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

> I believe any minimum wage policies are terrible

Any? You barely have to peruse a history book to see countless examples of exploitative labor processes.


"On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-t...


I was unaware of the racial motivation. Interesting insight.

However the point is exactly why it is bad policy. At any minimum wage, the government has structurally unemployed anyone that can't provide value at or greater than the minimum wage. It's basic economics.


That is correct. I think it's bad policy for the government to disallow voluntary transactions between private parties with no third party harm.


Yes it's literally just leveraging


it's recursive leveraging using multiple different market makers that are giving you further leveraged bets on already leveraged assets


> it's recursive leveraging using multiple different market makers that are giving you further leveraged bets on already leveraged assets

This is approximately what Bill Hwang was indicted for doing [1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/archegos-founder-and-cfo-charge...


You don't suppose he got in trouble with the law because he was doing it with other people's money (and not telling them that's what he was doing)?


What do you think leveraging is? You are using your deposit (ETH) to increase exposure to an asset (more ETH). The process is just more manual compared to a traditional market because crypto.


It truly depends within CA. San Diego or suburbs of LA? It's pristine. Bay Area? The roads flood with the slightest bit of rain and have potholes the size of a basketball.


Not sure why you're multiplying trade volume with their share price? It's a stupid scenario to think of, but the offer would be some combination of cash and shares they own, not newly printed shares out of the blue.

And if they did print more shares, how would it "tank their share price to 0"? It's not like a stupid acquisition would instantly vaporize a 2+ trillion market cap company overnight.


That's the impression I get from Wirecutter. They're not unethical per se, but these reviewers appear to have picked up a task from their long list of products to reviews and have done the bare minimum at best.


I thought it couldn't get worse and then I saw my parents' San Diego electricity bills. It seems like whatever CA is doing/has done is really screwing its residents.


Granting a private company a monopoly on critical infrastructure is working out great for them eh


yeah that libertarian state government has really let the state run wild.


Flat coke 33% of the time seems hard to believe. Where do you live? Coke has hundreds of bottling partners worldwide and they only distribute the syrup to these bottling plants.


I'd rather not disclose, but for what it's worth the subset of bottlers would be limited to those supplying Walmart, since that's where I buy the bulk of it. It really is bad enough that I ought to complain and provide lot numbers for free coupons.

Other products (Diet Dr. Pepper) are unaffected; I don't know if they share bottlers.


> but for what it's worth the subset of bottlers would be limited to those supplying Walmart

That would be ~all of them, I would think. The whole point of having loads of bottlers is to avoid having to haul the stuff very long distances; I think they'll normally just supply from whichever is closest.


Call the customer service number on the back. They really do appreciate that info.


I can honestly say I've never had a can of coke that was flat from any store, so this might be your regional bottlers messing things up.


Same. I'm in NJ, and have never had a flat Coke from an undamaged container (and if the can looks all smashed up, I've just poured those out).

OP should def complain to corporate, something in their process is FUBAR if 1/3rd of the product is damaged. Though being who I am, I'd assume that has more to do with the handling of the produce by/at Walmart.


It's not visible or concealed damage, it really looks like poor QA.

All cans (and it's always cans, not bottles) are visibly intact. Sometimes the can itself is "squishy" due to lack of gas. Other times they barely foam when poured. It's usually potable but wildly inconsistent in taste.

Most are fine, but it's gotten too expensive to keep overlooking duds.


When you say it I think I need to agree that cans have got flatter.

I've noticed this in a lot of fields. Like small things stop being good. Like opening bags of spaghetti is impossible on many brands without scissors or having pasta everywhere after it bursts. When pulling the string on the foil around a cookie "foil cylinder" the string is misaligned with the cutout, so it doesn't work. Etc.

I think the underlying issue is attrition. Workers have no time to get competent. Or the toxic management style of "not caring" is taking its toll and the senior engineers got fed up and quit instead of fighting management to make things good.


Maybe they'll bust a gang that gets together to sip one milliliter out of each of one third of the bottles at your local warehouse.


