I would imagine most folks at YCombinator would aspire to make similar mis-steps then, with >2m pre-orders and a 5 year waitlist. Yes, it was only $100 deposit and ultimate demand has yet to be tested, but it looks pretty promising.
The difference with Rivian and the F-150 is that Tesla have figured out how to actually make a good margin on their vehicles.
Tesla has committed to making 100,000 Cybertrucks a year at this point. It's like they know the vast majority of that 2m+ people that pre-ordered it are not going to be buying it once they find out the actual details. When that pre-order site was up Tesla was promising 300+ miles of range on a charge for $50,000, which would be an incredible deal for a vehicle the size of the Cybertruck. When the reality comes out later this week and it's going to be more like 270 miles of range for $65,000 (which is around what people are predicting) the vast majority of the pre-orders are going to vaporize (fully refundable by the way).
> Tesla have figured out how to actually make a good margin on their vehicles.
It's too early to make a sensible comparison. Tesla lost money in large quantities very consistently for 14 years, until ~3 years after the Model 3 launch. Neither Ford nor Rivian are as far along yet.
"Rivian is shipping. Infinitely better than something that's not."
Even if they're losing $33k per vehicle? (See 2Q23 shareholder letter). Note this does not include R&D, CAPEX or SG&A. Was it infinitely better for WeWork to ship something than not?
"will be an important failure to rein in Musk's fantastical thinking"
Why would it fail when there are >2m pre-orders and a a 5 year waitlist?
Those pre-orders are based on fictional pricing and fictional delivery date. I don't doubt that they'll sell all 180k cybertrucks they expect to make in the next 18 months (novelty factor goes a long way with people who have gobs of discretionary income), but I'd be willing to bet a lot of the "2 million" preorders are people who, like me, simply haven't canceled theirs yet but will when it's time to shell out whatever crazy price is announced for a truck that doesn't meet the promised specs.
The difference is that the smallpox vaccine is close to providing sterilizing immunity, unlike the Covid 'vaccines'. In fact there is a lot of data to suggest now that the number of vaccine doses a person has is correlated to an increased risk of catching covid (and therefore spreading it).
Statistics agencies have to massage the raw data very significantly in their models to make it look like vaccinated individuals catch covid less often than unvaccinated people.
Vaccines can be prophylactic, or therapeutic (to fight a disease that has already occurred, which also includes some cancer treatments). Only some vaccines offer full sterilising immunity.
I had the same experience as the guy in this BMJ article in terms of trouble filing a report. The process was extremely cumbersome and had to be lodged through my physician. The physician had no idea what paperwork was required or how to fill it out once I found it for him. I don't know whether the report was actually registered in the national database.
My mother-in-law was bedridden for days after each booster (without filing a VAERS report) until her doctor eventually said she maybe shouldn't take any more (god forbid she risk her practicing license by uttering the heresy that the vaccine may not be 100% safe).
A better measure of the prevalence of adverse events are the randomized phone surveys done by countries like Israel. They called 2000 people after their second dose, and magically 4% of men and 7% of women experienced chest pain soon afterwards. What a coincidence!
I had the AstraZeneca vaccine and I was very sick for a week (I couldn't get out of bed and had 39+ Celsius fever) and for a month it was hard for me to walk to the nearby grocery store. The Pfizer vaccine, the second for me, was only slightly better.
Half a year after the vaccines, I had irregular heart beats, at one point more than thousand a day. It's a horrible experience, because even when I had only tens of irregular heart beats a day, I could feel most of them. Now imagine that a thousand times a day, especially knowing that cardiovascular issues are a common side effect.
And I still didn't report anything (Germany) as I don't believe anyone would come out of it. Not to be too cynical, but the Russia-Ukraine war "cured" COVID in Europe, so apart from staying alive and not taking anymore vaccines myself, I didn't care about the issue as I was no longer forced to take further "vaccines" to be a free man.
In the end, there are arguments both for these systems under reporting (cases like mine and many variations of it) and over reporting (in a comment someone mentioned that people maliciously report things or just in general people noticing small things and reporting that as side effect), and it's hard to come up with a sound estimation as to which one is the reality.
Brutal, sorry to hear that. Hope you're feeling better!
I personally don't believe the suggestion of over-reporting is an issue at all. I recall reading that in the VAERS back end they can see which entries are made by individuals vs a doctor or doctor's office, so this could be easily verified.
I also recall reading that the majority of entries made in VAERS are by medical professionals but I can't locate the source for that.
