I own a Tesla (and subscribe to "FSD", >70% of my miles are FSD without issue). As it stands though, Waymo is by every metric objectively better at "autonomous driving".
I would also love to see every car brand have full autonomous driving. It seems like you think you must be in one camp or another, and that one has to "beat" the other - but that's not true. Both can be successful - wouldn't that be a great world?
Your original post was very public under a very well known brand - you have no expectation of privacy after that. People are going to respond to you publicly.
It's not about a privacy, but common courtesy. Especially after I gave them a heads up in DM about the post and offered to answer any more questions they had. They said they'd reach back out, then didn't, then posted this publicly? Really strange.
Looks like you need the "quiet part" said out loud:
Chances are, the company was fishing for (or at least wouldn't mind) VC investment, which requires things being built a certain (complex and expensive) way like the top "startups" that recently got lots of VC funding.
Chances are, the company wanted an invite to a cloud provider's conference so they could brag about their (self-inflicted) problems and attract visibility (potentially translates to investment - see previous point).
Chances are, a lot of their engineering staff wanted certain resume points to potentially be able to work at such startups in the future.
Chances are, the company wanted some stories about how they're modern and "cloud-native" and how they're solving complex (self-inflicted) problems so they can post it on their engineering blog to attract talent (see previous point).
Yes. Exactly. The company wanted to be "modern" in terms of tech stack and they kept getting buried in the thought that using serverless would keep them cool.
The PM was also close friends with the CEO so everyone blindly nods to him.
I love it. The UX is terrible but the visualization is very "outside the box". Experiments like this are important on the road to finding novel interfaces. Not everything has to look like a v0 shadcn app. Thank you for sharing!
The other comment articulates the points much better than I would have, but I have a large number of (tested) food and environmental allergies. It is a very logical explanation that the adjuvants in vaccines would cause the body to also train an immune response to other things.
There is also a massive profit motive for pharma companies and many hospitals, when you couple that with the revolving door between industry and government, it seems like a situation ripe for corruption.
I don't see the harm in removing aluminum adjuvants from vaccines (we all buy aluminum free deodorant!). I don't see the harm in not vaccinating children for things they are unlikely to come into contact with (i.e. hepatitis B). In fact, I think it would be good to make the change and see what the health outcomes are over the next 30 years. That is how we will learn.
I would guess people that don't know how stuff works or what they're talking about, but still feel entitled to disregard medical science progress because they don't see the effects directly.
Seeing my father in law daily is a very good reminder to me as to why we thought eradicating polio (and creating vaccines) was a good idea: his left leg is 30% the size of his right leg, and he's had trouble walking since he was 7yo (he's now 65), with no way of fixing it.
People don't understand what life used to be like before 60y ago because they didn't live through it, and even then they're tempted to dismiss the death or permanent complication rates because "nobody died"... that they knew/recall of.
It's true that in general better sanitation, clean water, better food availability have helped in reducing the death rates in general and also complications (because better prepared immune system, better symptoms management, ...), but vaccines allowed to eradicate stuff that killed or altered lives permanently on a regular basis.
I wouldn't call myself a vaccine skeptic, and I don't have a problem with anything else you said, but "feel entitled to disregard medical science progress" puts my back up. We are in fact all entitled to that.
I think a not insignificant part of the skepticism problem stems from well meaning authoritarians who believe they have the right to shoot everything that has a pop sci press release behind it into everyone else's bodies.
It's like the opposite of the naturalist fallacy: if it's man made and has a sciency name, let's assume it has no glaring flaws until we get the class action lawsuit recruitment commercials a decade later telling us we might be entitled to 5 dollars compensation if we're on our deathbeds because of some horrible complication.
Even better if your political tribe has tied its identity to the thing.
- Adjuvants. As a materials researcher I think it's nuts we inject nanoscale alumina in our blood.
- Regulatory structure. Why can't I sue a vaccine manufacturer? Limit awards, if you necessary, but if I cant sue I cant get discovery.
- Effectiveness. The flu vaccine's effectiveness is statistical artifact. See healthy vaccine bias
- Historical effectiveness. I had a civil engineer smugly point out that his profession had ended more diseases than biology. So I looked it up. Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.
- General dishonesty of the medical profession. I don't expect my Advil to be 100% safe; I don't expect my vaccine to be either. I dont expect my medical health officers to lie about it though (see mRNA and the long dismissed myocarditis risk)
>Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.
This is a cute statement but really shouldn't be part of the basis for vaccine skepticism.
Hand washing is also one of the most significant medical practice advancements... That doesn't mean we stop there.
Sure, civil engineering did a lot for water borne illness and the like. And I'll even grant that building design and HVAC systems can reduce respiratory virus transmission. But it's not doing anything for measles, smallpox, polio, ebola, hepatitis, HIV, Yellow fever, etc etc. I mean come on.
And if I do have to go to a place with worse infrastructure, I'll take that typhoid vaccine please...
Both - but primary the cloud offering. The main author (https://x.com/heyandras) is pretty open about the project revenue its sources. If I remember correctly they're at about 10k MRR mostly from Coolify Cloud.
I think trained knowledge is less and less important - as these multi-modal models have the ability to search the web and have much larger context windows.
I was about to say the same thing - I use Zulip at current employment - and after you get used to it it’s pretty great software that already solves all the problems struct aims to (without the AI nonsense)
Founder of Struct here. I looked at Zulip before starting Struct. And I'm sorry -- I don't think it's the same. Threads in Zulip are really sub-channels, and the idea of a unified feed like "All Threads" doesn't exist -- at least, that was my perception of Zulip. And just looking at the site right now, it feels the same as before. I could be wrong.
Struct is different. It's a reimagination of what a chat platform would look like if you were to completely give up the idea of chats in a serial log of channels (IRC, Slack, Discord), and embrace threads and feeds whole-heartedly. When everything is a thread, the platform can work remarkably well for users.
> the idea of a unified feed like "All Threads" doesn't exist
I believe it does. You get a feed of all messages; and still organized by a topic, quite conveniently.
I don’t use it, though, since from anywhere in GUI I can immediately jump to the next unread message, irregardless of topic or stream, simply by pressing “n” on keyboard (preceded by Esc if I happened to be typing; my draft is saved reliably).
I don't understand why I'd need or want this. I saw it in the video and was horrified. Multiple feeds updating as I'm watching them is just too much going on.
When I'm chatting, I don't want to pay attention to 10 different things at once. I'm most productive when I am working on one task (with a single topic), which may require me to refer back to Slack periodically.
Struct looks like it has two differentiating features: 1) it surfaces irrelevant distractions in the All Threads channel, and 2) it creates the tl;dr summary. The former seems actively harmful to productivity, and the latter seems like it could be useful.
You could create a focused custom feed. For example, I have one for "tasks assigned to me". That's what I set to when I'm focused working.
That's the beauty right -- you can control and filter what you see. As opposed to channel based interactions, where your boundaries are set in stone on channel creation.
I would also love to see every car brand have full autonomous driving. It seems like you think you must be in one camp or another, and that one has to "beat" the other - but that's not true. Both can be successful - wouldn't that be a great world?
reply