ssmoot
Joined 17 years ago
Joined 17 years ago
Straight on collisions aren't even the toughest ones to pass. It's the small offset tests that really seem to give manufacturers a hard time. And no engine there.
The example I used is the case presented in the video. I just googled for Bob Weinkauf.
http://writingshares.com/cnn-anderson-cooper-medical-news-vi...
I was also curious when this happened. Looks likely to be under the ACA unless it took years to hit the news though.
So I don't know. Maybe he went to the emergency room and it was out of network under his plan, leaving him to shoulder the costs. I didn't dig much after skimming for an approximate date.
It looks like the ACA doesn't really do anything to change the picture for a $474,000 medical bill. The guy got charged $39 each for over 200 glucose checks. That's the price of a new meter for every check.
I'm genuinely curious what financial life lessons you think a middle class kid is learning that a poor kid doesn't understand at a much deeper level.
My own experience is that (some) middle class kids succeed despite their own failures (dropping college classes before the grade becomes part of record stands out in my mind), and then attribute their success to their superior work ethic and intellect.
If most poor people fail to move up the class ladder, then in their same situation you're just as likely to fail. It's either that, or believe yourself somehow innately superior. I can't really think of a third option. It's like the adage about being surrounded by assholes.
You're right. Life isn't fair. But that doesn't mean the person cleaning my house isn't entitled to financial stability. I'm not religious, but I can't think of a secular version of "but for the grace of God".
So yeah, there's a difference, but it's one of privilege.
Bad long-term financial decisions aren't exclusive to the poor.
You grew up poor. That doesn't mean your new middle-class peers had to learn the same lessons you did. They aren't middle class because they're smarter, more disciplined or have a better work ethic. They're middle class because they were born middle class.
Wanting to improve class mobility is one thing. Blaming the poor for not doing so on their own is another.
This is true of most Americans and is incredibly condescending. The poor are better with the money they do have than the middle class by a huge margin IME. The poor by and large don't blow their money on "fine dining" or new cars. They change their own oil. They don't spend over $100/month on cable TV packages. You can find exceptions to all those of course, but they prove the rule IME.
IMO this stuff is more important than any technical choice you could possibly make. And I happen to think some technical choices are pretty vitally important. But even so...
One of the (many) ways I failed as a manager was to not trust my gut. To want to enable my team, even when what I thought they were pitching was questionable. I'd hoped that some technology, or this particular team would prove my own previous experience wrong. That through the power of team work and ambition it would turn out differently this time, but most of all, I couldn't figure out how to present a convincing argument to the team why I was skeptical and I didn't want to leave it at "because I said so".
On reflection, a cure might've been to ask for further analysis, both rewards and risks, balanced against costs. But that often comes with it's own cost and what I really wanted to say was: "We're not doing this because the solution in hand is good enough and better at any non-trivial price doesn't serve our business interests."
Of course being a developer myself that's a difficult message to internalize.
I guess it comes down to: I'm still not sure how to handle this situation, but experience definitely needs to be weighed heavily IMO and if your processes (and management experience) are lacking in maturity a lack of leadership in preventing a less experienced team (though very technically skilled, enthusiastic and hard working!!!) from making bad decisions can be devastating as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, through my own mistakes managing teams, I think a lack of confidence and projected authority can be just as bad as any of the sins listed here, and is an important balance to consider on the flip-side of Arrogance.
That said, the rest of the list here is spot-on. The only nit I'd pick is Sloth. A description closer to my own experience might be one where the requirements are known, but not communicated thoroughly and clearly.
When a developer can say: "Show me where I was told this" and you can't respond with a URL to an Issue, instead relying on a months old email, Slack message that wasn't acknowledged, or no proof at all, then you have a big problem. Knowledge that isn't communicated, or analysis that's only half done, can mortally wound any project where the developers don't have the authority to decide the success parameters (time, budget or scope).
I'm just as annoyed at companies that don't bother with any kind of email confirmation click-through before sharing personal information though. I even frequently get one-click links to edit people's profiles with all their personal details.
If it includes a phone number I send them a polite text and ask them to be more careful when typing in their email address. I figure a little stranger danger fear might help motivate them to stop signing me up to be spammed.
