jfoster

Actively sabotaged by doing what? California went ahead with high speed rail. How is it going? You want more of that?

Can you? Where?

Falcon 9 used to do that when being tested.

They push them to the limits in testing/development to make them reliable in production.

Starship still in testing/development.

If you care about it, it's all right there.

Thousands of hours of video about the companies and their products, hundreds of hours of interviews with Musk, thousands of tweets by Musk, financial filings of Tesla and SpaceX, you can test drive a Tesla for free in most parts of the world, you can use Starlink in most parts of the world, you can ride a Cybercab in Austin, you can watch a rocket launch livestream or in person, you can watch videos about people who had their lives changed from Neuralink, etc.

I can't think of another person of similar prominence who has been as accessible as Musk. Partly due to the internet, but also due to his choices. I don't see Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates or the Google founders sharing their views & debating them with adversarial reporters on a regular basis. Perhaps Palmer Luckey is on track for becoming somewhat akin to Musk.

Moon v Mars seems to have more to do with what the primary customer wanted.

Starmind just happened to fit nicely with that and the current market desire for a lot more compute.

If he wants power, wealth and fans then he could retire already because that would be mission accomplished. It seems that there is some other motivation.

What are some of the most egregious examples from his long history of crazy predictions?

Most of the examples I've ever seen tend to be purposeful misunderstanding, his timing being off (clearly a flaw, but common to most ambitious projects), vibes, or just factually incorrect.

He clearly has flaws, but his critics always seem to be far more flawed.

You seem to be getting different cars mixed up, so what you're saying is factually wrong. Musk never promoted that, and Tesla did complete all of the orders for the original Roadster.

Even if you were correct on the facts, the right thing to do in the face of changing circumstances can of course be to change the plan. In an alternate reality where they had sold preorders for a solar car, making it right to the customers combined with not going out of business is the better plan.

Which statements? Why wouldn't they play the clip of Musk saying those things if that's the case?

All of the problems you mentioned sound so much more temporary than the long-term survival of our species.

Not even capital. Elon brought that too.

In the trailer, there's this line: "When Musk says that the future of humanity is to colonize Mars, he is selling us dreams. That's not happening."

That irritates me a lot. Everything extremely difficult (or thought to be impossible) is a dream until someone (or some company) works hard on it and invests in it for a long time. Those that would criticize Musk & SpaceX for chipping away at this seem to be effectively saying "do not try."

Depends on why you think the Vision Pro is so expensive. Maybe they just wanted extremely thick margins and to not sell many, but I'm guessing that they were actually trying. They could have called it a dev kit, but the indications are that they are trying to sell to consumers.

They probably are, but this is what vision Pro should have been. It seems that Apple are behind. By months? By years?

In any case, that transaction is not going to happen because Zuck thinks he can actually make it work. It's just what I think they should do.

Presumably Apple could do it cheaper than Meta, since they could assume higher volume and are more valued by suppliers.

I'm not going to buy it from Meta, but what I'm saying is that at the same price I would buy it from Apple. I'm far from the only one.

They should sell it to Apple. I wouldn't buy this from Meta, but I would buy it from Apple.

That definitely isn't what has been happening; Fable was much better than anything seen before it.

Could be what happens next, though.

You're using the internet, so some of your packets might be going through Starlink.

The default reasoning level seems better than the high reasoning level:

Has a shadow

Better shaped beak

Leg position more realistic for bicycle riding

Better feathers

Note that the license on this has this in it:

> You shall not use the Materials for any commercial purpose without obtaining a separate commercial license from us.

It probably will be much cheaper to use than other image models, but it seems that will be up to the whims of Qwen/Alibaba rather than just being the cost of putting it in a cloud provider.

https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE

A lot of the previous Qwen models seem to have used Apache licenses, among others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwen#List_of_models

Unfortunately, it looks like this model is using a much more restrictive license:

https://github.com/QwenLM/Qwen-Image-2.1/blob/main/LICENSE

I feel like Valve will sell a lot more Steam Frames if they can get HL Alyx to run well on it and have every Steam Frame come with it.

For me it's more that flights are extremely boring. I find watching any movies or TV shows on a plane to be a horrible experience. The noise of the plane can ruin even the best of movies.

That seems in the interest of the savvy media teams, but surely Google would be better off having a market that encourages all healthy competition?

I keep hearing it too. The bit I don't yet understand is, wouldn't it be in Google's interest to not do this? They ban on both sides of the market for seemingly no reason. Wouldn't maximizing all legitimate participation be much better? Also seems a lot more possible to do now with AI to check all campaigns, landing pages, etc.

Feels like those kinds of terms are moot in the big picture. Could they enforce it? Perhaps they can if a significant amount of the data produced is their IP, but who would they enforce it against? Consumers? Not much to be gained by going after them.

I can only think that they are hoping businesses might use the free plan and that they can sell them paid plans as part of an enforcement effort, but it doesn't seem like a very sustainable approach given the industry standard is to not claim ownership.

At this point, who could bring a copyright claim? Well, considering the massive AI training effort hoovering everything up, seems it might be approximately everyone.

Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone.

Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful that claims will have any significant outcomes.

NYT might be able to get OpenAI to pay them for their content, but that's more of a financial tweak than a up-ending of industry.

But incumbents have a natural advantage, right? So any type of control trying to ensure similar levels of access is clearly going to be to the advantage of incumbents.

I don't know anything about this specific case, but in elections more generally, wouldn't filtering all candidates equally simply favor incumbents?

You seem to be baking-in the assumption that extreme precision is what can make the difference when driving a car, but I put to you that the vast, vast majority of human-at-fault accidents are not due to the precision being slightly off.

It will be logic and driving behavior that makes the difference between Waymo/Tesla/others rather than whether the perception accuracy is micron level or not.