So I don't actually know, does Uber flash up a big red warning when you're about to book a cab that your usual $10 ride is going to cost you a lot more? One of the reasons people dislike the surge pricing is that it was taking people by surprise.
If Uber wanted to still please the people with more money than time they could just add a 'bribe' button to add $5 or $10 or more to your ride request so drivers will be more likely to accept that request.
Yep, no one who used Windows 3.1 extensively would put up with losing at Minesweeper on the first click. MS was actually pretty nice about rearranging the map so that the first click would not be a losing move.
All it needs to do is move the flag you click on to the first free square starting at the upper-left. The cheat helped me see this in action, but I've forgotten how to activate it now. I'll have to look that up again to see if it's implemented in this version.
I recently switched from NetBeans to Emacs, and while NetBeans did support split windows, it involved carefully dragging a tab to just the right place in the application, then adjusting, then reaching for the mouse any time you wanted to scroll. With Emacs, it's not just split windows, it's split windows accessible via one key command, and a shortcut key to scroll the _other_ window without switching that really boosts my productivity.
The thing I thought I'd miss the most was not being able to use the scroll wheel in the text terminal, but using 'go to next function' and 'go to previous function' key combos, along with making very liberal use of inline search has done a pretty good job replacing how I previously navigated documents.
I didn't think that not having to leave the home row keys was such a big deal but now I have to do it so much less often taht I can feel how jarring it is to my rhythm of working.
You are right to not do so. Describing what is not impossible is hardly advocacy, however. There are a few uses for allowing mouse in terminal emulated emacs of varying utility. Same with the GUI version, but just to get basic mouse/wheel functionality is not one of them.
It's a shibboleth in social media to show that you travel by air often. It's even sillier when Canadians do it because what the everloving crap does YYZ or YUL tell you if you don't already know what they mean.
> It solves all the same problems as Basic Income, but with far lower disincentive for work, and at far lower cost.
There is a basic assumption people make that a basic income would result in masses of people lazing about doing nothing just because they can. Canada experimented with a minimum income in the 1970s in a Manitoba town, and here's what happened: http://disinfo.com/2013/02/the-forgotten-history-of-a-canadi...
"Only two segments of Dauphin’s labor force worked less as a result of Mincome—new mothers and teenagers. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies. And teenagers worked less because they weren’t under as much pressure to support their families."
I hear about Dauphin occasionally, but it would be great to see actual data rather than breathless reporters fawning over it. Unfortunately that's all wikipedia links to. I really want to see good data on this, since it seems useful. Do you have any?
Also, wikipedia's secondary sources don't agree with each other. Some do list small disincentive effects, and suggest they would have been larger if mincome wasn't a short term thing (i.e., "don't quit your job, mincome is going away").
The fact that the quote is pulled from a site named "disinformation" aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone worth reading would make claims as to why those two groups' workforce participation (?) rates declined in such certain terms.
A study by UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto actually showed that luxury car owners were by far the most aggressive drivers, and the least likely to stop for other road users.
For whatever reason BMW stood out most of all as the worst of the worst in this study, but 'expensive car drivers are better drivers' has been proven to not be an assertion you can make from common sense or intuition.
Without reading the study, I'm ready to agree that its conclusions are correct. But I'd argue we're still comparing apples to oranges here:
1. We can't assume that Tesla drivers are the same as traditional luxury car drivers. While cars are a statement of wealth, and many arrogant bastards like making that statement...A Tesla is ostensibly a statement of a few other things, such as concern for the environment, optimism about technology, etc. etc...in the same way, even though many programmers make high-end salaries (low-6 figures), I wouldn't say that we can expect these programmers to golf as much as the average non-programmer low-6-figure-earner.
2. Reading the link you posted, it said the study evaluated based on the frequency of accidents and the size of payout...I couldn't find the study on the website, but this statement from the article was ambiguous to me:
> According to data from IIHS website, the collision insurance losses on BMW 7 Series are more than twice the average for vehicles nationwide, and BMW 3 Series two-doors are more than three times.
Twice the average of what...? Payouts total? Payouts per claim? Payouts per claim normalized by number of total cars of that kind on the road?
3. The NHTS data concerns the number of fires. For the study you cited to be more relevant, we'd have to know what proportion of the insurance claims also involve vehicle fires. If you're thinking, "Well, if a car caught on fire, then that's likely because of an accident...so more accidents mean more fires"...well, a> That's a classic logical fallacy (All dogs are animals. Sara owns a lot of animals. Therefore, Sara owns a lot of dogs) and b> the kinds of accidents that make up a majority of insurance claims (my guess is low-to-medium speed fender benders) may not represent a significant portion of incidents that end up in a flaming wreck.
All in all, I wouldn't say that Musk is clearly wrong here...He could be right, we just don't have enough information either way...so it feels slightly dirty -- a slap in the face of analytical thinking -- for him to cite these statistics as being anywhere near conclusive.
https://twitter.com/NeverAgainActn/status/116974370768966860...