> Google, Amazon Robotics/Kiva, Hyundai/Boston Dynamics, even Nvidia are ahead of Tesla in AI+robotics.
Optimus seems to be much closer to actually being released as a product than Atlas. After over a decade, Boston Dynamics still hasn't shown anyone a live, unscripted demo of Atlas as far as I can tell (Tesla was showing those with multiple Optimus robots a year ago). And they don't appear to have any plans for actually selling it as a product anytime soon.
I'm skeptical of the humanoid robot market in general, but at the moment Tesla and Unitree appear to be the two companies ate the forefront of it.
This is a non-sequitur. The Optimus demonstrations so far have been partially controlled (though the degree to which they were appears to be overstated). This doesn't change the fact that they've done public demonstrations with the robots while Boston Dynamics hasn't.
This isn't true at all? Robots can be controlled externally, either fully or partially. ASIMO didn't stop being a robot because it was under external control for demonstrations (from what I can tell, much more external control than the Tesla robots).
The Tesla stock evaluation has little to do with what Tesla is delivering today and a lot more with what investors imagine they will be able to do in the future.
Based on their history I'm pretty optimistic that those expectations will not be met, but Tesla somehow still rises in value.
Yes. A lot of people, and obviously some "news" reporters, need to learn the difference between market share and stock price. And that as a market grows one company cannot maintain the same market share as competitors join in over time.
"Tesla is on track toward a second year of sales decline." - from the article
Consecutive years of sales declines is a situation where it does not matter if the market is growing or shrinking, it's bad for a company. The only way to grow if absolute sales go down is to raise margins on each individual unit.
"But with weakening sales and a host of competitors, Tesla has had to cut prices in recent years, squeezing its margins and worrying investors."
Hmmmm, I guess maybe the author of the article understands this better than you think?
I would say the smartphone market would be more stable in terms of market share by its nature. The only way that it would shift significantly is if there were a mass exodus of users from one platform to the other. But the vast majority of people are perfectly happy staying with whatever they have. Likewise, many new smartphone users who aren't locked into a platform yet get locked into whatever platform people around them are using.
In the vehicle market, there's a lot more competition space than just two or three brands. And just because someone is around, say, Ford drivers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and buy a Ford for themselves. Rather, they're going to buy whatever they find appealing.
Taken to the extreme for example, say Apple had 100% of the market. If a competitor entered the market and gained 1% share,then Apple's market share will have decreased.
In Tesla's case, a number of competitors have entered the market. It would be impossible to maintain whatever market share they had no matter how good the product is or how well their stock price is doing.
I moved from Canada to California for a new job with a mid six figure salary.
I had a very difficult time finding a place to rent as I had no credit score. Only places that were available without credit score was a room to share. That was not an option with a cat, wife and kids.
Finally, I found a place that was willing to accept the entire year's rent up front. Moving such a large amount of money from Canada to US had its own set of hurdles.
Once that was sorted out, I had to deal with yet more craziness to buy a vehicle. I decided to buy a CPO Mazda from the dealer in cash (using a cheque, of course). Once I signed all the papers, they ran a credit check on my newly created SSN. The system could not find my SSN. So, they denied letting me buy the car because they couldn't accept such a large amount from a person they could not verify. My passport and Canadian driver's license were not acceptable proof of ID for the dealer.
On the flip side, my long history with Amex in Canada was ported over. So, they quickly set me up with very high limit credit cards.
We already live in social credit but I fear the ones maintained by companies might be better for the consumer.
This exact same story pretty much happened to me when I moved to Canada about 15 years ago. I wasn't able to get a credit card for years, and couldn't rent an apartment without a guarantor, despite the fact that I was full-time employed in the tech industry, had zero debt, plenty of savings etc.
What I took from the experience (especially after going through various iterations of it in several other countries) is that most communities are biased against migrants/newcomers. Egalitarianism would be nice, but in practice nepotism and chauvinism are encoded in policy.
Maybe this is why Europe is so popular with migrants? I've lived in four European countries and never had anything like that. To rent a place you just need to pay 1 or 2 months deposit up front. I've never heard of anyone being denied to buy a car with cash (but we don't use cheques... the payment is either successful or not - it doesn't need to clear).
