Idk you can buy a new Pi for cheap and they're all the same, old machines vary and are not always available. I'm certainly not going to do it but it's not uninteresting imo
I guess they didn't link it because it changes the meaning of the article, his post reads more like he's going to discuss it and wants to do something about it.
I don't think that's what they're saying. They're saying people don't need to pay for their services because AI can do it and has "taken their jobs". Not that their CEO replaced employees with AI
Too many vehicle manufacturers removed buttons to copy Tesla without thinking about why Tesla did it in the first place. Tesla removed those buttons because they were aiming for a low-cost driverless future with full self driving and automatic updates that change the feel of the car. If you put those features in a VW that doesn't regularly update and doesn't have consumer self driving program (at least yet) it doesn't really make sense.
The first version of autopilot that did anything that could charitably be called navigation wasn't introduced for another 8 years after this car and actual self-driving remains a distant goal 17 years later.
As far as I remember, Tesla has been talking about full self driving and auto-updates since before 2009, and although cameras weren't placed on the car until years later I would argue these early models were low enough production they were selling the idea more than the product (like how a sports car might be stylized after a jet, even though it doesn't contain a jet engine, but just to capture the feeling of something that's fast). It's also worth noting that car had a lot more buttons, including PRNDL, stock, and I believe AC/heater.
Also my Tesla drives me to work every day just fine without intervention. I don't think you need unsupervised full self driving for the screen to make sense, and while I didn't have a Tesla 11 years ago I think the vision was clear and a screen with minimal/no buttons was still useful. My point is just that if you're trying to make a so-called driver's car, without regular updates or meaningful self driving capabilities, it makes sense to add buttons so people know where things are while driving. The screen was a logical derivation from the other features tesla was building and incorporating, starting with the screen because it's easy is a mistake by companies like VW/benz/etc in my opinion.
I have a personal project organizing who was talking about AVs when, so I would genuinely like a source for Tesla talking about self driving before 2009 if you have one. The earliest Tesla discussion I'm aware of is autopilot, which was announced in 2013 in an off-the-cuff interview comment. Dedicated hiring and talks with mobileye began in late 2013/early 2014. That effort later evolved into "enhanced autopilot" several years later after the two companies fell out, which is where I drew the line for "navigation".
I can't imagine a date significantly earlier than 2009. Musk himself only became CEO in 2008, and 2007 was the second grand challenge.
Also my Tesla drives me to work every day just fine without intervention.
Strictly and pedantically speaking, you're still driving. There's a whole complicated terminology discussion there. To shortcut that, the definition of driver I recommend is "whoever has ultimate responsibility for avoiding accidents". Hence yet to deliver self-driving.
I understand I'm legally driving but the broad point here is whether a screen is enough or if I should have buttons. The way I interact with the car is screen oriented, and the car is sufficiently autonomous that I don't need to rely on a button which never moves. I enter an address on my phone, get in my car, push the brake, and it drives me somewhere.
Similarly I don't know the exact date Tesla started talking about FSD/Autopilot, but they've certainly been talking about it for as long as I've been aware of the brand.
Obviously the 2009 prototype has buttons and as I've already mentioned it doesn't have cameras, but the point stands. Tesla has oriented the features and experience in a way where just having a screen makes a lot of sense. VW just added a screen and hasn't made moves to back it up with other features or with similarly involved regular updates. I think it makes sense for Tesla to continue building cars with just a screen, whereas if VW won't take advantage of the screen they should add buttons back, at least in my opinion.
I assume he means people are too poor to have multiple devices, and if you only have one it's probably a phone. That said I'm dubious anyone who only has a phone is doing meaningful coding
Huh, makes you wonder if it's actually doing it on his phone or if he has a keyboard and maybe dock and monitor he attaches it to. I suppose my original comment was too broad, there was a point not too long ago when everyone wanted to replace their laptop with their phone. Samsung even let you dual boot linux from your phone with DeX
There's always an edge case. Speaking of which, here's someone who would really benefit from a hard column width limit and limited nesting that modern programmers (particularly ones using various IDEs) so carelessly violate these days.
