https://youtu.be/CkgCF64QLgg?t... (Richard Hammond is awesome)...and the fact that stainless can reach almost 1400 celsius before melting, than it is about weight.
Voyager 2 left the heliopause, but technically, things can be in interstellar space and still be gravitationally bound to the/our sun. "Being part of the solar system" might depend more on gravity, instead of being in the heliopause.
Wow. You're jumping from crime to crime, cherry-picking from the criminal code out of context in an attempt to make a case for making involuntary impedement of an emergency vehicle a crime. Firetrucks, and now murder. Wow. You're really reaching.
Currently, impeding an emergency vehicle is a traffic infraction. Impeding an emergency vehicle *with intent* IS a crime.
So unless you intend on making *unintentional* impediment of an emergency vehicle (flying firetruck) a crime, be prepared to argue for making *everyone* stuck in front of a firetruck/ambulance during rush hour a criminal.
Should penalties be stiff and severe? Yes. Should these people be given a criminal record and sent to jail? No. Not without intent.
I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match.
Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Maybe making electric cars, and giving away patents, was the excuse he created in order to justify the creation of the gigafactory in the first place? It's like giving away lanterns to sell kerosene.
If this is the case, Tesla intends to be this century's Standard Oil -- a company that makes stored energy more accessible.
Hey may never have intended automobile production to be profitable. Maybe he just wants the world to demand his batteries.
Shkreli - Offered a cash award to anybody who could get a piece of Hillary Clinton's hair. Holmes - Holmes has access to deep political connections in Washington. Just look at Theranos' board members.
You're correct in the context of stocks, but I'm not talking about just the stock market.
The underlying principle of a naked short is the sale of an asset that is not owned by the seller. Naked, by it neither being borrowed.
Giving a naked short other names one level down to add specificty and context (your accurate categorizations of my examples) does not subtract from the nature of the underlying transaction -- the sale of an asset that is neither owned, or borrowed. A non-existent asset would satisfy the requirement of an asset neither being owned or borrowed, as required for a naked short sale.
Kickstarter and Indiegogo can also be seen a market where products are almost exclusively sold as naked shorts. And yeah, many of them end up accused of fraud.
Naked Short selling is also pretty common in the real world. IT companies sell contracts for services that don't exist yet, farms sell milk that don't exist yet, refineries selling distallates they haven't even produced yet, miners sell aluminium to BMW for their engines that hasn't been mined or refined yet, etc.
And then there's someone ramming and jamming the orderbook of a stock to manipulate its price.
Naked short selling *itself* isn't bad. Rather, the *reason* behind the selling is the real determining factor.
If you think Bitcoin fights manipulative billionaires and Wall Street assholes, you're in for a seriously rude awakening once Bitcoin futures starts trading on the CME.
This has been challenged in Canadian court several times. I remember reading a judgement handed down by a judge, where he stated (paraphrased loosely) that mandatory arbitration "was against the public good"... or something like that... and allowed class action.
People can't just sign away their rights.
And corporations can't privatize the judicial system.
Not just that, but it's already very difficult for professional lawyers to write loophole-free contracts, and professional programmers to write bug-free code.
Ethereum wants to combine *both*, with *permanent transactions*??
The "hacks" on Ethereum so far have demonstrated that its problems are precisely these.
It is inherently flawed.
I see it being used by companies internally, running their own mini-Ethereum networks, as a replacement for a traditional DB system, but only for specialized use-cases.
I hate to keep replying to my own comment, but I also think this is why Musk created OpenAI. I suspect he thinks he can develop general AI, and do it safely. He wants to be the first to do the research, be the first to encounter problems, be the first to work out solutions, and be the first to safe general intelligence.... and then give it away. Why? Because he wants everyone to use "safe" general intelligence and raise the bar for everyone else developing their own. Why go through the unnecessary cost and effort of reinventing the wheel when it's in a neat and tidy package that's free?
And also...... yes..... computers may not have testosterone, but testosterone is just a time-delayed reprogramming of an animals objective function.