Patients can self report without the provider being involved. You might not have some info like lot numbers, but you can still submit. It was a bit of an ordeal to submit, although I've heard it got easier after they made updates during covid (not sure if that's true).
I'm in Canada. I used the term VAERS, but I meant the Canadian equivalent reporting system. In Canada self-reporting isn't permitted - it has to go through a doctor. Then you're subject to doctor's biases as well. In my case, with first onset of chest pain a couple of days after the second dose, his bias led him to hypothesize that it could have been from a latent Covid infection (with zero covid symptoms). That theory was squashed when I caught Covid a few weeks later.
An American friend of mine in his mid thirties developed cardiac issues after 3 doses of Moderna, but his doctors doggedly attribute it to his mild COVID case (and he is of course happy to believe that rather than that the damage may have been self-inflicted).
Would a peer reviewed study in the European Journal of Heart Failure finding 1 in 35 people suffered heart damage after a Moderna booster shot change his mind?
That's a major problem. Anything that could possibly be caused by the vaccine, or has an unknown cause, should be reported. You want the raw data without the biases of doctors guessing if something is related or not. Then the data scientists and researchers can clean the data.
Indeed. The extreme version would be to collect data about "all problems, period", and compare the rates of "people who got the vaccine in the last N weeks" against a control group. Like looking at "excess deaths" to estimate the deaths caused by COVID. Picking the right control group might be tricky, though...
Yeah, I looked at doing some analysis for a vaccine related injury. There aren't really any control groups for the mandatory vaccines. The best you can do is try to time box it like you're talking about. Even using groups that may not vaccinate (certain religious sects usually) may have issues with the sampling not being random due to genetics and demographics in those communities.
I wanted to do the time boxing like you suggest, but access to anonymous records with that level of detail and with a sufficient size is not easy to come by (as a lay person for free at least).
You might be surprised. I've heard a doctor I know personally who is so pro vaccine that they have stated they are absolutely safe (not generally safe) and they wish they could secretly give the vaccine (specifically covid) to kids who's parents decline.
Have you tried prompting them differently? People are a bit like chatGPT and anchor weirdly.
My reason for phrasing the earlier comment that way, and also my guess for that doctors thought process, is that asking the relative risks per million of a saline injection and only when you get that answer following up by asking if any other injection is safer, would get you there, unless they were currently thinking about all the antivax conspiracies, and there's still a chance that just asking about saline injection would cause that thought process directly.
Only in the parallel reality where the SS was famous for trying to prevent a transmissible illness. Given our reality is one where the SS were racist paramilitaries that industrialised homicide, you seem to be regurgitating from the "everyone I disagree with is literally hitler" school of rhetoric.
There was no "trying to prevent a transmissible illness" once the CDC's Provincetown study made it clear in late July 2021 that the vaccines didn't prevent transmission. After that point, it was purely enforcing a purity ritual and loyalty test on people, and was even couched in those terms: "we're not accepting the refusal of this undertested therapeutic from those anti-social anti-vaxxers!"
Tell me you don't know how vaccines work without telling me you don't know how vaccines work.
Preventing transmission is a nice to have, not a must have. Less serious symptoms (which can include, but are absolutely not limited to, death, not for Covid not for anything else) are the requirement for them to be useful.
Comments like yours are why I wrote the other day:
"I think people expect cancer cures to be as effective as vaccines really are, while also expecting vaccines (and antibiotics) to be as effective as a Potion of Cure Disease in Skyrim."
What was the justification for firing people from their jobs or excluding them from public accommodations for not taking a non-sterilizing vaccine?
The USA Today article you link is just a lot of the usual verbal gymnastics that was rolled out at the time: they still work against severe outcomes, sure lots of vaccinated people are getting infected but you have to use Bayesian analysis and compare against the proportion of the base population that was vaccinated, no vaccine is 100% effective so let's pretend these ones are just as good as the ones that are 99% effective, etc.
> "When people are vaccinated, they're not going to get infected"
> "There is no variant that escapes the protection of our vaccines"
I googled these two then stopped, because you know what results I see? Conspiracy theorists quoting each other. I don't actually see a single reference to any source material to verify the original statements.
> "Emergency uses of the vaccine have not been approved or licensed by US FDA but have been authorized to prevent COVID-19 in ages 5+." - Pfizer Inc.
This I can believe (it's close enough to the docs I can find even though it's not actually a quotation from any of them), but I have no idea why you think this quote is supposed to support your point.
