In London, Citymapper shows the cost of each trip which can be very useful as there are often many routes that might take a similar amount of time but cost different (eg. sometimes you can take skip zone 1 for a few extra minutes or understand why you're paying extra when taking a train instead of tube in South London). It also recommends the best exit to take quite accurately for train/tube stations.
Citymapper is also much quicker to incorporate changed schedules and excludes delayed / cancelled trains from results within minutes of the changes being announced.
For altered schedules, Google is not only slower to react but also just posts a generic link to the TfL website - and you then have to parse the TfL notice yourself to understand which stations / bus stops are closed etc. The routes suggested by Google also still include cancelled trains / buses - it's your job to double check by visiting the TfL / train operator's websites.
Not sure how Tesla or even Twitter is exposed to India for Musk wanting to please the Indian government.
As big as India is, it keeps being considered as the ‘next billion’ revenue generators for tech companies - but not sure when that day will actually arrive.
Teslas aren’t for sale in India, not that many will be afford it (besides the few virtue signaling billionaires / millionaires who might buy it after acquiring their dream Ferrari or whatever). Nor does India contribute to the supply chain AFAIK.
Pretty sure Indians don’t contribute to significant % of ad or subscription revenue for Twitter or other tech companies either (compared to USA or Europe - outliers being websites like Quora) given the low purchasing power. I recall New York and London together making more $$$ in a day for Uber than the whole of India
So not sure why tech companies are afraid of taking on India, especially Musk. Or maybe just doing what the India govt wants instead of fighting is another way of signaling that they don’t care what happens in India anymore
Bonnie's Plants and others sell them as "Thai Hot Chilies" the colloqueal name for this particular subspecies varies wildly by region. I've also seen "thai pepper". Generally referring to long thin, thin-walled peppers full of seeds. I've never (personally) seen "birds-eye chilie" used in the wild.
The reply by the Chromium engineer (from Google? - I'm not sure) to a long thread of people from several companies quantifying the benefits of JPEG XL and requesting that it be supported is just sad:
> Thank you everyone for your comments and feedback regarding JPEG XL. We will be removing the JPEG XL code and flag from Chromium for the following reasons:
> - Experimental flags and code should not remain indefinitely
> - There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL
> - The new image format does not bring sufficient increm
ental benefits over > existing formats to warrant enabling it by default
> - By removing the flag and the code in M110, it reduces the maintenance burden and allows us to focus on improving existing formats in Chrome
---
If I were to put on my tinfoil hat, I would imagine the people involved here are desperate to put 'Removed unused code and removed maintenance burden by X%' in there performance reviews for this year
LEDs of a couple of watts do emit a noticeable amount of heat.
Being titanium doesn’t mean anything - here the heat has to go somewhere eventually. Either out of the front of the eye where it’s “uninsulated” or it’ll get hot enough internally that the body will get warm.
This is a pretty confident answer, but I think you miss the point of the titanium. It can act as a heat battery and slowly let it dissipate all around vs a focused point of heat.
Titanium has much less thermal mass than the same volume of water. Water is 4.2 J/g/K and 1 g/cc, thus 4.2 J/cc/K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium is 25.060 J/mol/K, 4.506 g/cc, and 47.867 g/mol, so 0.5235 J/g/K and 2.359 J/cc/K.
I think water is also a better thermal insulator if you can keep it from convecting, and a better heat spreader (to eliminate "a focused point of heat", which I agree is a problem) if you do let it convect. But that's the opposite of titanium being a good heat shield.
Thanks for commenting. I'm a layman here so providing hard numbers helps me wrap my head around the comparison. I think you're saying that water is roughly double a better thermal insulator? I wonder if the man could devise a water layer around what generates the heat in order to reduce the chance for burning his body?
He probably has to weigh the chance for water to mix with the components vs a simple titanium hunk of metal. I guess that's what materials engineers are for?
No, I didn't provide numbers on thermal conductivity, just specific heat, though it is now unfashionable to call it that.
Yes, putting some water inside the titanium would increase the thermal mass of the overall assemblage, and I don't know of anything that would work better than water for this. This would reduce the temperature to which the eye-socket tissue is heated by intermittent but high-intensity LED usage, reducing the risk of burns, because it smooths it out over time. If the LED is not at the top of the eye, or if the eye rotates, liquid water would also help to smooth it out over space.
