoin and we would have caught the criminals involved if they had not used your service to hide their transactions." I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who would look at that situation and decide to turn off their service and forego any more profit to keep from being a part of that pipeline.
>If an officer came to you and said, "Here is a photo of a 12 year old girl who was kidnapped and sold as a sex slave. The payments were all in bitcoin and we would have caught the criminals involved if they had not used your service to hide their transactions."
They'd just use cash. The argument against anonymous transactions and tumblers is the same as the argument against cash. Besides, this kind of emotional blackmail is the reason people avoid talking to the police.
While true, criminals dislike getting ripped off just as much as normal people and have a wider variety of remediation techniques at their disposal. Cash pipelines are really really hard to manage without losses and/or disclosing identifiable/traceable information.
Well a: he could work with LE if he felt this was some strong moral point, and b: LE saying that is definitely lying. There are other services, and there's now more solid ways (e.g. Monero) to hide cryptocurrency. So it's super unlikely it was just his service providing a totally unique thing and without bitmixer.io oh no criminals would just give up and return their sex slaves.
What about people writing secure messaging services? "This terrorist attack would have been prevented if it wasn't for your encryption!"
No one said law enforcement literally went to him and tried to convince him it was a bad idea. And if they did, he still made the decision himself, right? Unless we're subscribing to the theory that he was compelled to shut down.
I would personally refuse to work on a secure messaging service because the thought of making a product that will be used by awful people to do awful things would actually be offputting. If that's less of a concern to you than having secure communication, whatever, go nuts. Not everyone is a gung-ho privacy advocate though.
Yeah why not recommend Monero, another cryptonight coin, which has way more traction and is actually used on some "illegal" sites? And has hardforked a few times to continually improve privacy?
That's crazy. I imagine that's not the only crazy thing going on around us that most of us will never know about unless it's published in a magazine. And for every story that's uncovered, there's probably many more that will never be. Just imagine all the drug networks and such that must be operating in the United States, and to think that's in a developed country - what about all the lesser developed countries? There's crime everywhere that most of us will never see.
It's unfortunate that such crime exists, and it's also fascinating that we can operate as a civilization with such crime going on. It's also unfortunate that such criminals will most likely adopt cryptocurrencies. Criminals are innovative, but that doesn't mean all innovations come from criminals or are used for criminal activities. Just like criminals use cash; that doesn't mean all cash is used for crime, and if criminals use cryptocurrencies, that doesn't mean all cryptocurrency is used for crime.
I suppose that's a conundrum that crypto creators face: knowing that criminals will use your work to protect their criminal activities. For some people, something should be avoided if it allows for even one single instance of the smallest crime. Other people understand that if you want something good, you have to accept that some people will use it for evil. Like the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution; Free Speech and the right to bear arms can both be used for good and bad.
Thank you for sharing the link, that was a very interesting read.
That sounds more like he no longer believes that privacy is a good goal for legitimate cryptocurrencies and is stopping the service as an ideological stand against using bitcoin for anonymous transactions.
I don't know what I am doing wrong, but it seems like I've had a ton of apps just crash/freeze on me as of late (looking at you Google) and the only way to fix it is to force quit apps. If an app does crash/freeze in the background how can I be certain its not draining my battery after all?
