What do you mean by 'assisted driving technology'? It seems to me that the safest option is where the human is doing the driving, but the car is ready in case of emergency (ie apply the brakes if you are going to hit something). The absolute worst option is the vehicle is driving, but the human has to be 'at the ready' (autopilot). In that case, you are requiring humans to do the thing they are worst at, which is paying attention through long periods of boredom. So, in your example of truckers: as you said they already spending too much time behind the wheel. Now, take away all of their tasks EXCEPT 'pay attention', and it will surely lead to disaster - probably worse than if there is no assist at all. So in that case there better be zero requirement for the human to do ANYTHING.
Really? How many 10-15 year old laptops and smartphones are in use? Of the ones that are, how many have been subjected to 10-15 years of baking in the sun, freezing in the cold, vibration, jolts, etc? How many laptops and smart phones have high-current connections that can develop resistance and become very hot?
Consider how your average teen treats their phone. Now consider how many times you read about a phone catching fire (one specific model of phone not withstanding)?
The battery in your car is much better pampered than a cell phone battery. Its kept warm by an internal heating system controlled by electronics, its covered with a heavy protective layer, and its never bent in the same way as a cell phone battery. And when it is, the car would be so mangled as nothing would survive anyway.
It's not Luddite to ask that cars stop pretending they have level 4 or 5 autonomy when they don't.
AP is Level 2. Something Tesla goes to great lengths to explain to owners.
The problem is Level 2 AV systems themselves. Either you are in control or not, Level 2 AV is difficult as it requires you to take control in a short period of time. Anything that includes an explicit warning that it might stop working for safety reasons at any time and you need to take over isn't something the general public should be using. But its hard for Tesla to get the necessary training data with all the weird exception cases that need to be accounted for without letting users try it out for themselves and recording issues for later analysis.
Google/Waze doesn't have this issue (they employee their drivers for now) but because of this perhaps they will gather better data (or perhaps worse data). Its hard to say, but I'm sure there are plenty of warnings and legal disclaimers built into the car to prevent successful lawsuits.
c) Teslas have a Ludicrous mode which is a big selling point - they're more of a drivers car than anything else you're used to.
"Ludicrous" mode only affects acceleration/torque, and does nothing to how the car handles, which is important if your idea of sporty driving is more than straight line drag racing. And even more to the point, it is only for manual mode, so it's irrelevant when discussing autonomous operations.
You clearly have never driven any EV let alone a Tesla. The handling is really a huge selling point. The reason for the far better handling is the weight distribution which is far better in EVs. There is 1500 lbs between the wheels, about 5 inches above the ground. This makes the car feel like its glued to the road but it takes a bit of getting used to as the car is also far heavier than a normal sport car. But in the end, in any apples to apples comparison the EVs are far more fun to drive than the comparable ICE car.
The 'blacks count as a fraction of a person' law that you mention was actually a rule forced on the slave states by the non-slave states.
Plot hole: if the North was capable of forcing such a stipulation on the South, it also would have been capable of forcing the census to ignore slaves - or banning slavery entirely.
America sure is different than the rest of the world. In most developed places, if you even had 90,000 dollars cash on your person or in your house, it would be assumed to come from illegal means.
Hell i can't even take more than $2000 dollars out of the ATM per day.
rich people problems... Austrailia has a big problem with housing speculators, hot asian money, etc. So thats more likely the reason for this decision. Who the hell walks around with 90,000 dollars... where would you even get that much cash? If you are super rich can you just walk into the bank and say "give me a $100k in 20s, here's a suitcase" ??? man i simply cannot picture this world you live in... not sure if its because i'm super poor or not american or what this time.
That's BS. I've personally seen someone count out over a half a million in cash for a house purchase in the US. The government has yet to really act on the huge wave of Chinese purchase of property in the US and most of it was in cash, often for millions a dollars per transaction (US govt made some statements then did nothing). As a side note, getting rid of cash is an incredibly bad idea for a variety of reasons including privacy, unnecessary cost to most people, and the tendency of most people to spend beyond their means with CCs. But hey, you didn't have to do math to pay for your meal.
Yep. The model 3 alternative for me is the Prius 4. That's not an unaffordable car by any means. And one of the most reliable cars as well - my Prius 2 is extremely cheap in maintenance, with the main expenses being new tires.