However, to minimize the temperature to which the eye-socket tissue is heated, it would also be beneficial to interpose thermal insulation between the tissue and the heat source, such as a thick layer of teflon around the outside of the eyeball (or saline-solution-soaked teflon foam). This will slow heat transfer from the hot eyeball to the eye-socket tissue, giving blood flow more time to convect away the waste heat and thus producing a lower temperature in the sensitive tissue.
I think the more important issue here is that he's using low enough power with a low enough duty cycle that it isn't much of a problem.
> I think the more important issue here is that he's using low enough power with a low enough duty cycle that it isn't much of a problem.
Yeah, I think debating whether water or titanium is a more effective heat battery ignores the fact that titanium is obviously good enough, and there are plenty of reasons he might have preferred to construct the thing out of titanium, such as the fact that it looks cool.
Because titanium is opaque, solid titanium looks the same as a thin shell of titanium on top of another material. Because water is liquid at body temperature, it isn't a suitable material to replace titanium for the outer shell; it would just splurt out of your eye socket.
> Because titanium is opaque, solid titanium looks the same as a thin shell of titanium on top of another material.
I obviously haven’t done the math and don’t have access to the data that would allow me to, but I suspect that for this application, you’d have to have an extremely compelling reason to complicate design and manufacturing with such an approach.
Most people would consider not burning their eye socket and possibly brain an extremely compelling reason. Heating an entire 7-cc titanium ball from 37° to the 44° necessary to start causing burn damage would take about 30 joules: 500 mW for a minute, for example. If the heat source is close to the surface of the eyeball (on the inside) you would need less energy because only a part of the eyeball is reaching burning temperatures, maybe as little as a joule. If the ball is almost entirely full of water and properly insulated, you could probably handle hundreds of joules before it started to burn you through the teflon or whatever. A hundred joules is a 3.7 volt Li-ion battery with 7.5 milliamp hours of capacity, so this is a practical amount of energy to put inside your eye socket.
Well sure it's a confident answer - that's just how physics works. You generate heat in an enclosed area, it's going to leak out. The hotter it gets inside, the faster it's going to dissipate through the material containing it.
The question is how hot will it get for some amount of LED on-time.
But it kind of misses the point. The titanium does do something. It slows down the heat dissipation to an unnoticeable level according to the creator.
The comment was confident and correct, but not accounting for the whole picture. Couple that with a level of snarkiness, and it's a classic internet comment that makes the internet worse IMHO.
I'm always reminded of that comment on hackernews that shits on dropbox when it was launched. It was correct and of course dropbox was "trivial" to copy using a couple of commands, but it misses the point.
Being titanium means it acts as a heat spreader and a buffer that can absorb and dissipate the small bursts of heat you might expect from brief flashlight use. Rather than the LED touching one spot in your eye socket (which would probably be a noticeable amount of heat even if not uncomfortable), the heat is spread over the entire titanium body.
Given the size of the battery I’d assume you could only pump out “max power” for a short time anyway. If that titanium does act as a buffer, things might be good.
Honestly the heat thing was the first I thought of too. It would nice if the dude goes into more detail about it because I’m sure it is one of the top questions asked.
Yes, I know, but I don't think the chip is the reason for the cracking. I think it may be tolerances in the case.
Maybe they also started using a different, more brittle glass, with this generation. Maybe the stress has always been there, but didn't cause cracks, with the last type of glass.
You missed the point. Nobody’s saying chip is the culprit—“M1” in this context refers to the Macbook series powered by the eponymous chip. Which means those Macbooks are only a few years old at most, yet there are 49 pages of user reports that their screens are prone to cracking for no reason.
From what I understood, the former Google employee being interviewed here is discussing the problem of not being allowed to discuss 'caste discrimination in India', eg. during Uttar Pradesh elections - and in companies like Cisco.
They seem to focus on this blanket ban against discussing this issue at Google, as the discriminatory act - rather than alleging that actual caste discrimination is being perpetrated at Google (for the most part).
