Bensemus

I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing.  You only saw the title and just decided to post based on that.
 
Am I close?

Defence spending during the deadliest war in history
vs
a chip for a single company
 
what a terrible comparison

I... what? This has to be a mistake. $7 trillion is more money than the entire US Federal operating budget. It's a quarter of the US GDP. The concept doesn't make sense sense. Like, $7 trillion on a future evaluation I can maybe see, but what could possibly be the scope of a project could that costs $7 trillion?

i'd love to have 7 trillion as well.
 
i think this man has been around big numbers he forgot their meaning..
 
SpaceX quoted their first generation of falcon 9 rockets to have cost 300 million to develop
NASA quoted that if they had developed such a platform using their own strategies, it would have been in the 3.6 billion category
SpaceX estimates that starship will cost between 5-10 billion to develop
nvidia spends 7.34 billion on R&D each year
 
so.. what this man is suggesting, is that his endavour will cost the same as:
- nvidia funding their R&D for the coming 950 years
- spacex developing starship, estimating they double their original budget at 20billion
- NASA copying SpaceX's homework and making a falcon bureaucracy edition.
- still have enough money left over for spaceX to throw away and re-invent falcon 9 not once, not twice, but 11 times.
 
please.. someone quote me to tell me that the order of magnitude got lost in translation somewhere...

it's times like this that i have exactly zero qualms about piracy.
 
x as a service will always be shit for the consumer.

Whoever says train can't work in the US because of size.... I present to you the Soviet Union, the largest country in the World. Almost all land transport was by train since roads were few and in poor shape. 
 
Maybe there are reasons, but size itself isn't one. There used to be trains all over the US built with 19th century technology. The continent back then was the same size. 

He again has a history of literally making up the numbers to fit his narrative [like estimating sizes/weights that are off by a factor of 10x].  It's why I stopped watching him, as he blatantly uses incorrect numbers too often.  Again the example I alluded to was he calculates boiling water for tea for an energy busting...but he assumes the number to boil an entire pot to steam [which requires considerably more energy].  He pretty much promotes himself as though it's educational, but when he misrepresents baseline numbers it becomes an issue.
 
There are people who can have a PhD in something and be very stupid when it comes to some basic things in it, I know of a couple...including a computer science doctorate who struggled with everyday computer stuff.
 
His PhD also appears to be in...drum roll please... chemistry...yes chemistry.  Don't confuse working with vacuums in a science based environment to actually KNOWING lets say practical vacuum applications within the world.
 
 
 
Again, the analysis by everyone seems to assume that you will be pulling a high vacuum etc (and assumes the stops will be in a relatively short time).
 
It brings me back to what I was saying earlier, the ability to dig tunnels cheaply is the biggest factor in regards to transportation.  If you could do that, then something like a version of hyperloop might make sense in that pulling a partial vacuum will increase your max speed...but overall I don't think it's viable, but people get caught up on the wrong types of arguments in why it's not necessarily practical.
 

You're moving the goalpost, and you're going on some weird tangent that wasn't related to what I said. You pretty much brushed over 90% of what I said and then focuses in on a single sentence... You're missing the forest for a single tree.
Are you going to respond to what I said or are we done here?
 
I can't believe I have to argue for thinking for yourself and not blindly trust what someone else tells you to think.
And I bet you don't even follow your own advice, because I am fairly sure that you only think we should blindly trust journalistic reporters when they say things you want to be true or agree with, not when they say things you disagree with or don't believe to be true.
It's just an appeal to authority argument. It's a logical fallacy. Just because someone is a journalist doesn't mean they shouldn't be questioned, and that we should always assume they speak the truth.

I think you're being very generous when using the word "paraphrasing" here.
 
He never said the hyperloop was a stupid idea. That's something you're adding, probably by injecting your own beliefs.
What he said was that it made sense for certain links but it would be impractical in scenarios where it would require thousands of miles of tubes. That's VERY different from saying "Musk knew it was a stupid idea".
 
