ddlsmurf

Or more simply, because that's what "controversial" (from the prompt) means: something few believe that most don't.

I hear these critiques a lot, and whilst I'm inclined to agree, I have never had an answer to: how do you test that ? Basically a captcha most humans can pass, that an LLM never will ?

even with the calibration procedure, i've had nearly no success without going into industrial grade components, and as you point out, it's impractical.

gps also won't give you orientation really anyway, and indeed, is mostly outdoors, and rtk is needed for this resolution but also rather inaccessible to amateurs.

If you're working on indoor navigation, that's very cool, when I used to do it, in my context it was easier because we controlled the environment of the robots (markers on walls of a known colour type stuff). We also explored passive radar type arrangements for picking up wifi repeaters, but it became complicated to eg. ignore bluetooth.

Though in the case of this video, the wii sensor bar style approach seems fine, assuming you control reflections

true, sensor fusion of accel/gyro/mm only gets you so far, though of the 3, the mm is the only one that doesn't require integration, so while they are terrible at finding magnetic north in a given environment, the environment's big chunks of metal tend to not move, so with gravity, is the only external referential. That's why to do this stably you need something more, lidar/cameras+slam, the IR trick here, gnss (ideally with rtk/ppk/ppp).

I mean, given the context, I'm just as inclined to think this was thought of as a form of obfuscation

gyroscopes drift over time, that's why typically you need a kalman filter to combine the strengths of various sensors, magnetometers, where available, are bad at resolution, but don't drift.

Yes, and I insisted quite a bit because I was curious about a coast. I wonder if this is some kind of UI Neuralese, maybe the simulated scroll/touch attempts made sense to only it.

the zoom scrolling and camera navigation in general, here at least (desktop mac chrome), seems like no one even tried it

But also there's very little need today, it's very cheap to do, just complicated, a barrier that can be easily solved if there appears demand

because it's the unit of addressable memory that C is concerned by with sizeof, otherwise its values still depend on CHAR_BIT

I would agree if overflow on those types wasn't undefined behaviour, or unpredictable

I did buy it, all three, loved it. But somehow, broodwar is the one coming back on the scene more than it

I got one from a microwave, it opened vents. It is incredibly strong, also, takes soo much power and is so slow - although i suppose near heat it must work great.

a very neurotypical response

They're really not, the tiniest bits have shown with evergreen for ex, all the ghost cities. We don't really see the people who's savings, which with kids is the only "pension", have been demolished, on an individual level Chinese tend to save way more than others, this is gone. There's the demographic issue on top, the famines, that they import 70% of their food, depend on trade which the americans are withdrawing for protecting the routes of, and other unadressed issues because the priority is this investment, the missing population, the utter lack of statistics, even internally. Most likely the biggest factor will be wether they try something in Taiwan next year as they warned.

and you are refuting with even less justification. I told you how to check for yourself if you actually cared about veracity. Best of luck trying to get funding to publish something academic anti-CCP though, but I'd love it if you did. Also this is just a conversation, not an academic debate

I really don't see the contradiction, if that 30% was true, which, really... but ok, it still would normal for the CCP to do stupid stuff because they think it makes them look modern or ecological or similar. That's why there's no need for economic sense to explain that development at all. There are also excellent non financial reasons to want to dominate that market. So to circle back, their use of trucks, which if you buy the 30% "omg lol" as they say, is in no way an argument to them making sense, neither economically nor ecologically.

First off, I admit I have no idea what the EU and US car manufacturers are doing, their positions for the past decade don't make any sense to me in the electric market. Actually smells like hubris and inertia more than anything to be honest.

I'm not being super academic with citations, but the CCP investments in BYD, to the point it makes no sense to exist without aren't exactly hard to find secrets.

You're not comparing comparable things, in the UK, there is a great deal of expectations of what an employee has as rights for instance. There are extremely rigorous safety regulations that are very onerous. We can debate wether those are justified but it's a very complex topic you're brushing off. Their innovation seems mostly on small iterative gadgets, but look more closely into what they tolerate as self driving and the death it causes, and be sure you want that in the UK for profit margins.

