It's not so much that it's high in carbs, it's extraordinarily high in fat. Its main ingredients are egg yolks and heavy cream along with the sugar. What you're describing is like eating an entire cheesecake or drinking a pitcher of melted premium ice cream. The bloating is from the enormous amount of fatty calories that are slow to digest. Not really about the sugar. (And of course it has sugar, it's essentially a dessert drink.)
$2.8B! Which isn't huge next to Netflix's market value of $357B... but when you compare it with its $45B 2025 yearly revenue, it's at least a noticeable bump. You could make almost 4 five-season-long Stranger Things with it.
In every country, citizens have more rights than non-citizens. The right to freely enter the country, the right to vote, the right to various social services, etc.
In the US, one of the rights citizens have is the right against "unreasonable searches and seizures", established in the Fourth Amendment. That has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include mass surveillance and to apply to citizens and people geographically located within US borders.
That doesn't apply that to non-citizens outside the US, simply because the US Constitution doesn't require it to.
I'm not defending this, just explaining why it's different.
But, you can imagine, for example, why in wartime, you'd certainly want to engage in as much mass surveillance against an enemy country as possible. And even when you're not in wartime, countries spy on other countries to try to avoid unexpected attacks.
It makes sense they prototyped it. But putting it into production is $$$, way more expensive than current street view.
Current street view works well enough. How is a massively upgraded 3D version, that is bloated and slower to use on older devices, going to make Google more money?
It feels more like a separate product to license to architecture firms, city planners, video game studios, etc.
Mission statements are only there to resonate with people, so that part is working. If the mission doesn't make money, they aren't gonna do it just because it matches a statement
Sometimes you don't know up front. Perhaps you learn a lot about gaussian splatting and push forward that tech by five years (presuming they started on this five years ago).
Or maybe you learn this helps you build a world model that would have accelerated Waymo's progression, or you sell it to robotics companies.
That's the nice thing about having a money printer and a ton of smart, curious, and driven people. You can afford to do things without a strict eye towards profit, that's reserved for tiny companies living on a razor's edge. Or consultants I guess.
Google does have a security review process on literally everything it launches.
Which is what makes this so notable. Did the security review not catch this, or did they choose to launch anyways because it was too hard to fix and speed was of the essence?
I'd expect the security team to realize what the code is treating as a secret isn't actually secret.
But there's a second insight that seems tough for a security review to catch. You have to realize that even though you can't do anything obviously malicious with the API, there is a billing problem.
When a cross-cutting team is responsible for something, it's no longer the product team's problem: Architecture, infrastructure, CI/CD, QA, load testing, security...
The vast majority of the comments here seem to be completely missing the actual reason. I see people claiming this is about heavier SUV's, about people moving to the suburbs, governmental incompetence, that we "can't figure out how to pave roads", that this is corruption...
...just no. What this is, is that the federal ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) has required wheelchair access (curb ramps) along roads since 1990. To comply, "Measure HLA" is a citizen initiative passed in 2025, which forces the city to build curb ramps WHENEVER it resurfaces a road.
But here's the kicker -- as the "Measure HLA" site explains [1], it promises "No New Taxes or Fees", claiming "improvements would be made during routine street maintenance".
But because it DIDN'T raise additional funds, but is a much more expensive process, and the city doesn't have the money, the city is getting around it by doing "large asphalt repair" which is lower-quality but avoids having to spend the extra money and time (which they don't have) to implement the curb ramps and other requirements.
All of this seems like an entirely predictable outcome when a law is passed that requires more work but doesn't pay for it. And in this case you can't blame a short-sighted legislature or a corrupt process -- it was a citizens' initiative. That promised voters they could have something for free, which isn't free. See this key quote:
> Per Mozee, “there’s approximately 14 ramps in a mile.” So for “one crew to build out those 14 ramps will take approximately three months.” In contrast, he said, “a paving crew on a good day … could pave that same mile in a weekend or one week, at most.”
So what exactly did people expect?
I'm all for accessibility, but demanding it without paying for it is not the way.
This is very well thought out comment and that’s probably why there’s poor engagement with it. This is exactly the problem. The city has an unfunded mandate. The street department is triaging. The problem is best they can. I wouldn’t be shocked if city council members were directing this workaround so their voters would actually see some work getting done in their neighborhood.
This makes no sense. What you call "curb ramps" is a part of standard road infrastructure in Germany. They're basically everywhere in Germany. If the Los Angeles government can't figure out how to implement a practice that has been legislated for 36 years, then they deserve a kick in the balls that forces them to wake up.
The fact that 36 years of neglect coincide in 2026 isn't the result of a law that happened to pass 2025. That law was passed because of the 36 years of neglect. The asphalt patching strategy is just one more last ditch attempt at ignoring the 36 year old ADA law.
I could just as easily say that your comment makes no sense.
Curb ramps are all over the place in the US too. And I don't know what on earth Germany has to do with anything.
But the point is, if you force them to be constructed, then you need to pay for them. Maybe it's a "kick in the balls" as you put it, but without funding what exactly do you expect the city to do here? It can't conjure extra money out of thin air. LA isn't ideologically opposed to the ADA or anything. But it needs a whole bunch of money to be able to follow it. Money which hasn't been raised for it.
Regardless of the past history, passing a law forcing the city to do something without giving it the necessary money to do so is not a strategy that works.
It only mentions in passing the success of express buses, which stop at e.g. one-tenth the stops. Like the SBS buses in New York City. On busy routes, these are already the main solution, because they stop at the main transit intersections where most people need to transfer.
Reducing the number of stops for local buses doesn't seem like it will make much difference, for the simple fact that buses don't even always stop at them. If nobody is getting off and nobody is waiting at the stop, which is frequently the case, they don't stop, at least nowhere I've ever lived.
Plus, the main problem isn't even the stop itself -- it's the red light you get stuck at afterwards. But the article doesn't even mention the solution to this -- TSP, or transit signal priority, which helps give more green lights to buses.
If you're going a long distance, hopefully there's an express bus. If you're going a short distance, bus stop spacing seems fine.
Also, what a weasel name, bus stop "balancing". It's not balancing, it's reduction. When the name itself is already dishonest, it's hard for me not to suspect that the real motive behind this is just cutting bus budgets.
"Bus stop reduction" makes it sound like it will make it harder to take the bus. But the point of the article is that's compensated by the buses being more useful because they get where they're going more quickly. So "balancing" seems apt to me.
But it does make it harder to take the bus. That's the point.
And as I pointed out, there are two proven ways of making buses actually much faster. This seems exceedingly unlikely to help, since buses already often skip stops.
reply