Unless you have the overall incidence of self-reported chest pain or that of those who didn’t get the vaccine in the same period, those aren’t particularly meaningful numbers.
2000 people is a pretty good sample size. It is true though that I'm hazarding a guess that the background rate of chest pain in any given timeframe is slightly lower than ~5%.
Sounds like they have something pretty powerful swamping out that band.
Even though the ISM (2.4 GHz) band is unlicensed, there are still regulatory limits to the maximum emission levels. Devices that exceed those levels are illegal to use. The FCC can apply hefty fines in certain cases.
Fun story, I used to live in an apartment building and my car key fob wouldn't work when I parked close to the building. It would work on the other side of the parking lot though. Turns out someone was using a jammer because they hated the noise that cars make when they lock and unlock. They tried to blame a nearby military base, but I had some RF test gear and located the culprit. They turned it off pretty quick when I showed that they could be fined $10k per day.
Can you recommend gear for this? I also have a major interference issue on my street and I'd like to locate maybe vendors by MAC or some information about what's causing spectrum issues.
You're right. The rule of thumb for EMC engineers is to bond joints at no further than wavelength/10 where the wavelength corresponds to the highest frequency that you wish to maintain good shielding effectiveness. Some MIL projects use wavelength/100.
We hire on Freelancer sites quite a bit and have noticed that about 50%-80% of applicants now very obviously use ChatGPT or equivalent to apply. Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for.
They are currently very easy to spot and the applications go directly into the trash, so the freelancers aren't doing themselves any favors using them.
> Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for.
That's crazy to me. Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct? That in the end is a disservice to yourself and to your potential employer, not to mention the pressure it puts on job seekers to push the envelope on embellishment.
What I am on the fence about in my own resume is including a skillset that yes I have done but maybe a couple years in the past. Right or wrong I have decided to keep them on their knowing full well that it might create a bit of a challenge for me during the interview process.
> Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct?
Tragedy of the commons and negative externalities. If you're applying for a ton of jobs, then lying on your resume comes with potential upsides (you could get a job that you normally wouldn't) with very little personal downside (employers don't really have a way to share which applicants falsified resume data).
Sure, doing this raises the noise level and makes it harder for people who don't lie on their resumes (tragedy of the commons), but from an individual perspective, that's a negative externality that they don't have to care about.
Because it works... They get the job and the person who wasnt captain of the football, tennis, rowing, lacrose, bowling, sailing, cheerleading, chess and debate teams all at the same time is just some unemployable loser.
The real question is why managers and recruiters fall for it - the obvious answer is that they got where they got by inflating their CV and simply assume everyone does it too.
> That's crazy to me. Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct?
I have dealt with my fair share of resume embellishments. I _will ask_ questions about anything that you put in your resume. Anything at all. It's fair game. That's part of my sanity check. Better have a pretty decent answer as to why something is in the resume relatively recently and you can't even give me an overview of what it was (I assume people forget details and it's fine).
However, have you ever seen 'proxy interviews'? In those cases, it's not just a case of 'embellishments', the candidate interviewing has zero experience and the resume is not even his. Had this experience a few months ago.
Another experiment - have a friend update your resume while you take those shots, and then see if you can really object to the results the next day. ;)
It’s definitely helped spread it. But honestly, these situations are nothing new. Back in the dot-com crash I remember it all being the same. Even entry level school computer labs were requiring CS PhD’s! And women, well, same.
Er, we had the internet during the dot-com crash. And before it, even.
As I recall, things were not quite so bad in the 1980s. I vaguely recall seeing the odd newspaper article about the intense interest in a job, because it attracted maybe 500 applications. That was newsworthy.
It used to be you had to physically show up, or mail in a form to apply. That tends to put the brakes on mass applications pretty effectively.
It’s less the internet, and more folks using the internet/apps for processes that used to require in person physical presence. Which has been getting more and more common.
I think it depends a bit on where you are in life.
I remember exaggerating a bit when applying for my first job. I was fresh out of university and really needed that job. I spent the following 2 years miserable, I just didn't fit in that well.
Nowadays I'm brutally honest with my application and the following interviews. I see it as me choosing where to work rather than the other way around. If they pick my application then I more or less know that I will fit in rather well. It has served me well over the years.
I can understand people being desperate and in need of that first job or having to start over due to different reasons though...
> I can understand people being desperate and in need of that first job
Desperate people do desperate and unpredictable things though. Case in point:
> I remember exaggerating a bit when applying for my first job. [...] I spent the following 2 years miserable, I just didn't fit in that well.