Loans are a different story, it varies a lot - but in my country for example, after working 6 months in a full-time job you can get a mortgage without issues. All they care about is how much you are earning, and that you don't have any other debts so that you couldn't afford the repayments.
IIRC some countries, like UK, have a similar thing like Credit Score, mostly used for what type of loans they can give you, max credit card limits, and other financial products, but won't affect at all to buy a car in cash or renting an apartment.
For me it's crazy not being able to rent a place even paying a whole year beforehand.
It’s not a bias against immigrants, it’s a bias against the unknown.
I’ve had an identical experience as an 19 year old college dropout trying to rent an apartment and buy a car with no established credit history. It at least 5 years to qualify for my first unsecured card with $1,000 credit on a 6-figure salary. I could not qualify for any vehicle, not even a used cheap Honda Civic with my lack of history, and I had to play the Craigslist rental game for years as well.
There's a small difference... at 19, you truly didn't have a credit history. A middle-aged immigrant from Canada likely has a credit history, but for some reason, it's not portable across arbitrary boundaries. Canada-US is a pretty solid example... We're neighbors, we both have stable economies, modern banking, etc. From a consumer's perspective, there's no good reason a credit history shouldn't carry across that border.
> for some reason, it's not portable across arbitrary boundaries
The reason being that you can't be held accountable across borders. I may have good credit in Canada, but my German landlord can't sue me there if I fall behind on rent.
Your credit score IS maintained by companies! Their whole business is maintaining American credit scores. I really have no idea what their business model is.
Yes, the only role of the government was to issue an SSN which has been explicitly said shouldn't be used in such a manner[1].
It is a real pet peeve of mine that people take such hard stands on issues like this when it's so easy to check what's actually happening first. This thread isn't the most egregious example, but it is an example of someone just imagining a system with a big flaw and then suggesting a solution to the problem they made up.
Near instantaneous credit checks is their business model, and they operate worldwide.
Their business replies on collecting and storing vast troves of data that influence your credit score.
Were the likes of Experian and Equifax taken out of the credit system, you would see a massive credit crunch as every business that relies on them would have to manually verify anyone's credit score (which could introduce a whole new set of biases) or forego that completely.
Interestingly, when it comes to business credit checks, i.e. Financial viability and director background checks and history - this is something an LLM could very easily find red flags from publicly accessible data before forking out money for a full report.
The credit score provided by someone like Equifax is just a number - cheap and quickly requested via an API. And yes, bureaus don't have operations in every country - but my point was that credit scores don't just exist in the US.
Take the Netherlands, they don't use scores; rather you would request a report that details any known factors that influence creditworthiness.
The difference is:
- the score is a simple weighting (0-1000) that is systematically calculated by the bureau.
- Without a score provided, you have to make a judgment yourself on that individual's creditworthiness from their report.
>Once that was sorted out, I had to deal with yet more craziness to buy a vehicle. I decided to buy a CPO Mazda from the dealer in cash (using a cheque, of course). Once I signed all the papers, they ran a credit check on my newly created SSN. The system could not find my SSN. So, they denied letting me buy the car because they couldn't accept such a large amount from a person they could not verify. My passport and Canadian driver's license were not acceptable proof of ID for the dealer.
Go to another dealer, I have bought cars with a personal check without having a credit check at all. I think that's a really unusual policy.
It's more complicated than that. If the transaction is over $10,000 it needs to be reported to the IRS. Dealers are often involved on the financing side directly, and their systems are just set up to require a Social Security number to put anything into the system. So because of the financing, some of these "know your customer" rules apply, and they automatically get applied to everyone as universal policy -- employees aren't allowed to use judgement to make personal exceptions. And physical IDs can be forged, whereas the existence of a Social Security number in a database can't be.
SSN's aren't perfect, you can still commit identity fraud. But high value financial transactions get safer the more you can verify about someone.