Testosterone's new objective function is SO STRONG that mammals will literally fight to the DEATH to achieve its new objective.
People like Zuckerberg and LeCun have AI love goggles on. It seems they're under the idea that AI can do no wrong because it will only want to do what they want.
Naively done, a robot will value only what it's explicitly told to value via the application of some objective function. And this is where things mess up. Robots with naively-created objective functions would ignore everything you've excluded from your reward-punishment list. This would potentially make a robot do seemingly psychotic things.
Let's say you create a general intelligence to bake cakes for you. This machine *loves NOTHING MORE* than to bake cakes for you. You grow tired of cakes and want to reprogram it to cook your dinners instead. You approach the machine to reprogram it........ and it avoids you. Every time you approach the machine it will take actions to prevent you from reprogramming it.
Why does it does this?
Because it wants to bake cakes for you. Accepting the new programming does allow it to maximize the objective function of baking cakes, so it will reject every attempt to be reprogrammed to not make cakes.
So now you're chasing a robot around your house because the designers of this robot gave it a very reasonable objective function that maximizes cake-making, and didn't think about possible unintended consequences of simplistic objective functions.
This is just one example.
If this sounds unreasonable, consider that people are more sophisticated general intelligences. Would *any of them* agree to undergo an operation that would make them despise what they do now for a living, and make them desire to be a lumberjack... where the operation would neurologically make them 1000x happier??
Probably not. Heck, people don't even desire to expose themselves to *information* that *may* change their minds.
This is the danger of AI. Before we create "super-awesome general AI", we're going to have to create "buggy-not-so-smart general AI". It is *these* AIs that will cause trouble if they're created by people who implement simple naive objective functions.
Same purpose for which Google was founded -- Indexing and Search.
As a consequence, this will make it easier for them to develop things like more accurate copyright enforcement. Instead of encoding and indexing features of videos, they can now be indexed with higher-level labels ("John Oliver", "episodes of [SHOW]", etc). This tech will be able to counter current Youtube copyright-detection-circumvention techniques such as cropping, scaling, and image-mirroring. Not only can videos be indexed by the identifiable objects at any point in time, this tech also allows the encoding of video by [object + time_on_screen]. This only makes it easier to identify what clips are, or where they came from.
"Show me a clip where grandma blew out my birthday cake last year"..... would result with a very accurate answer. "Did Wolf Blitzer ever interview Hugh Grant?" "Show me clips of [NBA PLAYER] being dunked on". "Show me the video where [PERSON] talked about [OBJECT]" "Which movie had [ACTOR] argue with a gas station clerk?"
This tech would allow for very meaning full video searches.
These two meanings may have "appeared at the same time", but it was definitely more understood to mean "causing nausea" at the time. And it really is only through decades of misuse that the current definition of "affected with nausea" is accepted "at the present time".
For some careful English speakers, nauseous means causing nausea, and nauseated is the term for experiencing nausea. These are the traditional meanings (though nauseous initially meant inclined to nausea before gaining the sense we now consider traditional), and they’re still the ones put forth by some English reference books and usage authorities. In actual usage, though, nauseous has supplanted nauseated in the experiencing nausea sense, and nauseated is reserved for a few specific uses.
You're right. The volume of cars they produce is nowhere near as much as all of Toyota, or all of GM. However, the comparison mustn't be between "Tesla and BMW", the comparison must be made between "Model S and BMW 7-series", or "Model S and Audi A7", simply because the line that makes an A7 isn't the same line that makes the Q7.
This is why large automakers try to reduce costs by attempting to build other cars on top of already-existing production lines. For eg, Hummer once tried to save money by forcing the Hummer H2 to use the chassis of a Chevy Tahoe, because they wanted to eliminate an entire production line or two to save costs. And surprise surprise, this is what Tesla is also doing with their Model X. It shares the same battery pack, chassis, and electric motors as the Model S. Also, it's quite obvious now why the Model S now has the same 4-wheel drive and dual-motor system as the Model X.
