One thing that has changed for me personally is that these days if I’m parsing XML, I might just tell AI to write a parser that can handle these 5 XML files. It might load up a library or it might just roll its own, but one thing that is not going to happen is that I’m not building some beautiful well engineered XML parser which I then open source. I wonder if that is what’s going on?
I don't buy this line of pro-AI reasoning. It sounds like more work with less reliable results than just writing the code myself.
First of all, nobody is writing and open sourcing their own XML parser in 2025, so that's hyperbole.
Second, the boilerplate to use most XML libraries can be copy/pasted out of their docs. So where is AI saving you time here? The prompting and other BS is a waste of time and just looks silly, and you still have to read and understand the code. At best it seems like breaking even.
At least in Copilot, the revert changes is more like undo/redo of a series of changes. Often I want to keep all of the changes except for the most recent one
git checkout would destroy this (and "corrupts" the Copilot session state)
The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. Calling a software update that happens in your garage at night and takes 20 minutes a “recall” definitely is worthy of quotes.
The word bug sort of implies that the device was struck by a terrestrial arthropod animal. Calling a software defect that happens due to a programming error a "bug" definitely is worthy of quotes.
(The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
Focusing on the dictionary definition of the word "recall" seems pedantic.
Not all recalls are for big mechanical problems. I've received several recall notices for issues that just required the dealership to flash the ECU or some other controller with new firmware. Whether that update is flashed OTA or with a special dongle at the dealership doesn't really make a difference if you're looking at it from the perspective of vehicle safety/reliability/stability. The point is that a recall is a significant enough issue that the manufacturer _must_ notify their customers about it.
I agree that if you count _every_ OTA update as a recall, you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison. The cost of pushing an OTA update is much lower than the cost of a recall, so Tesla probably pushes a bunch of minor OTA updates that other manufacturers wouldn't bother with. But it's a fair comparison if only some subset of OTA updates are counted as recalls (i.e. updates addressing a safety issue).
> The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer.
It does not, no more than gaslighting implies lighting a gas lamp or the phrase crossing the Rubicon implies actually crossing a river in Italy, in any case. It hasn't meant anything of that sort since the mid-sixties.
Recall is what legislation requires you to call it if something is unsafe for public use and it has to be withdrawn for the market until it's remedied. It doesn't matter how that's done. The NHTSA guidelines don't include physically getting the product to a manufacturer or a distributor as a requirement to issue, or as a criteria for fulfillment, of a recall. (I don't think recall guidelines in any industry do, it's just the NHTSA's that apply in this case).
Yes, this also applies for firmware upgrades. No, it doesn't matter where they're performed. The FDA has issued firmware-related recalls for devices with programmable logic since programmable logic in medical devices was a thing so like... fourty years. If anyone in some company's safety staff just learned about that's let's all please give them a warm welcome to the 20th century.
The main reason why recalls typically involve returning the product to the manufacturer (or, more often, as the vast majority of recalls are for food, medicine or cosmetics, to the distributor) is traceability. Manufacturers need to maintain documentation that shows they took reasonable action to notify all customers, that depending on how they chose to handle it they made repairs for free, replaced them for free, or that the refund they issued made reasonable allowances for depreciation, and so on. Some foodstuffs or medicine also have disposal safety rules that require you to maintain adequate documentation as well. It's just the easiest way to deal with it, both in terms of remedying the actual issue, and in terms of legal risk.
But it's got nothing to do with returning something to the factory, it hasn't meant anything of that sort in like half a century.
Once again, an intelligent post such as yours has been lazily downvoted simply because somebody doesn't agree with it, and they can't be arsed composing a coherent rebuttable. This leads to unpopular ideas being buried, groupthink and a lack of intelligent discourse.....
....And yes, this IS leading to this place becoming more and more Reddit like (no, that isn't a tired cliché, no matter what the FAQs claim).
Downvoting needs to be reserved for comments that detract from the conversation. At this rate, we will need some form of meta moderation to ensure this happens.
> Downvoting needs to be reserved for comments that detract from the conversation.
I understand where you're coming from but truth is a post like that one does detract from the usual excusemaking conversation that some companies enjoy here, so I'm not surprised it was downvoted :-). It's one of the many ways in which karma points killed online discourse. I just happen to be old enough to have racked up a lot of pre-karma posting (including, of course, flamewars, what would life be without spice?) so downvotes don't really register on my radar.
Hello. I just want to start by saying I appreciate this post as every other post on this article is: "this is politically motivated because I think it is".
That being said... on the linked page it says:
> Outflow water has been sampled after every use of the system and consistently shows negligible traces of any contaminants, and specifically, that all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge. TCEQ, the FAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the use of the system prior to its initial use, and during tests and launch, and determined it would not cause environmental harm.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but parent's comment that
> By SpaceX's logic any factory would be able to dump toxic water into the ground as long as they sourced the input water from the city's drinking water distribution system.
is patently wrong and unfortunately undermines their entire comment.
