I own a Tesla (and subscribe to "FSD", >70% of my miles are FSD without issue). As it stands though, Waymo is by every metric objectively better at "autonomous driving".
I would also love to see every car brand have full autonomous driving. It seems like you think you must be in one camp or another, and that one has to "beat" the other - but that's not true. Both can be successful - wouldn't that be a great world?
Your original post was very public under a very well known brand - you have no expectation of privacy after that. People are going to respond to you publicly.
It's not about a privacy, but common courtesy. Especially after I gave them a heads up in DM about the post and offered to answer any more questions they had. They said they'd reach back out, then didn't, then posted this publicly? Really strange.
Looks like you need the "quiet part" said out loud:
Chances are, the company was fishing for (or at least wouldn't mind) VC investment, which requires things being built a certain (complex and expensive) way like the top "startups" that recently got lots of VC funding.
Chances are, the company wanted an invite to a cloud provider's conference so they could brag about their (self-inflicted) problems and attract visibility (potentially translates to investment - see previous point).
Chances are, a lot of their engineering staff wanted certain resume points to potentially be able to work at such startups in the future.
Chances are, the company wanted some stories about how they're modern and "cloud-native" and how they're solving complex (self-inflicted) problems so they can post it on their engineering blog to attract talent (see previous point).
Yes. Exactly. The company wanted to be "modern" in terms of tech stack and they kept getting buried in the thought that using serverless would keep them cool.
The PM was also close friends with the CEO so everyone blindly nods to him.
I love it. The UX is terrible but the visualization is very "outside the box". Experiments like this are important on the road to finding novel interfaces. Not everything has to look like a v0 shadcn app. Thank you for sharing!
The other comment articulates the points much better than I would have, but I have a large number of (tested) food and environmental allergies. It is a very logical explanation that the adjuvants in vaccines would cause the body to also train an immune response to other things.
There is also a massive profit motive for pharma companies and many hospitals, when you couple that with the revolving door between industry and government, it seems like a situation ripe for corruption.
I don't see the harm in removing aluminum adjuvants from vaccines (we all buy aluminum free deodorant!). I don't see the harm in not vaccinating children for things they are unlikely to come into contact with (i.e. hepatitis B). In fact, I think it would be good to make the change and see what the health outcomes are over the next 30 years. That is how we will learn.
I would guess people that don't know how stuff works or what they're talking about, but still feel entitled to disregard medical science progress because they don't see the effects directly.
Seeing my father in law daily is a very good reminder to me as to why we thought eradicating polio (and creating vaccines) was a good idea: his left leg is 30% the size of his right leg, and he's had trouble walking since he was 7yo (he's now 65), with no way of fixing it.
People don't understand what life used to be like before 60y ago because they didn't live through it, and even then they're tempted to dismiss the death or permanent complication rates because "nobody died"... that they knew/recall of.
It's true that in general better sanitation, clean water, better food availability have helped in reducing the death rates in general and also complications (because better prepared immune system, better symptoms management, ...), but vaccines allowed to eradicate stuff that killed or altered lives permanently on a regular basis.
I wouldn't call myself a vaccine skeptic, and I don't have a problem with anything else you said, but "feel entitled to disregard medical science progress" puts my back up. We are in fact all entitled to that.
I think a not insignificant part of the skepticism problem stems from well meaning authoritarians who believe they have the right to shoot everything that has a pop sci press release behind it into everyone else's bodies.
It's like the opposite of the naturalist fallacy: if it's man made and has a sciency name, let's assume it has no glaring flaws until we get the class action lawsuit recruitment commercials a decade later telling us we might be entitled to 5 dollars compensation if we're on our deathbeds because of some horrible complication.
Even better if your political tribe has tied its identity to the thing.
- Adjuvants. As a materials researcher I think it's nuts we inject nanoscale alumina in our blood.
- Regulatory structure. Why can't I sue a vaccine manufacturer? Limit awards, if you necessary, but if I cant sue I cant get discovery.
- Effectiveness. The flu vaccine's effectiveness is statistical artifact. See healthy vaccine bias
- Historical effectiveness. I had a civil engineer smugly point out that his profession had ended more diseases than biology. So I looked it up. Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.
- General dishonesty of the medical profession. I don't expect my Advil to be 100% safe; I don't expect my vaccine to be either. I dont expect my medical health officers to lie about it though (see mRNA and the long dismissed myocarditis risk)
>Civil engineering did more to end communicable diseases than vaccines.
This is a cute statement but really shouldn't be part of the basis for vaccine skepticism.
Hand washing is also one of the most significant medical practice advancements... That doesn't mean we stop there.
Sure, civil engineering did a lot for water borne illness and the like. And I'll even grant that building design and HVAC systems can reduce respiratory virus transmission. But it's not doing anything for measles, smallpox, polio, ebola, hepatitis, HIV, Yellow fever, etc etc. I mean come on.
And if I do have to go to a place with worse infrastructure, I'll take that typhoid vaccine please...
Both - but primary the cloud offering. The main author (https://x.com/heyandras) is pretty open about the project revenue its sources. If I remember correctly they're at about 10k MRR mostly from Coolify Cloud.
I think trained knowledge is less and less important - as these multi-modal models have the ability to search the web and have much larger context windows.
reply