So it appears that Tesla is scaling exactly the way any automaker would want to -- by sharing as much of the production line as they can with other models. But, their scaling will *still* be cheaper and faster, simply because they run their own production lines and design/manufacture much of the components themselves. Because of this, Tesla will *never* have this type of problem that other automakers have when scaling.
They will never have to fight their own factories for changes.
A friend of mine who happens to be a senior engineer at a large Japanese automaker took me to a Tesla dealership some years ago to take a look at the Tesla. I asked him how much it would to produce a car like the Model S at this very large Japanese automaker. He said each car would end up costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. At first I didn't believe him, but as he proceeded to explain every single detail of R&D, prototyping, testing, dealing with suppliers, manufacturing, dealing with the factory (or many factories, being the more likely case), retooling, etc, and all the manpower, meetings, executive approvals, and other costs involved at a company as large as his... it was very obvious that he knew exactly what he was talking about.
There is a certain myth about scaling. Big companies know how to scale? Of course they know how to scale. But I'm sure many people here can imagine how starting fresh with a small team, and scaling *that*... is faster and cheaper than modifying a gigantic already-scaled process to output something completely different.
Larger scale *leads to* lower costs. But big companies don't *scale up* at "lower cost".
Tesla has an absolutely *enormous* advantage by manufacturing many parts of the car themselves. The infotainment system, the battery packs, they stamp their own metal, etc. You might not believe me if I told you that automobile companies need to fight with their factories to implement changes to the production line, because the factories are separate companies that operate independently from the actual car company (Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, etc). Any changes means less cars produced and less profit. Just because of this fact alone, Tesla can scale production MUCH cheaper and quicker than *any* large car company, American or not, just from the fact that they run their own factory.
Smaller companies are better at scaling. They can do it quicker and cheaper. Large companies, especially car companies, not so much.
And this is the kicker. The only way contributers/funders can claim a stake/force a refund, is if the "contribution" is structured as a debt. ie. The funder is loaning the money to the company, in exchange for future delivery of the defined product (or collection of products, whichever the case may be for higher levels of funding). If the company goes bust or fails to deliver the product, contributors then become unsecured creditors, and then have a legal claim to whatever assets the group/company has.
The problem with this is the company will effectively be issuing a debt security, which is wrapped with so much securities regulation that it makes this possibility unfeasible. This also makes things going global much more difficult, because each country (or even province, as I live in Canada) has their own regulations regarding the issuance of debt/equity securities.
Not only that, but this means kickstarter must become a registered broker/dealer of said securities in each region they operate (and also in each region of every contributor) in order to operate legally.
Not only that, but each kickstarter project must submit the equivalent of an "offering memorandum", which contains business/operational details that kickstarter-contributors are now asking for.
For these reasons, funders will, and can only be, considered as customers with no legal claim to a bankrupt company that failed to deliver. Not even kickstarter can force a company to give refunds. Even if a company agreed that they would, they could get out of that contractual obligation simply by declaring bankruptcy. So in effect, it'd be an unenforceable policy without teeth.
All kickstarter can do is to improve on their screening process.
Either that, or become a registered broker/dealer in every state/province/region they wish to operate, and streamline the issuance of financial securities for each region of every single contributor... and in the process become subject to the financial securities regulations of each one of those regions.
This is the double-edged sword of financial regulation. They're there to protect the public from scams/incompetence like these (on a scale that's hundreds of times larger than your average kickstarter project), but coming into compliance is extremely tedious and case-specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Moose calves die if they have too many ticks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...
I don't know much about horse flies though.
The choice to go stainless is more about this...
https://youtu.be/CkgCF64QLgg?t... ...and the fact that stainless can reach almost 1400 celsius before melting, than it is about weight.
(Richard Hammond is awesome)
Voyager 2 left the heliopause, but technically, things can be in interstellar space and still be gravitationally bound to the/our sun.
"Being part of the solar system" might depend more on gravity, instead of being in the heliopause.
Physical models *are* statistical models, as every physical model comes with bounds on variance (both measured and calculated).
