Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pishpash's commentslogin

On the interchange in question, they can always redo how the merge is designed in the same space. There is no excuse for that.

Please see:

> It's not a lack of knowledge by Caltrans or Santa Clara County's congestion management agency that is keeping that interchange as-is. Rather, it's the physical constraints of a nearby airport (so no room for flyovers), a nearby river (so probably no tunneling), and surrounding private landowners and train tracks.

The most recent budget estimate is $1bn for any changes to this interchange


$1B to avoid ending a lane before the intersection. Insane.

Why can't Gooapple suggest this today?

It seems that they could, but don't.

It does look much more like a revenue play. The data already exists, but not from the conglomorates and not as uniformly formatted.

Indeed why would you even need this or a poll? The crash statistics already exist. What's the purpose of a proxy predictor unless the label is something too low signal to detect but may become a big issue later. The only such case is a new road that recently opened.

>unless the label is something too low signal to predict

>Also, crashes are statistically rare events on arterial and local roads, so it can take years to accumulate sufficient data to establish a valid safety profile for a specific road segment.

That is exactly what this article is about.


Ok but where is the public Maps overlay for this? Is it available?

Waze has this, and it works off of the same underlying data IIRC. It pops up a "history of accidents" note.

i'd love to see a safety heatmap layer, but the legal hurdles are probably massive. the second google puts a high risk badge on a specific road segment they open themselves up to lawsuits from local businesses or property owners claiming the algorithm is nuking their traffic or property value. it's probably going to stay in the hands of traffic engineers and underwriters for a long time.

Google is offering this as part of the geospatial platform that they market to governments for huge $$$ so I don't think you are going to get it for free any time soon. Maybe limited access if you have an Earth Engine developer account?

There is no need for that. They only need to implement a closing auction like stock markets. But eBay hasn't done anything since the 1990's except raise fees.


> But eBay hasn't done anything since the 1990's except raise fees.

Meanwhile it's now 100% free to sell on eBay for non-professional sellers.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/fees-credits-invoices/fe...


They're playing stupid semantic games in order to claim there's no selling fees while still having selling fees. The fees were ostensibly shifted onto the buyer, except they're bundled into the sale price and cut from what the seller receives, so in effect nothing actually changed.

Before: Buyer pays £100, seller receives £100, seller later charged £5 fee, ends up with £95.

After: Buyer pays £100, eBay pockets £5 "buyer protection fee", seller receives £95 with "no fees".


Except you can price higher to include that cut, and the buyer protection fee is a lower percentage than the sales one was (between 7% and 2% VS I think 11%).


Only in the UK, and only on "private sellers". eBay is losing a lot of marketshare in the UK so they've taken drastic measures to try to get people listing again.


Makes sense. In the UK, their fees plus the encouraged (used to be mandatory as an option) Paypal payment option steals a very significant chunk of the purchase price from sellers.

In the last 5 years I've won multiple auctions for not-really-worth-shipping things like bikes, paid via Paypal, then had the buyers contact me to say the fees are too high, cancel the auction and deal separately in cash.

For anything that you're picking up in person anyway, very little reason to use ebay vs. FB marketplace.


> it's now 100% free to sell

Nice:

> You won't pay final value fees or regulatory operating fees

Of course, they will likely find some other way to extract their fees.

It would be nice, however, if the final value fee went away for US non-professional sellers.

There does seem to be no indication (at least on the page you linked) of how they define "private seller", which also opens up the possibility of them defining it so narrowly that, say, only five UK residents ever qualify.


Nothing? Don't forget when their security team sent pigs heads to people and terrorized them:)


I think I missed this…



Wow! That was a read that kept on escalating.


How do ticket scalpers make money? It's an automation war. You can run arbitrage strategies at scale if you can scrape markets with bots that understand unstructured data. Even if trades go wrong sometimes it can be profitable on average.


Auto bid raises the price to the second highest price among auto bidders, basically running an instant second-price auction. Sniping avoids running these pre-close auctions.


It does not. Even if you submit a snipe bid the normal eBay bidding rules apply.


Auto bid isn't the same as sniping. Sniping hides information about demand. Auto bid can't hide information as soon as there is another bidder.


Auto bid does not hide any information even with one bidder, as ebay indicates that "1 bid" has occurred.

The only way auto-bid could hide information is if eBay treated auto bid as "silent auction" style. Show "zero bids" all the way to the end, then once closed, see which 'auto-bid' came in highest and declare that bidder the winner.

Sniping is attempting to recreate 'silent auction' style bidding, with a bid system that is not 'silent'.


Scraping and buy for me bots cut out eBay. Sniping bots don't.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: