> This article is an exercise in narrative nonsense.
I don't think the article intended to be taken entirely seriously.
It's narrative nonsense, but I would argue that it's entertaining narrative nonsense.
I think it also serves a larger point, not about "optimizing trip speeds" but about putting into easily-digestible context exactly how dangerous driving a car can be.
There was nothing to suggest that it is not listed in the video... You may not comment without watching things, but it is clear you comment without reading things.
Actually, I went back to read it again just to make sure I didn't say that there was no listing of the data in the video. When I first read your comment you had me thinking I had said that, but nope, it wasn't there.
Maybe someone else said it? Did you accidentally hit the wrong reply button?
I've never seen his show cover any single topic where I have a lot of knowledge where I thought they did even a passable job at conveying facts. It is after all a "comedy" show.
Most criticism of homeschooling boils down to soft bigotry against religious minorities, and hippies.
John Oliver is a comedian, clearly someone with an agenda, that sends his children to very expensive schools where the issues that many children face while at school don't exist, and that doesn't mention any data other than anecdotal evidence to support his particular views.
Are you sure? I assume younger teachers are the ones with younger kids starting school. I don't think paychecks for new starters and teacher assistants are that high. Unions usually care about employees with more years of service to the detriment of new employees.
Starting CPS salary is exactly where the average for the area is, but CPS also gets a huge amount of PTO, a good benefits package, and a defined benefit pension plan, and comp improves reasonably rapidly and (importantly) predictably. Rural teachers have it rough, but most of what you hear about teachers being underpaid doesn't apply so much to major blue city school systems.
> "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
Headline states 'mass exodus', article names three known companies that never actually moved to Austin, then three unknown companies with no context of those companies' workforce or products.
> Headline states 'mass exodus', article names three known companies that never actually moved to Austin (...)
I'm not sure which article you read, but the one linked to in this discussion mentions:
* VMWare laying off 577 employees in Austin,
* startup founders, like Techstars Managing Director Amos Schwartzfarb, announcing their decisions to leave Austin,
* Meta dropping plans to move to Austin,
* Google freezing plans to move to Austin, in spite of already paying rent.
* TikTok not establishing plans to move to Austin in spite of already leasing office space,
* Don Ward, the CEO of Laundris, announced he would be relocating his company to Tulsa,
* Cart announced it was moving its headquarters out of Austin back to Houston, after spending little over 2 years.
The article is solid journalism. It's a summary of individual news pieces which is tied together by observations from leaders of established companies over their decisions and economic forecasts.
Most of this article is paid promotional bullshit, but it shouldn't be a surprise that billions of dollars being thrown at a short term pandemic surge would be an unwise investment.
Ghost kitchens are still a great idea, just not one that will support nonsensical WeWork hype and money.
These consultants have a sweet gig going on. They just interview everyone at the company, write down what the employees say needs to be fixed, then they put it in a report to upper management as expert recommendations.
It sucks that we're all this bad at communicating. The amount of harm and wasted effort/time is already maddening if there wasn't such a tragically high human cost to it.
It wasn't worth $44B when he bought it, so I'm not sure why the NY Times would even use that number in any way. If I pay someone $100,000 for a stick they found on the side of the road, it doesn't make that stick worth $100k.
I doubt Twitter was worth $19B even before Musk overpaid for it. It was a 15 year old company that couldn't make money.
A stick that someone paid $100k for is absolutely a stick worth $100k - what people are willing to pay for things is how we assign them value. Twitter's stock was trading at ~$45/share before any rumors of acquisition - so somewhere around $35B - they'd made roughly $1B in net income in the year prior to the buyout. This meme about them "not making money" is so silly. Aside from a one-time settlement in 2020, Twitter had a very stable and fairly profitable business - hence why Elon had to pay $44 Billion to buy the company from the existing shareholders.
