Has he made billions? He's obviously done well but I'm not sure he has been able to capture any value from openai except for publicity, and what else does he have? A few $10m from loopt and ycombinator?
>Has he made billions? He's obviously done well but I'm not sure he has been able to capture any value from openai except for publicity, and what else does he have?
Is it just me or did nutella go from almost solid to much more fluid about 5 years ago? And it got slightly darker? Anybody know what happened? The texture definitely changed.
there was a big controversy in Germany that Nutella changed its recipe round about the time you are saying. I noticed myself that Nutella tasted worse (and thus quit eating it). You could see on the ingredients list that the order changed, and since the ordering is always from highest amount to lowest amount it was clear that the recipe changed (I think sugar was on spot 1 aftewards but not before? Not sure). You could probably find articles about it...
The biggest change was about 10 years ago, when the percentage of hazelnut in Nutella dropped from 17% to 13%. I think after that they tweaked the oil to sugar ratios a bit, but noting so serious that I noticed since then.
I'm surprised they haven't cut back on the chocolate contents in their spread considering the extreme price jump chocolate went through after the last cocoa harvest went terrible.
I mean, it's often unavoidable since Google puts AI results on top of the page (and more and more pages create content via "AI", so even organic search results may be tainted.
The answer is fairly obvious, humanity is always more obsessed with potential value than actual value. Elon sells that potential very well, but he does actually follow up in a decent way.
Turning the impossible into late is a legitimate business strategy, because you create markets that weren't there before (like cheap satellite launches).
And he has a history of doing this, and he's trying to do it again with optimus and robotaxi. There's massive potential in humanoid robots and robotaxis, which is why people are willing to take a risk. You might think that's irrational, and that's fine. Others do not.
Compare this to other car companies, they don't offer any vision of changing the future in any major way or bringing new products to market. That is boring and predictable. Still valuable, but not as much as Tesla.
So someone needs to make a substack for music basically. That's what we are talking about here. Question is, do people think a certain artist or song is important enough to pay $5/month to individually? My sense is no, but perhaps...
It is. And it’s also the fairest platform for musicians pay-wise. Though Epic apparently acquired Bandcamp[1] recently (presumably to stuff its IP catalogue for Fortnite Festival, so who knows how long that will be true for.
> Though Epic apparently acquired Bandcamp[1] recently
The article you linked is about Epic selling Bandcamp, which happened relatively quickly after they acquired it. I guess they didn't find any use for it in the end.
>Question is, do people think a certain artist or song is important enough to pay $5/month to individually? My sense is no, but perhaps...
Abso-fucking-lutely! I pay $3.50 a month to listen to a madman with a mohawk rant about Formula 1. I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't pay their favorite artists $5 a month. On the flip side I would get to listen to three artists and every other artist would lose me as a listener. I don't feel anybody wins in that scenario.
Considering the amount of threats and hate jewish people with no connection get about Israel vs Palestine, you don't think there's at least some legitimacy for his position?
Considering there was literally just an attack on a UK synagogue by an arab, after which many people protested on the side of the attacker in London, you don't think there's a tiny legitimacy to his views?
Of course this is a rhetorical question, because your obviously don't think his views has legitimacy.
Can you give some info on people "protesting on the side of the attacker in London"? That is, people coming out in support of the attack on the synagogue?
Your argument is that it’s not ok to think of all Jewish people as a monolithic group, and therefore his statement where he considered all arabs as a monolithic group is ”legitimate”? Seriously?
Just like it’s not ok to see all jews as part of the same murderous conspiracy, it’s not ok to see all arabs as part of one either.
Cruelty is your perceived behaviour of people on the other side sticking up for their values.
I can both argue that it’s cruel to not have housing for everyone,
while also arguing it’s cruel to tax away 40-50% of an entire country’s productivity (people’s actual work) to pay for houses for people who have never worked or paid taxes in their life.
Who’s right? Who’s cruel? Both sides and both. This is why I find this cruelty argument so bad.