He also never said anything even remotely close to "admitting it was a way to sabotage California high speed rail". 
What he said was that he thought the high speed rail wasn't good enough because it would be "the slowest bullet train in the world at the highest cost per mile", and that at best it would still be so slow people would prefer taking planes. He wanted to see some other solution instaed, and said he didn't think the hyperloop was it.
 
Again, nothing in that text is even remotely close to "Elon admitting the hyperloop was just a way to sabotage the California high speed rail".
The text is in no way shape or form an admission of guilty for anything you accuse him of.
 
 
Look, I don't particularly like Elon but what I dislike more than him is people mischaracterizing what other people say. What he said, and what you claim he said are two very different things. The problem with doing what you're doing is that it makes it very hard to actually trust anything being "cited", because there is a big chance that words are being put into someone else's mouth to mischaracterize them and cause anger. It's contributing to a very unhealthy discussion.
There are a ton of reasons to hate Elon Musk, and he has said a bunch of stupid shit. There is no need to come up with fake quotes to make him look even worse.
 
 
With all that being said, I feel like it is important to once again say that I am pro high-speed trains in general and think that the hyperloop sounded like a bad idea.
I am also completely open to the idea that the hyperloop was an attempt by Elon to undermine the construction of the high-speed rail. But what I am very much against is claiming that he admitted it was just that, because he never admitted that. What he did was say some things that if applying very unfavorable interpretations of his words and adding in some own ideas could perhaps be perceived that way, but that's very different from actually saying it.
 
 
 
  
Not sure what you mean. I am talking to Sauron and his way of interpreting what was being said.
 
Also, Marx isn't some journalist talking to the person who wrote Musk's biography. Marx just read a book and voiced his opinions about it. It really is just some guy tweeting about it. 
 
By the way, I think it's funny that you are saying others "take the words of powerful people and institutions", and then suggest we should take the word of "journalistic reports" instead (which in this case is a tweet about someone reading a book). I would argue that's just as bad. How about we try and limit the amount of interpretations we let others do for us and instead try and get as close to a primary source as possible? In this case we have extracts from the book itself that we can read and interpret. 
 
But no, we absolutely should not just take the word of some journalist blindly, even if they say something you might strongly believe or agree with.

He never "admitted to it was just a way to delay and sabotage california high speed rail".
That's how you interpret things by reading between the lines, but it's not what he actually says in his own words.
 
Your interpretation might be right, but it's not what he actually is saying.
That's all I wanted to point out.
 
 
I also think it's worth pointing out that California is still building its high-speed rail system. So even if this was a plan for Elon to undermine railroads then it failed. But the impression I get is that he doesn't have anything against trains, and specifically had issues with the proposed train solution that was being planned in California. Issues like it being worse than the trains other countries have and are building.
Although if the numbers I am seeing are to be believed then the California high-speed train sounds pretty state of the art. I am not sure if the plans were changed or if Elon got his numbers wrong when he said it would be mediocre compared to other countries' high-speed trains.
 
Edit:
Just to be clear, since Elon is a very controversial topic and people are extremely quick to go full-tribal mode and categorize people as "Elon bootlicker" or whatever.
I really like high-speed trains and think they are great. I've had the pleasure of riding some in Japan and was blown away by the speed and especially the comfort. I think the hyperloop seems like an overcomplicated solution.

That's a very... Creative way of interpreting what he said. 
 
He said believed the California bullet train plans were not good because it was costy, far slower than bullet trains in other coutries, would take a long time to build, and still would be far worse than flying so there wasn't really much point to it. 
Elon saw it as a waste of money. That's why he wanted it canceled. Instead, he hoped a different solution would be built. Whether or not that solution would be a hyperloop or something else (which he never said wouldn't work) wasn't something he wanted to say at the time. 
 
