For me to believe this is not a bubble, I'd want to see that revenues exceed expenses by a large enough factor to sustain the business (often a 10% or greater profit margin). Right now, every one of these companies is following the Uber business model: give the product away at below market prices to hopefully capture the market and force their competitors to go bankrupt first. They're also speed running the bubble with massive data center builds that will increase their debt and future interest payments on that debt.
The question for me isn't "is this a bubble", it's "how many of these companies will be left after it pops". The few companies that remain are likely worth their current inflated value. But I'd want to see the back of the envelope math showing that all of the companies together will be able to earn the necessary profit to justify their valuations, how much revenue would that require, and how does that compare to the current tech purchasing today.
I can't imagine they'd ever get enough people to opt-in to mouse tracking to generate enough data for their model training. It's either a DOA AI project, employees will be pressured into accepting it (making it part of their review), or their managers will accept the monitoring on their behalf.
1. Address lookups. Many of the buildings in OSM have yet to get street addresses added, so navigating to an address is a bit hit or miss. This gets fixed with time as people update the maps and wouldn't be a show stopper.
2. Real time traffic and detour navigation. This is really needed when navigating around busy cities where a wreck on a major highway can result in significant delays. This needs a combination of an external service (separate from OSM) but also one that has enough adoption to have usable data.
1. This is largely country-dependent with some governments being quite adamant that address data should be in the public domain, and some governments doing the opposite and selling address databases to private companies for some quick cash, where private companies then sell address lookups for some absurd per-lookup price for the next few decades. Most of the world though is probably just not rich enough to compile, publish and accurately maintain a national address database.
OpenAddresses is perhaps the gold standard for open source address data compilation from government datasets. Note for the future that alltheplaces.xyz (project I contribute to) is looking like it may eventually perform the automatic address data download/extraction/compilation that OpenAddresses currently performs. This has the benefit that in backwards countries, alltheplaces.xyz also obtains some addresses through other means--such as advertised location of international restaurant chains. And quite often, being within +/- 100 address numbers on a road is good enough for navigation. Google Maps obviously crawls addresses from all over the Internet AND has quite a high tolerance for errors, hence will perhaps always seem more complete than OSM.
2. Some further ideas for open source mapping applications trying to determine real time traffic situations:
2a. Use GTFS/GTFS-RT feeds for bus networks to detect real time delays but also to compare planned bus route schedules for different times of the day (different traffic conditions) where buses share the road with the public. There's already a few maps out there that overlay nearby GTFS-RT feeds for the city of interest and usefully provide a visual indication of how well public transport vehicles are currently moving.
2b. alltheplaces.xyz extracts public traffic camera feeds which could be presented to users when they plan/commence a journey as an indication of what lies ahead on the route.
While default osm data is great, I've been very impressed with the partnership/collective of Overture Maps data. It's osm + esri/tomtom + corporate processing/funding.
Unfortunately they don't support opening hours in the schema, it's a deliberate choice as it's high value data the contributors would rather license to you
That being said, it's hard to fault them for trying to monetize some dimensions that are not well supplied by the public, and that companies work to acquire. Still, I agree, it's disappointing.
Also current place names. You can sometimes find a business on OSM that has correct metadata, but in many areas the majority are missing or stale (like, closed 10+ years ago.) Solving this is an "interesting" problem to say the least when many businesses these days have nothing more than an Instagram/Whatsapp handle.
See alltheplaces.xyz for continuously updated straight-from-the-primary-source opening hours of chains of shops and restaurants, public facilities such as libraries, etc. This is probably as accurate as it gets AND you have the confidence of knowing exactly where the data came from (down to the URL) and when it was last checked.
Some OSM contributors go brand-by-brand/operator-by-operator in making sure OSM features have the most up-to-date opening hours added to them from matched ATP features. As such, OSM may be fairly accurate for chains too.
For a standalone shop or restaurant the opening hours situation is usually still better with Google Maps rather than OSM. There aren't enough OSM contributors who care enough to check and maintain opening hours for every shop, restaurant, fuel station, etc.
Both this and addresses is something that's really easy to survey with StreetComplete.
Google has the benefit of having their own street-level imagery for house numbers and street names, Android devices for real-time traffic info, and the ability to simply scrape web pages for shop data including opening hours. but in places with a reasonable number of active mappers, OSM is so much richer and more up to date.
At least in my experience for large retail chains or restaurant chains, hours on their websites are very accurate. I think where Google might benefit from calling to verify hours is, for example, where they've scraped https://schema.org/openingHours from the web page for an independent store, but the website has used an invalid/incorrect format, and some manual human check or clean-up is necessary, but this work would be too time consuming for each of 100,000's of independent stores which exist.
