Exactly. Thank you.

I might be impressed by a truck that could haul a cooler, an empty plastic barrel, and a crate at once. But the lack of any tie-downs for those straps makes my point well for me. Thanks.

Look closer and read the dimensions. The Verge say “it can hold a sheet of plywood” in text but if you look at the dimensions, there isn’t 48” of space between the wheel wells, so it has to be propped up on them seesawing back and forth. And there is not 96” of length to support it, even with the tailgate down. At best you could limp home with one sheet rocking around, sticking out behind you. Forget transporting a stack.

It’s yet another urban toy truck that’s not equipped for actual utility.

It’s not a truck to me if the bed can’t fit a sheet of plywood.

EDIT: which you will see it cannot if you look at the dimensions listed. Plywood is 48”x96”

When a company considers buying Chrome because it could help them extend the reach of their product, they are fucking drunk and need to go home. This would be like buying the state of Nevada so you could put up billboards all over Las Vegas.

This kind of headline always makes it sound like AI is being used as judge, jury, and executioner. But it’s more likely that it’s part of narrowing the field or generating candidates.

I’m reminded of another headline recently about how AI is now going to be used at a nuclear reactor. Everyone assumed this meant that ChatGPT would henceforth operate the entire reactor including having the ability to cause meltdowns. It turned out to be that the employees were getting an AI powered document search for their office that would help them search regulatory and technical documents.

We need to remain skeptical of AI, but this hardon for Skynet everywhere is not actually helping with that. That’s more emotional catharsis, 2-minutes hate, than effective skepticism.

No one cares when you bought. You’re supposed to flood the used Tesla market to suppress new sales happening NOW.

I’ve heard a lot of excuses from Tesla drivers about how they can’t afford to stand for their ethics. It’s pathetic. How are we to believe this from anyone who could afford one in the first place?

Plot yourself on the historical spectrum of “what was I willing to give up for my ideals” and that brave moral stand about not having a car payment looks pretty fucking limp.

I have empathy for you. I’m just more concerns with your soul than your car payment.

It’s very hard to actually get a company broken up and I can’t remember ever seeing it happen. But when your antitrust case is judged against you, they don’t just charge you a fine and say “on your way now.”

All predictions in this vein are invalid.

If you want to say “even this little bit is unsettling and we should be on guard for more,” fine.

That’s different from “if you think this is only a small amount you are wrong because a small amount will become a large amount.”

You may think it’s as plausible as you like. Obviously you do or you wouldn’t have said it. It’s still by definition absolutely a slippery slope logical fallacy. A little will always lead to more, therefore a little is a lot. This is textbook. It has nothing to do with companies, computers, or goats.

That’s textbook slippery slope logical fallacy.

It’s literally just a document search for their internal employees to use.

Those employees are fallible humans trying to navigate tens of thousands of byzantine technical and regulatory documents all published on various dinosaur platforms.

AI hallucination is a very popular thing to get outraged about right now but don’t forget about good old fashioned bureaucratic error.

My employer implemented AI search/summarization of our docs/wiki/intranet/JIRA systems over a year ago and it has been very effective in my experience. It always links to the source docs, but it permits natural language queries and can do some reasoning about the contents of the documents to pull together information across a sea of text.

Nothing that is mission critical enough to lead to a reactor meltdown should ever be blindly trusted to these tools.

But nothing like that should ever be trusted to the whims of one fallible human, either. This is why systems have protocols, checks and balances, quality controls, and failsafes.

Giving employees a more powerful document search doesn’t somehow sweep all that aside.

But hey, don’t let a rational, down-to-earth argument stand in the way of freaking out about a sci-fi dystopia.

I can’t imagine what it is like for bereaved parents who have recently lost a child. Or for those struggling with fertility issues.

Don’t dress up your petty annoyance at having to share a world with parents as saving the bereaved and barren.

Those are ways to gather empirical results, though they rely on artificial, staged situations.

I think it’s fine to have both. Seat belts save lives. I see no problem mandating them. That kind of thing can still be well founded in data.

It’s hardly either / or though. What we have here is empirical data showing that cars without lidar perform worse. So it’s based in empirical results to mandate lidar. You can build a clear, robust requirement around a tech spec. You cannot build a clear, robust law around fatality statistics targets.

This sounds good until you realize how unsafe human drivers are. People won’t accept a self-driving system that’s only 50% safer than humans, because that will still be a self-driving car that kills 20,000 Americans a year. Look at the outrage right here, and we’re nowhere near those numbers. I also don’t see anyone comparing these numbers to human drivers on any per-mile basis. Waymos compared favorably to human drivers in their most recently released data. Does anyone even know where Teslas stand compared to human drivers?

These fatalities are a Tesla business advantage. Every one is a data point they can use to program their self-driving intelligence. No one has killed as many as Tesla, so no one knows more about what kills people than Tesla. We don’t have to turn this into a bad thing just because they’re killing people /s

I see it as people wanting to commit righteous violence. People have violent impulses, but we usually control them. Some people with extraordinary violent tendencies go looking for a place where it’s “okay” to let them loose. This is not the only example.

It’s true, but so is retooling aviation around hydrogen. This is just a prediction but I think before that ever happens, EITHER we’ll have light batteries that are safer and more effective that Lithium OR we’ll have carbon-neutral ways to produce hydrocarbon fuels that can be used with conventional aircraft.

Hydrogen has struck out on personal electronics and ground transportation. Now it’s angling for aviation where its energy density may matter more. But it hasn’t been losing because of energy density.

He says it so many times in so many ways that he actually starts to make it seem more complex than it is. You start wondering if you’re missing something, because you got it in 6 seconds but 12 minutes later he’s still talking about it.