 
It feels like the person writing all those tweets is on a mission to interpret everything Elon has said in bad light. I would be very weary of letting Marx interpret anything for you. It's important to read the paragraphs for yourself, preferably before the text Marx has written because it could color how you perceive things. 
In Swedish we have the expression "fultolka". The word-for-word translation would be "ugly interpretation" or "mean interpretation". 
It's when you take a statement that could be seen as somewhat ambiguous, and then decide to interpret it in the wrong way, usually in a way that confirms some preconceived belief or view.
I feel like Marx is doing that, a lot, in that tweet thread. That's why he throws in words like "happy to confirm", because that was his preconceived belief. He is looking for things that confirm his belief rather than investigating what the truth is. With all that being said, it is entirely possible that his beliefs are the truth, but I don't think that is a good person to have interpret things for you. 

I always dislike when the US talks about "it doesn't work because we're too big", as if having a train network (or fiber, which is another area where it often gets brought up) is a binary thing where it either has 100% coverage or none at all.
All of these major infrastructure projects has to be done in stages, and it's most likely going to be a neverending project since cities change. New cities are built, parts of cities become more or less relevant, and so on. Same with fiber-optics-based Internet access networks. You can't view it as something you just build during a period and then it's done.
 
I am not even sure if it's true that the US is "too big". It's all about priorities.
China is slightly bigger than the US when looking at land area, and China is heavily investing in railways. If China, which is larger than the US, isn't "too big" then I don't see why the US is.
 
I am fairly sure the US has more railroads than China does at this point in time. Two of the big issues with the US railway network are:
1) It seems to mostly be used for just transporting goods, not people.
2) It's really old and outdated. Electric trains are unarguably far superior to coal and diesel trains. The US has about 2,000 kilometers of electrified railway. China has about 100,000. China's electric railroad network is about 50 times larger than the US's network. Even my country, Sweden, has over 8,000 kilometers of electrified railway. 
The US's railway network is massive and already covers (in my opinion) >90% of the important stuff. It's just that it's old and outdated because it hasn't been a priority to fix and upgrade it.

End to end encryption is designed precisely to make this impossible.
That's also possible... the article only says it was "assumed" the message was read through the wifi network:
Also worth noting that the network being open or not is pretty much irrelevant if airport security has control of it.
 
Also yeah spain doesn't have a leg to stand on to get reimbursed for the jets as far as I'm concerned, it's not illegal to joke and there is no law (at least afaik) that makes it illegal on airport grounds either. It's one thing if he shouted "BOMB!" for everyone to hear, but he had no way of knowing anyone but his friends would read this.

I still wonder about the technical specifics of this "detection" by the public Wi-Fi. Even though Snapchat is not E2E, it should still be using HTTPS. 

Text messages on snapchat are not encrypted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/09/snapchat-adds-end-to-end-encryption-protect-users-messages/
 

There is no need to be salty.
You bought the S23 with the promise of 5 years of security updates and 4 generations of OS updates. That's what you signed up and paid for.
 
Someone else buying a different product and getting something better should not be seen as a "fuck you" to you. I think it is a very bad mentality to get mad at others who buy later products getting a better thing than what you got. I see this with things like CPUs and GPUs as well and it never made any sense to me. You almost always get something better if you wait and buy the next generation. 
It's not like your purchase got worse just because someone else got something better. It just comes across as someone being salty and whiney because someone else got something better for waiting.
 
 
Some of the AI features will come to the S23 too. It remains to be see which ones will come and which ones won't. My guess is that all the ones that use Gemini Pro will be available since that's done on Google's servers. When it comes to the on-device AI features I think it will a mixed bag. If I had to guess I'll say that the detection of different speakers will arrive on the S23 too, but the generative fill-in images and videos won't. They require a lot of processing and even if the s8gen2 is capable of doing it, it would be pretty slow and probably not a good experience.
When Qualcomm demoed Stable Diffusion on the Snapdragon 8 gen 2 it took them "less than 15 seconds" to generate a 512x512 image.
When they demoed it on the Snapdragon 8 gen 3 they did it in under 1 second.
 
Just because the s8gen2 was faster than the s8gen1 does not mean it is fast enough to do all the things the s8gen3 can do.
Again, you bought what you bought. Don't be mad at Samsung and others just because their latest product is better than the previous one, and you happen to own the model from last year.
 
