I'm not sure what IC they use, but it uses a two-line text display and can switch between Lipo, LiFE, NiMH, NiCD, Pb, and a few other modes, and some of them allow adjustable cutoff voltage, max charge time, etc. That's just a cheap 80W model but there are 200W+ chargers that use the same interface.
The guy who died on one was Jimi Heselden, who was a British entrepreneur who bought the company from the American inventor, Dean Kamen. Dean is alive, however he was recently found to have hung out with the "disgraced financier".
Their Ninebot escooters are pretty damn good, far better than most random brands.
I spent most of Covid in VRChat and met my current live-in gf, so the metaverse was real for me too.
I also made decent money selling crypto, so that part was real for me too.
And AI coding, for as dumb as even the best models are, still enabled me to create things that I wanted to, but wouldn't have had time or gotten nearly as far without.
I dunno if the author realizes, but all the things they mentioned did materialize in one way or another, just not exactly how the hype described it.
Maybe if they could let go of some of the cynicism, they could find something to be optimistic about. Nothing ever goes exactly as planned, but that doesn't mean nothing is good.
> I dunno if the author realizes, but all the things they mentioned did materialize in one way or another, just not exactly how the hype described it.
From the post, which is not a very long one: "All of the above technologies are still chugging along in some form or other (well, OK, not Quibi). Some are vaguely useful and others are propped up by weirdo cultists"
Fair, I read the whole post but I guess that part didn't register, maybe because I never fullheartedly believe marketing fluff to begin with. Maybe this person has too much contact with "AI will fix everything" types, and not enough with actual scientists who are really developing novel methods better than anything before, piece by piece.
I also found the "it's almost always dudes" line a bit strange, because I've seen plenty of women doing marketing for startups running on hype.
But there's a spectrum of responses to these technologies, from knee-jerk cynicism to genuine moral disgust. "Useful" and "good for people/society/humanity" don't always go hand-in-hand, particularly if you take origins and power into account.
The 300MHz, 400MHz, and 500MHz points requiring only 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5v and with only the last point getting slightly above body temperature, even with no cooling, seem like something that should maybe not be "officially" supported, but maybe mentioned somewhere in an official blog post or docs. Getting 3x+ the performance with some config changes is noteworthy. It would be interesting to run an experiment to see if there's any measurable degradation of stability or increased likelihood at failure at those settings compared to a stock unit running the same workload for the same time.
All of their reliability testing and validation happens at the lower voltages and speeds. I doubt they'd include anything in the official docs lest they be accused of officially endorsing something that might later turn out to reduce longevity.
And recent DESI data suggests that dark energy is not constant and the universe will experience a big crunch in a little more than double its current age, for a total lifespan of 33 billion years, no need to get wild with the orders of magnitude on years into the future. The infinite expansion to heat death over 10^100 years is looking less likely, 10^11 years should be plenty.
not obvious to me this makes things better as opposed to worse? sure, the time bound helps but in the runup to a crunch won't we get vastly more devices in causal range at an asymptotically increasing rate?
Runup to the crunch is a looong time lots of which is probably very habitable. in 5 billion years life can arise from scratch become conscious and exterminate itself
It is visually outstanding. The only thing that sticks out to me is that the steering column bends out forwards towards the ground (negative trail), which would make it oversteer rather than self-stabilize. Interestingly there's a slight positive trail bend in the second one, though.
Or perhaps those who saw this blog post by Waymo itself:
Fleet response: Lending a helpful hand to Waymo’s autonomously driven vehicles
Much like phone-a-friend, when the Waymo vehicle encounters a particular situation on the road, the autonomous driver can reach out to a human fleet response agent for additional information to contextualize its environment. The Waymo Driver does not rely solely on the inputs it receives from the fleet response agent and it is in control of the vehicle at all times. As the Waymo Driver waits for input from fleet response, and even after receiving it, the Waymo Driver continues using available information to inform its decisions. This is important because, given the dynamic conditions on the road, the environment around the car can change, which either remedies the situation or influences how the Waymo Driver should proceed. In fact, the vast majority of such situations are resolved, without assistance, by the Waymo Driver.
In other words, much like Waymo tries to put a nice spin on it, their cars are not fully autonomous and despite the wording of the article above, they are not "operating a fully autonomous service". Nor can the Waymo Driver "confidently navigate the "long tail" of one-in-a-million events" it "regularly encounter[s] when driving millions of miles a week".
They have remote safety drivers. Not fully autonomous. "Fully autonomous" is their aspiration marketing, but not their current reality.
>They have remote safety drivers. Not fully autonomous. "Fully autonomous" is their aspiration marketing, but not their current reality.
1. They're not "safety drivers" in the sense that most people understand, ie. someone dedicated to watching the car
2. What's with the fixation on defining "fully autonomous" to mean 0% human intervention ever? If a vending machine works 99% of the time, and 1% of the time needs some technician to come to get a drink unstuck does it make sense to get up and arms about how it's not "fully automated" or whatever? In all contexts why people would care (eg. unit economics, safety, customer experience), there's no meaningful difference between 99% autonomous and 100% autonomous.
>> What's with the fixation on defining "fully autonomous" to mean 0% human intervention ever?
Yeah, good point. If Waymo were honest they'd say their system is "autonomous". Fully autonomous implies 100% autonomy. Otherwise, how is it "fully"?
But, hey, don't ask me. Write a paper with robot that is 99% autonomous but a human has to take control every once in a while and see how easy you can get that past any reviewer in robotics or AI.
Come on, you know what the fixation is. Nothing riles up the Tesla fanboys like the clear unambiguous fact that Waymo is doing 1000x better at “full self driving” than Tesla ever has.
It's like that time with Facebook and MySpace. A while ago now. I was in a student group at uni and this student, call her Alice, asked me for my Facebook. I said I don't have one, I don't like Facebook, and the conversation continued. Later another student came in, call him Bob. Alice told Bob "Where were you, we just had a big fight about Facebook over Myspace". I asked when that happened since I was there and didn't remember it and Alice said "that was me and you. We had a big fight about it. Did you forget?". I said, nonplussed, that I didn't think we had a fight. "But you said you don't like Facebook. So you like MySpace". Said Alice. Oh Alice.
From that I understand that you, like Alice, must be a very astute observer of human behaviour. No hidden motive stays hidden for long, with you, does it? Well done. You got me. I'm a Tesla fanboi. That's what I am, through and through.
Pay close attention to the wording: "The Waymo Driver ... remains in control of driving". That means it applies the controls needed to go from point A to point B on its own. However, it does not choose point A and point B on its own: a human chooses them. That's autonomous path planning, but not autonomous navigation, and certainly not "fully autonomous" anything.
Waymo prevaricates about the "influence" the human operator has on the path taken by the Waymo Driver [1] but it is clear there are situations that the Waymo Driver cannot choose point A and point B on its own, at least safely, otherwise Waymo would not be paying for humans to do it. They'd let the system do it on its own. It can't. It's not "fully autonomous".
We can play with words and accept whatever terminological obfuscation Waymo wants to impose in order to pimp its wares, or we can accept that current systems have limitations, and choose to understand the real SOTA over marketing.
_____________
[1] Fleet response can influence the Waymo Driver's path, whether indirectly through indicating lane closures, explicitly requesting the AV use a particular lane, or, in the most complex scenarios, explicitly proposing a path for the vehicle to consider idib.
Those are people who are new to programming. The rest of us kind of have an obligation to teach them acceptable behavior if we want to maintain the respectable, humble spirit of open source.
reply