The Prius 4 also nothing like a model 3. If you think they are at all the same, then you know nothing about cars. Hell, the Prius 4 isn't even as good as the Volt classic which GM has since improved significantly. The first Prius was innovative, since then Toyota has been on of the worst automakers for innovation especially for EVs. They have outright worked against EVs in California for quite some time.
Why not believe that military use of H2 will leak down (up?) to the consumer, so to speak? Because it will be made on-demand. It's not like gasoline and diesel fuel, which require massive refineries to do efficiently and relatively safely — and there are refinery failures of varying severity on a frequent basis. It can be done on basically any scale, but what it can't be is efficient when done by electrolysis. Many have claimed to have discovered ways to get water to separate more cheaply, and none of those ways have panned out. The military doesn't tend to care how much of our money they spend, and they also feel free to use nuclear reactors, so they can produce basically as much H2 as they want. The rest of us are not so lucky.
Because, H2 is at least 30% more expensive to the consumer as electricity (by definition since you crack water with electricity to make H2) and likely 2x as much due to the extra insurance necessary for keeping such an explosive substance in a populated area (it won't be cracked on demand). Oh, and don't forget the extra insurance for each driver over the electric cars due to the fuel being so explosive (another advantage of EVs). And while the cost of the military vehicles is high, the actual number of them is very low (compared to the consumer car market) so its unlikely that will make much difference in the face of competing with Oil (incumbent) and electricity (existing grid and cheaper price).
He said clearly, "I dont want to raise more equity". He also said, "You don't like what I say, sell. Dont buy my company shares". So some left and other are holding.
Mercedes bought chrysler for 36 billion and sold it for 6 billion. What kind of names did they call the Daimler Benz CEO? You lnow what, these analysts should buy more companies like Benz.
"Their analysts wouldn't know preferred stock from live stock." Gordon Gecko of "Wall Street"
It is not B.S. Companies that can't make money will not survive. Tesla is not making money. Your starry eyed worship of a "genius with world changing ideas" is the B.S.
Established automakers are working on making an affordable electric car, Tesla makes expensive toys for the wear-the-nails crowd. They are NOT the solution
Yes, but those other auto makers spend how much on marketing and sales? (billions of $) And Tesla spends what to generate those same amount of sales? (basically $0) There's your first strategic advantage. And where do you think those "established automakers" are going to get all those batteries? Oh, from TSLA because your cell phone battery isn't really the same thing as a car battery. And they will be the only company of scale focusing on those car level batteries. There's strategic advantage #2.
You keep thinking Ford can just mass produce an electric car anytime they want. Sorry, but that's the magical thinking here. They can mass produce ICE cars but electric cars are different enough that they can't just order some motors from GE and some batteries from Samsung and be in business. Also, the basic business model of all "established automakers" can't survive in an electric world as they make a significant amount of their revenue on parts and maintenance which is going away (both due to electrics and improvements in manufacturing). GM might have a better time of it, due to their better electric cars but they still face the scale problems with batteries like the rest of the automakers.
It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.
The Wall Street putz is technically one of Elon's bosses. He wasn't being asked stupid questions, these were legitimate questions concerning the financial health of the company. If Musk didn't want to field questions from stockholders then he should never have taken the company public.
No he isn't. Cramer has never owned TSLA (according to him). Just for reference, Cramer is also the guy who said Bear Sterns was fine one day before it went bankrupt (with the stock going from $60 to $8 in 24 hours). I trade equities for a living and I bet against Cramer on a regular basis and have never been wrong (about betting against him). I still have no idea how that guy stays on CNBC.
What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.
And neither are the analysts who are upset and asked the questions we are discussing. Those are short sellers who have a negative interest in TSLA. The YouTube "retail" investor is a much better representative of the investors in TSLA. Also, the questions the analysts (accountants) ask have little to nothing to do with the current valuation of TSLA. Nobody is betting on TSLA to get the profits from the model 3. They are going long here because they think the company will be the first to mass produce electric cars with an vertically integrated supply chain for the batteries which puts them in a dominate position in transport going forward. Couple that to the fact that the entire economics of the auto industry could likely change over the next 20 years as self-driving cars become common. Also, auto ownership possibly transitions to renting (aka ride sharing). So these are the issues for which most investors are buying TSLA. So the YT questions are actually more useful to the investors than the accounting questions the analysts are asking.
But the worse sin that California forces on the rest of the country is that shreeking fool Maxine Waters. You know if you would get rid of her then we could work together on the rest of your problems.