Every now and then I have to investigate employees who seem to spontaneously lose their shit-- aside from one with an alcoholic spouse, so far every single one of them were just in over their head. They don't return calls, cozy up to security and ask questions about monitoring tools, check into mental hospitals, suddenly have internet connection issues all the time, lose or destroy their equipment repeatedly, etc. One would hop onto the IT support Slack channel and see what widespread issue was currently impacting others, then claim it was happening to her (and do the same with general/social, to see when people were getting sick and with what).
I wouldn't say it rises to the level of malingering, but it's clear they're desperately stalling, and it just creates a vortex that sucks them and everyone around them into. Contractual obligations stop being met because they become an entire sideshow and won't surrender. My fear is that one might eventually resort to sabotage; the closest we've come was a nonperformer trying to leverage workplace violence allegations against an executive.
> Nowadays I'm brutally honest with my application and the following interviews.
This is the way to do it. When you weave a web of lies, you have to maintain all those threads. Pathological liars are always anxious. Honesty makes for a much easier life.
> Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct?
If their current income is $0 and the income from a successful ruse is minimum several weeks of several thousands of dollars, and the cost per throw is around a dime…
I mean, big corpos for years have been automating the hiring process to the detriment of their own results. Is it really that surprising applicants are ready to do the same? Now suddenly automation is bad? Hiring managers being butt-hurt that their automated factory farm application process is being inundated with spam generated by other automation is so hilarious to me, this just made my day.
You get what you fuckin deserve. If you can't be arsed to review applications with people, why should people be arsed to apply in person?
It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification.
ChatGPT just consumes each of the job requirements, and then makes a story about how the applicant has had significant experience in all of those areas. I would prefer not to hire people who lie about their experience to get a job.
> It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification.
Who cares? The specifications half the time include experience that's impossible to achieve because the people writing them either are also in turn using automated software and/or because they have no idea what they're hiring for.
I once applied to a job that had recommended experience in applied sitting algorithms. I asked the recruiter WTF sitting algorithms are and she told me it was just a test, and it's surprising how many candidates will say that they've studied sitting algorithms. It works!
Okay, but I have a resume that is a good fit for a lot of different roles but isn't seen by any human ever because it doesn't include the specific combination of keywords mentioned in the job posting.
I am in the process right now of embedding keywords and a "shadow resume" invisibly in my resume to get past the stupid filtering software.
Sure, tailoring your resume for a specific job is pretty standard. Perhaps an LLM that has access to your resume, along with loads of documentation on what you have previously done would provide for a much better automation process.
It could read the job spec, then tailor your application with information that is actually true. Starting off with a company with information that is false is not a great way to start a (hopefully) long relationship.
FWIW, we review every application we receive on the freelancer sites and do not use automated filters.
The problem is not the LLM, the lies are the problem.
I don't think an employer would mind a résumé that is factually correct, but edited by a LLM. In the style of "here is my résumé, emphasize the items that match this job offer, and also, fix my grammar and spelling".
Here, the candidates are using a LLM to invent experience that matches the job offer, making a fake résumé. A human doing it doesn't make it better.
Freelancer.com and Upwork. Although after the torrent of AI powered garbage we received after our latest posting on Freelancer, I'm not sure we will use that again.
Thank you. I have side question for you. Sorry, all this thread coincides with another thread about LinkedIn and me getting banned without knowing why (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37748263). As a job recruiter looking for freelancers, do you expect to find the person on LinkedIn as part of the fact checking process? Would you seriously consider alternating sites such as a person’s website or GitHub and would you find the person a suspect if their LinkedIn profile does not exist ?
Sorry to hear about your Linkedin profile. Yes, we do look at Linkedin profiles for shortlisted candidates. It helps to establish credibility and for us to get an idea of whether the claimed previous experience is legitimate.
We do also ask for Github, but many folks use other repositories. Linkedin is one of the best sources of credibility for us, so I would recommend continuing to try to get it unbanned, or start a new one.
Yes, the manufacturer's own biodistribution studies showed that it was detectable in the spleen, kidneys, ovaries, testicles, and bone marrow etc until at least 48h after. At the end of the study, some markers were still increasing but they didn't bother to find out when it peaked and declined.
Note that this is in complete opposition to the original claims during the vaccine campaign that the vaccine stayed local in the arm.
The difference with Rivian and the F-150 is that Tesla have figured out how to actually make a good margin on their vehicles.