A big advantage of this technique is that the assembled model is 'isotropic'. If it was printed in one piece, it would be easy to split along the layer lines.
But when printing the plates separately, every face is equally strong.
really nice to see well designed, useful 3D printable products.
These kind of designs are essential for 3D printing to graduate from printing baby yodas only. Also, the high-quality photography and documentation helps a lot to go for the 3D print over temu.
You're probably correct about it being hard to make a decent iOS app in Swift Playgrounds, but it's definitely not a toy
I use it for work several times per week. I often want to test out some Swift API, or build something in SwiftUI, and for some reason it's way faster to tap it out on my iPad in Swift Playgrounds than to create a new project or playground in Xcode on my Mac — even when I'm sitting directly in front of my Mac
The iPad just doesn't have the clutter of windows and communication open like my mac does that makes it hard to focus on resolving one particular idea
I have so many playground files on my iPad, a quick glance at my project list: interactive gesture-driven animations, testing out time and date logic, rendering perceptual gradients, checking baseline alignment in SF Symbols, messing with NSFilePresenter, mocking out a UI design, animated text transitions, etc
Why would you need it? Modern iPads have thunderbolt ports (minimally USB-C) and already allow keyboards, network adapters, etc. to be connected. It would be like an iMac without the stand and an option to put it in a keyboard enclosure. Sounds awesome.
It might work if running in Mac mode required a reboot (no on the fly switching between iOS and macOS) and a connected KB+mouse, with the touch part of the screen (aside from Pencil usage) turning inert in Mac mode.
Otherwise yes, desktop operating systems are a terrible experience on touch devices.
> It might work if running in Mac mode required a reboot (no on the fly switching between iOS and macOS) and a connected KB+mouse, with the touch part of the screen (aside from Pencil usage) turning inert in Mac mode.
Sounds like strictly worse version of Macbook. Might be useful for occasional work, but I expect people who would use this mode continuously just to switch to Macbook.
The biggest market would be for travelers who essentially want a work/leisure toggle.
It’s not too uncommon for people to carry both an iPad and MacBook for example, but a 12.9” iPad that could reboot into macOS to get some work done and then drop back to iPadOS for watching movies or sketching could replace both without too much sacrifice. There’s tradeoffs, but nothing worse than what you see on PC 2-in-1’s, plus no questionable hinges to fail.
This is what I want, but with an iPhone (with an iPad would be cool, too). Sell me some insanely expensive dock with a USB-C display port output for a monitor (and a few more for peripherals) and when the phone is plugged in, it becomes macOS.
Maybe this June there'll be an announcement, but like Lucy with the football, I'm not expecting it. I would instabuy if this was the case, especially with a cellular iPad.
I just went to store.apple.com and specced out a 13" iPad Pro with 2TB of storage, nano-texture glass, and a cell modem for $2,599.
MacBook Pros start at $1,599. There's an enormous overlap in the price ranges of the mortal-person models of those products. It's not like the iPad Pro is the cheap alternative to a MBP. I mean, I couldn't even spec out a MacBook Air to cost as much.
It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?
The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.
I don't think anyone is saying the AVP is a mass market product, and neither were the early Oculus products.
VR as a category is niche. Apple will expand the public consciousness of it, but at $3,500 AVP is also niche.
There's nothing wrong with that. If it takes a decade for the tech to be good enough so be it--I'll be glad people were innovating and experimenting in the interim to get it right, and that the folks willing to sign up as beta testers helped push progress forward.
People get mad about this stuff--you don't have to buy it! I still haven't and probably won't until it feels more ready.
The Commodore 64 (or, staying on-brand, the Apple II) wasn't ready for the masses. Still if we hadn't had that, the computers that followed would have been worse due to not benefiting from lessons learned, built up user affinity etc.
And being there it was hella interesting to see it develop. Most tech isn't born right for the masses. And without the pioneers it likely won't get there.
Incomplete, with a poor launch app ecosystem, dependent on owning another of the company's devices to scan your head to get a rather variable quality of mask fit, and when that phone guesses wrong it costs the customer a further $300 for a second guess? As long as the fans keep paying, I suppose you're right.
you just described the first iPod, iPhone, and iPad. they were right about them. you could see where they would assume the magic would happen again just from hubris.
None of them cost even half as much as this thing. What's with the endless comparisons with previous Apple products that were completely different in a completely different market and competitive environment.
If you read the unwritten subtlety of the phrasing, you can see I'm not exactly comparing these devices. Instead, I'm providing an example of where the company's ego would allow them to think that whatever device they do release would eventually be a smash hit. I intentionally didn't list all of the ways these devices are not the same, as I assumed that the audience would be able to put 1+1 together. I guess I'm yet again reminded of why it is bad to assume
They are being compared because the criticisms are the same or very similar.
The iPhone was form over function, no keyboard, no apps, and too expensive. You can't even use a stylus with it! It doesn't do anything that my phone and ipod don't already do better.
The iPad was absolutely roasted for just being a giant expensive iPhone with a dumb name, it doesn't even have its own apps. It doesn't do anything that my iPhone can't already do.
The iMac was underpowered and overpriced, didn't even have a floppy drive, didn't have real connectors just something called USB that no one had ever heard of, it wasn't compatible with 99% of the software on the market. It doesn't do anything that my PC doesn't already do.
