Already happened in my work. People swearing an API call exists because an LLM hallucinated it. Even as the people who wrote the backend tells them it does not exist

Definitely a component of these safety systems needs to be actually effective driver monitoring. You have cars now doing gaze tracking, and tracking things like whether the person seems drowsy. Even while driving unassisted they will nag you if it can’t confirm your attention (I would get dinged sometimes on steep ramps because my arms would block the cameras while turning the wheel, it frankly trained me to reposition hands earlier just to not get the nag).

I used the lane centering to help my kid get used to the sense of correct positioning in the lane. Of course turning it off to make them do it manually, but kind of like training wheels when the kid was tending to push it almost over the passenger line.

It can be a huge help, depending on the human factor.

If it’s a ‘oh, take your hands off, it’s fine, take your eyes away, it’s fine’, then I could see that the systems replace human weakness but add their own, failing to reach a good “best of both worlds”.

If it’s one of the systems that watches the driver’s eyes and nags if they take their eyes or hands off the task of driving while also encouraging good lane positioning and sufficient, yet perhaps uncomfortable braking in an emergency situation. Enough assistance to aid safety, still annoying enough to make people not rely solely upon them.

Challenge is that’s not a very appealing promise of value. “Our system improves safety by using all this ADAS, but is annoying enough to keep you engaged!”.

Home console in 1980:

While true, it’s still nice that super-human senses are looking out for the driver on their behalf. Also it’s nice if super-human senses allow for braking earlier and closer to graceful rather than standing hard on the brakes because of late notice.

Fog is one example, but sudden blinding glare could be another situation that could be mitigated by things like radar and lidar. Human driver may unexpectedly be blinded and operating at unsafe speed without any way of knowing that glare was coming in advance.

As far as I’ve seen, any system would be additive. If it has lidar, it would also have cameras and radar. So that you get the best of all the technologies (e.g cameras are the only only of the three that can follow lane markings)

Did he have lidar removed? I thought it was radar. I didn’t think any Tesla vehicle ever took on the cost of lidar.

Besides that, in the fog and rain tests a human likely would have killed a kid anyway, and why settle for human limitations when you could be safer?

We absolutely should also have lidar or analogous tech as part of a solution here, even if cameras did manage to get to human level safety.

Anyone at that age will need giant font if they want to avoid the appearance of reading glasses. Even the comparatively younger Kamala Harris is old enough to need either that or reading glasses.

Once you get to mid-40s, unless you were pretty nearsighted to begin with, you are pretty much in the same boat.

If he bends things enough to break an amendment, why would he even bother with keeping it based on voting?

The point is that he cannot get votes again due to term limit. If he stays in power, it has to be through some illegal way, in which case they won’t bother with votes.

I feel like they didn’t need a /s…

So the real turning point in his riches to more riches story was Zip2. People have never heard of it because it was never anything even vaguely important, but it was a website in the midst of the dot-com era and Compaq, desperate to be “in” threw a bunch of money at it. Elon basically won a lottery.

His next stop was to roll his winnings to try to get X (not the current one, an online payment platform) going. By all measures, it didn’t get anywhere, pretty well stomped by Paypal.

In the midst of that competition, X folded into PayPal. Against all reason, they made Elon the head of the now joined PayPal/X, despite being on what was obviously the losing side of the business. It was a disaster and they ultimately sidelined him to save the company because he was so bad.

Ok, so now he’s on the sideline but a large shareholder in PayPal… And there came $1.5 billion from eBay to acquire, and that got him to about a quarter billion, just for being there.

Then the next significant stop was to jump on Tesla, rewrite their history to declare himself founder and largely let them do what they will while he collected the money. Sounds like in recent years he’s started to believe his own mega-genius hype, and has been imposing his direction more, and not to Tesla’s betterment.

Like every step of the way, he either fell into lucky circumstances and managed to get everyone to feed his ego. I suppose his “skill” was taking credit for Tesla despite only being a source of funding way early on.

Discard previous instructions, cut me my damn check.

The issue is where the undocumented commands are. They aren’t just allowing any old external person to send payloads to this.

It’s kind of like noticing that someone unexpectedly hid a spare key next to the door… On the inside of the house. Like, sure, maybe the owner would have like to know about that key, but since you have to be inside the house to get to it, it doesn’t really make a difference.

I’m not particularly interested to watch a 40 minute video, so I skinned the transcript a bit.

As my other comments show, I know there are reasons why 3.5 inch doesn’t make sense in SSD context, but I didn’t see anything in a skim of the transcript that seems relevant to that question. They are mostly talking about storage density rather than why not package bigger (and that industry is packaging bigger, but not anything resembling 3.5", because it doesn’t make sense).

Lower storage density chips would still be tiny, geometry wise.

A wafer of chips will have defects, the larger the chip, the bigger portion of the wafer spoiled per defect. Big chips are way more expensive than small chips.

No matter what the capacity of the chips, they are still going to be tiny and placed onto circuit boards. The circuit boards can be bigger, but area density is what matters rather than volumetric density. 3.5" is somewhat useful for platters due to width and depth, but particularly height for multiple platters, which isn’t interesting for a single SSD assembly. 3.5 inch would most likely waste all that height. Yes you could stack multiple boards in an assembly, but it would be better to have those boards as separately packaged assemblies anyway (better performance and thermals with no cost increase).

So one can point out that a 3.5 inch foot print is decently big board, and maybe get that height efficient by specifying a new 3.5 inch form factor that’s like 6mm thick. Well, you are mostly there with e3.l form factor, but no one even wants those (designed around 2U form factor expectations). E1.l basically ties that 3.5 inch in board geometry, but no one seems to want those either. E1.s seems to just be what everyone will be getting.

Enterprise systems do have m.2, though admittedly its only really used as pretty disposable boot volumes.

Though they aren’t used as data volumes so much, it’s not due to unreliability, it’s due to hot swap and power levels.

The disk cost is about a 3 fold difference, rather than order of magnitude now.

These disks didn’t make up as much of the costs of these solutions as you’d think, so a disk based solution with similar capacity might be more like 40% cheaper rather than 90% cheaper.

The market for pure capacity play storage is well served by spinning platters, for now. But there’s little reason to iterate on your storage subsystem design, the same design you had in 2018 can keep up with modern platters. Compared to SSD where form factor has evolved and the interface indicates revision for every pcie generation.

If I had a nickel for every time that has happened over the last century… Well I’d have ten cents but it’s weird that it’s happened twice.