While I appreciate the unique design of the Cybertruck, I have a huge concern with its huge size and the potential safety risks for pedestrians.

The trend of increasingly larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, has already raised issues regarding pedestrian safety. The Cybertruck, being notably larger than most contemporary cars in the same category, could exacerbate this problem, especially if it opens the door to similar designs in new market segments IMO.


The Cybertruck is actually rather low for a truck. The edge of the hood would hit a typical person in the gut, not the neck or face as with many other trucks (especially lifted trucks).

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/model-s-v...


I don't know this for sure as I've never sat in one, but from the images I've seen the visibility through the Cybertruck looks awful. That is, the slant of the windshield makes it look like the driver sits rather low, and thus would have huge blind spots in front of them. Perhaps not a huge issue at slow speeds because there is a front camera, but I hate that feeling of having poor visibility as a driver.


I saw one side by side with a Rivian R1T at a red light and it absolutely dwarfed the R1T. Doesn’t look low to me.


Low? I saw one in the mall last week and it’s bigger than a tundra. It also had considerable ground clearance.


I read that the height can differ 14" with the air suspension.


Looking at the picture of the CT in your link, unless you're Andre the Giant reincarnated, that thing will hit you smack in the face.


I'm 5'10. There's a lot of lifted trucks in my area. I am yet to see one where the edge of the hood would hit me in the face. Apropos of anything else, that's an actual ladder, not even a step ladder to get to things like wiper fluid, let alone engine work.


I give this 48 hours before we see lifted mods emerge


Ah well, then.


My mazda has absolutely HUGE a-pillars, which are, in my opinion, a far larger threat to pedestrians, than having a simply larger vehicle. Like you can fit a family of 4 with a stroller in mine, I find myself leaning way forward to check that blind spot every time I turn right.

And even that is second fiddle to people using their phones while driving, which is an absolute plague in general, not just for pedestrian safety, but safety overall.


There’s a lot of evidence that larger vehicles are massive threats to pedestrians.

I’m not sure what the evidence for huge A-pillars as a threat is, but if it’s worse than larger vehicles it does not in any way change the fact that larger vehicles are indeed a massive threat.


Huge A-pillars are a threat because of the blind spot they create, specifically while turning right.

All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes, but the side effect is blind spots. Further compounded by interior trim containing airbags and audio gear.


> All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes

And they've had to get bigger to be stronger, and need to be stronger due to increased size and weight of modern vehicles. I'm not saying it's not an issue. But I am saying "Thanks, Obama" for the CAFE regulations passed under him that pushed OEMs to make larger and larger vehicles - because a larger footprint leads to less stringent fuel consumption requirements.


Nice try there with the FUD.

The CAFE regulations favoring trucks and SUVs have been around since the 1970s.

The Obama era regulations extended those rules to heavy-duty trucks and commercial vehicles, which were not previously subject to fuel economy rules.


Note that I specifically called out footprint

From [0] (first) or wikipedia [1] (second), if you prefer. From mobile, so I hope you'll pardon any formatting issues

> In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe.

> Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle's wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values.[9] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint

[0] https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...


Here's a video about an intersection that had to be redesigned due to A-pillars. Vehicles approaching from opposite ends could hide in each other's blind spots and crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgpE6wjF30

As a motorcyclist, I hide in people's A-pillar blind spots all the time. It's quite unnerving.


If you recognize that your in a blind spot, are you prevented from adjusting your position because you've pulled too far forward to actually place yourself in the blind spot?

I know I sometimes find myself in positions that I know well to avoid, but sometimes it takes a second for it to be realized. My favorite is being aligned next to a semi's trailer wheels. I will slow down to avoid sitting in that spot when moving, not during stop-n-go. So I understand it's sometimes obvious after the fact.


The problem happens when you're approaching an intersection together with a car coming from your right (or left if left-hand drive). When your speeds match up just right, you are practically invisible because you sit in the blind spot the entire time they're approaching.

You can accelerate or decelerate to solve the problem, or maybe do a little swerve. But you don't know when you're in the blind spot.