I'm really not against neither subsidies nor artificially inflating one's strategic advantage at all to develop a market and corner the competition. I never said China is wrong to do what it's doing. What I am saying is that its dangerous for us outside of China to buy into it now. Beyond the security implications of chinese robots with sensors everywhere roaming about cities the CCP considers their ennemies, there's just the dependency risk, there's the "how much do you trust the people who fed paint to their babies to handle super dense explosives that cant be put out by water in dense cities", and the basic question, maybe its better to have the lightest car possible, not the most gadgetty with drones and ipads.

So the basic point above "China has more electric trucks therefore it makes economic sense" is helped by none of this

yes i conceded that use case a bit bellow, it mostly makes sense in dense urban areas, where access to the grid is easy, and not emitting polution is at a premium. But even then it's a very difficult case to make before eg: electrifying buses, or more generally, decarbonising your electricity supply. If this made sense, musk tried to sell it a decade ago, it just doesn't. A lot of the value is that the majority don't understand the tradeoffs and complication, and just think electric = more green, and it makes for great PR specially abroad.

if VCs didn't care about making their money back, but instead had very different interests, then somewhat

neither of those are true, if they were, remember when tesla wanted to sell trucks like 10 years ago ? if you use electric trucks, half the mass you pay to move around is useless. Also the grid isn't "half coal", the truck doesn't wait for the sun to come out to charge. Which is another cost to transporters: the hours of downtime to recharge. They only make very limited sense in very last mile scenarios in dense cities. Also coal is way worse to burn than petrol, and in China's case, it's mostly bituminous, one of the worst coals in terms of pollution.

It's trivial to compete if you don't have R&D costs, and don't care about stuff like your employees, regulations or safety, or even sales since you can just use government money (this is not without consequence either). And it's not only about free market stuff, why do you think they're so excited for all countries to use their 5g products for example ? Don't think this is benign.

And opened about 80GW of coal last year alone. That's the only advantage to electric trucks, they can run on coal too, even though you can only carry half the capacity whilst moving the same total weight, it still can make sense, just not economic and certainly not ecological. They sure love people writing articles about it though, and how green and solar they are.

They regularly pop up on the usual guanxi, douyin/weibo etc. They stay up for a few hours usually.

I'd dispute they do any of those better, they stole the IP, then used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets, including by being artificially more affordable while there is any competition. Besides electric cars and solar, it's very debatable wether those will actually be ecological in the end. For ex. they are still opening massive amounts of fossil based electric plants, so the truck that is half battery is actually running on coal anyway. It would take an incredible re-work of the electric grids to accomodate actually transitioning away from thermal cars, including some solution for seasonal storage. If you're impressed by their robots, I don't know what you're looking at, they seem to be ridiculous, not even at the tech level that boston dynamics had decades ago. Finally keep in mind that electric cars are fantastic spying devices, for collecting data, and if you're nefarious, imagine hacking into them. That's why teslas are banned near anything governmental in China. So there is a huge strategic advantage to cornering that market, but not really to save the planet.

What China does hardly indicates economic sense, and you can be sure you won't hear about the down sides or failures. They already very agressively hide car lithium fires but they're very frequent. Economics over there are mostly investment driven with a large dose of ideology and vanity, not demand driven. You can see it everywhere including the massive amounts of empty housings for example

Yes, it doesn't even make sense to make electric trucks, let alone airplanes. Or they'd be mostly battery.

There already exist today fates and torments way worse than death, so your argument would be true already anyway, unless its really the solace of a timeout that makes it worthwhile. But in reality, for most people with internet access, it's all good right now, and the virtual brain stuff is also just another crime to be dealt with, imperfectly, but I mean, I don't think it'd be hard to get consensus on not doing that and punishing those who do.

I don't think you're crazy, but I do think you're alarmingly depressive. The thing with that illness is that people who have it are completely blind to it. But there are ways out, well worth ones, if you force yourself to get help, you know, rather than create pain in a debatable way. I hope you do, or that I'm wrong.

Those are good points. And for a serious answer, indeed we should probably be exploring the ethics of it now. It's just humanity never really did that before unleashing a new tech, so I'm not optimistic, but I wish you success on provoking reflexion. What you're doing now isn't bothering me really but only for a reason of scale, it's one of those balancing dilemnas like abortion, or "is it a pet or food". Ian M Banks' Surface Detail has a harrowing vision of the prolongation of what you're doing (I'm a huge fan). At the moment I'm more disturbed about stuff like those people who played doom on cells.

are you ok ?