Sorry, but a lot of cars, even if they run Android Automotive, maintain a separate TCU/DCM with its own cellular connection that can collect vehicle information independently of Android Automotive.
The corners in the duo seem comparable to those on the standard iPhone. Presumably, the squatter dimensions may just call more attention to them. I don’t see the duo as appearing cartoonish though.
Seems a better question is who do you believe is actually innovating today?
Apple has rarely been about providing bleeding edge technology to early adopters. They've always been more concerned with evaluating technology, often building things behind closed doors to explore and iterate, and then only releasing something once they felt it was ready and able to address a defined purpose or need. It's not first to market, but often first to get it right.
Their AI strategy is actually pretty smart when you consider how they're focusing on small, local models with a clear security model. Others are spending billions to make incremental progress on models while Apple can sit back, build integrations that allow users to leverage the best models, and then once a certain level of maturity is reached, Apple can either license models or train their own using the lessons learned by everyone else.
The iphone was bleeding edge... Of you disregard Neonode. But that is the only that comes to mind. The other bleeding edge has been the overall ecosystem around its product.
The iPhone is the perfect example of sitting back, evaluating the technology, and delivering a great product. The first to get it right strategy.
Numerous smart phones existed with email, text, call, and internet. iPhone just made it infinitely better. They also had the advantage of convincing carriers to start making money off data rather than text/minutes. This was a paradigm shift that allowed for full web browser to exist. It guzzled data, so carriers were fine subsidizing the phones and reap profits of data plans.
BlackBerry, Windows CE, and Symbian devices were all already around as smart phones at the time. When the iPhone initially launched, it's revolution was a streamlined form factor. Their was no app ecosystem at launch. I would say their biggest innovation was system integration and refinement. Other than blackberry, few companies were really owning the product vision from top to bottom.
Yeah, I’ve always thought that looking at the field of glorified prototypes and turning them into things real people actually love to use is, in fact, innovation.
I don’t think the Duo is a great example of that. Maybe it’s a fine product anyway, though?
I do also think their approach to AI is scary brilliant if they can pull it off.
It has the potential to make them the most important AI company in the world, quickly, with none of the exposure to the multi-trillion dollar horserace.
Flock records more that just license plates. It’s my understanding they’re also scanning wireless spectrum and tracking Bluetooth and WiFi MAC addresses, among other things.
More to the point, there’s a difference between someone writing down license plate numbers on a sheet of paper and and putting that information into a database that can then be mines to identify patterns of behavior, associations between people, etc. Context, use, and scale all matter significantly
Would love to see this applied to VR so that users consuming content in a Meta Quest, Vision Pro, etc. can navigate the video store to browse, and then once they find what they want to watch, walking out the door takes them into a virtual theatre or living rom environment.
I think most people are quickly coming to the conclusion that maybe the wealthy aren't as critical to a community as they would like everyone to believe.
The big argument around NYC's pied-à-terre tax among other policy changes was that it would force the wealthy to relocate outside of NYC to more favorable locations. That hasn't happened, and for a place like NYC, very unlikely to happen because people are attracted to the city for what it provides. Worst case, they leave, the property values decline and the city becomes more affordable with any gaps in businesses likely filled by those living and invested in the community.
It depends it may have an analogue in the evaporative cooling effect in the tax and investment base.
If the state goes too far, those with wealth may take their wealth and invest in in friendlier investment climates where their home country suffers from wealth drain and potentially could end up as country versions of Detroit (or maybe like VZ where as the state confiscated property investment dried up).
The problem is that these taxes, like every other tax, will soon apply to the middle class (who have the real wealth), and they very much will leave. Either physically leave, or they will leave like they do in a lot of European countries: find some excuse to first become long-term ill, then go onto unemployment. And obviously the state cannot stop this. You want to do this? There's nothing the state can do about it (other than seriously lower pensions, unemployment and medical insurance)
There are articles about UK families that have been doing this for 5 generations. The entire family.
The problem is not money. There are far less working-age people, and it'll keep dropping for 25 years minimum. Which means the only solution is people working more, for someone else. A little bit more every year, for now without any visible end. Either that will happen, or the state (including elderly care) will have to shrink instead.
Pick your poison. And, of course, every electorate is saying "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Okay ...
One of my greatest criticisms of higher education, or at least the academic institutions (having spent almost 20 years working for one), is that they approach education as a means to an end. Students are viewed as a resource to extract money from and little more. It’s no wonder people are questioning the value and ROI of higher education given the cost.
What educational institutions and the community should be doing is reframing the student-teacher or student-institution relationship and working to build a system that provides better support for lifelong learning via low cost classes people can drop in rather than limiting or overly emphasizing degree programs.
Do we really take away from the artist? In what way?
The obvious answer is that you take away a purchase the person to give the gift would have made. One could argue that there is also value in propagating someone’s art and potentially increasing the artists customer/patron base. Think of it as advertising or to put it in the context of a drug deal, the first hit’s free. The gift recipient may then go on to buy another work from that artist and even pass on the one they were given to someone else, continuing the cycle.
I’d also argue that there isn’t widespread agreement on reasonable compensation for artists. Personally, I don’t consider artists to be special enough in the context of people that make and produce goods, that they should get unique treatment. Why does a family deserve the financial benefits of trademarks and copyrights decades after the artists death. That’s just one example, but in a time when many’s artists view their livelihoods to be at risk because of AI, it’s not popular to engage in any debate that undermines the artist in any way.
Data centers surely provide jobs to the local community. Construction can bring in thousands, but even the operation of a modern data center employs a lot more people than the common narrative would lead you to believe. What obscures that operational employment is that it’s not uncommon for a large percentage to be contingent workers or third party vendors
This is the issue. There are big differences in how individual companies build and operate data centers. The average hyperscale data center from a major player is vastly different than some of the crypto mining, small time data center builds I’ve seen.
An AI-focused center from AWS, Google, or Meta tends to be large, but also relatively quiet and they make a lot of effort to ensure they’re not overloading the local infrastructure because it poses operational and strategic risks. They also don’t want to alienate the community because they need to get their workforce from the community and they they require a lot more people in site than what most believe.
At the same time, I’ve seen “data centers” built from shipping containers that you can hear cooling fans whining from a mile away.
At the end of the day, the blame really should fall on the local governments to enact and enforce regulations and any anger really should be directed at them.
reply