Irony? Filing taxes is a government-imposed obligation for many Americans. Accessing content from a private company is neither an obligation nor a right.
do you find benefit in dynamic cruise control in slow moving traffic. Now add the lane centering logic and you dont have to apply a lot of torque on the wheel either, because the system does adjustments for you.
So the benefit is strictly in slow-moving traffic?
And it's never occurred to me that steering wheel torque is an issue. And so many of these processes -- lane centering, not bumping into the car ahead of me -- are subconscious for me at this point, but I've been driving for decades.
May I ask how good is the technology that notices when someone is distracted and forces them to attend to the road?
As someone else here wrote: until I tried a good L2 system. ACC and LKA are pure value adds. Lower the number of moments where your focus snaps back in as you are meandering out of the lane or creeping up on the person in front of you.
You got the core facts wrong -- Tesla will, in fact, continue to patent their technology. They need to to protect themselves from others.
What Musk did say is, "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology."
Furthermore he said, "We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."
And given that this was posted 3.5 years ago, how about "announced" rather than "announces"?
I apologize. Misworded for sure, but a patent with no enforcement is hardly a patent in the business sense. They get the credit of invention, but not the financial reward.
Well there was evidence -- a vehicle that was registered to him was photographed as it was involved in a civil infraction. It wasn't conclusive evidence, much less proof. But it was evidence.
And although I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that probable cause is a relatively low standard to meet, much lower than preponderance of the evidence and certainly much lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
Ask yourself this -- if a witness saw a car (and noted its license plate) parked in a house's driveway during the time when a burglary was likely to have taken place, and the car was unknown to those who lived at that address, would a judge sign a search warrant on that vehicle and the registrant's address based on probable cause?
You haven't demonstrated convincingly that she is wrong. At best you've explained why ad blockers don't serve the short-term interests of those who consume the NYTimes. Your mistake is that you extrapolate that the short-term interests of consumers are aligned with their long-term interests.
I suggest you read Garrett Hardin's writings about The Tragedy of the Commons, so you can see how one's short-term and long-term interests are not always aligned and that finding mechanisms to curtail one's own and others' short-term interests might be in most's long-term interests. You might also be interested in Elinor Ostram's work on managing the commons, for which she won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
(Of course examples of short- and long-term interests not being aligned abound -- high tobacco use, high alcohol use, high-cholesterol diets, etc.)
I think the key question is whether NYTimes' readers' long-term interests are closely aligned with the NYTimes' long-term interests. I suspect they are (disclosure: I pay monthly for online access). Many of us believe the NYTimes produces quality content, primarily news reporting, that's expensive to produce. And we realize if we want to have long-term access to it, the NYTimes needs to generate income by various means, which can include subscriptions and advertising.
Furthermore, your use of the term "customer" for those who neither subscribe nor view the ads is problematic and defies the common definition of "customer".
Interesting points. One observation I'd make: The New York Times is not the Commons; it's not a shared public good like a public park. It's a business, owned by some people in particular who are responsible for it.
They do provide a public good, but so do GE, Hacker News, politicians, and a hot dog vendor. (I happen to particularly value the NY Times' goods.)
I was not claiming the NYTimes is a commons. Rather I was using the commons as an example of a) how one's short- and long-term interests are not always aligned, and b) how mechanisms that curtail one's own short-term interests can benefit one's long-term interests.
I wish they wouldn't have curved/smoothed the graphs. Since it's by year, there are discrete points and values. When you curve a line it has implications for the underlying data, which in this case are incorrect.
I originally didn't smooth the data, but it looked way too jagged and crappy for many of the names. Ultimately, I erred on the side of aesthetics and sacrificed the ability to look up exact numbers in the graph. Rest assured, though, if you want the exact numbers you can download the underlying data of every graph with one of the links under the graph.