I believe SpaceX is stretching the truth and trying to sneak by with improper permits, but also people lying about what SpaceX is doing is not helping keep them in check and gives them ammunition.
Of course water in contact with the flamey end of a rocket has chemicals not found in drinking water, that's not really relevant. What's relevant are the actual levels in that water.
This unprofessional release mentions "literal" tap water being used. It appears that this is "literally" not true - is this a lie, or are you just upset with the parent comment's conclusion?
Both sides can be wrong and lying. Does it matter if water is "tap water" or if it meets the regulations for tap water? Lying to call someone out for lying just undermines the point.
Edit: Sigh, on re-reading the SpaceX statement they say the input water is "potable" and then later say, "Again, it uses literal drinking water", they never say "tap water". While an exaggeration, that is the definition of potable. They are not saying the output water is drinking water! Only that "all levels have remained below standards for all state permits that would authorize discharge."
But again, I'm not claiming they aren't lying or stretching the truth, just that we should be contesting them on the facts.
I wouldn't trust any analysis that SpaceX submits itself given Musk's long history of lying, including right now on this very subject. Others have pointed out problems in the way the water is being sampled (surface water vs ground water) but I'm not an expert. It is certainly possible that no serious contamination has already occurred.
But the way it works is not that you dump stuff out of your factory and then, after getting caught, try to run some tests to show it's okay. It's almost impossible to remove contaminants out of the water after the fact so the way it works is that you go through a process with the government where you show that you are not going to dump contaminants into the ground, then they issue a permit, then you can discharge the water. Otherwise you would have people doing what Musk is doing now, which is to dump the water first and if there is any irreversible contamination say "oops, my bad".
Contrary to what SpaceX has claimed USFWS does not regulate industrial waste water discharge (unsurprisingly). The TCEQ has said they are in violation. FAA has paused launches pending an investigation. Both should have done this many months ago.
In any case with respect to existing contamination the only thing I would trust is an independent third party testing lab testing the water with the data made public. I don't know why you would want anything else.
Industrial waste water permits are not less restrictive than domestic waste water. They could not have "filled in the wrong form" because they need a domestic waste water permit as well.
Also, these permits can't be applied for ahead of time for new technology that is still being developed.
I regularly face this issue in IT circles, where I'm supposed to have a time machine to compensate for the multi-month forewarning everyone else needs.
I know this is unpopular to say and people love to pile on, but I have been using it for the last few weeks and I am optimistic about it. I pay $100/month.
Right now, it works just about flawlessly on the freeway. If you turn it on when you are on the on-ramp, and turn it off when it delivers you to that first traffic light after you exit, it actually is maybe better than actually driving. It passes slower cars, it is way safer than I am at checking my blind spots. It uses the HOV lane at appropriate times. I enjoy letting it perform the chore of getting across 5 lanes of traffic in time for an exit much more than doing that myself.
For local driving, it is still not perfect enough. It WILL get you home safe... but it is more stressful having it drive than driving myself. It pauses awkwardly sometimes... it makes an occasional wrong turn. It handles traffic lights and stop signs reasonably well but overall it's like driving with someone who is just learning to drive. It's more stressful than I prefer my transportation to be.
That being said, I think in a couple of years it will stand as an incredible achievement. The driving behavior it exhibits is incredibly lifelike at times and it is really so close... like all engineering projects the last few percent is sometimes the hardest, but I can see it getting there.
Autopilot works better than FSD for me on the freeway. If I turn on FSD I get lots of phantom braking and pretty out of no where lane changes that I'd call pretty abrupt and dangerous. No where near worth 100 dollars a month.
What? Every car can automatically change lanes, automatically merge into traffic, automatically exit to an off-ramp, automatically go around a round-about, etc? I think there may be a language barrier here because most cars/trucks I see on the road cannot automatically do any of these things.
Yes to all of those. Adaptive cruise control. Lane change assist. Auto braking. Automatic exits. This stuff has been standard for many years now, and every major brand is touching L2/L3 autonomy. Manufacturers just don't market it as "autopilot" or "fully self driving", because that's not what it is.
Sorry - just bought a new Toyota RAV-4; it does not have auto-lane change, the ability to auto merge onto the highway, the ability to auto-stop at the stop-light, etc.
It does have adaptive cruise control and the ability to stay inside the lines, but it absolutely will not automatically change lanes or exit off the freeway.
Driving is an AGI-complete task. It literally requires presumptive modelling of other human beings in order to be safe. This bullshit "uh let's just navigate as if every other car is on rails" approach will never produce the safety claimed by FSD proponents.
I just wanted to say that anecdotally since I cannot see this perspective being shared here, that since Hertz started renting Telsas, I have only rented from Hertz, and only rented Teslas, and I have had nothing but positive experiences, and generally speaking have enjoyed renting these cars and felt much safer in them than I would have in the likes of the Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa (or is that vice versa) type cars I have rented in the past.
