We need to see their detailed implementation strategy to understand whether this can ever be viable. If it is, you can be sure that ASML is already working on it.
I had to carry a couple of gallons of dairy for a trade show. Too heavy for the 15 minute walk. First world problem, I suppose, but Waymo was a convenient point-to-piont option.
Spent last week in Phoenix, rode Waymo a dozen times. Autonomous taxis are the future. Don't have to tip, don't have to worry about pissing off the driver if I'm only going a few blocks. Price is reasonable, seems less than Uber or a standard taxi.
Question is how many humans will forgo owning a car altogether once autonomous vehicles are ubiquitous.
I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.
They invited him to the White House to finally sign the rare earth minerals agreement, which he had said he'd sign and then renegged two times prior[0]. This was the third attempt by the US to get it signed. During the meeting, he indicated that he would sign the agreement but then not agree to a cease fire, which was the whole point of putting it in place. Naturally, this was a deal breaker for the administration and the meeting ended.
Here's a thought process: Dad was trying to make sense of things that did not make sense to him. These things that did not make sense to him were seen by him as ultimately dangerous, even to his own family. That compelled him to seek to find the truth about whether they are real threats. Along that journey, he became convinced that they were in fact real. He sought out the long term implications and those implications became his 10 predictions.
As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?
There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.
Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.
I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.
Indeed, but a lot of railroad startups went out of business because their capital investments far exceeded the revenue growth and they went bankrupt. I'd bet the same for AM radio companies in the 1920s. When new technologies create attractive business opportunities, there frequently is an initial overinvestment. The billions pouring into AI far exceeds what went into .COM, and much of it will return pennies. The investors who win are the ones who can pick the B&Os, RCAs and GOOGs out of the flock before everyone else.[0]
[0] "Planning and construction of railroads in the United States progressed rapidly and haphazardly, without direction or supervision from the states that granted charters to construct them. Before 1840 most surveys were made for short passenger lines which proved to be financially unprofitable. Because steam-powered railroads had stiff competition from canal companies, many partially completed lines were abandoned."
It might be as simple as the regional options that middle-American households can afford have decreased. For example, in 1990, the median home price in California was 10x the median household income in West Virginia. Today, the gap has increased to 16x. Meaning that even fewer West Virginian households can include California as an option to move to as 25 years ago.
Would be cool if the article would explain Musk's reasoning for the support. 'Us rich guys gotta stick together.' isn't much of an analysis. Trump is anti union? As I understand it, Trump is not anti-union. He worked effectively with unions in New York for decades. But he seems to be anti union leadership.
What is the reality of New Zealand's extradition status with the United States? My understanding was there was no treaty, but we just learned that Mr. Dotcom was to be extradited.
I attended executive training for a couple of years. The members were all CEOs and would come to the group in monthly meetings with a very wide range of problems from: 'my VP Finance does not complete his work on time and offers an endless stream of excuses. I need to exit him. What's the best approach?' To 'My unionized interior finishers are abusing their time clock, how should I approach the union to correct this?'
The coach used an effective 5-step approach to the resolution process:
1. Present: The presenter makes a clear, one-sentence statement of the problem.
2. Clarify: The sounding team asks clarifying questions: 'How long has the VP been behaving this way?', 'How well do you know the local union leadership?' Only clarification at this step. No suggestions yet.
3. Suggestions/Recommendations: 'Conduct a confidential search, negotiate an exit package and move on. Be sure to keep the BoD up to date on this.'
4. Reaction: Presenter indicates the suggestion they believe is most likely best for them.
5. Accountability: Next meeting, the presenter reports whether they took action, and whether the results benefited from the discussion.
Phases 2 & 3 were conducted in round-table style, with each team member interracting one at at time.
The results were typically effective. The presenter didn't always take the advice, but always reported that the process had provided insight.
Are we presuming that publishing a paper is a loose indicator of knowledge creation?
IMHO, knowledge is created via the intuition within a mind. Many times, that intuition is at work when the mind is not focused on the matter. Sleeping, commuting, bantering and other distracted processes can cause the realization of new knowledge. It can also manifest during a conversation where information is exchanged and new information is factored against what is already known.
There was a point in my career that I realized many conversations that I contributed to included contributions I had never consciously learned. Reflecting later, I'd find myself surprised and what I'd said, and mused at how I knew it.