What I don't follow is how other multi-charging mats do exactly this. According to the article, by their estimation it was powerful harmonic EM interference that did AirPower in. If AirPower were only powering 3 coils at a time like other multi-charging mats why did it run into this problem when others had not
I guess it is because no other mat has overlapping coils. In the apple one they wanted you to not care where you put down your devices. Since they have so many coils, it then becomes likely that the 3 active ones overlap.
There has to be something else going on here. It strikes me as relatively simple to have the device talk to the mat and optimise on which coil was providing the most current draw.
I suspect that engineering does have a design that meets regulations but they couldn't get the cost down. I.e. the extra circuitry in both the met and possibly the devices to precisely sense which coil(S) are providing optimal charging is cost prohibitive.
Whether their hireable isn't the problem. They legally can't be employed by you. You would have to employ then without tying their employment to their SSN.
Thanks for this post. I thought I deleted my Facebook four years ago only to read this and find out it still existed. IIRC back then it said something about deletion after a set period of inactivity.
> A key to the success of MIT IQ will be identifying industry allies who share our passion for tackling big, real-world problems. That work is already underway: we have forged a number of collaborative projects with industry, such as the MIT–IBM Watson AI Lab.
However, the biggest incentive to go into industry is income. Sure, your research and your department can do more with more funding but wouldn't you still make about the same amount as a grad/research scientist/professor?
I think an interesting way Facebook could approach determining credibility would be by having users bet (betting with some made up points instead of real money). Since this forces readers to speculate, it would encourage critically reading the articles. I think a betting system would push Facebook less in the direction of an echo-chamber. The difficulty with applying a betting system is that it still doesn't tell you whether the information is true, thus bets can't be evaluated.
I like the idea in principle but betting, real money or not, relies on agreed upon, objective results/outcomes. There in lies the problem; who's going to be the arbiter of truth?
However, it seems possible to get further along than we are now by creating betting pools/markets where the participants do agree on a set of sources for information.
Actually, I've thought along these lines before rather indirectly by theorizing that the WSJ was probably the most non-partisan source of "news" because most of it's clientele demanded such due to their participation in the markets. But I realize that's highly speculative.