That being said, I would never rent or drive for more than an in town errand, any other brand of electric vehicle that doesn't allow the use of Tesla's superchargers and it is obvious why that would be a completely egregious breach of customer service to rent such a car to an unsuspecting customer.
Whats the experience renting a Tesla for the first time after a long flight? Are the systems intuitive (charging, info-tainment, etc) enough for a driver whose never driven one before?
I think if I was getting off a red eye flight and stumbled into a Tesla at 6:30am having never been inside one before I would probably spend 5 minutes fumbling around in the parking space and then go back inside the Hertz office complaining that I couldn't find the ignition switch and please help.
in my experience getting to the car around 1am after a really long day on a last minute trip.... I didn't really have any trouble at all and car was fully charged. Most it honestly works about how you'd expect (pull down on the stalk to engage drive etc). Had enough charge to get me through my weekend without ever having to think about it.
Honestly, its not that much worse than my prius with the goofy shifter. Knowing what to do with the keycard was confusing until the screen lit up to show me
That's exactly how it goes though. You put something together on an idle Tuesday evening and you end up as the person running a 30 people company if you're not very careful about it. Success has a massive price tag.
As someone with a likely ADHD, it's very hard to plan for multiple things in my head, I can usually focus only on one big event at a time: product release, party event, plan romantic date, etc. So, usually I do have to choose onlu one thing to prioritize in the short-term.
Apologies for the late answer. I'm 58 and I still struggle with this. Time management, especially with multiple high priority competing interests is super hard, more so when there are other people involved.
It's the centralized exchanges, which are more akin to traditional financial institutions whose records are not on a publicly visible blockchain but rather private databases or... apparently spreadsheets... which fall victim to the same issues we have seen in the past in the traditional financial world.
So you need at least 2 middlemen. One exchange where you buy crypto and another exchange where your friend sells that crypto.
Or you could simply use a traditional wire transfer and currency would be converted automatically. USA and Italy exchange millions of dollars every day - it's nothing special.
To actually get the money to the other person via wire transfer is actually quite a process (having done many myself).
- You will need to get permission from your bank to send international wire transfers (sign forms/agreements).
- takes a long time (in the order of days)
- expensive (~$50-$75 for outgoing international wire, and $25-$50 to receive it).
The forms, delays, and fees are because what those financial institutions are doing is providing checks and balances, and de-risking, to the extent they can, performing that transfer.
The forms are for KYC activity, and agreements on what the limitations of liability are. The delays are to validate that the transfers are handled and secured, and ideally can't be charged back. The fees are to cover the costs of the people who do the work for that.
It's not perfect, but it's quite a bit better than the checks and balances that exist for folks who get hit by a scam and are convinced to go to a crypto kiosk and pay a scammer because they have been frightened by a threat to a loved one, or are taken in by a scammer about services being cut off, or desperately paying off a ransomware demand in the hopes that your business or personal records won't be leaked or published.
I think this really depends. I send wire transfers pretty often. For me it's $20 to send and $0 to receive. It takes anywhere from 2 days to a week normally. I don't need permission to send them (though I do need to call the bank to verify the information and purpose), and I also need to provide the purpose of the funds to the receiving bank (and need to show I own the sending account, if I'm the sender and receiver).
Crypto is very likely neither cheaper nor faster, since you can't spend the crypto directly, and need to FX it through an exchange on the sending side and the receiving side, each of which will take a cut (often percentages of the total). You also need to fund the account sending, and you need to transfer from the exchange receiving to a bank account. Both of those transfers could also cost money. You're also doing FX twice (USD -> crypto, crypto -> Yen), rather than once (USD -> Yen).
If you fuck up an international wire transfer, it may take a month or two for the funds to make it back, and you may need to have numerous conversations with both banks (I've been through this pain more than once and it sucks). If you fuck up a crypto transfer you lose your money with no recourse.
All-in-all the wire transfer is the better (and probably cheaper/faster) experience.
Where are you located? I send a fair amount of SWIFT wires, and they cost at most $25 and clear the next day.
Within the eurozone (the 20 countries using the euro), there’s SEPA instant credit which clears in less than ten seconds, is available 24/7, and costs practically nothing (a few cents). It’s a fine example of how thoughtful regulation can enable a system that is better than any crypto solution.
I guess that depends on source and destination countries, because I am able to wire money between different EU countries without any special paperwork. It is no different to domestic transfers or transfers to the same bank. Why would I want to use crypto for that purpose? It seems more inconvenient and risky.
I remember that in the beginning people were dreaming about self-contained crypto economy where exchanges would not be needed - that didn't really work out.
If you've ever done an international wire, you know there's the form question "What intermediate bank to use". So at least the same if not less middlemen apply.
