Our salary bands are competitive outside of FAANG (my previous life was at NFLX), we are fully remote, nomad friendly, and work 4 day weeks.
You can come on full time or as a contractor (your choice).
We give space to learn and do things right. Are comfortable investing in knowledge today to see compounding returns tomorrow. For example, I spent the first 3 weeks of my employment here sitting on my couch reading research papers. That paid dividens, we collapsed a 1.5 year timeline into a 1 month timeline. 3 weeks of reading research papers and 1 week of building got us to a milestone we didn't plan on reaching until a year+ into the project: we trained a model running on a developers laptop in Grand Rapids Michigan against a dataset sitting on another laptop in Yorkshire, with a fully auditable CI/CD log of what data was fed into the model.
Another example, the team decided we should do rust to cross-compile to WASM etc. from day one, so we all took 2 weeks to study the Rust Book and learn together. Now we have a subset of our p2p stuff compiling to WASM and running in headless firefox during our integration tests from day one.
Pretty flexible in every respect, just need good people who can help build this.
Where I'm located I'm billed $.07 per kwh. My model 3 LR has a 75 kw battery, so to charge it from totally empty to totally full would cost $5.25. Tesla's claims are a bit inflated, but I can get 300 miles on a full charge, putting the cost to drive 100 miles at $1.75. Even if we took an extremely generous approximate of 50mpg, it would take 2 gallons for an ICE vehicle to travel 100 miles. Where I'm located, gas is going for $4 a gallon, so it would cost $8.00 to travel the same 100 miles in an ICE vehicle.
If you're charging at home, the EV easily wins.
However, charging away from home can get expensive. During peak hours, it's possible to find charging for $.50 per kwh. Now it would cost $37.50 or $12.50 to drive 100 miles. Compared to the $8.00 in the ICE car, the EV is more expensive.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that most cars cost more to charge than to fill up with gas. If you are able to charge at home, EVs are cheaper to drive per mile.
That's roughly around what I'm seeing as well as my electric is about the same rate. I'm in the midwest and gas is a little cheaper where I'm at, but it's still significantly cheaper to charge. Supercharging isn't too bad around me but I rarely ever use it. I did get to experience supercharging in California recently and it was probably as much or more than gas there which is probably why you see articles like this.
No one mentions oil either. I probably pay $100-150 a year to change the oil in my other ICE vehicle.
Teslas at least are rated for the lifetime of the car, but it’s fair to say the chance of them getting replaced is higher than zero especially if you drive it a long time and brake aggressively.
> I'm billed $.07 per kwh. My model 3 LR has a 75 kw battery, so to charge it from totally empty to totally full would cost $5.25
You're assuming 100% charge efficiency. I don't know what your actual home charging efficiency might be, but users seem to be reporting in the 80% to 95% range, with more in the 90s than 80s. So your actual cost could be $5.50 to $6.50. I'd guess that charging efficiency goes down as the battery gets older, but I have no evidence for that.
$0.07 per kwh also seems unusually cheap; where I am, costs are closer to $0.15 per kwh. So $11 to $14 per full charge sounds like a more realistic estimate for me, which still beats gas, but not quite as handily.
The overnight electricity rate in Ontario, Canada can be 2.9 cents/kWh, and the price of gasoline is about $1.50/litre ($5.70/gallon). So it's over 10x as much to drive our gasoline vehicle as it is to drive the electric one. A lot over 10x, in fact, since our gasoline vehicle doesn't get anywhere near 50mpg...
The study has 75% of the EV charging done at commercial chargers at $0.42/kwh. And it also calculates as part of the cost, 12 hours at $33/hour for your time spent driving to, and waiting for, the commercial chargers.
My lowest cost per kWh in SF Bay Area is $0.34 or 5 times your energy cost.
I can switch to a plan where past midnight it’s 0.25 but it will bump a good chunk of the day to over $.50 per kWh
In other words, until I get solar, charging a vehicle at home is not a money saving proposition for me
Yeah price of electricity now when so few cars charging on the grid. What will the price of electricity be when everyone with a car is charging on the grid in the future?
You are assuming 100% efficiency in charging, probably 85% would be more realistic. Not a deciding factor at .07 kWh, but something you would feel at .50 kWh.