They do however seem to point to two examples of rumoured alleged casteism at Google (I think):
"I think the Cisco case is probably the most publicly known example—is that, within a team, when you’ve got people who are caste privileged and caste oppressed, the people who are caste oppressed start to be given inferior assignments, get treated differently, left out of meetings, which are certainly things that I heard from Google employees within the company. "
"Asking things like “What’s your last name? I’m not familiar with it.” Then, when the manager hears that last name, they’re, like, “Oh, so you’re from this caste—no wonder you have these leadership skills.” Things like that. And somebody else in the room is, like, “What the hell?” It’s those different types of experiences that I’ve seen or that have been shared with me that show that caste discrimination is happening in the workplace.
By the tone of the article/employee I'm confused whether the employee is discussing hearsay based on examples of how discrimination could be occuring at Google - based on what they read about stuff at Cisco or elsewhere (perhaps with the intention of explaining why such issues could be relevant to discuss at Google) - or if they actually met Google employees facing these issues.
I wonder if the journalist themselves are trying to intentionally conflate the issues of 1) actual caste discrimination possibly taking place and 2) not being allowed to talk about casteism
Either way censoring internal talks about employee grievances/ possible workplace discrimination/discrimination outside the workplace (which one was the talk going to be about!?) is not a good look on Google - given that they've always tried to paint an image a company that lets its employees openly discuss anything for the most part.
You forgot the most important statement from which is clear casteism is a rising problem:
>"T.G.: There was my own obvious background. My parents immigrated from India in the early nineteen-eighties. I was certainly familiar with the topic. In September, 2021, two employees approached me. I hosted D.E.I. office hours every week where people could come in and talk about these topics, confidentially, and multiple Google employees came into my office and reported that they had faced discrimination when trying to talk about matters of caste in the workplace. There was already a public condemnation of caste discrimination at Google from the Alphabet workers’ union. They had put out a press statement when the Cisco case broke. There were reports from at least twenty Google employees as well. [In June, 2020, California sued Cisco and two of its managers for engaging in caste discrimination. Afterward, Equality Labs received complaints from more than two hundred and fifty tech workers, including twenty Google employees.]"
>reported that they had faced discrimination when trying to talk about matters of caste in the workplace
Your quote doesn't say that casteism is a rising problem. It only says some people allegedly got pushback for talking about matters of caste. It's possible they were talking about caste politics in India or whatever, and got reprimanded for bring up non-work related controversial issues.
> They seem to focus on this blanket ban against discussing this issue at Google, as the discriminatory act - rather than alleging that actual caste discrimination is being perpetrated at Google
Seems weird to me that a ban on talking about discrimination wouldn't automatically be seen as being discriminatory rather than somehow the reverse.
This the first I've heard of this and I assumed there must be more to it. After some Googling I'm shocked that someone can be sentenced in the UK for a mildly offensive tweet (IMO) that went viral before it was deleted in 20 minutes.
I'd guess that a manual review for the automatically detected out-of-policy transaction wouldn't be prioritized if it's been flagged as a transaction outside the seller's line of business that they mentioned in their agreement with Stripe when onboarding.
I kind of agree - I don't see why manually reviewing a transaction that probably violates their agreement with Stripe should be prioritized by Stripe - even if the transaction would eventually emerge as legit (not fraudulent and not chargeback-able). Because such a manual review would entail a cost to Stripe that is being forced upon Stripe by the seller's actions.
I'm not questioning the idea that the transaction was outside the sellers normal line of business (and tbf to Stripe, would imo be a valid reason to be extra careful with the transaction and may be justifcation for account termination, even if account termination seems a bit harsh for a first time "offensive" imo, but hey, thats ToS for you), just the idea that "used car seems extremely likely to cause a chargeback" thats all.
Citymapper is also much quicker to incorporate changed schedules and excludes delayed / cancelled trains from results within minutes of the changes being announced.
For altered schedules, Google is not only slower to react but also just posts a generic link to the TfL website - and you then have to parse the TfL notice yourself to understand which stations / bus stops are closed etc. The routes suggested by Google also still include cancelled trains / buses - it's your job to double check by visiting the TfL / train operator's websites.