What kind of furniture lets the robot vacuum under it and around its legs in the place it typically goes? What apartments and homes are large enough to have a robot-width distance between walls, corners and everything that is on the floor? How much do you think Ligne Roset sofas cost? And at $1,000/sqft, surely a lidar can be cheap in comparison. You're kind of proving my point of how off the mark iRobot is.
> What kind of furniture lets the robot vacuum under it and around its legs in the place it typically goes? What apartments and homes are large enough to have a robot-width distance between walls, corners and everything that is on the floor?
This isn't actually a problem.
If the robot vacuum cleaner is 10cm high, any furniture where the gap below it is <9cm the robot will detect with its bump sensor and avoid. Any furniture where the gap is >11cm high, the robot will clean under no problem. The only problem is furniture with a gap in the 9-11cm range. For that you can either buy a different sized robot, or raise or lower the furniture.
Of course you'll have to avoid leaving trailing cables on the floor - but that makes your home neater anyway, so no problem.
You can buy a Lidar robot if you want, of course - the classic random-driving-around Roomba is very much a product of its time.
The term 'scrutineering' arguably extends beyond adherence to technical specifications to include procedural regulations within the sport. I'm not sure if this also applies to 'tech inspection' in e.g. NASCAR.
Number of videos are less relevant than the total duration of high-quality videos (quality can be approximated on YouTube with metrics such as view and subscriber count). Also, while YouTube videos are not labelled directly, you can extract signal from the title, the captions, and perhaps even the comments. Lastly, many sources online use YouTube to host videos and embed them on their pages, which probably contains more text data that can be used as labels.
I believe this is only the beginning of the modern OS with a user-interface that is based around AI. Imagine the platform lock-in from a lifetimes worth of meta-data around interactions with an AI agent, which obviously will not be transferable between vendors.
The modern OS that nobody asked for. This could backfire pretty badly if it doesn't succeed. We're still in a hype bubble. When the bubble bursts some thing will stay but many will be washed away
I detailed my understanding of this case in a sibling-comment to this one, but I think the fact that he wanted to "do the same thing" (read: use the for-profit engine to fund AI research) only makes his case stronger!
If I understand correctly, the OpenAI board asked Musk to remove himself and sell his stake as his for-profit pursuits conflicted with the mission of open, non-profit research. But after he left, they started a for-profit subsidiary and did exactly what they didn't want him doing. I could see how a judge might side with him.
I believe at the time it was reported that Musk and the OpenAI board chose to part ways due to his for-profit AI research (in Tesla) posing a conflict of interest to the OpenAI mission.
Hence his argument boils down to "You made me sell my shares because my 'closed' AI research conflicted with your 'open' non-profit ideals. However, you have since stoped to adhere to your mission statement, effectively seizing to publish your research findings and pursuing for-profit goals. As a consequence of this I have lost a bunch of money."
And as nuts as Musk is, I kind of see his point here.
That argument doesn't really hold a lot of water with me to be honest. If I sell (forced or otherwise) my shares in company because it isn't working on tech I agree with, and then they pivot and start working on tech I agree with and their shares pop, I am not entitled to sue them for damages.
In the scenario you described above, you would be entitled to sue for damages if you sold shares in a company under false pretenses because the other owners deceived you.
Imagine being the part-owner of a bread focused bakery. You tell the other owners that you think the business should focus on pastries – even if everybody agrees that bread products are more important – as pastries make more money (that money can in turn be invested into the bread business).
The other owners hard disagree and ask you to leave the company, because a) that does not fit into their bread-centric mission and b) you own a pastry-supplier in town and would obviously be profiting from this move. So you sell your shares and move on, no harm no foul.
But what if they then turn around and start producing pastries, claiming it's only doing so to financially support their bread business? What if they start entering lucrative deals with other pastry-suppliers and effectively stop making bread?
In this case I would argue that you would be entitled to some portion of your foregone gains. You sold your stock while being under the impression that the company would never go into the direction which you deem is the *only viable one*, only to find out that they did exactly what you suggested after you left.
> ... because it isn't working on tech I agree with, ...
Please notice that this is not what happened. They all agreed on the tech to be researched. The only disagreement was the business model and company structure required to fund the research.
> under false pretenses because the other owners deceived you.
Even your bread/pastry scenario doesn’t quite make this part clear. And this is what will be difficult to prove - did OpenAI know and discuss a rug-pull of “we willingly plan to say we’re going to be doing non-profit work, but actually our plan is to be a for-profit company”.
If their pivot was pre-meditated then I could see Musk having a case, but if they pivoted purely from market factors and realizing they wouldn’t be able to cut it as a non-profit, I’d think he’s SOL
But please reread the comment which is the root of this discussion:
> The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company.
I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages. Whether Musk specifically is owed damages is something a judge has to decide.
In the exact case above, you would have to prove intentional deceit (which is quite difficult to do) and even then that isn't actually illegal on its face a lot of the time in non publically traded companies. Further, the timeline isn't as compressed as your comment suggests, if the bread focused bakery pivoted to pastries 4-5 years after you sold your stake in it I do not agree that you would be entitled to damages at all, businesses can and should be allowed to pivot. Selling stock under the impression that a company wouldn't go in a direction you expect, is a normal part of investment and there is nothing wrong with it, people make bad bets all the time.
IANAL but I don't think that intentional deceit is necessary to prove Musk's case, negligent misrepresentation might suffice. And I agree that the judge ultimately has to rule whether or not the time-period between the ousting and pivot is reasonable; this decision would probably be based on precedence, the specifics of the case and the judges opinions.
However, please remember your comment which is the root of this discussion:
> The (imo) shakier part of the argument is that he is entitled to damages even though he doesn't own shares in the company.
I was never arguing that Musk is entitled to damages. I am merely arguing that it is possible to not own the shares of a company and be entitled to damages.
> This is what many believe (e.g., Peter Zeihan) to be the real reason behind the invasion of Ukraine.
This does not make any sense. Banning birth-control would be the most cost-effective way to increase the birth-rate, stronger social programs being a strong second.
Much of what I've heard from Zeihan sound memey – like camp-fire stories or what your older brothers friends would tell you – without anything meaningful to back it up.
As mentioned by others, the author Dr. Greg Wilson has written/compiled many books/tutorials which I can recommend. I would especially laud Software Design by Example [1][2], The Architecture of Open Source Applications [3] and Teaching Tech Together [4].
> Minus human intervention, the next ice age would be in 50,000 years. Humanity will be either some unrecognizable scifi trope or, more likely, long gone by then.
I think you are overestimating the probability that humanity would be "long gone by then". Even if a series of catastrophic events + climate change make life as we know it (modern civilization, globalized society/trade) untenable, humans are smart and many places on earth are reasonably forgiving to survival. Not saying it would be comfortable tho.
