Hey golergka, sorry to hear about Cody slowing down your VS Code. Would you be able to share more info about this? I haven't seen Cody users complain about this in the past, so trying to understand what the potential issue might have been.
Feel free to email me at ado.kukic@sourcegraph.com if you'd prefer.
Have you tried Cody (https://cody.dev)? Cody has a deep understanding of your codebase and generally does much better at code gen than just one-shotting GPT4 without context.
Companies typically use Carta to manage their cap table, shares, and overall ownership of the company.
This requires a high level of trust as there is a lot of financial information at stake.
Carta seems to be taking this confidential information and is potentially sharing it with other investors and soliciting investors to sell their shares.
None of those things have a material effect on anyone by JP Morgan.
The “service” Carta is selling here is your company to other people.
Given 99% of private companies have specific limitations on not being able to do this with a company’s securities, this almost certainly runs afoul of SEC, FINRA, and other fraud regulations.
I will admit that this is a relatively benign fraud for Tesla. There's no obvious victim, unlike when Tesla simply pocketed $250,000,000 of deposits for the Roadster or conned people into buying "robotaxis" which fully self drove themselves into oncoming traffic.
A 3d printing YouTuber I used to follow did just that. Justified the high cost of getting a model 3 that it will pay for itself in a year when the robotaxies feature is available.
I stop following him after that. I can't take his reviews seriously if he falls for that crap.
They are likely referring to Elon’s 2018 promise that people that bought Teslas could make money while they slept because people could rent their Tesla from an app and the car would return to the users driveway by the morning.
Hire cars (backed by credit card) don't seem to fare sooo bad.
Although I'd hate to argue the toss over any scratches i certainly didn't make, it must have been the last renter.
Legal minefield?
Sure but he didn't say it would happen for certain by a certain day. If he did, even then, it wouldn't be fraud, it would just be a company not living up to what they promised. Which is nothing new, nor is it fraud.
Fraud would be someone intentionally deceiving you, which in this case would be nearly impossible to prove, hence not fraud.
But he did say that [0] and he does intentionally deceive customes.
One of the key reasons why it doesn't constitute as fraud is his abundant use of "I'm confident that ____" (and similar) he uses when stating these ludicrous things. It is deceptive and it is amoral but legally it is not fraud since those are opinions and not stated as facts.
I think Elon says things fully expecting them to become true.
Whenever I hear him say "I'm confident that X will happen by Y", I mentally add "provided that every single engineer at [one of his companies] puts in 20 hour days for 2 years and manages to solve a mountain of problems that have never been solved before."
Sometimes it works, which unfortunately encourages the behavior.
A company not living up to what it promised when it is telling you to buy the product on the basis of that promise meets the first condition of fraud. It absolutely can be fraud.
The only question is whether the company or company representative making the claim knew what they were saying was untrue.
Based on stuff Elon said in the same presentation as being true as of the day he made the presentation actually being false, I suspect he was indeed aware that he was just lying, but it’s hard to prove in a court of law, and Tesla is a huge company with an extraordinarily active legal department, so it’s unlikely a customer would take him to court.
Oh great, so they were advertised a product description and the fine print waived the entire product description and tossed out every verbal promise. In what universe is that anything other than intentional, bad faith deception? If somebody sold you a cereal box and then only gave you a empty box, would you also go: "Aw shucks, I guess the seller did not intend to deceive me, it was my fault for not reading the fine print."
It is absurd to protect statements that are "technically true, but substantially false" that have been carefully crafted and focus grouped to intentionally imply something other than what they know to be the truth. Anything less than statements which are "substantially true" that have been intentionally crafted to avoid incorrect interpretations should be, and colloquially is, viewed as fraud.
It is utterly ridiculous that the richest person in the world and the largest car company in the world are held to the moral standards of a monkey's paw.
The money is fully refundable, and the people who signed up agreed to the terms. There is no fraud there. They can still get their money back if they are tired of waiting.
If you make someone sign a contract promising a product and you strongly indicate it will be delivered by a certain date, it’s still fraud if you know it won’t be delivered by that date even if the contract says that the date is just a suggestion.
I mean, that’s actually the very definition of fraud. Getting someone to sign a contract by deceiving them.
Of course, it’s hard to prove that someone knew that they were lying, which is why fraud is hard to prosecute. But it’s amazing seeing Tesla fans go out of their way to take bullets so Tesla doesn’t even suffer the social consequences their fraud should cause them for absolutely nothing.
So you've proven is not fraud. You would have to prove that they knew they couldn't deliver it by that date. And you can't do that with any available information.
Tipping has gotten absurd in the US. I am unironically waiting for the self-checkout machines at grocery stores to start demanding tips.
I still cave and end up tipping almost every time, since it's not the employees fault, but man - going to a frozen yogurt place, preparing everything myself, and having the checkout employee swing the tablet around for a tip always irks me.
I'm pretty sure that it has been the case in 99% of scenarios were consolidation always ended up in a shittier experience for the consumer and employees regardless of the promises the merging companies made.
My brief experience with Sprint a couple years before the T-Mobile merger had basically unusable coverage. Was genuinely surprised how far it had fallen.
And T-Mo inherited all that and is now the bottom feeder. It's just a matter of time before one of the other two merges with them to "increase customer value and create jobs".