No, It's absolutely not. Like i said, I've bought multiple cars with personal checks, all over $10,000, never gave SSN or had credit check. Unless it's some sort of local law, it's a ridiculous policy. Find another dealer.
>Dealers are often involved on the financing side directly, and their systems are just set up to require a Social Security number to put anything into the system.
This seems totally made up and doesn't match my experience at all.
I'm not defending it, just explaining it. Different dealerships will have different tolerances for risk, including allowing employees to bypass standardized requirements. I'm not making anything up, just explaining what's most likely going on with this particular dealership, and how it's not unusual.
If your dealership is letting you drive off with a vehicle with a personal check (not even a cashier's) and without any kind of credit check or database identity verification, that's actually pretty wild. I assume you know the owner or salesperson personally. Otherwise, you could be a rando passing them a forged check, and then they'll be out both cash and car. I don't know many businesses willing to take that $10K+ risk.
What is more common in many European countries is a check of a national debt register, to see if you're a known bad debtor. This is distinct from a credit check, because it's not something you need to build up; just something you need to avoid. Someone fresh into the country won't have a problem here.
I moved to Switzerland and all I needed was a clean debt register entry and my employer contract.
Not sure in Germany, but my country borders it and I rented an apartment several times with no credit history. It also never took more than a few hours to sort everything out (make an appointment, decide if I like the place, exchange my personal info, make a second apointment to sign a contract). No credit score in sight.
What? They don't check your credit score where I live (west-eu). They check your pay slip to see how much you make monthly and if it your rent is less than half your paycheck they can decide to let you rent. After that is a two or three month downpayment that is locked in a seperate bank account specifically for this use and is released at the end of the lease. If there is no damage to the rental unit you get back your full amount, depending on what damage is found, the downpayment is used to fix that.
In the UK they’ll do background checks, and check your salary. They’d ask for six months rent in advance if it wasn’t illegal. And even though it is illegal.
In my experience, in the UK, the rental agency required 12 months rent in advance (plus another 2 months rent as deposit) when I was self-employed. They would have accepted monthly rent if I had 5x the annual rent in cash savings, but I didn't.
And then every year after that they required another 12 months rent up front, when it came to the annual tenancy renewal. Track record of paying the rent wasn't good enough to prove that I could keep paying the rent.
What? They are in no way entitled to see your pay slip, or know how much you make. Whether or not you can pay rent is entirely your problem (North EU).
You have a deposit, typically three months rent, that's typically enough to indicate whether or not you're able to pay rent.
They absolutely do in Germany and Austria. Renting is almost impossible without pay slips from LOCAL employers. Pay slips from your previous EU country don't count. So relocating is a huge bitch.
>Whether or not you can pay rent is entirely your problem (North EU).
It immediately becomes the landlord's problem here when they're legally not allowed to evict you once you stop paying rent. So they're trying to be 110% sure you're the ideal tenant who always pays on time. Especially since for many private landlords the rent you pay them is also their mortgage payment to the bank.
>You have a deposit, typically three months rent, that's typically enough to indicate whether or not you're able to pay rent.
Deposits don't mean you're able to keep paying rent since that deposit might be borrowed money or from illicit activities. Landlords want to see stable employment (well known employer, that you're past probation period, etc), not that you have a lot of random money in your pocket when you sign the contract.
I don't support this status quo, but it is what it is because it's a sellers' market and governments don't want to change that.
Denmark. To be fair I haven't rented an apartment in 15 years. My understanding is that the rule still are: If you don't pay, you get a 14 day warning, if you don't pay within those 14 days, your lease can be terminated the next day. Assuming that you then refuse to move, the landlord can have the bailiff (not sure if that's the right word) kick you out.
> Not really. Try to rent an apartment in Germany (any EU country really).
Been a while for me but afaik nothing has changed: if you lived and worked here before, then a couple of your last salary statements are sufficient (bar the problem of actually finding anything and being accepted, but that is besides the point).
So I am definitely not loving or defending this, but afaik compared to needing years of time to build your credit score in a "smart" way (and by hearsay I would probably mess it up, "just be employed for 3 months" sounds very easy to do?