>twitters stock was trading for $45 a charge before any rumor of acquisition
What is this, alternate reality land? It was trading for $16 (albeit this was a low point) a share when Musk started his pump and dump scheme, which rocketed the value to 45 a share, which is the point that Musk decided he doesn’t want it and also began proceedings to dump stock.
There were ATH in the $45 range, but TWTR was on a clear downward trend.
You should maybe look at a stock chart instead of making silly, easily disprovable statements from memory like "ATH in the $45 range"? It nearly reached $80 in 2021... It spent several months above $60/share.
I don't have quick access to share prices older than Jan 1st 2019 - but from that date through the date of Elon's first share purchase on Jan 31st, 2022 - Twitter's average price was was $44/share.
I only went back enough to look at the Musk nonsense. So I guess I should have worded “the highs in the several months leading up to twitter were around $45, but twitter tanked and was still trending down at $16 when musk started attempting to manipulate the market”.
We aren’t talking about when musk first purchased shares. We’re talking about when twitter was trading at $16 when musk attempted to then manipulate the stock market by stating he’d buy twitter, which shot twitter back up.
You could make that argument except this is a stick someone said he’d pay $100k for to get attention, then the courts forced him follow through. Slightly different.
More like someone wrote a contract to buy a stick for $100k, took multiple steps including hiring bankers to raise financing to buy the stick for $100k, threatened to sue the seller of the stick if they didn't sell it to him for $100k and then eventually tried to back out..
> It wasn't worth $44B when he bought it, so I'm not sure why the NY Times would even use that number in any way. If I pay someone $100,000 for a stick they found on the side of the road, it doesn't make that stick worth $100k.
This is almost exactly how accounting works. Whenever they want to decide how much something is worth the answer is the most someone else would pay for it.
Doesn't make it less insane, especially in the presence of idiots with huge sums of money.
When you bought that $5 lotto ticket, it was worth $5. After the lotto is drawn, it's either worth approximately nothing or potentially a lot more than $5.
When this story came out a couple of months ago, I didn't really understand how this would go undetected for any amount of extended time. One driver keeps having hundreds of dollars in cancelled orders and there's no tracking of it?
Every single driver at the airport repeatedly cancels over and over if the fare is less than 100$ - clearly there is no tracking going on of anything at Uber.
Recently I had one driver claim he picked me up then ended the ride immediately, claimed the full fare and it was a massive shitfight to prove to Uber that it was fraudulent.
Why don’t you just use American Express? If I have a merchant dispute and they don’t fix it after 1-2 emails. I just charge it back by calling AMEX. It works fantastically well.
More than likely, yes. Chargebacks work way better for goods than it does for services. The online store you bought goods from might ban you if you initiate a chargeback, but usually with stores it's not that big of a deal, there's an alternative store to go to anyway.
Why would you want to continue doing business with a company who put you through a “massive shitfight” over money owed to you? I would charge back and never do business with them again.
I’ve had enough deliveries where the person making the drop off isn’t the person on the app (wrong gender often) to think there’s a pretty heavy trade or even loaning of accounts enough so that these guys may have had a large stable of courier accounts to work from.
I’d not be surprised to find a healthy gray market of people “renting” their courier account out.
Anecdotally, and perhaps unfairly, in my head I have attributed this to be couriers who may have trouble finding legal work due to residency issues. I have not had a problem with it.
Sometimes there are teams of two doing deliveries. It seems much more efficient, because the driver doesn’t have to actually park, and I also wonder if they can get more orders by having two accounts open at once.
Yeah, I've come across this plenty of times. When it is food delivery I don't really care, but sometimes a totally different car than shown on the app will pull up to give you a ride and expect you to get in. No thanks, that's a cancellation from me.
Sometimes the companies notice the scams but let them continue until the amount gets big enough for the authorities to take them seriously. Similar to how stores will let repeat shoplifters keep stealing until the total amount has crossed the threshold for the state to prosecute them, and only then report it.
large companies have departments. communication between departments about discrepancies can be slow, allowing fraud to fly under the radar for quite some time.