OTOH I'm seriously considering leaving behind my many years old GMail at this point. I really only use it as an identity service for other site's logins 99% of the time. I just don't know what the options are and I don't feel like signing up for something that might not be around next year.
My experience with earlier versions was that you kinda had to piece it together yourself. Learning Play Framework was 10X easier for me since the docs were already there: https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/Home
So I think maybe you're just not considering non-Ruby options. Which is totally your prerogative. Just saying it's not my experience. It may be the best Ruby framework. But that's a different argument.
> What I really need when I'm starting a new project and I'm working on a shoestring budget, is speed. I need to build something fast so I can get funded.
Aside from syntax, I don't see any reason anyone would be faster with Rails. It's certainly not my experience. I worked with Ruby for 8 years. I've seen some very talented and very enthusiastic Rails developers. I've never seen one that could build an app faster than even an ASP.NET developer from years ago, and I certainly don't see any advantage over Play, which is generally more stable, much faster, projects generally have fewer dependencies.
The performance advantage of other platforms is underappreciated IMO. The fastest code is no code. If I can do something in Scala through brute that would be impractical to do within the request/response cycle in a Rails Action, that's a development speed advantage. If I never need to consider using some sort of background job service like Resque or message queue because I can just say `Future(someComplexOperation)`, that's a development speed advantage. If I don't need to tune my app or worry about my caching strategies because it's just that fast... You get the point I'm trying to make I'm sure.
Outside of performance, deployment (far simpler with Play), language syntax, and ActiveRecord (I'd just use the simpler, faster Lightbend Slick library) they're basically the same framework. Play doesn't chart much new territory. Sure WebSockets integration with Actors is lightyears ahead. But many won't ever touch it. There's some JSON stuff with validations that's very powerful, but embedding the equivalent of a JSON schema in your Action is verbose beyond trivial examples. I'm not sure how much use it gets.
I found Play much easier to learn than Rails (again, this was years ago) and much more consistent. Given the other advantages, all things being equal (familiar with both Scala and Ruby), it's tough to imagine many developers choosing Rails unless they were worried about externalities like building a team or something.
It'd be interesting to hear the thought process of such developers though if they're out there.
If you like what you're doing, more power to you. I picked up Ruby because I thought it showed promise as a good scripting language and web development tool (this was pre-Rails) at a time c# didn't really excel at either.
> You seem like quite the masochist
Maybe. DM was created to solve a problem. I didn't burn anything down. I just walked away. The best time to do the right thing is yesterday. The next best time is now.
After 8+ years, I realized I'd spent much of it trying to work around limitations in Ruby. It was just time to open myself up to the idea that there is more to programming than what I knew.
We were a pretty enthusiastic bunch back in the day. Glad to hear you're still pushing things forward.
That's just my layman's perspective, but take a look and see if you don't agree. The front readily collapses, but just past the center-point of the wheels (presumably about where the motor area starts) it's a brick wall and the whole 2+ ton vehicle just stops in it's tracks.
Compare that to Volvo crash tests, especially the Euro NCAP Small Offset. The front fender of the Volvo disintegrates, but then the wheel actually flys off and the front of the cabin even appears to absorb some energy. It looks like a much softer landing. The interior shots are even more impressive with less deformation and a lot more padding with a lot less slack in the airbags.
Taking a look at the XC90, it's probably no surprise then that it achieves significantly higher ratings, despite having a 4-cylinder ICE in the engine bay. (see http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/volvo/xc90/20976 and http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897)
I didn't run across any Model S tests where it looked like that long hood was actually doing much for it since it appears to hit some sort of impenetrably stiff wall halfway through. You can look at the crash test video during a Musk demonstration and see the same thing. There's some sort of structural member there in front of the motor that just doesn't seem to give way.
BTW, it actually appears the Honda Accord mentioned is slightly safer (except for pedestrians) despite the tested model being 5 years older.
The Model S is no doubt a very safe vehicle overall. But it's not the second coming, and Musk's talk of crumple zones appears to be more Marketing than Truth (and the ratings bear that out).
That "Tesla Model S breaks roof test" for example? Not the strongest. Not even at the time of testing. Here's the current generation XC90's results for example: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/volvo/xc90-4-door.... Over 10 tons. The previous generation was off about a ton. As far as I can figure out both figures are greater than the Model S's despite the fan-faire.