T-Mobile acquired both Sprint and MetroPCS to increase their spectrum allocation. I literally travel all over the country and don’t have an issue with T-mobiles service
Right now I am in small town south GA and getting 120/40 on cellular.
Meanwhile I live in a city of 300k people about a mile away from the capitol building and I can't get cell access when on the incorrect side of the BK down the road.
Anecdotal: I've been quite happy with T-Mobile's coverage for many years now. At least where I'm at they have just as good, if not better, coverage than Verizon does.
I was quite happy with T-Mobile's service for the last 5 years, in that I had no signal at all at my house and my work phone was, conveniently, T-Mobile!
The universe enforced me being unreachable outside of work hours and I didn't mind that at all.
Probably not a surprising fact, but fun fact: Sprint tried buying t-mobile first and it was blocked by courts. It was quite surprising to hear it happening the other way around since I thought Sprint was always larger than T-Mobile.
But yes, the nextel merger and the bad gamble with wiMax definitely sunk them long term.
>In December 2013, multiple reports indicated that Sprint Corporation and its parent company SoftBank were working towards a deal to acquire a majority stake in T-Mobile US for at least US$20 billion...On August 4, 2014, Bloomberg reported that Sprint had abandoned its bid to acquire T-Mobile, considering the unlikelihood that such a deal would be approved by the U.S. government and its regulators
I guess saying it got blocked is subtly inaccurate, though. They simply stopped because they weren't confident in getting through antitrust.
> Sprint Corporation and its parent company SoftBank
Why am I not surprised to see that name. Is there anything that SoftBank touched that's not a complete failure? What the fuck have they been doing besides burning Saudi oil sheik money?
They're two very different games. Yes, they're both in and about space, but that's it when it comes to the similarities. Starfield is a story-driven RPG game, NMS is a different beast.
I don't see how. I haven't played Starfield yet, but from what I've read, all the planets are pretty much the same with a few textures and biomes swapped out and a few random encampments added. You can't even explore the entire planet, just whatever the game engine decides is a planet.
No Man's Sky already did the "trillions of planets" thing, and with that game you could seamlessly go from planet to planet, where in Starfield, it's all loading screens.
Seems like a paid, propped up article, to promote a mediocre game.
As someone who has 20 hours in it, this game is nothing like No Man’s Sky. It actually has a story, way more story on just three worlds than the entirety of NMS.
Absolutely, but the claim of the article is "Starfield’s 1,000 Planets May Be One Giant Leap for Game Design" which it's not, as parent points out.
You could say it's a step to combine the idea of "massive worlds with 1000s of planets" together with story and heavy RPG elements, but that's different.
I’m not sure I buy people’s surprise that it’s not 1000s of world filled with unique content. How exactly would that be done? LLMs? Not available when they started making this game. Anyone with even the most limited of game design and/or programming knowledge would know it’s going to be 10 really well fleshed out worlds and 1000 seed based procedurally generated worlds. And the procedural generated worlds are great for firefights and resource mining.
Why do you think people are surprised by the fact that the thousands of worlds are, in fact, quite same-y? I haven't heard or seen anyone actually be surprised by that. Seems like it's meeting everyone's incredibly toned-down expectations.
A lot of YouTubers are complaining about exactly that, that many of the thousands of worlds feel “same-y”. I don’t care, I’m having a great time with the game.
Yeah, Stanfield doesn't even guarantee consistency like NMS does. Already a couple screen shots around with different encampments for different players on the same terrain/landing site.
SF is also limited to short distance travel from the landing site.
How many people walk around a planet in NMS? Or even fly that much around a single planet? I usually just jump around to a few points of interest then I’m off to the next planet.
NMS provides continuity, and starfield does not. Very different experience. Clip-show of starfield ruins immersion a lot. As example, if you want to go from surface to space, in NMS you summon your ship, go inside, takeoff, fly. With starfield you just select destination, press X and you're there (even if destination is on other planet). At most you can teleport to your ship
You can't explore seamlessly, engine limitation (basically Morrowind engine with layers upon layers of new features/fixes/bugs). You can land on a different spot and continue exploring. Whole exploration aspect is clearly heavily inspired by No Man's Sky, done a bit differently. Some aspects are way worse, some a better. Besteda has much bigger team and it shows (doesn't mean its that good, just there are many things to do). No Man's Sky turned out (eventually) fantastic for such small team.
Yeah like maybe it was anti astroturfing, but I read that many people found themselves in the same exact buildings multiple times throughout the main quest and side quests… which is something Mass Effect did more than 10 years ago.
I cant think of why this article exists unless it’s an extremely naive reporter or an advertisement
Luke Stephenson reported this in his review, and if you are familiar with his work, he's very thorough and not particularly biased against Bethesda or these types of games.
The primary goal is to repurpose the content. Creating and editing videos takes up a lot of time. If you can create the video once, and get a blog post, promotional materials for it, and other content out of it automatically, it will help you reach a broader audience.
Is this good for a content creator? I know it sounds logical to spread your content, and maybe companies would enjoy this, but for "core creators" who drive a platform, I think focusing on one is better than focusing on all.
Out of the ~3,000 users we have so far, many would fall into the "core creators" category and are finding value. With Video Tap, our focus is allowing them to better focus on video creation, and easily getting other content out of the videos they create.
Feel free to email me at ado.kukic@sourcegraph.com if you'd prefer.