There are cases where a brand might have broken opening hours information such as "Mo- Tu - We 09 00 -4 p m". For alltheplaces.xyz scrapers, a human is often able to make sense of the situation and fix the problem through a few lines of extra code. Contacting the business to get the hours confirmed would only be necessary in very rare cases.
Where it would perhaps make the _most_ sense to contact a business to confirm opening hours is:
1. Ahead of public holidays to confirm planned temporary changes to opening hours. Many brands don't bother to update hours on their websites for such temporary changes, or at least don't list those hours until the week prior, which is usually too late for OSM, ATP, offline maps, etc which would ideally want to know these changes to hours up to a year in advance.
2. To confirm actual dates of permanent store/restaurant closures. Many brands in liquidation tend to fire the website developers (or can't pay them to work) and leave an outdated website online until the final shop or restaurant is closed. Commonly it's only some "CLOSING DOWN SALE LAST DAYS EXTENDED TO FRIDAY" post on social media that informs visitors accurately.
IME there is no reliable source: Stores' (including restaurants') own websites are inaccurate enough that I need to call them if I need to be sure. Yelp, etc. are at least equally inaccurate.
I'm sure it annoys the stores that keep their website and Yelp etc. updated but there is no way to know who is reliable.
Yeah (2) is the killer feature especially in totalitarian shitholes (pretty much every country nowadays) full of money grab ops disguised as police checkpoints and cameras.
I wonder if we can build a decentralized version of such a reporting service.
There's a massive difference between "big open source" and "small open source". LF has been doing a great job at representing their member companies, each of which has a significant investment in big open source projects, most of which are well funded and staffed. Presumably there's some transitive support given to their dependencies too.
But then there is the very long tail of small open source projects, maintained by a single developer in their spare time, which collectively support the entire software ecosystem. And in every one of these announcements, there's rarely anything being done for this group.
Changing this wouldn't be difficult. AI based vulnerability scanning of projects could be opt-in, where reports are only sent to the security contact listed in the project. This would avoid the risk of malicious actors scanning open source projects with the tool, and avoid sending reports to those projects that don't want them, while supporting the OSS software that doesn't make the "critical" threshold in LFs current criteria.
Unfortunately that would also mean spending LF member funds on projects that may not directly benefit those LF members, so I'm not holding my breath.
I appreciate what GitHub is trying to fix here, but this feels like the wrong approach.
The direction I'd take is to integrate community maintained allow and block lists to prevent people from creating new issues or PRs.
Another option would be a limit on the total number of open issues and PRs on the repo (not just per user) so that someone wanting to open a new one may be forced to work on issues and PRs from others first if they want to be able to submit anything of their own. And then have different limits for those on an allow list, or those that are financial sponsors.
As much as I wanted to see another browser alternative succeed, Ladybird has lost my trust. Using LLMs to rewrite the entire codebase was already extreme. But eliminating external contributors is a precursor to a rug pull. And rewriting the entire codebase can now be seen as another step in a rug pull.
> How do you know he didn't buy the car from the thief?
If you're caught with stolen property, particularly a vehicle that has a title, I think the burden is on you to prove you thought you bought the car legitimately. Show a bill-of-sale, signed title, or any other evidence of a transaction. Particularly when that evidence includes identifying information of the seller.
This is a misunderstanding of the American justice system at the most basic level. The burden is never on the defendant to prove their innocence. If the prosecution can’t prove that you stole it or knew it was stolen when you bought it, you aren’t guilty.
That's separate and has no bearing on the burden of proof, which is ALWAYS on the prosecution. It is legitimately shocking that educated Americans can be ignorant of the most basic tenet of our justice system, the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the basic accusation, and the defendant is always entitled to offer the negative defense of "I didn't do it". For instance, if I'm accused of killing Paul, I can always say "I didn't kill Paul" and the prosecution has the burden of proof to say that I did. On the other hand, if my defense is that I killed Paul in self defense, the burden of proof is on me to show that my actions satisfied the legal definition of self defense in my state.
I guess no crime can ever occur then, since you can never prove it wasn't consensual?
Oh you were caught in 4k walking down the street smashing every windshield with a crowbar. But how can they prove all the car owners didn't pay you to do that for a film project?
I have no idea what you want me to say. The presumption of innocence is the most basic, fundamental, indisputable element of the US justice system, it dates to the Anglo-Saxons, and it's part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/innocence/cornerstone/
The sheriff isn't paying the settlement, the local government is (just about always does). The settlement comes with the agreement to drop the lawsuit.
The question for me isn't "is this a bubble", it's "how many of these companies will be left after it pops". The few companies that remain are likely worth their current inflated value. But I'd want to see the back of the envelope math showing that all of the companies together will be able to earn the necessary profit to justify their valuations, how much revenue would that require, and how does that compare to the current tech purchasing today.