This is the only part of your post that is sensible. It would help if she could correctly remember the names of people she is talking to (she called him Zuckerman in the hearing a few weeks ago). But most of that House committee was a dumpster fire. Questions about conspiracy theories, questions about FB's biz model ("We display ads Senator") and little to nothing of any real insight or value. The only thing I'm certain of is that there is no way any regulations that might come out of that group would be deeply flawed at best.
A soccer ball can be colored with only 4 colors. Based upon 1D being 2 and 2D being 5, I would expect it to be somewhere around 8-17 but that's just a guess.
To be clear, the surface of a soccer ball can be colored with 4 colors, some sort of tessellated, 3D version of that lattice would still be color-able with 6 colors I believe.
3D is higher, but still finite. Think of multilayer packed soccer ball(ish) shapes.
A soccer ball can be colored with only 4 colors. Based upon 1D being 2 and 2D being 5, I would expect it to be somewhere around 8-17 but that's just a guess.
That would be Hilbert space filling curves. Those are used to optimize parallel processing. Also used in a way to arrange the folding of the brain so that every region is a minimum distance from the spinal cord and optic nerves.
Yes, but this is a specialization of the problems that filling curves handle. Specifically when the edges need to be straight and the same length. Filling curves handles the general case but potentially this would be a better solution for a unique case with this extra constraint. Seems possible that some manufacturing and design problems have this constraint as then the "edges" (wires or some such) could all be the same. When filling curves is used, its likely those "edges" would need to be different and that might be a problem.
I have to disagree with you there. I work for a company that does communications marketing and they're primarily on Macs. They most assuredly are not "just pretending" to be designers or artists.
I also took a tour of some of the major recording studios in Nashville last year and guess what? They still used Macs almost exclusively, even when doing so required special effort (such as finding custom rack mount kits to mount the "trash can" 2013 Mac Pro in their acoustically isolated rack enclosures).
The Apple userbase may be declining in areas it traditionally dominated, like the education sector and 3D animation work. But the creative fields, in general, are still big customers for Apple products.
I don't think it's necessarily bad if Apple parts ways with Intel and makes its own CPUs.... but as others said, the whole switch to Intel enabled a lot of possibilities with running Windows in a dual boot mode, or ensuring virtualization software worked 100%. I think that's a big negative if Apple discards it as unnecessary with the new chips.
That's true for some types of creative work, and not true for others. For 3-D graphics, you would be laughed out of the building for demanding a Mac. For 2-D stuff however, its mostly Macs. Here's the rub though, you can do 2-D on Windows just fine but can't do 3-D on the Macs. So if you do both then you have to have a PC. If you do music, then its mostly Mac (latency from anti-virus kills the Windows offerings). The view we engineers have about "creatives", comes from engineers often working with 2-D graphic designers (or UX designers) who often only do 2-D graphics and often use a Mac as a result. However, as the tools and artforms progress, it will inevitably be pulled in the 3-D direction both for artistic reasons and because creatives will be pushed to do multiple modes for a common concept to save money. So this doesn't bode well for the Apple in the video and graphics market(s) unless they start offering decent graphics cards in their laptops again but I don't really see that happening right now.
I am surprised. I wonder if software vendors will continue to support the Mac line. I mean it's not like their shitty mobile apps are what laptop and workstation users want. There's some real effort involved in pleasing the fruit's decision of the day.
10 years ago I would say yes. Especially in the audio and visual software application markets. Today those applications are just as performance capable on the PC. When I hear of someone working in those fields, I asked what platforms they use and I'm hearing more say PC whereas the answer used to be exclusively a "Mac". There's a shift going on. And I feel, this time, Apples decision will hurt them more than help.
There is a very good reason for that. The video cards have evolved quickly over the last decade, as have the hardware interfaces they use to talk to the CPU. Apple basically stopped trying to keep up in that market about a decade ago as they assumed that graphics folks wouldn't care about the quality of their hardware. In the video space, this was suicide. It got to the point about 5 years ago where you couldn't do pro video work on any Mac of any cost at the same speed as 5 year old PCs. And the situation hasn't improved in the last 5 years (but it hasn't gotten worse as Apple has been trying some in this area after realizing their mistakes). But its still the case that you can't really do pro 3-D video/graphics on Macs today (or for quite some time). So even if Apple suddenly fixed this situation it would take 5 years or more for the market to readopt their platform if that even happened. I can't remember the last time I saw someone do 3-D graphics on a Mac as their main workstation.