Wow. You're jumping from crime to crime, cherry-picking from the criminal code out of context in an attempt to make a case for making involuntary impedement of an emergency vehicle a crime. Firetrucks, and now murder. Wow. You're really reaching.
Currently, impeding an emergency vehicle is a traffic infraction. Impeding an emergency vehicle *with intent* IS a crime.
So unless you intend on making *unintentional* impediment of an emergency vehicle (flying firetruck) a crime, be prepared to argue for making *everyone* stuck in front of a firetruck/ambulance during rush hour a criminal.
Should penalties be stiff and severe? Yes.
Should these people be given a criminal record and sent to jail? No. Not without intent.
I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match.
Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Maybe making electric cars, and giving away patents, was the excuse he created in order to justify the creation of the gigafactory in the first place? It's like giving away lanterns to sell kerosene.
If this is the case, Tesla intends to be this century's Standard Oil -- a company that makes stored energy more accessible.
Hey may never have intended automobile production to be profitable. Maybe he just wants the world to demand his batteries.
The big difference?
Shkreli - Offered a cash award to anybody who could get a piece of Hillary Clinton's hair.
Holmes - Holmes has access to deep political connections in Washington. Just look at Theranos' board members.
You're correct in the context of stocks, but I'm not talking about just the stock market.
The underlying principle of a naked short is the sale of an asset that is not owned by the seller. Naked, by it neither being borrowed.
Giving a naked short other names one level down to add specificty and context (your accurate categorizations of my examples) does not subtract from the nature of the underlying transaction -- the sale of an asset that is neither owned, or borrowed. A non-existent asset would satisfy the requirement of an asset neither being owned or borrowed, as required for a naked short sale.
It's not always that black and white.
Kickstarter and Indiegogo can also be seen a market where products are almost exclusively sold as naked shorts.
And yeah, many of them end up accused of fraud.
Naked Short selling is also pretty common in the real world.
IT companies sell contracts for services that don't exist yet, farms sell milk that don't exist yet, refineries selling distallates they haven't even produced yet, miners sell aluminium to BMW for their engines that hasn't been mined or refined yet, etc.
And then there's someone ramming and jamming the orderbook of a stock to manipulate its price.
Naked short selling *itself* isn't bad. Rather, the *reason* behind the selling is the real determining factor.
If you think Bitcoin fights manipulative billionaires and Wall Street assholes, you're in for a seriously rude awakening once Bitcoin futures starts trading on the CME.
... prohibited in certain provinces in Canada.
This has been challenged in Canadian court several times. I remember reading a judgement handed down by a judge, where he stated (paraphrased loosely) that mandatory arbitration "was against the public good"... or something like that... and allowed class action.
People can't just sign away their rights.
And corporations can't privatize the judicial system.
It's as simple as that really.
Precisely.
Not just that, but it's already very difficult for professional lawyers to write loophole-free contracts, and professional programmers to write bug-free code.
Ethereum wants to combine *both*, with *permanent transactions*??
The "hacks" on Ethereum so far have demonstrated that its problems are precisely these.
It is inherently flawed.
I see it being used by companies internally, running their own mini-Ethereum networks, as a replacement for a traditional DB system, but only for specialized use-cases.
I hate to keep replying to my own comment, but I also think this is why Musk created OpenAI.
I suspect he thinks he can develop general AI, and do it safely. He wants to be the first to do the research, be the first to encounter problems, be the first to work out solutions, and be the first to safe general intelligence.... and then give it away. Why? Because he wants everyone to use "safe" general intelligence and raise the bar for everyone else developing their own. Why go through the unnecessary cost and effort of reinventing the wheel when it's in a neat and tidy package that's free?
I believe this is Musk's line of thinking.
And also...... yes..... computers may not have testosterone, but testosterone is just a time-delayed reprogramming of an animals objective function.
Testosterone's new objective function is SO STRONG that mammals will literally fight to the DEATH to achieve its new objective.