Most of us don't live in the state of Washington where the electricity flows like wine*. $0.07/kwh is a good bargain these days. The national average across all of the USA is $0.23/kwh
Financially speaking, charging at home in California is a losing proposition.
* Please forgive me, I couldn't resist the Dumb and Dumber reference :p
Actually 26 states (most) have a billing option which provides cheap overnight rates for EV owners. For me, that means $0.01/kwh.
It seems like business insider's analysis lacks crucial nuance to how things actually work.
In a reality which exists beyond napkin calculations, our 2 EV household, our monthly electricity bill just hit its peak of $185 due to this heatwave. During March/October, it goes down as low as $50.
I charge at home and it works just fine. I pay $0.25-$0.28/kwh. It puts the cost of a full 75kwh battery at ~$19. That’s still cheaper than paying $4.5-$5/gallon at the gas station.
In fact, even if I charge at the supercharger during peak hours, it costs at most the same as buying gas.
I don't have the energy to explain to the naysayers why I love tailwind so much but I do have the energy to log back into HN just to comment that I absolutely love tailwind. Give it a try and maybe it'll stick!
Yea... We found that without the convenience of a navbar search most people won't give it a proper try and stick to the monopoly of Google.
Users also told us that once it was their default, they realized it's great (or sometimes just "good enough") for them to stay with us. Our retention is super high once it's default but when people only try one search like "abc" or "weather" -- they often won't then change their default.
It's tricky to fully try a search engine with just one search. They're so important for so many aspects of our lives.
That being said, we hope we can eventually drop this requirement when we can be a default option in more browsers.
Also, you can try it in incognito mode and any non Chrome browser.
If you set your search engine default to you.com manually in Chrome with "https://you.com/search?q=%s" you will not need the extension either... but for most people convenience wins and well... it's tough to go up against a monopoly?
sorry for the snarky comment. Did not mean to offend and I take back the rudeness. That said, after doing 10 or so test queries in an incognito browser I still do not understand how the horizontal search results are any different than a vertical search.
The extra information is nice, but looking at stock tickers isn't my primary objective when searching online.
The thing about these "drops" is people will liquidate them into real currency as quickly as possible. If the goal is to distribute a currency to as many people as possible (so everyone has a piece of the currency to use) then you have to remove any possible off ramps. But, then you run into the problem of nobody _actually_ being interested in the coin since it has "no real value" (can't trade it for USD)
I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care about the long term"
Mhmm, I wouldn't put it like GP (someone wanting to take advantage of...). The large majority of employments DO NOT give stock options. Shit, in most countries that's unheard of (in Mexico for example, someone with a similar offer would think of the stock options as the cherry on the cake).
Nonetheless, given YOUR market, you should check whether the other parts of the compensation they are giving you are right. For example, there was the case of Mailchimp a couple of days ago: They gave no stock to their employees. However, in theory their compensation package was good in other ways. So if the company is offering you a good salary + benefits (what about 401k matching? PTO? sick days? gym membership, WFH and whatnot), that will give you the full picture.
[1] What is the CEO's cliff and vesting?
[2] Longer vesting means more stock, around 50% in this case, for companies who want employees long-term. (The relevant measure is stock/year, not total stock.)
[3] Ask the CEO to name three comparable companies with such terms.
If there's a hostile reaction to [3], you just learned something valuable.
If there's a neutral reaction, you can say that you're evaluating the CEO's ability to negotiate and persuade, which is true.
We used Liveview in a production app but have sense re-written it all in favor of React. The biggest issue with LV was the fact that users with poor connection were experiencing a channel timeout causing the page to completely refresh. This was unacceptable UX, and there was nothing we could do about it. Really a shame, because I was enjoying liveview.
How about the idea that age blocking content and failing to put that trust in our kids is what's detrimental? Reminds me of the all too common tale of a child raised in a helicopter parent household who goes off to college and parties way too hard at their first taste of real freedom.
Circumventing child controls was part of my childhood. I couldn't play runescape until I was "13" but I sure got around that one. Was that bad for me? Seems extremely unlikely.
I agree with the parent comment that this is a pathetic attempt at adults trying every last measure to feel some sort of control over their children.
The author actually included a section on diamond being a poor store of value. The idea that a man is spending wads of cash on an engagement ring for his wife as "insurance" that she is able to leave and sell the ring seems wrong to me.
