sjfidsfkds

How do you have anecdotal opinion on this o3 model that hasn’t been publicly released yet?

The trainers used by many people on Zwift (eg. the Wahoo Kickr) actually read out pretty accurate power numbers.

The classic Peloton is basically a mechanical device with sensors attached - and none of those sensors are a power meter. The power estimates are widely reported to be inaccurate (they exaggerate output to varying degrees). On the other hand, the Kickr precisely modulates resistance and is able to accurately estimate power. I believe the newer Peloton Bike+ has a better system that produces accurate power readings as well.

Of course, as long as the competitors are bringing their own hardware, there will be ways to fake the data. I’m just pointing out it’s possible to measure power accurately and hardware that does it is widely available.

Personally, I find power readings to be useful because they help me understand the effort of cycling in different conditions. I can compare the readings I get in my garage to those from the climb up a steep mountain road, or into a gust of wind. Measuring my training based on my power output has helped me to go have experiences that I couldn’t have before.

Sure, overall you’re going to have a better experience if you can just roll with whatever happens and enjoy it (true in life and cinema).

I think that at some level, when I’m consuming fiction, in the back of my head I’m learning the “rules” of that media. That creates a set of expectations about the boundaries of what can happen. Done well, a work can make a powerful impression by breaking the rules. That only works if the audience is aware of the rules in the first place.

A lot of movies go for verisimilitude. They’re trying to look and feel real, which can make the audience identify more with the characters. When you see a movie that does a lot of things right, it can be jarring when it gets something wrong. Suddenly you might be thinking - they could afford a hundred stylists, take over city streets to film, but they couldn’t get a plumber? It can take you out of the movie. The filmmaker doesn’t want to break the rules by accident.

The money faucet is search ads. If you aren’t an active user you aren’t clicking on search ads.

Cost per GB of hard disk has not dropped much in the past few years, the money has to come from somewhere.

My point is that only a fraction of user data collection is done for the purpose of ad targeting. So whether or not ad targeting should be banned for ethical reasons, such a ban is not a replacement for regulations of user data collection like those proposed in the article we are discussing here.

Measurement of conversions (ie. did somebody make a purchase after clicking the ad) is even more economically significant than targeting, and this is where ad publishers are most afraid of losing revenue due to privacy rules. The popular commentary on this subject is pretty detached from the business. The grandparent commenter’s “ban ad targeting” proposal manages to be both too extreme while also having little effect on data collection.

I live in a neighborhood with impacted parking that’s poorly served by the local government. People keep parking in front of my driveway and blocking me in. If I call the cops they ignore me. If I call the tow company they come and tow away the offending car. Is this bad?

Suppose someone decided my front yard is a good place to store their belongings and dropped a shed there. Should I be able to hire movers to dispose of the shed? Or the police should be my only recourse?

I share the feeling that towing companies can be abusive and that’s not right. I think a better response is to regulate the towing companies and provide remedies. For example, make abusive towing practices illegal with heavy penalties (eg. if they tow illegally, they owe you $1000 per day you lose access to your vehicle). If it’s unfair to tow a vehicle after two minutes, make that illegal.

If this were right, you could cure your obesity by mixing the right multivitamin into your food? It seems like if fixing some nutrient deficiency were all it took, we’d have figured it out ages ago.

I don’t get it. What makes it worth staying 1-2 years, but not 2-3 years? What happens at 2 years that makes you want to do the job before and not want to do it after?

If you never like your job I don’t think switching every 2 years helps. And if you are in it for the paycheck, 4 is usually optimal.

Personally, I found whether I’m having a good time depends on the team and the project. And usually one or the other changes periodically.

School shootings kill dozens of people per year in the US, it’s a similar magnitude risk as lightning strikes or train crashes.

Infant mortality in the US is more common and indicative of problems that affect a lot of people. Namely, inequality in access to high-quality prenatal health care, and obesity. If you’re coming to work as a software engineer in the US, you are going to get good health insurance for yourself in your family. Obesity is potentially more relevant - lots of wealthy professionals in the US are obese. Not sure how much this tends to affect people who immigrate from healthier countries.

I’ve encountered a bunch of people with that sort of background working that kind of job, it’s a real thing.

Inflation means there is too much demand in the economy compared to the supply (of goods and labor). Decreased retirement funds are one mechanism by which asset price reductions can lead to people consuming less and working more. More broadly there’s a wealth effect that determines how much people spend.

Sure Bluetooth will play the audio, but the app has a bunch of other controls: choosing an episode, skipping commercials, adjusting playback speed, etc. I’ve used that and it’s a big step backward to the 2000’s. I end up wanting to go on my phone while driving.