Say that I am building an app that leads to real world interaction, potentially with strangers. Clearly a real name policy is not a good way to make these interactions safer, but what would be a proper alternative? A reputation system? Any existing apps that do a good job with this?
Right now I’ve just surfaced links to user’s social profiles so that other users can verify if this is someone they may be able to trust
I wonder if this is a more difficult problem because the "good" ones are taken off the market, potentially forever. Follow the logic, does this leave emotionally irrational people to have a larger share of the reviews than normal? And then just like it takes only a couple of unreasonable bad Yelp reviews to unfairly damage a restaurant, I can imagine a couple of emotionally unhealthy people damage someone's future dating prospects by writing stuff that has more to do with themselves than their dating partners? Maybe you can account for this by reevaluating reputation by weighing scores from people who receive high scores higher than scores received from those with low scores? Gets really complicated really fast, no? Really curious how online dating companies attack these problems.
This problem is exaggerated on dating sites due to their nature of "good" users exiting the system, but it applies to pretty much all reputation systems since there's always something to be gained from unfair damages, whether that's emotional release or perhaps competition. And people are usually more motivated to post bad reviews (for whatever reason) than good.
I think if we don't bother with a total score the way many rating systems do and instead show the count of good/bad reviews and show the reviews side by side, it should represent the depth of those reviews and a reader can then try to determine from the review contents whether the good or bad reviews are more likely to be true. It takes a lot more effort to write a compelling negative review than it does to simply rate someone/something poorly.
okcupid doesn't take the time to remove the profiles of people actively trying to blackmail their users, so I'm not sure what all this 'trust' nonsense is about.
Yawn. Wake me when you can actually mine cryptocurrency using this
(Although if anyone wants to build something similar, the lovense toys are actually a pretty good choice. Just serial commands over Bluetooth as far as I know, so it’s super easy to hook them up to an Api or sensor)
"Is it possible to own a Space Invader? How do people acquire one of your works? -> [...] Finally, for people who wants a unique art piece, they can seek for an Alias, which is the exact replica of the unique work in the street. There is one and only Alias for any past or present works present in the streets. Every Alias comes with a signed certificate of authenticity. Art Collectors should contact Over The Influence for any available pieces."
Any advice if you really do want to produce a cheap, disposable product? I’ve seen a ton of postmortems about what not to do, but few write-ups on what to do
The value of bitcoin, as with other currencies, is the value people believe it holds. More concretely, this would be the value of goods or services you can exchange it for today, and/or the future value you believe the currency will hold.
Your argument reminds me of a classic eBay seller problem: you can price your rare collectables however you want, but if no one is buying, they are worthless
you are exactly right, but all the same criticisms apply to fiat.
the difference between fiat and bitcoin is that bitcoin cannot be arbitrarily manipulated by the state.
there is a fairly large, latent inflationary pressure on the dollar in the form of the national debt that has no credible prospect of reversing. the dollar has been a historical safe haven, but there is a reason that china is trying madly to diversify its foreign currency reserves.
I found that number surprising, although I also know very little about what it takes to manufacture things. Any idea what the employee breakdown looks like in terms of profession and area of focus (since they have solar city too)?
No more than 3k would be working on the assembly operations, and maybe a good deal less (based on knowledge of other automotive assembly operations).
That 3k would include line assembly workers, material delivery, quality inspectors as well as skilled trades like electricians, pipe fitters, tool and die makers (for stamping operations)
Another 1-2k assembly staff (IT, Quality Engineers, Controls Engineers, Material Coordinators).
Tesla does a lot of in-house component manufacturing, so that may be another 3-10k (I'm including gigafactory in this estimate, but I have no real clue here, as I don't know how much of this they actually do).
Then you have people like automotive designers, engineers, and buyers, no real clue here, but almost certainly less than 2k.
Then you have corporate functions: accountants, hr, IT, other back office, another 500?
Then you have the sales side - not sure how they structure this, but they have a lot of show rooms with a good number of people working them - another 1k?
3 + 2 + 10 + 2 + .5 + 1 = 18,500
They're doing a lot of plant construction and equipment installation; generally in the industry most or all of that is outsourced, but Tesla seems to prefer strong vertical integration, so maybe those are straight Tesla employees as well.
1k seems pretty low for sales staff if we really are including the showrooms. I'm counting ~100-110 showrooms listed on Tesla's website, so that would amount to 10 people per showroom. Doable, I guess, but still low.
Are janitorial/maintenance staff considered to be employees in this count? Or are they contracted out?
Wondering what the ratio is between Tesla HQ functions, Tesla Manufacturing, Tesla charging infrastructure servicing, Solar City HQ, and Solar City installation/maintenance/servicing.
IMO there are some extremely questionable design decisions in 11. Some of these are just ugly (like the super bold date on the calendar icon) or wasteful of space (like the headers), but others hide useful info or decrease discoverability (like requiring force touch for normal flows).
I’ve only been using it for half a day but right now the details feel sloppy and the bigger picture UX feels poorly thought out.
Stimulants can be pretty dangerous TBH. I don’t think class a drugs should just go on sale, but I don’t think people should be locked up for them. Baby steps.
The problem is that for a lot of these drugs the greatest harm comes from the lack quality control and regulation of sale.
Not just because it results in drugs getting cut with all kinds of shit, and people being sold the wrong thing (e.g. selling heavily cut fentanyl instead of heroin), but also because of a the race to find alternatives that slip through cracks.
A great deal of modern drugs only exists to circumvent the law, either because they're not covered for a while, or because they can more easily be produced. E.g. a number of "synthetic cannabinoids" have been manufactured, and so far indications are that at least some of them have health effects that are far worse than anything possible to tie to actual cannabis.
Without decriminalising and regulating manufacture and sale, there will still be an incentive for dealers to sell drugs like that which nobody particularly want, and that increases harm, instead of selling clean versions of the safest drugs.
E.g. for opiates, many of them are "close enough" in terms of effect that there is a lot of potential harm reduction benefit just in getting the more dangerous variants off the market by legalizing and regulating the safest ones. Unlike blanket bans that has a hope of working.
Yes but even the pure, quality drugs like adderall, which is really amphetamine can be dangerous.
For opiates, especially people injecting, it is very inportant to get clean drugs, and actually opiates are not particularly harmful to the body if used correctly. They also don’t really present a threat to society if given the drug. Holland has provided addicts with heroin with great success, as a form of treatment.
They can be, but so can a lot of drugs sold at the grocery store. E.g. paracetamol/acetaminophen is one of the largest causes of liver damage in the UK. One of the big shifts there has been to restrict size of packaging and require pharmacists to exercise care (some will explicitly verbally warn you about the risk).
Ultimately I think that we'd in many respects do a lot better if it was possible for someone who wants to use things like Adderall for recreational use to go to their doctor and ask for advice and appropriate monitoring and know they won't be refused, than having people randomly taking it without getting proper advice.
But I also think another large potential benefit would be for doctors to be able to steer those who insist on using drugs to safer analogs were possible.
I'd argued that heavy regulation has been just as important. For example, how many other products besides cigarettes have to carry a warning over half of their packaging?
Also taxation. Ideally the taxes should make people understand the true cost of their purchase. (I know this is not usually how cigarette tax is actually determined)
All used deliberate scarcity, a large number of product editions, and rapid product cycles to create a collectors market and ultimately create the impression of value. It is also debatable in each case how organic the growth in desirability of each has been, and how much of this has been engineered by the companies themselves
Right now I’ve just surfaced links to user’s social profiles so that other users can verify if this is someone they may be able to trust