I think it hasn't even been a year since Samsung bricked bunch of their phones with firmware update. They really must have no proper engineering team behind update process.
On previous thread of this topic, someone on hn claimed to have worked in tire industry and that some small additive that would cost few percent extra would largely address thos issue.
I found the following after a bit of searching. I'm sure there's more work being done.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/202...
Applied Quantum Materials Inc., in Edmonton, Alberta, is developing a specialized reinforcing additive for tires to minimize microplastic release over different road and temperature conditions.
Nova Graphene Canada Inc., in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is developing a graphene-enhanced rubber that could reduce tire-wear shedding and extend the life of tires.
Stema Punch and Die Inc., in Cambridge, Ontario, is creating specialized compositions for tires to improve their wear and help stop the shed of microplastics.
The man may exaggerate pace of progress but he has more than proved him self with TESLA, SpaceX, Neuralink. that's 3 bleeding edge companies in 3 different industries.
p.s) For those misinformed about state of Neuralink.
Currently in beta with quadriplegic patients.
Then he can claim those things, but not what he hasn’t done yet. He’s very capable and I’m happy to defend his contribution, but his pronouncements on “full self driving” have been untruthful. It is not full self driving. It was not autopilot. If the new version is, the world should be thrilled. It’s probably not.
Not to forget his most brilliant brain child of hyper loop. Which has already revolutionized transport and replaced cars, trains, planes and ships... Oh wait...
Paypal did very well, no? Solar City wasn't a homerun like spacex, but I wouldn't call it a failure. America PAC is not something I agree with, but again, not clear what your point about it is?
We can agree that he is an asshole and also acknowledge the fact that he has a statistically significant success rate for big engineering tasks.
I never understood the criticism for late delivery from the tech community. We of all people should know how difficult estimating can be. I can cut Musky some slack on this one.
> We of all people should know how difficult estimating can be.
Then (a) perhaps keep your mouth shut until you can deliver it, and (b) don't take people's money for something that you say is "only X years away" when it's actually X+3/4/5.
He doesn't actually do any of the work in developing those technologies. He didn't even found Tesla. He's just the front man with enough money to buy titles like "chief engineer" and "founder".
you don't know anything about how business works if you can't appreciate how Elon managed to turn Tesla at concept car stage to current mass manufacturing capacities and being more valuable than next 7 car companies combined.
the man got into Stanford for Physics, and there are more than enough anecdotes from his biography done by Walter Isaacson that confirm his technical prowess.
> you don't know anything about how business works if you can't appreciate how Elon managed to turn Tesla at concept car stage to current mass manufacturing capacities and being more valuable than next 7 car companies combined.
The elephant in the room is that this was all done during ZIRP. There was an incredible amount of money sloshing around, and due to Elon's great ability to market, it ended up at Tesla.
> the man got into Stanford for Physics, and there are more than enough anecdotes from his biography done by Walter Isaacson that confirm his technical prowess.
This is Elon sympathetic. Where someone got into school has nothing to do with their business acumen. There are many people who actually went to Stanford for Physics with no business acumen. There also plenty of people who didn't go to school at all who have built great companies.
There are also many critiques of the accuracy of the Walter Isaacson biography. A definitive tome, it is not.
> if you can't appreciate how Elon managed to turn Tesla at concept car stage to current mass manufacturing capacities and being more valuable than next 7 car companies combined
So government bailouts followed by cultivating a breathless cult who throw money at making your stock the most overvalued asset in history?
Tesla took government loans and paid them all back with interest. there was never any bailout but I can tell you just hate the man regardless of facts.
Feel free to put your money where your mouth is by shorting TESLA if you feel like it's so overvalued. and get crushed like everyone that did just that along the way.
No, Tesla did not receive any funds under the 2009 auto industry bailout.[1] The $80.7 billion went to Chrysler and GM.
Tesla did receive a government loan of $465 million under the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, a program signed into law by Bush in 2008. Tesla subsequently repaid that loan.
> Tesla took government loans and paid them all back with interest. there was never any bailout but I can tell you just hate the man regardless of facts.
Many people don't know this but the vast majority of the money that was spent in 2008 was actually given out as loans, and those loans have been repaid with interest, netting the Treasury over $100B in profit, with billions more in quarterly dividends continuing to this day from Fannie and Freddie.
Do you think the 2008 TARP package was "not a bailout" also, because it was repaid with interest?
> Feel free to put your money where your mouth is by shorting TESLA if you feel like it's so overvalued. and get crushed like everyone that did just that along the way.
Selling put options on TSLA has been one of my more profitable plays for a long while, so maybe not.
Only people who don't understand stock trading fundamentally would say that. You have a completely different risk profile when you sell short vs when you take a long position. You pay market interest on borrowed shares (which can eat you alive), you may get your position recalled by the lender, you may take a margin call. Being right at the wrong time is the same thing as being wrong when you're short -- not when you're long. Intelligent traders would take a short position involving options as a hedge - or would sit on the sidelines and not bother.
You sure typed a lot of words without actually saying anything. Can you stop and think for a minute? Selling puts and profiting from TSLA is not a vindication of your view that the company is trash, the stock is so volatile that you would be a fool to not sell puts even if you’re bullish. I for one have profited a lot by raking in the premiums selling the puts and then also seeing the value of the stock I was “forced” to buy at lower prices appreciate tremendously. This is not a vindication that my view of the company is correct though.
Long positions have a completely different risk profile than a short position. One has unlimited upside and a capped downside. One has unlimited downside and a capped upside.
Saying "put your money where your mouth is and short" is asinine because they have completely different risk profiles.
Did that help?
> Can you stop and think for a minute?
