These stats for NYC are heavily skewed, I don't see an easy link to the source data for neighborhoodscout, but I think their methodology is _very_ flawed for popular cities. They list the population of Manhattan as 1.6M, but there's probably closer to 3-4M people there during the average day.
That's people that live in Manhattan. That is not the day time (or night time) population of a large business and finance hub, commuter and tourist city.
I can't reply to your comment below, but that wasn't the point I was making. The stats are probably bad for both, and I don't think I trust anything that neighborhood scout is putting out for anywhere, was my point.
But to your suggestion, it _is_ measured by folks. It's called the Commuter Adjusted Day Time Population.
Sure but San francisco also have commuters and tourists. It is difficult to get those numbers vs residents. If you were to critique this statistic than you'd have to do the same for SF
SF has a very sizeable population commute out everyday though, or at least did pre-COVID. Commuter traffic was worse in the leaving SF direction when I was there. For NYC and especially Manhattan it's practically a joke to consider living there and commuting out everyday. So I'd guess average simultaneous foot traffic is way more underestimated for NYC than for SF.
In my brief time in SF the only tourists are on the Powell St team or at Fishermen's Wharf. It's really a contrast with many cities where the tourists tend to scatter more widely. The streets of San Francisco are really bare of people comparatively.
Even "Auto Pilot" is a poor name, given it's pretty much just the same suite of safety features offered by others (many of which are superior given they still have LIDAR and USS)
I wouldn't describe it as trivial. My Tesla would phantom brake consistently in a lot of spots - overpasses were a very big trigger.
Also anytime I'd pass an exit I wasn't taking in the right lane it would veer and slow down aggressively, same with trying to speed match a car rapidly accelerating on an on ramp.
Bottom line, there's absolutely nothing that isn't driver assist; everything requires a significant amount of vigilance when you aren't driving in a straight line, in the left lane, on an empty highway with no one entering and exiting.
The adaptive headlights can solve that by altering the projected shape in real time. It's neat to see what some of the EU cars do, I think they're standard on newer Teslas, and just require the right software in the US.
Just looked up the price of a headlight assembly for my Porsche Macan. $4K MSRP, ~$3.1 Street price. But it is pretty cool to see it adjust in real time when going around turns or up and down hills.
I can't help thinking repair parts should be (morally speaking) offered at a regulated cost+plus price. I really can't imagine that headlights are 5-10% of the value in a new car, and so this seems abusive.
I think I'd enjoy a world where the manufacturer needs to provide an accounting of new product value and justify the cost of replacement parts. The total cost of all parts of a complete product should not be more than 100% of the material value of the new car, as offered. And by material value, I mean a value less than the total sale price, after already subtracting logistics/labor value adds.
And, in my perfect world, I would mandate an open logistics chain. If Amazon can provide better worldwide logistics to deliver a genuine part from the OEM to me, then I should have that choice rather than being captive to some manufacturer/dealer network.
It doesn’t help that on a lot of Porsches from hot climates headlights’ protective coating deliminates/cracks. Repairs are in hundreds, but at least it’s a known and fixable problem. Still a pain considering how much these cars cost -_-
Apple comes in and innovates against something that existed but was user hostile.
It actually did happen to Apple over a long enough horizon, they cornered the paid digital music market by perfecting it, and upended it, and didn't innovate/upend again, and along came Spotify to upend it for them.
Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).
I did get it to load something once - it's not super clear. Based on the dates you enter, and the stock ticker, it'd be nice if it looked up the offering price.
I'm not actually sure how useful of a tool it really is... is it for convincing people who aren't maxing out their ESPP that they should?
It’s supposed to look up the stock price and display it under the price, but I’ll have to see why it’s not loading.
I actually use it to optimize for how much to contribute because when the stock falls you end up hitting the convoluted IRS limit, which degrades the effective return on the total amount of contributions.
Many plans I've participated in cap contributions well before the theoretical 25k limit. Current employer has a very interesting plan that leaves much of the limits up to you which is a double edged sword. If you can figure out how to model the limit, you can make informed decisions when the price falls but for the average employee it's complicated and can cap their contributions way too early.
To effectively figure out the 25k limit you need a history of prior contributions to know how much limit is left in each tax/calendar year.
The problem really lies in the way the IRS limit works. It limits the amount of shares you can purchase based on the FMV of the stock on the offering date. So if your stock goes down then you may well hit the limit and not realize it.
But you are correct, the 25k limit is based on all of the purchases made in the calendar year. And the $25k carryover complicates things as well.
Does your company not have a discount beyond the minimum price thing?
Because it's always worth contributing the max to ESPP no matter what happens, then selling as soon as possible, if you have that. None of the tax optimization stuff is worth it. It's just an option to get 15% more money in exchange for getting paid once every six months.
I disagree. We are all on the same team and I view them as team members. That doesn't mean I treat them any less important. Actually I view them as more important in some cases. But internal users may be more tolerant of bugs if it means they can get features faster. Our team is a lot more understanding and accommodating and want to work with you which is a very different relationship than a customer. But maybe that is because we have built up a lot of trust over the years. Really it's up to you and your team members to decide this. Like I said, no hard and fast rules.
But it's also a failure when being slow with tech due to fear of a few bugs can hold back the entire company. Some bugs are showstoppers (bring down the system type of things). Others are very inconsequential. It's up to us as engineers to figure out how to use that context to avoid the first type, but make informed decisions about the second type. To be honest in 15 years of working with my current teams we have never had a bring the system down type of bug. It just doesn't happen.
