If the connector is enabled by the prompt or via a UI interaction, it calls your MCP server. They have created some meta fields your tool can respond with, one of which is something about producing a widget along with a field for html.
In the current implementation, it makes an iframe (or webview on native) that loads a sandboxed environment which then gets another iframe with your html injected. Your html can include meta field whitelisted remote resources.
Fully charged show did an episode on this car (or maybe just this era.) either way, I found it interesting to see the similarities in design to todays evs considering how early so many of these concepts were.
I would like to see comparisons for things in the same price category too. Especially for something like usb-c cables where it's hard to know if you are just paying for a brand or actual quality.
Most of the time when you buy Apple you are buying a better engineered product and maybe these scans are just proving that it's actually hard to match their quality for the price.
Exact same thought here but with their Caseta lineup. It is one of the most easy to configure and reliable smart home things I have in the house.
I still use HA on a RPi4 for other things, typically via Zigbee, but the Casetas always work like you'd expect from a light switch while also enabling smart stuff like voice control or automations.
Couldn't agree more. I have no problem paying for tools, especially when they will save me time.
That said, don't I need to know how to use devtools (chrome/ff/safari) to do my job in the first place? It feels like this product is trying to inject itself into a process that isn't super refined but works fine.
The real problem is the dependency it creates. If I only know how to do frontend work with handheld UI controls, then I have to use them and am locked into this product. It doesn't promote me learning the css rules or understanding how to actually fix things, so then I'm back to the devtools and why am I using this?
A bit pessimistic though right? Carbon capture through both natural and engineered methods is a thing that could have more investment/incentive if that were the case which counters the idea that just because CO2 hangs around a long time doesn't mean there's nothing to be done about it.
Obviously, it'd be great to limit the production of more CO2 going forward but I don't believe that everyone will collectively just give up.
I can not understand how carbon capture can be proposed as a solution for reducing the atmospheric CO2 levels. At best, it can be used at high-intensity production sites to reduce the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
We are currently pumping every day 35 billion tons of carbon into an atmosphere that already has umpteen billions of tons of carbon that needs to be removed. We are never going to have machinery or technology that can remove carbon at the necessary scale. And not only is the volume an impossibility, the energy requirements are, too: it will require more energy to remove the carbon than it provided in the first place.
Best I can figure is we need to use fast-growing solar-powered organics. Replace corn with hemp, or grow algae, something like that, and sequester the mature product at an active subduction zone. Return it back into the deep earth.
If you're curious about this, the recent IPCC report publications on mitigation have great meta-analysis on the component of carbon capture and as someone who also had put some mental stock in this (don't we all wish we could engineer our way out of this one easily?), I found it sobering. And then consider that many people found the reports too soft on CC.
You're on Hacker News and your name is "digitalengineer." You're probably not their target customer :)
I have a bunch of friends in the creative space who use dropbox exclusively to share their work. It's a portfolio for them that's easier to update and control what the prospective client sees. Some of them also have a website portfolio (typically a squarespace setup) but they take so much time to build and maintain with fresh work that they end up sending both a link to the website and dropbox for the latest work.
I totally see why Dropbox is doing this, I just wonder if there are enough creatives who use it this way to make them any substantial gains or if the cool kids convinced them this was the most important thing to do.
Somewhat related, anyone have a good list of drop-in React components organized in categories? I'm thinking of something like iOS Cookies for React Components.
This is probably it. I personally signed up for Robinhood based on this project. I'm already interested in stock trading though so it wasn't that big of a commitment from me but they do have a nice App and signup process compared to other financial trading outfits I've used.
For folks playing at home and wondering "What is Robinhood?"
From [1]
> Robinhood is a stock brokerage that allows customers to buy and sell U.S. listed stocks and ETFs with $0 commission. ... we are able to maintain a lean bottom-line and pass the savings along to you, the customer ... Robinhood is an SEC registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA & SIPC.
Yeah, Robinhood is mentioned quite a bit on his site, including a sign up referral link. Seems like their referral program gives you $10 for each signup.
Also he says if it hits $25K, then the game is over. So it's only $25K at real risk, not $50K. (True, the stocks could fall further before he liquidates.)
Also: anyone have an idea as to what regulations he is citing when he says if it drops below 50% he has to close the account? Is that a Robinhood thing, or an equities trading thing? As far as I know, there is no regulation limiting how much a person can lose on the market...
Makes me wonder if perhaps his account balance is $25k personal, and $25k matched by Robinhood for the stunt.
