I learned about DFA (Data Flow Analysis) optimizations back in the early 1980s. I eagerly implemented them for my C compiler, and it was released as "Optimum C". Then came the C compiler roundup benchmarks in the programming magazines. I breathlessly opened the issue, and was faced with the reviewers' review that Optimum C was a bad compiler because it deleted the code in the benchmarks. (The reviewer wrote Optimum C was cheating by recognizing the specific benchmark code and deleting it.)
I was really, really angry that the review had not attempted to contact me about this.
But the other compiler venders knew what I'd done, and the competition implemented DFA as well by the next year, and the benchmarks were updated.
The benchmarks were things like:
void foo() { int i,x = 1; for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) x += 1; }
"The entire infotainment system is a HTML 5 super computer," Milton said. "That's the standard language for computer programmers around the world, so using it let's us build our own chips. And HTML 5 is very secure. Every component is linked on the data network, all speaking the same language. It's not a bunch of separate systems that somehow still manage to communicate."
Radio frequency scanners are far from obsolete overall but they typically have a lot more channels and scan much faster now. They have continued to evolve or devolve for those that like simplicity. Plenty of people, myself included still have scanners in their home and vehicle. I just had mine on to find out why a parade of ambulance, fire and troopers were going down the highway.
Semi-related because Radio Shack, a store manager taught me how to leverage my "Tandy Service Plan" to get free upgrades on my scanner for life. I was not ready for him to do this. He grabbed my handheld 20 channel scanner by the antenna and smashed it on the desk. Then he handed me a 200 channel scanner because Radio Shack no longer had an equivalent model. Once the 200 channel scanner was obsolete I got a free 1000 channel scanner. Each iteration scanned both channels and stepped frequencies faster. Most scanners lock out particular frequency ranges but this can be bypassed usually by cutting one diode or moving a jumper. Radio Shack preferred the diode method. Nowadays people call this "frequency expansion" or expanded on scanners, ham radio, etc... Some HAM radios can be used as scanners once frequency expanded.
Some now prefer software defined radios to double as scanners. I like both. SDR's are great at home but too much clutter for in the vehicle for me. SDR's combined with leaked keys can monitor P25 encrypted law enforcement tactical channels.
Someone posted a link on HN years ago to a set of google docs titled the "Mochary Method", which covers all sorts of management skills just like this. I have it bookmarked as it's the only set of notes I've seen which talks about this stuff in a very human way that makes sense to me (as a non-manager).
Carmack did very much almost exactly the same with the Trinity / Quake3 Engine: IIRC it was LCC, maybe tcc, one of the C compilers you can actually understand totally as an individual.
He compiled C with some builtins for syscalls, and then translated that to his own stack machine. But, he also had a target for native DLLs, so same safe syscall interface, but they can segv so you have to trust them.
Crazy to think that in one computer program (that still reads better than high-concept FAANG C++ from elite lehends, truly unique) this wasn't even the most dramatic innovation. It was the third* most dramatic revolution in one program.
If you're into this stuff, call in sick and read the plan files all day. Gives me googebumps.
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[x] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
Yes and no, form validation is a double edged sword: without it whoever receives the data may have to deal with inconsistencies, so removing that will increase efficiency.
However, the flexibility and adaptability of human interaction is lost when an intermediate digital system enforces rules without exception, and that loss can absolutely result in inefficiencies because the world is always changing and your digital models rarely reflect reality.
Let's say you work for a government agency processing stolen bikes. To fill in your form you must select a category of bike, but "fatbike" is not an option as the software was built in 2012. As a human using paper, you could easily talk to your colleagues and agree that you can now check the "e-bike" checkmark and write "fat" beside it to indicate a fatbike. In the software world, some company (hopefully the one that built the original software) will quote you 50k to do it, it won't work correctly, and you'll thank them for the pleasure of dealing with them.
In another example, let's say you have to get a building permit to build an extension to your house, and based on your postal code the system tells you that you are too close to a nature reserve and are not allowed to do any construction, and the system rejects your application. The government has recently ruled that this does not apply anymore to residential housing development, to improve the housing crisis situation, but the software is not up to date with this change. In a paper world the human could simply approve the permit based on their knowledge of the real world, in the software world the computer program will never approve your permit.
This whole thing may sound anti-automation. Its not meant to be, rather its a reminder that the processes we automate should leave enough flexibility and adaptability to deal with the real world. This does not come for free though: the bike system would need to allow you to add categories, or a free-form details field. The permit system should work in an advisory manner, but allow overrides by a professional specifying a reason, or it should allow you to disable/modify/create rules on the fly.
However, no matter what you do, form validation will always leave somebody out in the cold, some edge case uncovered, that a human could always resolve, but a system cannot.
Without going into too many specifics, for a period during my career I was involved with an organization whose responsibility it is to track nuclear materials and keep them under safe surveillance—in fact my job had the words 'surveillance engineer' in its title.
I say that only bring to your attention how difficult this would be in practice. Putting safety aside for a moment, in most countries the regulatory restrictions are enormous because they are signatories to the NPT—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which tightly bind them to how they use and handle nuclear materials. This involves, use, tracking, short and long-term disposal thereof not to mention how to keep radioactive materials away from bad actors/those who've ill intent.
With safety, there are so many issues involved that I can hardly even mention them here. Just as an illustration, the once lack of regulations covering the manufacture and use of luminous radium paint turned out to be a disaster.