Another problem are cars merging onto the road from a stand-still. Driver looks left, sees empty road. Starts merging and whoops they just cut you off. You were hiding behind the pillar in the moment they looked. You can't know this happened until it's too late.

This is why as a car driver I always take one last look at the road while already starting to move but before blocking the road. Most drivers don't do this.


I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there's no other traffic. If there is, I pull forward next to the window instead.


Not to over analyze, but no matter if I'm on a bike or car I've always thought you shouldn't drive alongside or in the blindspot of another vehicle if you can avoid it (by a minute change in speed).


I'd rather be next to a car than behind a car, and ahead is always best. The issue arises when you don't speed (which I don't do).


What? Do you mean like way far ahead of them? So far, that you're not really in front of them?

How is that ever safer than being behind someone? You can control the following distance if you're behind someone. You can't make someone behind you pay attention or stop, and you can't make someone beside you not change lanes without looking. Why would you ever want to be in their direction of travel?

Seriously, please explain your logic on this. I'm flabbergasted.


Like, not even a little bit?


5 over, maximum. I did 10 over by accident once. Motorcycles are exponentially more dangerous at speed, and I like being alive.


> “I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there’s no other traffic…”

Because you believe the driver has no incentive to change lanes, and so there is low probability they will change lanes unexpectedly?


Because I can brake fast enough if they do change lanes. I tend to pass, but if we're going around the same speed it doesn't bother me.


The braking as an out because a bike can brake faster than the car always seemed odd to me because whatever car is behind you will also not be able to brake as fast.


You also have much more room as a bike. If I'm passing someone going uphill, and I don't have enough power to finish the pass on the hill, I have another 8 feet of lateral buffer versus a car before they would come dangerously close to me.

I'm not saying you should hang out next to cars all the time, but it's better than in a car, where you might have 3 feet of buffer.


A bike, generally, can't brake faster than a car, no?


Depends on the bike, but usually a little less stopping power at lower speeds. Above 45mph or so, it's a wash. Bigger bikes also stop slower.


It is the seemingly prevailing train of thought even if it isn't exactly accurate. But why should that stop it from being believed?


ABS on bikes has largely erased the difference.


Huh. I figure it the other way. If the traffic is light, then people think they're the only person on the road. I expect they will change lanes without thinking or looking (Like, _Why would someone be in my blind spot with all of this space?_)

Whereas, when there's heavier traffic, you can't help being in someone's blind spot. In this case, I will usually speed up to being at least next to them, so I'm sure they can see me, and then I'll let the driver pass me, so the last idea they have is, _I just passed that moto/where is that moto I just passed?_

Overall, being in someone's blind spot is by definition, risky. And it serves no purpose, and has a clear remedy. Whatever. Ride you ride.

Good luck. Keep your head up.


If there's no other traffic, why not avoid being near the car at all?


Interesting video, but I can't help but think the roadway is now worse. It's disjointed and there are two intersections instead of one. Why not install a red light or a roundabout?


Making it "worse" is the point. The practice is known as traffic calming road design – https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-...

For example: Many rural towns put a giant unnecessary corner on the road entering the town. Forcing you to slow down and obey the speed limit. Or the road splits in two just to go around a pretty sculpture someone decided to put in the middle of the road. Again to force you to slow down naturally.


> the roadway is now worse

Worse for whom? If it has the intended effect (and apparently it does), it's certainly not worse for the cyclists who were getting hurt.

> Why not install a red light or a roundabout?

Tom Scott explains the reasons for not installing traffic lights or speed bumps in the original video.

On top of those, if drivers are not even reducing their speed at the stop sign, what would make them do that for a red light?

I'm not sure how a roundabout is better for anyone than the staggered junction.

It's certainly worse for the cyclist on the main road, who would have to pay a lot more attention to a lot more places, and also reduce speed.

It's certainly worse for drivers on the main road, who lose their right-of-way.

It's unlikely to be (much?) better to the drivers on the side road, who still have to go through junctions - only this time they're between the road and the roundabout and vice-versa.


Quite literally in part due to mass.


