gogoincar
Def recommend try to get a study if you can find/afford it. I have a mild case, but getting used to CPAP was still life changing. That said, I find sleeping on my side is enough to avoid most symptoms for a few nights, and if I’m camping I stick to that (there are tricks for preventing back sleeping if it’s an issue).
One major point in this comment and in many others in support is the observation that the quality of research output is increasingly poor and degraded. It reads to me there is an implicit assumption that because of this the overall process is no longer valid.
It’s not at all clear this is the case, and jumping to that conclusion is taking a very emotional and unscientific stance. Many academics get a shock at some point early on when they look into how things actually work at a small scale, and often later in their careers come to see the effectiveness of consensus and reproduction (or don’t care and just try to get credit for them and theirs). Jumping to the conclusion that science is somehow falling apart requires taking about change over time, not point observations.
Now I’m not providing evidence either way, and definitely see reasons why it could be the case. But at the same time the volume of scientific output is larger than it has ever been, and many fields are developing at an unprecedented rate. And we’re seeing the result of this in rapid technological advancement in many fields, so it’s clearly not all complete horseshit. It’s possible, likely even, that due to comparatively rapid advancement in comparison getting to solid consensus appears to take longer.
As I interpret GP, the claim is you can't describe something in sufficient detail to simulate it, then you don't actually understand it. You may have a higher-order model that generally holds, or holds given some constraints, but that's more of a "what" understanding rather than the higher-bar of "why".
When the loaf goes into a hot oven, you get some steam generated as water boils, and the yeast gets heated quickly, giving a minute or two of high gas output before it is killed by higher temps. This all adds air to the inside of the loaf while the dough is still very soft. When cooking at a low temperature, the crust often hardens more before this process happens, limiting the amount the loaf can expand.
Nothing to imply the trade-offs explicitly worse, it’s down to if you like the result.
But it will definitely change what you get out of the oven.
Highly recommend trying it yourself and compare two loaves cooked with and without preheating to see how much it changes the result and if it makes it easier and more enjoyable for you to bake!
I’m not sure what is implied with saying it’s a recording - both the Google and Tesla presentations are “recordings” and equal opportunity to pick best case examples, but I would bet strongly there is nothing not RAW = “real time“ for their respective compute platforms.
The top down viewpoint helps show off the quality (still by no means perfect) of the world representation. If you projected Tesla’s model into 3D you would see far more jitter than in the video overlay for a variety of reasons.
That said, I think comparing them directly on specific technical components is a bit of a sidebar. They are taking two very different paths along the way to a still ambiguous problem. Both are leading their respective approaches, but have fundamentally different and unproven assumptions.
Also worth looking not just at how accurately objects are detected but what the visualizations show about the intent of other road users. The Google video shows predicted trajectories for important objects in a number of scenes. We don’t get to see any of that clearly from Tesla, and that is by no means a small part of the problem. Not sure if it is there and not shown, just highlighting there is a lot more downstream even once you are finding objects reliably in the sensors.