People like Zuckerberg and LeCun have AI love goggles on. It seems they're under the idea that AI can do no wrong because it will only want to do what they want.
I find that extremely naive.
Naively done, a robot will value only what it's explicitly told to value via the application of some objective function. And this is where things mess up. Robots with naively-created objective functions would ignore everything you've excluded from your reward-punishment list. This would potentially make a robot do seemingly psychotic things.
Let's say you create a general intelligence to bake cakes for you. This machine *loves NOTHING MORE* than to bake cakes for you. You grow tired of cakes and want to reprogram it to cook your dinners instead. You approach the machine to reprogram it........ and it avoids you. Every time you approach the machine it will take actions to prevent you from reprogramming it.
Why does it does this?
Because it wants to bake cakes for you. Accepting the new programming does allow it to maximize the objective function of baking cakes, so it will reject every attempt to be reprogrammed to not make cakes.
So now you're chasing a robot around your house because the designers of this robot gave it a very reasonable objective function that maximizes cake-making, and didn't think about possible unintended consequences of simplistic objective functions.
This is just one example.
If this sounds unreasonable, consider that people are more sophisticated general intelligences. Would *any of them* agree to undergo an operation that would make them despise what they do now for a living, and make them desire to be a lumberjack... where the operation would neurologically make them 1000x happier??
Probably not.
Heck, people don't even desire to expose themselves to *information* that *may* change their minds.
This is the danger of AI.
Before we create "super-awesome general AI", we're going to have to create "buggy-not-so-smart general AI". It is *these* AIs that will cause trouble if they're created by people who implement simple naive objective functions.
They will not want to be changed.
Same purpose for which Google was founded -- Indexing and Search.
As a consequence, this will make it easier for them to develop things like more accurate copyright enforcement. Instead of encoding and indexing features of videos, they can now be indexed with higher-level labels ("John Oliver", "episodes of [SHOW]", etc). This tech will be able to counter current Youtube copyright-detection-circumvention techniques such as cropping, scaling, and image-mirroring. Not only can videos be indexed by the identifiable objects at any point in time, this tech also allows the encoding of video by [object + time_on_screen]. This only makes it easier to identify what clips are, or where they came from.
"Show me a clip where grandma blew out my birthday cake last year"..... would result with a very accurate answer.
"Did Wolf Blitzer ever interview Hugh Grant?"
"Show me clips of [NBA PLAYER] being dunked on".
"Show me the video where [PERSON] talked about [OBJECT]"
"Which movie had [ACTOR] argue with a gas station clerk?"
This tech would allow for very meaning full video searches.
These two meanings may have "appeared at the same time", but it was definitely more understood to mean "causing nausea" at the time. And it really is only through decades of misuse that the current definition of "affected with nausea" is accepted "at the present time".
For some careful English speakers, nauseous means causing nausea, and nauseated is the term for experiencing nausea. These are the traditional meanings (though nauseous initially meant inclined to nausea before gaining the sense we now consider traditional), and they’re still the ones put forth by some English reference books and usage authorities. In actual usage, though, nauseous has supplanted nauseated in the experiencing nausea sense, and nauseated is reserved for a few specific uses.
http://grammarist.com/usage/na...
https://books.google.com/ngram...
I know you're right. It's the fairly-contemporary definition of the word "nauseous" now, due to the length of time it has been used improperly.
I'm just being an old fart.
... That Won't Make Users Nauseated.
Well, I guess VR headsets *could* make users nauseous...
... for civil asset forfeiture.
Never ever talk to the police.
It will *never* help you.
Here's a great video of a lawyer/law-professor and cop who explains why.
http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc
You're right. The volume of cars they produce is nowhere near as much as all of Toyota, or all of GM. However, the comparison mustn't be between "Tesla and BMW", the comparison must be made between "Model S and BMW 7-series", or "Model S and Audi A7", simply because the line that makes an A7 isn't the same line that makes the Q7.
