Bradsher described that portrait, comprised of marketing reports from the major automakers, as follows:
"Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."
So most importantly, how can we follow up and ensure the state works to capture/fine these locations? The article is paywalled, is it likely this will be actively followed up on?
Maybe all of us HN readers should write a note to Gov Newsom?
Yeah I don't think it is any faster or more stable than the actual Apple web client. They probably use the same API's. Plus lots of considerations that applies to any website. Is it available in multiple languages? How accessible is it? Does it work on older browsers? Also, digging around, the Apple web client seems pretty up to date. Isn't old software. I like the search feature though on this.
If we held the companies responsible for the security of their IoT devices, this wouldn't be necessary. Instead none are liable when our smart refrigerators get hacked.
Let's change that instead of pushing the cost on consumers.
Google getting 3 units, let alone 300, built in its home turf of Mountain View is quite the breakthrough. If it sounds silly to you, it's because you are not familiar with the soap opera that is the relationship between the city and its largest business.
Tell me about it. Google has wanted to do things like making road changes to improve traffic from the massive amount of people getting on and exiting 101 and Shoreline, and as I recall, MV basically said no.
Bloomberg News is subsidized by the terminal business. It's free and public so terminal users can send non-payers links. I guess if you want your news funded entirely by a small group of people in the financial sector, that's fine. But for those of us grateful for the work the Wall Street Journal did to uncover e.g. the Theranos scandal, paying for good journalism is the way to go.
This isn't an assessment of content quality, it's of a user's experience.
All Google needs to do is optimize for things like time on page, CTRs, etc to see users abandoning those with paywalls and not those without to decide one is a better experience overall than another.
Bloomberg.com is great at giving you rubbish quickly. The WSJ is better at giving you good information for a fee. Depends on what you want to optimize for, I suppose.
Are you really going to argue that Bloomberg, the one which is able to make Bloomberg Terminal[1] a good value proposition, is worse in terms of quality of information than the Washington Post?
> Are you really going to argue that Bloomberg, the one which is able to make Bloomberg Terminal[1] a good value proposition, is worse in terms of quality of information than the Washington Post?
No, because I don't read the Washington Post and I don't see why it's relevant.
But yes, I do claim that bloomberg.com is a poor source of news. Bloomberg.com is to the Bloomberg Terminal as the Amazon Fire Phone is to AWS. Sure, the same company makes both, but one is rubbish and the other is something professionals use all the time.
In my opinion, the best news sources I read regularly are ones I pay for directly, with content hidden behind a paywall. This kind of reporting and investigating costs money to produce and is worth paying money for (and not just advertising views).
This is a false dichotomy. Abandoning a website because of a paywall !== bad user experience. The UX can be fine, but the user may be poor. Many websites have restricted logins and perfectly acceptable UX.
"i'll do this but i don't want to be the only one." Seeing the scale can be motivating.
It would also be nice to know how this would work at scale. If 100k people sign up, can they support that?