> bar the problem of actually finding anything and being accepted, but that is besides the point
It isn't besides the point at all. It being a seller's market means landlords can and do ask for whatever paperwork they want which often enough includes a SCHUFA report. You can choose to not provide it but they can also choose to rent to someone else who does.
I also moved from Canada to California for a new job with lowish six figure salary.
My experience is almost the opposite of yours though. I moved at the end of 2018. I had to put 2 months deposit for rent instead of 1 because I had no credit, but it was otherwise easy. Transferring lots of money over the border is and continues to be a pain but is doable. I think I used OFX for that, my work gives me a bit of a discount.
I also bought a Mazda. New, not pre-owned. For whatever reason, I think it was extra easy for me to secure financing. The guy at the dealership knew precisely what to do, and could answer the credit questions on his own (you know those weird questions they ask like did you have a credit card in 2015, what was your address in 2014, blah blah). Of course the answer was "no" to everything because I had just arrived and had no history. He got me a better deal than the credit union I was with was offering. Did everything on the spot. I think I got 2.9% APR. Maybe not the best, I see ads for 0 to 0.9% sometimes but I didn't really care because I was going to pay it off quick, but that's not the point -- I got financed with zero credit history in the US. I also put $10k on my brand new US credit card which had 6 months 0% interest. I'm sure they wanted me to rack up a bill and then charge me a fortune on interest but I knew I could (and did) pay it in time.
Other places have been a mixed bag. Credit union took me in no problem. In fact, they were camped outside my work which is how they scooped me up. They know we're all high income earners, so smart move on their part.
Meanwhile, Amazon declined to give me a credit card. Citi only give me $5k credit card and would only raise it $1k or $2k/year, meanwhile Capital One gave me $30k.
Also got financing for some couches one time (Synchrony) and then denied another time. I think Synchrony actually checked my Canadian credit history, but only because the guy at Mancini's knew how to do it properly. At the other furniture store, I think they were n00bs and couldn't relay the information correctly.
Weird.
I guess this is what happens when you sometimes have humans in the loop and sometimes not. If any of them just looked at my salary and my employer or poked around a bit, they'd surely know I could pay some $$$.
> But would you want the NRA to control the social credit system regulating a firearm purchase?
I prefer that to Chase controlling it: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/00019768782300... (the link details an instance in which Chase was alleged to have debanked a bipartisan, multireligious charity headed by a former U.S. governor, senator and ambassador). The NRA would probably let me buy the gun, after all!
If you read the comment, you’d notice that there were no loans involved whatsoever.
If you can’t rent or buy a car without a credit score, you should only be allowed to buy a gun until you have proven that you’re a trusted member of the society.
That's not social credit, that's just credit and it's been around a very long time worldwide. For as long as money has been a thing, people don't let strangers or delinquents borrow it!
Social credit would be like if the government didn't let people lend to you for being a commie or trans. Social credit is not something you can just sort out on the phone.
Amex in general is quite good with this sort of stuff.
Requested a personal card with no credit score and that somehow went through fine despite friends in similar circumstances getting rejected. Best guess is because I had a company issued Amex already they could use that as history
he was vocal about his opposition to intrusive ads in particular. he'd say "You’re either the customer or you’re the product." he believed users paid a premium for apple products and that they should not be subjected to compromises with advertising.
iAd was something that happened right at the end of his life because devs were putting ads in apple apps anyway and he wanted to control how that was done.
this is meant to add context to what bluedevilzn said, btw. it is not a refutation.
Jobs disliked anything where Apple wasn't getting a cut. Flash games and Google ads being two of the biggest offenders in his eyes.
He also "hated" the small tablets Samsung were making, saying in a keynote that you'd have to file your finger down to use it. He said this knowing full well Apple were launching the iPad Mini in 12 months' time.
I really hope one day Jobs' marketer-speak soundbites stop being repeated like like biblical pronouncements. The App Store, Apple News, Stocks and other properties are filled with hideous Google-like ads today, and Jobs likely wouldn't bat an eye, because they brought in money.
I think Jobs recognised that ads are intrusions into people’s lives. The advertiser has a responsibility to respect the audience. They don’t have a natural right to that attention, and have to earn it.