Yeah, I got a CX-5 last year and the biggest complaint is the A-pillar blind spot in the car is really huge.


Leaning forward to check the blind spot it’s how my driving instructor taught me to turn in a ca 2000 VW Golf.


Yet you still drive it


Well yeah, I still owe like 15k on it...


I never owned a car, or a driver's license for that matter, so this is an honest question: Did you not realize this flaw during the test drive?


It may not be immediately obvious on a test drive, and it's not a problem unique to the Mazda.


People bring this up a lot on Hacker News, but AEB (Automated Emergency Braking) is essentially standard at this point [0] on new vehicles (technically NHTSA just makes recommendations on this right now, but as a practical matter OEM's comply because someday soon it'll be mandatory without an explicit waiver).

Between the forward-facing camera (usually running some version of Mobileye EyeQ) and forward-facing radar, the odds of running over a pedestrian directly like you're thinking on a 2023+ vehicle is quite low. Even cross-traffic/bicycle/cutoff scenarios are pretty extensively covered if you read up on Mobileye's website.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with older cars without AEB hitting pedestrians than the "let's make it more enjoyable when pedestrians do get hit" sentiment that seems so common in these discussions here.

[0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/automatic-emergency-bra...


> let's make it more enjoyable when pedestrians do get hit

Why can’t we have a pillowy airbag pincer on the front of cars that snatches pedestrians up and hugs them if it makes contact?


Volvo used to have exterior airbag on the V40.


I'm not sure exactly what the scope of that is, but I was hit (lightly) by a Tesla in a crosswalk earlier this year.


Are people going to be using the front camera whilst driving and is that even a good idea?


No, that’s not how any of this works


Elon invented a car that can't hit pedestrians! Everybody please clap.


Or, you know, you could do both.


It should be safer than a normal truck to pedestrians, since it doesn't have a broad front. With a car, the most common scenario is that car hits your legs and then you bounce on the hood. IOW, you don't get the full kinetic energy all at once. With a truck your body takes the full hit and you're more likely to fall under the tires.

With a lower, sharper front, the Cybertruck should behave more like a car than a full size truck.

But we really don't know yet. It's a real failure of regulators that we it's not a standard part of testing and that their aren't good standards in this area.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...


It is the single biggest step backwards in automotive safety in the last ten years.

https://www.travelers.com/resources/auto/safe-driving/how-cr...



Are you claiming the Cybertruck doesn’t have a crumple zone? That doesn’t make a lot sense. The entire front hood area is hollow, there isn’t even an engine there.

Just because Elon used a bunch of puffery to play up the exoskeleton doesn’t mean it acts like a boulder when it hits another vehicle.

Crumple zones aren’t even relevant to pedestrian crashes.


The outer skin is made of 3mm cold rolled stainless steel, likely the same 300 grade alloy that SpaceX developed. A conservative estimate for the yield strength (based on similar alloys) is 275 MPa, or roughly 1.8x the pressure required to compress a human bone (150 MPa).

Normal automotive skin by comparison is made from 0.65mm steel or aluminum.


yeah but automotive safety has been great the last twenty years especially for children


It really has, cars have gotten progressively safer every year since 1975 for everyone involved. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/child...


Are these charts simply displaying the gradual decline in children-under-13 walking and riding bicycles?


The chart shows child pedestrian deaths went from 1632 to 144. So a tenfold decrease. No idea about the stats on child pedestrianship but I’d be surprised if it was down 10 fold.


Why would you be surprised? Even in my lifetime the number of kids you see out and about has decreased dramatically, there's both a lot less to do outside and a lot more to do inside.


There's a line specifically for vehicle occupants.


Fair enough, but I don't think anyone doubts the increase in safety provided to vehicle occupants.


Not everyone involved. Not for people outside the car. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deat...


you're more likely to die from falling than a pedestrian incident. Even more people commit suicide. Wow this is a dark subject.


Yeah but how many people never ride a bike because of this danger? Or let their kids walk anywhere near a major street? Almost everyone that I know in the US shares that fear, and they aren’t entirely wrong to feel that way (due to the current state of things).