Following that story as it happened, it was all on the phone with the phone keyboard and he somehow made multiple good Neovim plugins including that very popular one (which I use in multiple configs).
neovim is probably the only sane way you could code like this on a small screen. everything works pretty much the same way it does on a desktop terminal, the only thing you have to get used to is having so many lines wrapped, and not having quick access to some characters like $ or ^, but they can just be added to the toolbar in termux
(Memory) safe languages are allowed to guarantee memory safety at any stage, including at runtime using GC and bound checks. That makes every GC language memory safe to a reasonable extend. The novelty in Rust is that it does the same at compile time, mostly automatically.
You can have data races in "safe" Go. If you race a trivial object [such as an integer] it's just radioactive and so long as you didn't need it to have any particular value (e.g. you were just going to write it to a log anyway, or you just discard it) you're fine. However if you race a non-trivial object then that's immediately Undefined Behaviour.
Of course Go programmers will say "Just don't do that" but that's exactly what C programmers told us about bounds misses, use after free and so on...
I definitely wouldn't say internet, I think it's popular on HN and a few other online forums. There are a lot of X/twitter circles which make are critical of rust, as well as other sites.
In my mind at least there's a decent risk Rust is going to end up like the next Haskell, its benefits other than safety are not that clear and many of those features can and have been replicated in other languages.
Many of its biggest benefits of rust come directly from other languages - including Haskell. Like, rust’s Option is identical to Haskell’s Maybe type. Traits are similar to type classes in Haskell, or interfaces in Go.
In my mind, the thing that makes rust and zig nice are that they put modern language features in a systems language. Non-nullable pointers and match expressions in a language that runs as fast as C? Yes please.
I love rust, but I personally doubt rust will ever be anywhere near as popular as Python, go, JavaScript and C#. It’s just so complex and difficult to learn. But its niche is pretty clear to me: I see it as a tool for writing beautiful, correct, memory safe, performant systems code. I used to love C. But between zig, rust and Odin, I can’t see myself ever using it again. C is just so much less productive and less pleasant to use than more modern languages.
From there data, it looks like you only regret college once you graduate and look for jobs. What I've heard from people is that there's still a lot of pressure to go to college, and students who've said they wanted to go into trades/plumbing/etc end up getting pushed into college by senior year. School is still set up to push students into college, and I'm not sure that's a good idea since so many people who attend seem to regret it.
If you go to cheap local public schools there's nothing to regret. Most Americans k-12 go to public schools then suddenly at college public options aren't good anymore?
Though dorms are probably the only time in your adult life all your friends are walking distance away and free to hang out.
The campus life for 18-22 year olds can be an amazing experience. It can be super stimulating socially, intellectually, culturally. Or it can be a 4-year drinking binge. Depends on the school, the person and the peer group the person can find.
There is a huge variation in quality of local colleges, and in opportunity that arises from them. As every reader here knows, Americans are super class-conscious and pretty competitive, so a good local school will seem like "settling". And, they're not free by any means.
I would argue a cheap public school can be a huge mistake. At least where I'm from, the higher ranked public schools cost the most, and going to a cheap school means you missed 4 years of wages, you still paid some amount of money, and you have a degree which isn't useful. Even in engineering I've seen plenty of managers who won't give "good" jobs out to "worse" schools, and small state schools have unknown reputations and will be the first to get passed up in a questionable job market.
Getting a bad degree from a cheap/bad public school seems like a bad life decision. There is so much more to gain by not getting tattoos and looking presentable instead of getting a degree from a school people don't respect
Eh, I got a cheap degree from a public school (URI), albeit in Mathematics and not Comp Sci and it hasn't stopped me getting good tech jobs over the last decade or so. I'm currently working at a FAANG. Maybe I'm just extra hard-working, smart, or lucky? Or maybe your pedigree isn't as big a deal as it once was? Hard to say from my N=1 data point.
I guess the point I was trying to get at is the flagship public research university in your state doesn't count, URI isn't even cheap compared to other flagship public universities. I went to the flagship public school in my state, I don't consider it cheap. I'm thinking more like lake superior college in MI, or UW-Stout in Wisconsin. They're cheaper than the flagship public school, but because of their lack of name recognition and assumptions employers make (like did this person go to superior because it was cheap, or because that's the only place they got in?), I've seen people struggle to get good jobs after attending, particularly during rough economies.
As a test, look in your IT department. I wouldn't be surprised if it's full of people from community colleges and lower ranked "cheap" colleges with engineering degrees. I like the idea of just going to the cheapest school but ranking unfortunately matters to a lot of employers, and ranking is usually correlated with cost.
reply