Those values all come from straight up your ass. Both the numbers and the idea that the other side has any values to stick up for other than cruelty. They operate in bad faith consistently and are more than happy to pay for far things more expensive than just housing if it leads to more suffering. ICE isn't cheap you goddamned evil hypocrites.
Yeah. I was just a teenager when I first played, but the prison escape and the associated revelations were breathtaking to me and once of my first "holy shit" moments in playing a PC game. And not the only such moment just from that game! The Agent Navarre airplane scene was incredible. And I loved that you had conversations, like with the Australian expat at the Hong Kong bar or the AI, or the terrorist at the statue of Liberty, that were good conversations where the payoff was just intellectual curiosity and the content itself. Hong Kong was amazing to just explore too.
I still haven't played anything like it some 25 years later unless The Nameless Mod counts.
What people fail to understand about dynamics between countries, is ultimately there is no supreme court or arbiter of truth. The UN doesn't have authority over any powerful country (or non powerful country for that matter).
People seem to have this concept that there is some supra national legal system, or even moral system that can hold a higher truth than what powerful countries want, but there isn't. When it comes to geopolitics, the biggest and most powerful sets the rules and lives by them (or not). The USA has zero motivation to do something the UN wants it to do, if it doesn't itself want to do it. No one is going to hold it to account.
Ultimately - whoever controls the violence can set the rules. For the last 80 years that's been the US. Maybe that is changing, but not quite yet.
The UN isn't an international democratic institution. For the last 20-30 years it's been a powerless theatre. And it didn't have much power before then either. Because ultimately, whoever has the most nukes and the biggest army rules the world.
> People seem to have this concept that there is some supra national legal system, or even moral system that can hold a higher truth than what powerful countries want,
Can you blame them? The same countries facilitating this genocide have been telling everyone they uphold principles of human rights and democracy, and a "rules based international order*, and that they oppose genocide. Only now are enough horrors breaking through in such a surreal way that people are forced to notice the contradictions.
Its important to note that most of those "irrelevant" countries are only irrelevant because they're perpetually under the thumb of world powers. Hence why they petition the UN. And, hence why empires and somewhat-formally colonial nations ignore them.
Ultimately, a lot of the wealth of the West comes from core countries siphoning wealth from the periphery and propping up psueodo governments to place their thumbs on the scale of world politics. Exhibit A: Israel.
Empires are not exclusive to the West, and those also ignore the UN. For many of the countries under their thumbs, the West has at least sometimes been acting in their defense.
1. A human has a lot more options to deal with things like sun glare. We can move our head, use shade, etc. And when it comes to certain aspects around dynamic range the human eyes are still better than cameras. And most of all, if we loose nearly all vision we are intelligent enough to simulate the behaviour of most objects around us to react safe for the next few seconds.
2. Human intelligence is much deeper than machine vision. We can predict a lot of things that machine visions have no hope to achieve without some kind of incredibly advanced multi-modal model which is probably many years out.
The most important thing is that Tesla/Elon absolutely had no way to know, and no reason to believe (other than as a way to rationalise a dangerously risky bet) that machine vision would be able to solve all these issues in time to make good on their promise.
Not only do we have options to deal with it, we understand that it's a vision artefact, and not something real. We understand objects don't vanish or appear out of nowhere. We understand the glare isn't reality but is obstructing our view of reality. We immediately understand we're therefore dealing with incomplete information and compensate for that. Including looking for other ways to look around the instruction or fill in the gaps. Without even thinking about it, often.
The human brain is the result of literal billions of years of evolution, across trillions of organisms. The "just" in your "just a matter of sufficient learning data and training" is doing a lot of work.
If you have cheat codes then why not just use it instead of insisting on principle that our eyes are good enough? We see Waymo use the cheat codes, oh no. We also only have binocular vision, so I guess Tesla is already okay with superhuman cheat codes.
We not only use our vision when driving but also our other senses. We can tell the sun is shining at us because it warms our skin. This all happened subconsciously.
Humans are vastly superior drivers in general, it’s just that 50% of humans are bad drivers.