Thats why the F1 wallet add is such a bad move. It’s disrespectful and intrusive.
iAD was supposed to be about innovative, informative, well designed high quality adverts. It never really worked out though.
Yeah, “Jobs hated ads” is a such a wild rewriting of the history of one of industry’s greatest marketers and, yes, ad men. (1984 commercial. Mac vs PC.)
> And all that with wages well below even the local market in our crumbling Third World economy. With no exciting research positions nor self-managed time nor compensation, what was the advantage over a high-paying job at Microsoft or IBM?
Which confused me, as someone from Belo Horizonte who started uni just around that time. As far as I knew, Google was generally known one of the highest paying companies by far back then. It's benefits were unmatched because the SV-style of office with all the perks were not commonplace in the region, and employee turnover was low to non-existent. Even getting an interview if you didn't have a masters or phd was pretty difficult if not impossible(without connections).
This entire blog post is so poorly written that I was confused as well. They mention Brazil, but they also mention Arizona. And for some reason the person who asked them about gay lingo wasn't Brazilian so were they in the US? It was a very tough read.
> Today, for us Latinx to even briefly step in the USA, if we don't have an always-on handheld device with spyware “social media”, its absence is taken as proof of criminality. I will never visit Arizona again
This part is talking about VISITING ARIZONA. As in, they are not from nor do they live in Arizona.
> One day one of the AdSense people asked me for a little meeting. They sat right by my desk, all sleek and confident, and said that they had heard I was a Gaygler™ and were wondering if I could help with one of their clients. “Can you tell me some words that the Brazilian gay community uses? like slang, popular media you like, names of parties, that kind of thing?”
Nowhere does it say that they're not Brazilian. Is this because they asked for Brazilian gay slang specifically? I assume they just wanted to be specific, to get terms used in Brazil. If I ask someone to name some Canadian foods, that doesn't mean I'm not Canadian.
I'm not in love with this article or anything but I am baffled by the number of people on this website, who I assume have rudimentary reading comprehension, getting confused by the fact that a different location is mentioned, even though the article opens by specifying exactly where and when it's set.
English is not everybody's first language. And, fwiw, I like to think that I'm as fluent in English as I am in my native language but still the article threw me off too (even while I otherwise liked it).
Notably, it doesn't start with something like "I'm from Belo Horizonte, Brazil, and worked at the local Google branch back in 2007" or something like that. Instead, it says this:
> let us go back in time and space, and journey to tropical Brazil in the distant time of 2007…
I mean if you're from Brazil, this is kinda weird no? Who describes their home country as a tropical place to "journey" towards? It reads like the start of a small anecdotal flashback, and not like the setting of the entire story. It took me many paragraphs to figure out that actually Arizona was the trip, and Brazil was the home base, and not the other way around. I did figure it out in the end, but I can understand why people might be thrown off.
I didn't defend that claim, I agree that it's ridiculous.
I was responding to this accusation, which I think is also ridiculous:
> I am baffled by the number of people on this website, who I assume have rudimentary reading comprehension, getting confused [..]
It's hard to admit publicly that you're confused by something. It's easy to call people who do so idiots, "ha! i did understand it so you must be stupid!". You didn't use those kinds of words but you did imply it and I didn't think it was good style.
And yes, if I was telling someone a story, I might say "cast your mind to the snowy wastes of Canada..." as a fairly standard rhetorical flourish for someone who doesn't think of their country as the default location.
The biggest mistake tech companies have done over the past 2 decades is not spending enough money lobbying. Every other industry manages to stay under the radar by continuing to pay both sides. Tech industry never got involved in politics so they were easy targets for politicians on minor issues.
I mean given that they are in tech, the biggest mistake was being located in a city or state. I can understand that they have to deal with the US government (any company anywhere in the world have to deal with it) but they don't have to deal with San Francisco/California. They choose that position and they don't deserve sympathy for being passive about it.
Except paying more for a service doesn’t guarantee better service. I have hired local handymen at $75 per hour and they have been equally bad with fake reviews.