I'm all for electrics when they're actually ready. When they do what I need them to, I'll be first in line. Why? Because, getting 3 - 4 miles per KwH, and with power here in Virginia coming it at 12.5 cents per KwH, driving an electric will be like driving my present car on about 95 cents per gallon gasoline. Plus, I won't need to get the timing belt changed ($1,100), the clutch changed ($2300), brakes as often ($400), and a series of oil changes at about $60 - $70 each (I use synthetic oil for the turbo...) And I saw recently an article on supercapacitors that promises / threatens to make electric cars viable with greater storage and faster charge times (10 minutes) than the current batteries, and yes, probably able to meet my needs. Build it, and they (I) will come.
But passing some half-assed law saying 55 mpg isn't going to make it happen any faster, its just going to screw up the market. I just start repairing... and repairing... and repairing if I can't buy the car I need...
One of the weird parts of being an early EV adopter is how everyone else reacts to it. Many people stopped at first to ask questions but with one weird pattern. At the end no matter how I acted, they always gave some excuse for why they wouldn't get one. And this is in the bay area. I never asked them if they wanted one or not, but they always told me they couldn't get one for some weird reason each time. Never heard an actual valid issue except for apartment building refusing to allow EV charging (again usually for spurious reasons). With that experience, to you I say...
So buy a fucking Volt (I've bought 2). They do everything you mentioned just fine. When the battery is exhausted, it switches to gas (its like Prius when its battery is drained). Or you could just keep wasting money and creating more pollution. You can't possibly claim EVs are not ready unless you are a long haul trucker (and even that's coming on-line right now). Try another excuse for why you still use an ICE as this one is no longer valid at all and hasn't been for the better part of a decade.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
The US currently has military bases in over 70 countries...right now, after we closed down a bunch of them to save money. What can't we have again? The better question is 'what is the right mix of projection of military power vs use of soft power'. Treating the world 'empire' like a binary state is silly, governments project power over geographic regions and some project farther than others.
The Sentra sells for $15,000 less than a Tesla 3. The Tesla 3 is new so we don't know the cost of maintenance or resale, but I know the maintenance on the Sentra was well below the difference in purchase price minus fuel. I sold the Sentra for $12,000 less than what I paid and now have a more efficient ICE car that was still $10,000 less than a base Tesla 3.
You made the classic mistake of ignoring maintenance which on an EV is nearly 0 (which is why car salesmen hate EVs). Also, your estimate for yearly miles driven is about 1/4 of the US average. There are other EVs other than the Tesla 3. The better comparison would be the Volt but that would invalidate your entire argument as its cheaper than the Sentra I believe.
Human brain by comparison contains around 100 billion neurons and 1.5*10^14 synapses, so what the fuck they are talking about, WHAT AI, for god sake?
For reference, some current AI systems have 10^8 nodes (100x smaller) and 10^10 edges (10000x smaller). So according to Moore's law that's what, 14 years away?
I don't think anyone is beating Microsoft in AI. They are just not exposing their tech on client side. They are keeping it on server side and only letting customers use it on per-client request basis.
You mean just like Google does? That's not how AI works in practice anyway.
The algorithms are mostly the algorithms. Often tweeking them reduces their performance (hell tweeking their hyperparameters often reduces their performance too). Applied AI (solving a specific problem with AI) is usually about feature extraction and then just trying different algorithms until you find one that works well enough or better than the rest. Some algorithms (NN) have a network topology and often people spend large amounts of time/computation trying different graphs. Often this process is about access to large amounts of computing hardware, access (and use of) high performance analysis systems for streaming data to the algorithms and efficient implementations of those algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient Boosted Machines, etc). Most of these things have nothing to do with AI research (inventing new algorithms).
The point is that none of the examples Musk mentioned involve new algorithms (truly effective novel algorithms are quite rare). And the companies that Musk mentions are downright terrible at all the things around an AI system that are mostly about efficient I/O and computation (BigQuery is the worst performing analytics engine ever created). So any fear of those technologies is probably poorly founded. Either Musk doesn't understand this area (likely) or he has some other reason to propose this (also likely). I'm betting on the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by 'assisted driving technology'? It seems to me that the safest option is where the human is doing the driving, but the car is ready in case of emergency (ie apply the brakes if you are going to hit something). The absolute worst option is the vehicle is driving, but the human has to be 'at the ready' (autopilot). In that case, you are requiring humans to do the thing they are worst at, which is paying attention through long periods of boredom. So, in your example of truckers: as you said they already spending too much time behind the wheel. Now, take away all of their tasks EXCEPT 'pay attention', and it will surely lead to disaster - probably worse than if there is no assist at all. So in that case there better be zero requirement for the human to do ANYTHING.