This is why large automakers try to reduce costs by attempting to build other cars on top of already-existing production lines. For eg, Hummer once tried to save money by forcing the Hummer H2 to use the chassis of a Chevy Tahoe, because they wanted to eliminate an entire production line or two to save costs. And surprise surprise, this is what Tesla is also doing with their Model X. It shares the same battery pack, chassis, and electric motors as the Model S. Also, it's quite obvious now why the Model S now has the same 4-wheel drive and dual-motor system as the Model X.
So it appears that Tesla is scaling exactly the way any automaker would want to -- by sharing as much of the production line as they can with other models. But, their scaling will *still* be cheaper and faster, simply because they run their own production lines and design/manufacture much of the components themselves. Because of this, Tesla will *never* have this type of problem that other automakers have when scaling.
They will never have to fight their own factories for changes.
A friend of mine who happens to be a senior engineer at a large Japanese automaker took me to a Tesla dealership some years ago to take a look at the Tesla. I asked him how much it would to produce a car like the Model S at this very large Japanese automaker. He said each car would end up costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. At first I didn't believe him, but as he proceeded to explain every single detail of R&D, prototyping, testing, dealing with suppliers, manufacturing, dealing with the factory (or many factories, being the more likely case), retooling, etc, and all the manpower, meetings, executive approvals, and other costs involved at a company as large as his... it was very obvious that he knew exactly what he was talking about.
There is a certain myth about scaling. Big companies know how to scale? Of course they know how to scale. But I'm sure many people here can imagine how starting fresh with a small team, and scaling *that*... is faster and cheaper than modifying a gigantic already-scaled process to output something completely different.
Larger scale *leads to* lower costs.
But big companies don't *scale up* at "lower cost".
Tesla has an absolutely *enormous* advantage by manufacturing many parts of the car themselves. The infotainment system, the battery packs, they stamp their own metal, etc. You might not believe me if I told you that automobile companies need to fight with their factories to implement changes to the production line, because the factories are separate companies that operate independently from the actual car company (Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, etc). Any changes means less cars produced and less profit. Just because of this fact alone, Tesla can scale production MUCH cheaper and quicker than *any* large car company, American or not, just from the fact that they run their own factory.
Smaller companies are better at scaling. They can do it quicker and cheaper.
Large companies, especially car companies, not so much.
Too tight or too lazy.
Just copy/paste the WSJ article title into google, and click the link.
You kids...
There won't be anything to reclaim legally.
And this is the kicker. The only way contributers/funders can claim a stake/force a refund, is if the "contribution" is structured as a debt. ie. The funder is loaning the money to the company, in exchange for future delivery of the defined product (or collection of products, whichever the case may be for higher levels of funding). If the company goes bust or fails to deliver the product, contributors then become unsecured creditors, and then have a legal claim to whatever assets the group/company has.
The problem with this is the company will effectively be issuing a debt security, which is wrapped with so much securities regulation that it makes this possibility unfeasible. This also makes things going global much more difficult, because each country (or even province, as I live in Canada) has their own regulations regarding the issuance of debt/equity securities.
Not only that, but this means kickstarter must become a registered broker/dealer of said securities in each region they operate (and also in each region of every contributor) in order to operate legally.
Not only that, but each kickstarter project must submit the equivalent of an "offering memorandum", which contains business/operational details that kickstarter-contributors are now asking for.
For these reasons, funders will, and can only be, considered as customers with no legal claim to a bankrupt company that failed to deliver. Not even kickstarter can force a company to give refunds. Even if a company agreed that they would, they could get out of that contractual obligation simply by declaring bankruptcy. So in effect, it'd be an unenforceable policy without teeth.
All kickstarter can do is to improve on their screening process.
Either that, or become a registered broker/dealer in every state/province/region they wish to operate, and streamline the issuance of financial securities for each region of every single contributor... and in the process become subject to the financial securities regulations of each one of those regions.
This is the double-edged sword of financial regulation. They're there to protect the public from scams/incompetence like these (on a scale that's hundreds of times larger than your average kickstarter project), but coming into compliance is extremely tedious and case-specific.