Depends who you ask tbh.
> Selling puts and profiting from TSLA is not a vindication of your view that the company is trash.
Selling puts is a long position -- a bullish position -- not a short position. You would only sell puts if you were optimistic about the company. The fact that you don't know that tells me you're not ready to trade options and vindicates my statement that you don't fundamentally understand stock trading. So maybe stop going around and telling people to "put their money where their mouth is by shorting."
> Selling puts is a long position -- a bullish position -- not a short position. You would only sell puts if you were optimistic about the company. The fact that you don't know that tells me you're not ready to trade options and vindicates my statement that you don't fundamentally understand stock trading. So maybe stop going around and telling people to "put their money where their mouth is by shorting."
I just said I use selling puts as a bullish strategy, do you lack basic reading comprehension skills?
When you get to higher level, you’re not doing work but instead you are guiding work and making decisions.
Whenever you don't know which way to go, you consult someone more senior. Those people do the same with their seniors. And so on.
There are many stories from people who have worked with Elon scattered across books and interviews. He makes wild decisions, tells people to do it, and somehow the sum of these wild ideas works out.
Remember, the idea of landing a reusable rocket was abandoned long ago by many nations because it was deemed impossible or financially infeasible. Yet here we are with SpaceX dropping LOE launch prices per kg by 90-98%.
You can call Elon many things, but a grifter he is not.
> Remember, the idea of landing a reusable rocket was abandoned long ago by many nations because it was deemed impossible or financially infeasible. Yet here we are with SpaceX dropping LOE launch prices per kg by 90-98%.
It's almost like revisiting the wildest ideas turns into feasible ones thanks to steady progress all around (science, manufacturing, better pricing).
I guess what's key is being lucky to re-attempt something at the right time. Just look at how long things from the mother of all demos took to become successful products, hell, we are finally getting the hang of collaborative editing and video conferencing was awful still 40yrs after in 2008.
You forgot all the ridicule endured for all the previous failed attempts and people how "stupid" he is for not listening to his engineers that the chopstick landing is not feasible.
We had quadriplegics using brain-computer interfaces to control computers since the 90s. We had neuro implants giving sight to the blind since the 2000s. The problem is not making it work at all, the problem is making the implant work in the long-term in a way that the body doesn't eventually reject. Neuralink is still catching up to where we were 20 years ago, only fronted by a dancing monkey trying to hype himself up as the technoking.
conceptually we had eletric cars since 1900. Doesn't mean much until someone improves it to mass market adoptable level and mass produce it like Elon did with TESLA.
It's silly to compare available tech from 90s from what's possible nowadays with 1000x + BCI bandwidth done with Neuralink
To reiterate, the computer tech is not the bottleneck. I've made software for neuro research labs logging terabytes per day of data from rats. The hardware/wetware interface is not a problem you can solve by waiting for TSMC to scale to the next node.
tbh even functional role of a teacher is about to be upend with AI. All I know is I rather my children be taught something that will be useful with assumption that everyone will have access to have a tool like chatgpt at home/work.
ChatGPT is a tool, and it's hard to argue that someone should be able to work without a useful tool. This is a great argument for advocating in favor of AI at work. Tools are great.
However, education is not work. The point of education is not the production of a finished output. The point is to learn. If teachers let students defer their understanding to AI by using ChatGPT to write assignments that means education stops being about the thing they're meant to be learning and starts being a test of prompt engineering. That has it's uses, sure, but you have to be honest about admitting that's what you're arguing in favor of.
Should education be about getting a real, fundamental understanding of a subject, or should it be about prompting an AI to do work in that subject area? I'd suggest the former is a lot more useful and valuable in the long term. If I was spending money on my education that's what I'd want at the end.
If you've ever been around a growing baby, you'll have noticed that learning happens naturally. And if you have kept watching them as they continue on their life journey, you'll have noticed that they are sponges that take in incredible amounts of information. Point being, you don't have to go out of your way to learn.
No, the point of formal education is to develop the ability to separate thought from emotion. That is what humans, being emotional creatures, won't do naturally, but what is necessary to be able to "think big" about the world.
The point of education is a) (before higher levels of education) general education and b) learn skills that help you in your life and work.
For the latter examples being critical thinking or understanding causality. Drawing conclusions that need thinking deeper than the surface. Being patient.
There are ”side products” too, such as emotional growth or learning and coming to accept that sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to do.
At higher levels of education the point is still to learn but it’s less broad and about more specific subject. You still refine the related skills. The side products also still exist.
Sorry, referring to the internet as "education" is a new one to me. I agree, that is the point of the internet. I thought you were talking about formal education.
Maybe an AI is best able to detect when another AI did someone's homework.
The purpose of an assignment is not to produce a document, it's for the student learn how to synthesize information.
Having an AI produce the document does not provide the student, or the rest of society who needs the student to be good for something, with anything.
In this case it was even stupider. It wasn't a test, it was an informational question about themselves.
What in the ever loving hell is the defense or value in having an AI fabricate a random answer to a question about what you think about something? At least outside of some marketing data gathering context where there is a reason to give false information.
If you’re gonna run with this fallacy, why not cross the finish line? If AI replaces education, why should taxpayers keep footing the bill for schools?
Now we have a society where wealthy children attend private school and the rest do not. The few viable opportunities for advancement are limited to those who were educated in critical thinking. It sounds like slipping backwards as a developed country.
The functional role of a teacher is not going to be upended by AI.
> If AI replaces education, why should taxpayers keep footing the bill for schools?
The parent claims that AI will replace human teachers, not education. If we accept that state-funded education is worthwhile now, why would it stop being worthwhile when the teacher just happens to be AI?