Mod parent up.
Really? How many 10-15 year old laptops and smartphones are in use? Of the ones that are, how many have been subjected to 10-15 years of baking in the sun, freezing in the cold, vibration, jolts, etc? How many laptops and smart phones have high-current connections that can develop resistance and become very hot?
Consider how your average teen treats their phone. Now consider how many times you read about a phone catching fire (one specific model of phone not withstanding)?
The battery in your car is much better pampered than a cell phone battery. Its kept warm by an internal heating system controlled by electronics, its covered with a heavy protective layer, and its never bent in the same way as a cell phone battery. And when it is, the car would be so mangled as nothing would survive anyway.
It's not Luddite to ask that cars stop pretending they have level 4 or 5 autonomy when they don't.
AP is Level 2. Something Tesla goes to great lengths to explain to owners.
The problem is Level 2 AV systems themselves. Either you are in control or not, Level 2 AV is difficult as it requires you to take control in a short period of time. Anything that includes an explicit warning that it might stop working for safety reasons at any time and you need to take over isn't something the general public should be using. But its hard for Tesla to get the necessary training data with all the weird exception cases that need to be accounted for without letting users try it out for themselves and recording issues for later analysis.
Google/Waze doesn't have this issue (they employee their drivers for now) but because of this perhaps they will gather better data (or perhaps worse data). Its hard to say, but I'm sure there are plenty of warnings and legal disclaimers built into the car to prevent successful lawsuits.
c) Teslas have a Ludicrous mode which is a big selling point - they're more of a drivers car than anything else you're used to.
"Ludicrous" mode only affects acceleration/torque, and does nothing to how the car handles, which is important if your idea of sporty driving is more than straight line drag racing. And even more to the point, it is only for manual mode, so it's irrelevant when discussing autonomous operations.
You clearly have never driven any EV let alone a Tesla. The handling is really a huge selling point. The reason for the far better handling is the weight distribution which is far better in EVs. There is 1500 lbs between the wheels, about 5 inches above the ground. This makes the car feel like its glued to the road but it takes a bit of getting used to as the car is also far heavier than a normal sport car. But in the end, in any apples to apples comparison the EVs are far more fun to drive than the comparable ICE car.
Plot hole: if the North was capable of forcing such a stipulation on the South, it also would have been capable of forcing the census to ignore slaves - or banning slavery entirely.
Its actually part of the US Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
America sure is different than the rest of the world. In most developed places, if you even had 90,000 dollars cash on your person or in your house, it would be assumed to come from illegal means.
Hell i can't even take more than $2000 dollars out of the ATM per day.
rich people problems... Austrailia has a big problem with housing speculators, hot asian money, etc. So thats more likely the reason for this decision. Who the hell walks around with 90,000 dollars... where would you even get that much cash? If you are super rich can you just walk into the bank and say "give me a $100k in 20s, here's a suitcase" ??? man i simply cannot picture this world you live in... not sure if its because i'm super poor or not american or what this time.
That's BS. I've personally seen someone count out over a half a million in cash for a house purchase in the US. The government has yet to really act on the huge wave of Chinese purchase of property in the US and most of it was in cash, often for millions a dollars per transaction (US govt made some statements then did nothing). As a side note, getting rid of cash is an incredibly bad idea for a variety of reasons including privacy, unnecessary cost to most people, and the tendency of most people to spend beyond their means with CCs. But hey, you didn't have to do math to pay for your meal.
Yep. The model 3 alternative for me is the Prius 4. That's not an unaffordable car by any means. And one of the most reliable cars as well - my Prius 2 is extremely cheap in maintenance, with the main expenses being new tires.
The Prius 4 also nothing like a model 3. If you think they are at all the same, then you know nothing about cars. Hell, the Prius 4 isn't even as good as the Volt classic which GM has since improved significantly. The first Prius was innovative, since then Toyota has been on of the worst automakers for innovation especially for EVs. They have outright worked against EVs in California for quite some time.
Why not believe that military use of H2 will leak down (up?) to the consumer, so to speak? Because it will be made on-demand. It's not like gasoline and diesel fuel, which require massive refineries to do efficiently and relatively safely — and there are refinery failures of varying severity on a frequent basis. It can be done on basically any scale, but what it can't be is efficient when done by electrolysis. Many have claimed to have discovered ways to get water to separate more cheaply, and none of those ways have panned out. The military doesn't tend to care how much of our money they spend, and they also feel free to use nuclear reactors, so they can produce basically as much H2 as they want. The rest of us are not so lucky.
Because, H2 is at least 30% more expensive to the consumer as electricity (by definition since you crack water with electricity to make H2) and likely 2x as much due to the extra insurance necessary for keeping such an explosive substance in a populated area (it won't be cracked on demand). Oh, and don't forget the extra insurance for each driver over the electric cars due to the fuel being so explosive (another advantage of EVs). And while the cost of the military vehicles is high, the actual number of them is very low (compared to the consumer car market) so its unlikely that will make much difference in the face of competing with Oil (incumbent) and electricity (existing grid and cheaper price).
He said clearly, "I dont want to raise more equity". He also said, "You don't like what I say, sell. Dont buy my company shares". So some left and other are holding.
Mercedes bought chrysler for 36 billion and sold it for 6 billion. What kind of names did they call the Daimler Benz CEO? You lnow what, these analysts should buy more companies like Benz.
"Their analysts wouldn't know preferred stock from live stock." Gordon Gecko of "Wall Street"
It is not B.S. Companies that can't make money will not survive. Tesla is not making money. Your starry eyed worship of a "genius with world changing ideas" is the B.S.
Established automakers are working on making an affordable electric car, Tesla makes expensive toys for the wear-the-nails crowd. They are NOT the solution
Yes, but those other auto makers spend how much on marketing and sales? (billions of $) And Tesla spends what to generate those same amount of sales? (basically $0) There's your first strategic advantage. And where do you think those "established automakers" are going to get all those batteries? Oh, from TSLA because your cell phone battery isn't really the same thing as a car battery. And they will be the only company of scale focusing on those car level batteries. There's strategic advantage #2.
You keep thinking Ford can just mass produce an electric car anytime they want. Sorry, but that's the magical thinking here. They can mass produce ICE cars but electric cars are different enough that they can't just order some motors from GE and some batteries from Samsung and be in business. Also, the basic business model of all "established automakers" can't survive in an electric world as they make a significant amount of their revenue on parts and maintenance which is going away (both due to electrics and improvements in manufacturing). GM might have a better time of it, due to their better electric cars but they still face the scale problems with batteries like the rest of the automakers.
No it isn't
It was about $300 before the call, went to $285 before market open, then to a low of $277 and closed at $284 on Thursday. On Friday, it closed over $293. So its recovered half of the price drop. It will likely recover the rest next week.
The Wall Street putz is technically one of Elon's bosses. He wasn't being asked stupid questions, these were legitimate questions concerning the financial health of the company. If Musk didn't want to field questions from stockholders then he should never have taken the company public.
No he isn't. Cramer has never owned TSLA (according to him). Just for reference, Cramer is also the guy who said Bear Sterns was fine one day before it went bankrupt (with the stock going from $60 to $8 in 24 hours). I trade equities for a living and I bet against Cramer on a regular basis and have never been wrong (about betting against him). I still have no idea how that guy stays on CNBC.
What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.
And neither are the analysts who are upset and asked the questions we are discussing. Those are short sellers who have a negative interest in TSLA. The YouTube "retail" investor is a much better representative of the investors in TSLA. Also, the questions the analysts (accountants) ask have little to nothing to do with the current valuation of TSLA. Nobody is betting on TSLA to get the profits from the model 3. They are going long here because they think the company will be the first to mass produce electric cars with an vertically integrated supply chain for the batteries which puts them in a dominate position in transport going forward. Couple that to the fact that the entire economics of the auto industry could likely change over the next 20 years as self-driving cars become common. Also, auto ownership possibly transitions to renting (aka ride sharing). So these are the issues for which most investors are buying TSLA. So the YT questions are actually more useful to the investors than the accounting questions the analysts are asking.
But the worse sin that California forces on the rest of the country is that shreeking fool Maxine Waters. You know if you would get rid of her then we could work together on the rest of your problems.
This is the only part of your post that is sensible. It would help if she could correctly remember the names of people she is talking to (she called him Zuckerman in the hearing a few weeks ago). But most of that House committee was a dumpster fire. Questions about conspiracy theories, questions about FB's biz model ("We display ads Senator") and little to nothing of any real insight or value. The only thing I'm certain of is that there is no way any regulations that might come out of that group would be deeply flawed at best.
A soccer ball can be colored with only 4 colors. Based upon 1D being 2 and 2D being 5, I would expect it to be somewhere around 8-17 but that's just a guess.
To be clear, the surface of a soccer ball can be colored with 4 colors, some sort of tessellated, 3D version of that lattice would still be color-able with 6 colors I believe.
3D is higher, but still finite. Think of multilayer packed soccer ball(ish) shapes.
A soccer ball can be colored with only 4 colors. Based upon 1D being 2 and 2D being 5, I would expect it to be somewhere around 8-17 but that's just a guess.
That would be Hilbert space filling curves. Those are used to optimize parallel processing. Also used in a way to arrange the folding of the brain so that every region is a minimum distance from the spinal cord and optic nerves.
Yes, but this is a specialization of the problems that filling curves handle. Specifically when the edges need to be straight and the same length. Filling curves handles the general case but potentially this would be a better solution for a unique case with this extra constraint. Seems possible that some manufacturing and design problems have this constraint as then the "edges" (wires or some such) could all be the same. When filling curves is used, its likely those "edges" would need to be different and that might be a problem.
Lets see here, Printing was invented in Korea. Papermaking was invented in Egypt. 2 out of 4 aint bad I guess...better than 0 for 4.
I have to disagree with you there. I work for a company that does communications marketing and they're primarily on Macs. They most assuredly are not "just pretending" to be designers or artists.
I also took a tour of some of the major recording studios in Nashville last year and guess what? They still used Macs almost exclusively, even when doing so required special effort (such as finding custom rack mount kits to mount the "trash can" 2013 Mac Pro in their acoustically isolated rack enclosures).
The Apple userbase may be declining in areas it traditionally dominated, like the education sector and 3D animation work. But the creative fields, in general, are still big customers for Apple products.
I don't think it's necessarily bad if Apple parts ways with Intel and makes its own CPUs .... but as others said, the whole switch to Intel enabled a lot of possibilities with running Windows in a dual boot mode, or ensuring virtualization software worked 100%. I think that's a big negative if Apple discards it as unnecessary with the new chips.
That's true for some types of creative work, and not true for others. For 3-D graphics, you would be laughed out of the building for demanding a Mac. For 2-D stuff however, its mostly Macs. Here's the rub though, you can do 2-D on Windows just fine but can't do 3-D on the Macs. So if you do both then you have to have a PC. If you do music, then its mostly Mac (latency from anti-virus kills the Windows offerings). The view we engineers have about "creatives", comes from engineers often working with 2-D graphic designers (or UX designers) who often only do 2-D graphics and often use a Mac as a result. However, as the tools and artforms progress, it will inevitably be pulled in the 3-D direction both for artistic reasons and because creatives will be pushed to do multiple modes for a common concept to save money. So this doesn't bode well for the Apple in the video and graphics market(s) unless they start offering decent graphics cards in their laptops again but I don't really see that happening right now.
I am surprised. I wonder if software vendors will continue to support the Mac line. I mean it's not like their shitty mobile apps are what laptop and workstation users want. There's some real effort involved in pleasing the fruit's decision of the day.
10 years ago I would say yes. Especially in the audio and visual software application markets. Today those applications are just as performance capable on the PC. When I hear of someone working in those fields, I asked what platforms they use and I'm hearing more say PC whereas the answer used to be exclusively a "Mac". There's a shift going on. And I feel, this time, Apples decision will hurt them more than help.
There is a very good reason for that. The video cards have evolved quickly over the last decade, as have the hardware interfaces they use to talk to the CPU. Apple basically stopped trying to keep up in that market about a decade ago as they assumed that graphics folks wouldn't care about the quality of their hardware. In the video space, this was suicide. It got to the point about 5 years ago where you couldn't do pro video work on any Mac of any cost at the same speed as 5 year old PCs. And the situation hasn't improved in the last 5 years (but it hasn't gotten worse as Apple has been trying some in this area after realizing their mistakes). But its still the case that you can't really do pro 3-D video/graphics on Macs today (or for quite some time). So even if Apple suddenly fixed this situation it would take 5 years or more for the market to readopt their platform if that even happened. I can't remember the last time I saw someone do 3-D graphics on a Mac as their main workstation.
I'm all for electrics when they're actually ready. When they do what I need them to, I'll be first in line. Why? Because, getting 3 - 4 miles per KwH, and with power here in Virginia coming it at 12.5 cents per KwH, driving an electric will be like driving my present car on about 95 cents per gallon gasoline. Plus, I won't need to get the timing belt changed ($1,100), the clutch changed ($2300), brakes as often ($400), and a series of oil changes at about $60 - $70 each (I use synthetic oil for the turbo...) And I saw recently an article on supercapacitors that promises / threatens to make electric cars viable with greater storage and faster charge times (10 minutes) than the current batteries, and yes, probably able to meet my needs. Build it, and they (I) will come.
But passing some half-assed law saying 55 mpg isn't going to make it happen any faster, its just going to screw up the market. I just start repairing... and repairing... and repairing if I can't buy the car I need...
One of the weird parts of being an early EV adopter is how everyone else reacts to it. Many people stopped at first to ask questions but with one weird pattern. At the end no matter how I acted, they always gave some excuse for why they wouldn't get one. And this is in the bay area. I never asked them if they wanted one or not, but they always told me they couldn't get one for some weird reason each time. Never heard an actual valid issue except for apartment building refusing to allow EV charging (again usually for spurious reasons). With that experience, to you I say...
So buy a fucking Volt (I've bought 2). They do everything you mentioned just fine. When the battery is exhausted, it switches to gas (its like Prius when its battery is drained). Or you could just keep wasting money and creating more pollution. You can't possibly claim EVs are not ready unless you are a long haul trucker (and even that's coming on-line right now). Try another excuse for why you still use an ICE as this one is no longer valid at all and hasn't been for the better part of a decade.
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
The US currently has military bases in over 70 countries...right now, after we closed down a bunch of them to save money. What can't we have again? The better question is 'what is the right mix of projection of military power vs use of soft power'. Treating the world 'empire' like a binary state is silly, governments project power over geographic regions and some project farther than others.
The Sentra sells for $15,000 less than a Tesla 3. The Tesla 3 is new so we don't know the cost of maintenance or resale, but I know the maintenance on the Sentra was well below the difference in purchase price minus fuel. I sold the Sentra for $12,000 less than what I paid and now have a more efficient ICE car that was still $10,000 less than a base Tesla 3.
You made the classic mistake of ignoring maintenance which on an EV is nearly 0 (which is why car salesmen hate EVs). Also, your estimate for yearly miles driven is about 1/4 of the US average. There are other EVs other than the Tesla 3. The better comparison would be the Volt but that would invalidate your entire argument as its cheaper than the Sentra I believe.
Human brain by comparison contains around 100 billion neurons and 1.5*10^14 synapses, so what the fuck they are talking about, WHAT AI, for god sake?
For reference, some current AI systems have 10^8 nodes (100x smaller) and 10^10 edges (10000x smaller). So according to Moore's law that's what, 14 years away?
I don't think anyone is beating Microsoft in AI. They are just not exposing their tech on client side. They are keeping it on server side and only letting customers use it on per-client request basis.
You mean just like Google does? That's not how AI works in practice anyway.
The algorithms are mostly the algorithms. Often tweeking them reduces their performance (hell tweeking their hyperparameters often reduces their performance too). Applied AI (solving a specific problem with AI) is usually about feature extraction and then just trying different algorithms until you find one that works well enough or better than the rest. Some algorithms (NN) have a network topology and often people spend large amounts of time/computation trying different graphs. Often this process is about access to large amounts of computing hardware, access (and use of) high performance analysis systems for streaming data to the algorithms and efficient implementations of those algorithms (Random Forest, Gradient Boosted Machines, etc). Most of these things have nothing to do with AI research (inventing new algorithms).
The point is that none of the examples Musk mentioned involve new algorithms (truly effective novel algorithms are quite rare). And the companies that Musk mentions are downright terrible at all the things around an AI system that are mostly about efficient I/O and computation (BigQuery is the worst performing analytics engine ever created). So any fear of those technologies is probably poorly founded. Either Musk doesn't understand this area (likely) or he has some other reason to propose this (also likely). I'm betting on the latter.