Even when I had to take a break from running due to injury and started cycling, my doctor looked me stone cold in the eyes and asked me to please not risk my life like that.

Like, what the hell


If you think about it automotive safety is phenomenal if you decide to compare it to something else entirely. Few have the courage to say “disregard children outside of the car and think of suicide”. This is groundbreaking thinking


Gee, I wonder what has happened since, say, 2008, that has caused pedestrians to lose any trace of situational awareness and wander in front of moving cars. It's almost as if they're distracted by something that became a factor relatively recently, around the same time that drivers also became much more distracted than usual. Someone should look into that.


And imagine if only one developed country had this trend, would that be an indictment on that country?

On a more serious note though, because sarcasm is weak person's weapon, the US do have a teen formation issue imho, among them driving lessons. I think the average US citizen born post 70s lack some basis, and I'm also afraid that this seemingly lack of competency feed insecurities. And it's not anybody's fault, the country is made around driving, you can't afford to give 20 to 40 hours of driving lesson to everybody who wants to drive, because everybody _need_ to drive, and for the same reason, you cannot make the driving exam too difficult.


"because sarcasm is weak person's weapon"

I don't like you.


Nice


Only for the children in the car. It's gotten dramatically worse for the 99.9999999% of children who are outside the car.


Just wait until crash test results come out before speculating wildly. Hard shells can also crumple.


There's also a danger of being able to accelerate 7,000 lbs. to 60 mph in under 3 seconds.


It’s smaller than an F-150:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLvopc9oI4A


[flagged]


Cars don't always stop at marked crossings. Hell, they don't always stop at marked crossings with lights, or at school bus stops. This isn't an issue of pedestrians just randomly walking in front of cars. Drivers don't always look where they're going, and it's getting worse as people get more distracted by things like massive screens replacing physical controls on the dashboard.

A decade ago, I knew a girl who got hit by a passing SUV while crossing the street to board the school bus. The bus was stopped with lights and signs out on a 2-lane road, it was impossible to miss. The SUV driver just decided not to stop and clipped her going 45 mph when legally they should have stopped. Getting hit was not her fault, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of cases were similar.


I never jaywalk but I have been nearly run over several times in crosswalks. People run red lights or don't check the crosswalk during unprotected lefts or rights on red all the time.


yesterday on my way to work i saw a guy in one of those huge pickup trucks cut a corner on a right turn, run over the concrete bike lane seperator, which was marked by a row of roughly three foot high reflector sticks (which he also mowed down), and then drive his right front wheels up over the curve onto the sidewalk.

on a perfectly clear morning in a residential neighborhood, with curbs painted with that yellow reflective paint.


The whole concept of roads being "car land" comes from car industry propaganda. Roads existed before cars, and people walked in them. Then cars came along and started killing a lot of pedestrians. Car companies didn't like the negative PR, so they promoted the idea of roads being "car land". They created the concept of "jaywalking" and lobbied governments to make it illegal.

You are the one operating a machine that kills people easily. It is your job to avoid killing people.


Bravo for this accomplished display of victim blaming. If only pesky pedestrians stopped trying to get around on foot and got into their own private steel boxes, they'd be safer!


What a terrible take. Accidents happen. When they do, it's obviously better if people don't die.


Larger cars are more deadly.


Your complaint about trucks is misguided [1] and should instead lie with passenger cars until such time as passenger cars are not the leading cause of pedestrian deaths by vehicle type.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730245/


This says that light trucks are 1.45 times likelier to kill a person per mile driven than cars.


From the Conclusion:

> The greatest impact on overall US pedestrian mortality will result from reducing the risk from the light truck category.


This paper is nearly 20 years old and does not reflect the state of the world today.


Nearly went back to the 1900s there bud.


You just described what ad companies have been doing since the early 2000s...


I mean the simple reply to that is: por que no los dos? Steam getting hit with an antitrust suit and losing could also pave the way for Apple and Google being forced to reduce their extortive rates.


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

Search: