gather data on

Yes. I make digital products for a living and our process is continuously informed by usage statistics from our customers. We also do focus group testing, and it has its place, but live data feedback gives us statistically meaningful readings of how people use our products and this tells us what to focus on to make them better.

Apple has been in pure focus group testing for a decade+ on this product and they absolutely just need to get into the field and accelerate their development with usage statistics. It doesn’t have to sell in the tens of millions. Remember focus group participants number in the dozens or hundreds, and a secretive company like Apple can’t afford to have too many of them.

The Vision Pro marks the end of prototyping and the beginning of actual product development. This is why I don’t care at all about the v1 product. It’s a starting point. Everything interesting happens from here on.

a HUD would be more in your field of vision in terms of the X and Y dimensions, but in the Z dimension, depth, in the worst place of all.

Focusing your eyes an inch away from your face is, unfortunately, taking your eyes off the road. The closer something is to you, the greater and greater focal length change is required. Switching between road vision and 1-inch off your face is much much harder than switching between road vision and 24-inches away from your face (where conventional speed dials are, on the handlebars).

It’s not just about the time and effort it takes to do this. When your eyes are focused 1inch away, everything on the road will be super blurry. When your eyes are focused 24 inches away, the road will not be as blurry, and it’s easier for your eyes to jump back onto the road.

It’s very dangerous to focus your vision four inches in front of your face while driving. It also takes a second to switch from distance vision to being focused so close, which undermines the whole “at a glance” value of a HUD. Race cars have instrument panels pushed as far away from the driver’s face as possible to make the focal length changes inside your eye easier and faster to switch between. A helmet HUD is the extreme opposite of that.

I think people don’t understand just how good Facebook is at ads. Their relevance engine is unlike anything else. If something 1/3 as effective could be done to Reddit, this place would be making billions.

I’ve run ads on Facebook and I’ve run ads on Reddit. Facebook was like a massage with a happy ending, and Resdit was like being shat on by a vagrant.

There’s absolutely no reason Reddit couldn’t be making tons of money with as much as they know about hobbies and interests in general, and the free traffic they are able to draw to such a mountain of niche content.

I hope not to see Reddit go the way of Facebook. But to say it couldn’t make a profit is not true.

This very thread shows how SSO is a security feature and has value. They’re charging for something that has value. Thats a price, not a tax.

That’s it? JFC

No, fool, read the words. “Instant change.” You can swap batteries. This has been prototyped for car and trucks but just like with phones, it’s fallen away because people get more out of an integrated battery. More capacity and superior overall design options. We could swap car batteries, but instant refill just isn’t worth making sacrifices for. And that’s exactly where hydrogen is: if that’s its only selling point, it’s not goddamn well enough. And no, you don’t have to be a wealthy homeowner like me to charge a car conveniently. Many apartment buildings and workplaces and even retail centers offer charging stations as well. It turns out that people enjoy charging while their car isn’t being used even more than they like spending a couple of minutes gassing up.

Anyway… you can rail against me but you can’t rail against reality. Hydrogen is a loser. You compare me to conservatards who spread negativity about battery EVs but the difference is, those are flourishing. I’m just commentating on hydrogen’s failure entirely post-facto.

Your right that my perspective is totally about “me” as long as you consider “me” to be people who have electricity

Instant battery change is also possible but it hasn’t been valued enough to be a factor. Just like instant fueling hasn’t made hydrogen competitive.

I assure you my closed minded layperson bullshit is not the thing that’s holding back hydrogen.

Battery electric cars win over ICE because the infrastructure is right in my house. We’ve spent centuries electrifying the world. It’s also greener and cleaner than ICE. And lower maintenance.

Hydrogen just has a slight density edge. That’s it.

Yep I saw that story as well but it kind of makes my point: the first flight took until 2023 to happen. Thats not what I call “a lot” of activity.

You’re succeeding at favorably comparing the infrastructure challenges of hydrogen aviation to the infrastructure challenges of hydrogen for private cars, but that’s not really the bar to meet. All air infra is more consolidated than that of ground transport. The argument works for batteries just as easily.

I thought for a long time that aviation might be the application where hydrogen actually wins out. Density-to-weight is crucial. But I don’t see much activity on that front. It has the same problem as all other applications: you’d need the hydrogen infrastructure to be available everywhere. Batteries will always have one benefit: they’re easier to transition to because we already have electricity pretty much everywhere. Electric autos haven’t been overly handicapped by the lack of charging stations because many can just charge at home. Hydrogen aviation would require large regional or even international coordination to ready the fueling infrastructure. And that little issue about the compressed flammable gas keeps nagging… seems like it would make surviving a plane crash even harder.

Consumers adopt newer technologies more readily when they aren’t holding back waiting to see which of two competing standards will win.

There are efficiencies to doing things one way versus two ways.

Plus, if one way is clearly superior, having two only adds unnecessary complexity. If hydrogen was competitive I’d say great - let’s do it all. But on its own merits it just doesn’t hold up versus the alternatives. No ones banning it but why should anyone pursue it?

We’ll need hydrogen infrastructure and production anyways for steel smelting as well as the chemical industry, those are things that just don’t run on electricity, no way.

I’m curious how you see hydrogen being used in smelting. Hydrogen fuel cells do just produce electricity. Are you talking about something else, like combusting the hydrogen?

“Doesn’t require a battery to work” is a fairly meaningless upside when it does require a fuel cell, a moisture exhaust, and a cannister of compressed, flammable gas.

I was excited for hydrogen back in the day but it seems like we’ve known for years that it isn’t the way to go. Why is anyone still fucking with it? Do these cars get 2,000 mile range or something?

I use it for quick code snippets but it’s not all that important compared to the fact that misuse of generative A.I. is making so much information on the Internet completely worthless.

To be fair we have scare articles galore every day about how this is all ruining the world and killing artists, because fear sells. Meanwhile millions of people like you and me are quietly using this tool to improve our work.

When we compare the relative weight of the two, let’s take the media scare avalanche out of it and just use our personal experiences to judge. I am currently being measurably helped by genAI, and not measurably hurt by it. I just read articles daily about how I’m going to be killed in my sleep by in any second now…

Generative AI pales in importance compared to General AI but it is still an important development on its own.

Read the last paragraph of the OP at least. This is not asking for $5 trillion to be handed solely to OpenAI to go become a world monopoly on chip manufacture. What he’s really asking is for investors to direct funds to radically increasing world compute capacity, to the profit for the chip manufacturers and likely many others. OpenAI just gets to continue the track it’s on without this constraint. There is nothing here about them monopolistically controlling this entire investment and in fact the opposite is true: it’s framed as a broad partnership venture.

deleted by creator

It may not be bonkers at all though. If we look at it as taking money and food out of people’s mouths for a year then yes it’s a lot. But how much free investment capital is there in the world at any given time? Wealth has been accumulating and accumulating in rich people’s investment portfolios for ever and ever. How many Trillions get allocated in any given year? All Altman is saying is that he wants 5 of those to be allocated here and not somewhere else. It’s not necessarily taking rice out of any children’s mouths.