We see all these products as unmitigated hits now, but at the time they launched, it was still very much up for debate.
Also, as with the iPhone, etc., they appear to have solved the fundamental problems: in this case, screen quality, UI, and hopefully presence in the surrounding environment.
From here they hardware will get cheaper, the bugs can be worked out, and everything will become more refined.
This is interesting! I wish it would address whether the founders in their 50s had spent their 20s-40s continually trying to start companies. I expect more experience in starting something makes you better at doing so. But this would mean that people should _start_ young, so they can eventually succeed
Remember that most startups don't have a "single founder" and the founder who becomes the "face" of the startup if it goes big is not necessary the only contributor to the success.
Older partners may have less time to dedicate to the startup, or have other reasons to hold back.
It may also indicate that a percentage of startup success is attributable to networking effects, which mostly grow with age.
I think the biggest thing to start a successful business is to not start a startup.
I think another huge factor is the network of people you know and the breadth of knowledge you can tap into that way.
Superstar young founders have crowds coming to them to fill those gaps, but less high profile young founders don't have access to that.
I would think that a very astute person starting their first startup in their 40s, but with tons of connections and deep knowledge in the target market, would have an easier time than a generalist that had done ton of startups but with less connection to the target market. But that's a broad heuristic which may have nearly as many exceptions to the rule as data supporting it...
> whether the founders in their 50s had spent their 20s-40s continually trying to start companies.
Apart from some differences in legal paperwork, starting a company and seeking employment are the exact same thing. An employee needs everything else that makes a business: Sales, marketing, capital, viable product, customers, etc. So, unless you think it is the legal paperwork that falters those who are younger, almost assuredly they did. Just like most everyone else.
Lack of capital is what kills most businesses. Statistically, 50-somethings have the greatest access to free capital. Any younger and you're still working on acquiring it. Any older and you have to focus what you have towards supporting retirement. That may explain it more than anything.
My cynical take is that the young founder phenomenon is because the young folk haven't seen enough to know when they are getting screwed over, so the VCs are able to keep more control for less money when working with inexperienced talent.
That is the information I needed. I am sitting here with my almost finished app, sometimes about to give up after having put so much work into it, thinking I am too old to get this done. I will pull this through, thank you!
At 20, 50 or 60, one constant is that building something for too long is the opposite of what generally leads to any traction.
Put it out there, post about it on platforms discussing what the app does, ask randoms (but your target audience) to try out the app for feedback, already.
Get out there, it's exhausting for introverts, but the web makes it less daunting than ever. Only Apple stuff and maybe tesla sell all by themselves.
I'm wondering why there is so little talk about changing road infrastructure to make self-driving easier to pull off.
E.g. dedicated lanes for self driving or hand-off stations where human drivers can take over etc etc.
Amid the massive potential upsides, any reasonable government would invest in measures that turn out to effectivley improve self-drivability of the respective national grid.
If we’re going to be investing public money and ripping up/modifying the current infrastructure I’d actually prefer we just focus on the usual goals of urbanism and deprecate the car from the picture.
Only a small fraction of people will give up their cars, but I do hope the no-car evangelism takes off. Y'all can ride the trolley with stops every quarter mile while I just cruise on the now empty roads in my own personal car, parking right next to my jobs front door. Thanks.
This is my thinking as well. We need to build for the task at hand not try and integrate into what we already have. The first sentence in this article is where the failed assumptions are.
"Trucking was supposed to be the ideal first application of autonomous driving. Freeways contain predictable, highly structured
driving scenarios.."
When sharing the road with human drivers this statement makes no sense as all. Vehicle's are their own entities with no connection to each other outside of the road, signage and defined lanes. Instead of trying to build sensors for a existing 8-lane highway just do it for (2) isolated lanes. You don't have to plan for 100% of human scenarios if they are mostly removed. We don't fly airplanes adjacent, behind, ahead, etc of each other why is the assumption that autonomous trucks need to be on the same road as everyone else.
Well because if we're going that way, we might as well use trains, as lots of other comments unhelpfully mentioned. The strength of a car is supposed to be that they are more flexible in how to go from A to B and may even stomach less than ideal road conditions. Dedicated self driving infrastructure may negate those advantages.
> To set up your environment, you will need to generate a utils.py file that contains your OpenAI API key and download the necessary packages.
> Step 1. Generate Utils File
> In the reverie/backend_server folder (where reverie.py is located), create a new file titled utils.py and copy and paste the content below into the file:
# Copy and paste your OpenAI API Key
openai_api_key = "<Your OpenAI API>"
Note that "stock prices" don't exist as a generalized statement. Individual stocks exist, and some of those may be at a record high, but most stocks aren't. Are you thinking of "these are the highest value companies we could aggregate" index funds, like the S&P 500 or the like?
As for the answer: because any unregulated commodity market will see that commodity priced based on demand, and demand creates demand.
It's not that hard. We printed dollars in record numbers (bipartisan - both Trump and Biden).
Of course assets will pop in dollar-terms. Fed's interest rate controls are bound to ease up, as the US economy is _addicted_ to getting injected with printed fiat currency.
But when printing the plates separately, every face is equally strong.
Great project!