If I were Robinhoood, I'd try to be the facebook of financial startups- give every high school student a starting portfolio of fake stocks to manage through high school so they learn how to invest and manage money, then have avenues to have different "tabs" in their portfolio for real stocks they have gifted by family, and another for real ones they buy...
They can play with purchase what ifs in the stock sandbox, and plan and grow in the real tabs... among many many other things...
I did that with google finance about a decade ago and the financial crisis wiped me out. I wasn't even good at managing fake money.
Disclosure: I have started putting away some money in a vanguard Roth IRA now. I don't think about it too much because it is the minimum vtsax would let me invest anyways.
In my middle school course when we played "the stock market game", I just picked a spread of reasonable stocks at the start. Every time we could rebalance our portfolio, I just read. I didn't care about the game. Got first or second in the class, and thus free pizza, for it. Kinda continuing that with in my current investment life; invest in index funds, walk away.
But is investing in stocks something you would want high school graduates to pick up?
I always thought of stock-picking as something that the average Joe should be careful with. Trading on less information than insiders and slowly being eaten by fees and taxes. It's an under EV game.
Besides that there's the wisdom of crowds that will eventually follow the trends and invest irrationally (pump and dump). That's how bubbles are created.
When I was in highschool, I was attempting to corner the market on commodities - specifically wheat!
Every day I would log in and manage my account - I was a commodities broker and I managed to build a pretty powerful little empire with my savvy transactions.
While not as powerful when it came to ore... my wheat holdings were no laughing matter... that was until the day I smoked pot, dialed in and accidentally sold all my wheat holdings as opposed to buying up all the other supply - thus eliminating my monopoly on the galactic wheat trade...
Man, Trade Wars was a blast in the early nineties.
That's an interesting story and I'm sure you learned a lot through the experience. I'm also sure there are plenty others like you, to whom trading was educative.
But on the other hand I'm sure there are a whole lot of young people on the other side of things. Those who start learning about stock-trading and soon see it as a way to make money fast by taking huge risks. They get spammed by 500$ signup bonuses to various stock-trading platforms, they're presented with 100x leveraged trading options and such. I don't see much benefit in that.
What I think is young people should be taught how the market works with a huge grain of salt. Definitely not by letting them go wild with play-money since we all know what will follow up.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in the U.S. established the "pattern day trader" rule, which states that if a stock trading customer makes four or more day trades (opening and closing a position within the same day) in a five-day period the customer is considered a day trader and must maintain a minimum $25,000 account balance.
I think you need $25k to be a day trader on Robinhood. So if it drops below that he can't trade the same way he would unless he adds more cash which I guess he isn't prepared to do.
You can trade with less. You can't day trade, defined based on the number of trades in a certain period. Some brokerages may enforce additional limits, but I've personally traded on NASDAQ via US brokerage accounts with less in them than that, so you certainly can do it.
Day trading has a specific definition in this context (can't remember if it's SEC, FINRA, or some other acronym), and refers to the buying and selling of the same security with a single day. That $2.5k Fidelity account will go out of its way to tell you that you're not allowed to do that.
Stopping you from trading on the account doesn't protect the value in the account (and makes it harder for you to take action that would protect it, too!)
Typically you're forbidden from increasing your equity loan on a margin call - closes are completely fine (So you can buy shorts, or sell longs, but the inverse is against the rules). I've never used robinhood, but I've been declared a PDT before.
No, that is not what stop-loss orders are for. A stop-loss order only puts a sell offer into the market when the market prices falls below a certain threshold, there is no guarantee as to what price someone will actually buy your shares at, or that anyone will buy them at all.
If you want to have a hard limit on the loss, you'll have to buy a put option.
Not sure why this is being voted down. A counterparty in an option agreement can become insolvent. This is typically analyzed under the name counterparty risk.
Much much much less common than a stock going down, but when large counterparties become insolvent, a lot of people start needing to write off big chunks of their positions.
A stop loss with no limit means "if the price hits X, then sell my shares for as low as 0.01/0.001" (same as a market sell order). You can verify this by imagining a single trade below the stop loss, then the only buy order being at 0.01.
If you put a limit on the stop loss then there's no guarantee it'll clear, but at least you won't sell for some ridiculously low amount.
The exchange might have circuit breakers that won't let a particular symbol change more than X% in a given period of time.
Don't waste your money and time trading individual stocks. Invest for your future with dollar-cost-averaging and buying ALL the stocks (AKA a diversified index-tracking fund with very low fees (less than 0.1%/year)).
In the current implementation, it makes an iframe (or webview on native) that loads a sandboxed environment which then gets another iframe with your html injected. Your html can include meta field whitelisted remote resources.