Just to be clear, Samsung never said the S23 was incapable of AI. They expressively said the exact opposite because they said they would bring some features to the S23 too.
 
 
 
Yeah, how dare they improve their products year after year! They should just stop making phones better so that the ones who own the previous generation phones won't feel like they don't have the best anymore.

Easy display of "I did zero actual research".
You really pull out releases that happened like a decade ago or more, to draw any conclusions for a current release? More recent first-gen products like the Airpods Pro or all the Apple Silicon Macs are jolly fine.

Isn't it a little bit early to discuss the storage size of the Apple AR glasses? Their first presentation showed video streaming, light gaming, video calls and and light office tasks - nothing reliant on large amounts of storage.
Let's wait if this device even turns out to be more than a virtual monitor accessory. I doubt it will have the capabilities to be the only device you own. Apple also has an incentive that the AR glasses are more of an addition to the ecosystem than a singular stand-alone unit.

IIRC the issue wasn't really the battery itself but a design flaw in the PMIC subsystem of affected phones, which mismanaged a degraded battery to deliver enough current for peak load.
 
Back then, Apples throttling basically worked by checking whether the phone has crashed due to a degrading battery and then applying the throttling, while initially not giving any info to the user (only later giving a popup to the user on the post-crash reboot after all this mess went down, which is AFAIK still how it's done in current iOS versions).

No, but this is basic battery chemistry and circuit knowledge that you learn in your second year of EE. 

I know of many Iphones of that generation that would crash when say, opening up Snapchat and the processor would turbo out of idle and start running image processing and pulling from the network at the same time. Im not about to go and find a pre updated phone with a 70% degraded battery to test out for you.

The circuits would pull enough current that the voltage output of the battery would drop below the minimum specification of the chips.

Take ANY battery, pull a current, voltage DROPS.
if the voltage drop is low enough, (hell you can do this with an old desktop PSU as well) the system CRASHES.

Worth reminding everyone that after this issue blew up in the media (because who doesn't love a pile on Apple story), Apple issued an update that added a toggle that disabled the throttling-- which nobody in their right mind used, because then the phone would randomly restart under load, which is far worse than being slower under load. 

That's not a "defective battery"-- that's just how battery chemistry works.
 
Throttling does make it work better-- not randomly restarting is better than randomly restarting. Without the update, the batteries absolutely need to be replaced-- restarts under load are not a viable ownership experience. A device being slower, but functioning, is a viable ownership experience.
 
Failure to communicate is what they deserve to be criticized for here.

I can tell a lot of you forget what it was like to use a shitty droid phone at the time that would crash as soon as you put a load on its anemic battery.
 
I think I would rather have reduced performance than a piece of shit that cant stay running without a cord plugged into it.

Judging by the comments in this thread, I am not sure people understand what this lawsuit was or what happened.
 
 
My personal opinion is this:
I think Apple did the right thing with the throttling, and I don't agree at all that it was some kind of planned obsolescence. If anything, it was the opposite since they prioritized users being able to keep using their devices rather than their devices becoming unreliable. The people who think this was planned obsolescence don't understand the issue or are willfully ignorant to satisfy some witch-hunt craving.
 
What Apple did wrong however was their utter lack of transparency and information to users. I guess you could see this as them having to pay for their lack of transparency, and I am all for that. Not sure if I agree that Apple should pay 92 dollars per device, but it's not like Apple is short on cash so... meh...

Battery gate still has to be one of the stupidest poorly reported scandal I have ever seen.

OH NO the phone doesn't crash when the battery is 2 years old. OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooo how dare apple not give me my god given right of a phone that crashes instead of throttles. 

This is NOT planned obsolences, its keeping the phone running for longer. Apples crime is not fully communicating what is happening, not throttling. 
 
 
A lawsuit existing doesn't mean the lawsuit holds water. 

The batteries are consumables and are replaceable, and always have been with these models.