I've thought about this a great deal, whenever the batteries in my flashlight die I wish I had some nuclear powered ones and evey time I'm brought back to reality when I think how difficult it would be to implement in practice.
The claim that a codebase of 420k lines contains "only one error" is of course absurd, and the members of this forum would laugh anyone out of the room who made such a claim about any other project, pointing out how they cannot possibly know, actual logical contradictions in the claims as described by GP, or just plain ridiculing it without further elaboration.
But since the code in question cannot meaningfully be tested by the public, and people have been indoctrinated to believe the myth that aerospace engineers are an entirely different species that doesn't make mistakes in the sense that the rest of the workforce does, the hubris is accepted until disproven, which it probably won't be for various practical reasons.
Nevermind that the Space Shuttle was a death trap that killed two crews, and that the associated investigations (especially for Challenger) revealed numerous serious issues in quality and safety management. People will continue to just nod their head when they hear nonsense like this, because that's what they have seen others do, and so Schrödinger's Hubris can live on.
I have a slight fascination with sweeteners. About five years ago I imported a kilo of "Neotame" sweetener from a chem factory in Shanghai. It was claimed to be 10,000-12,000 times sweeter than sugar. It's a white powder and came in a metal can with a crimped lid and typically plain chemical labeling. Supposedly it is FDA-approved and a distant derivative of aspartame.
US customs held it for two weeks before sending it on to Colorado with no explanation. When received, the box was covered in "inspected" tape and they had put the canister in a clear plastic bag. The crimped lid looked like a rottweiler chewed it open and white powder was all over the inside of the bag. I unwisely opened this in my kitchen with no respirator as advised by the MSDS which I read after the fact (I am not a smart man).
Despite careful handling of the bag, it is so fine in composition that a small cloud of powder erupted in front of me and a hazy layer of the stuff settled over the kitchen. Eyes burning and some mild choking from inhaling the cloud, I instantly marveled at how unbelievably sweet the air tasted, and it was delicious. For several hours I could still taste it on my lips. The poor customs inspector will have had a lasting memory of that container I'm pretty sure.
Even after a thorough wipe-down, to this day I encounter items in my kitchen with visually imperceptible amounts of residue. After touching it and getting even microscopic quantities of the stuff on a utensil or cup, bowl, plate, whatever, it adds an intense element of sweetness to the food being prepared, sometimes to our delight. I still have more than 900g even after giving away multiple baggies to friends and family (with proper safety precautions).
We have been hooked on it since that first encounter. I keep a 100mL bottle of solution in the fridge which is used to fill smaller dropper bottles. I've prepared that 100mL bottle three times over five years, and that works out to about 12g of personal (somewhat heavy) usage for two people in that time. Probably nowhere near the LD50.
I carry a tiny 30mL dropper bottle of the solution for sweetening the nasty office coffee and anything else as appropriate. Four drops to a normal cup of coffee. We sweeten home-carbonated beverages, oatmeal, baked goods (it is heat stable), use it in marinades, and countless other applications.
I don't know if it's safe. The actual quantity used is so incredibly tiny that it seems irrelevant. I'd sweeten my coffee with polonium-210 if it could be done in Neotame-like quantities. Between this, a salt shaker loaded with MSG and a Darwin fish on my car, I'm doomed anyway.
I feel like we're reaching an inflection point where tech-companies are about to discover whether humans are willing to live in an all-digital world, or if they would rather just continue physical reality with digital-enhancements.
Tech companies keep pushing towards all-digital because they carry a lot more power in a world of their own making. They keep trying to get away from solving real-world pain points (e.g. being able to talked to loved ones) to solving for manufactured pain points (e.g. dopamine addiction to short-form content).
Sure. Super high level.
Resources are concentrations of some mineral that could be economically extracted.
Reserves are the economically mineable portions of those resources.
There are a bunch of levels to each, with varying levels of confidence.
I can drill two holes, 500m apart and by pure chance intersect nothing but lithium at same spacing between 10m-20m. I could theoretically say , you know what I think between these two drill holes it’s all lithium. It’s 500m spacing and according to grades I think we have 500ktons of inferred lithium resource here.
But for instance let’s say I did some more drilling and was confident I found a resource that indicates it has 1million tonnes of lithium in it. However, it’s located in the middle of Sahara desert, where there are no roads, water sources, or infrastructure of any type.
Just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s economical to mine it (right now). So even though it is a resource it’s not a reserve.
To define something as a resource there is a lot of room for interpretation. Lots of statistical inference, and a bit of art meets science. From public company perspective you can announce you have calling a promising resource, but if you get it wrong, there’s a lot of leeway.
Calling something a reserve is a big deal. Not only are you extremely confident of the size, shape of the resource, but you have evaluated its economic viability to get it out of the ground and have determined that it’s net positive. You lie about this, and you are in trouble.
I lost $250,000 of Beanie Babies in 1998 by sending them from the UK to the USA in 800 separate packages to try to avoid grey import laws. It was illegal to send the Beanies because the same products were on sale in the USA.
This used to affect people trying to import Levi's jeans from the USA to EU too.
It's like taking an idea hostage. If you fail to pull it off, you make sure that nobody else has the chance to try it without first paying you for that privilege. It's supposed to help somehow.
If you were standing at the entrance of a grand amusement park, would you feel despair that you have to choose which ride to take or excitement at having options? If the park were fantastically more grand, so you have no hope of sampling every amusement, does this somehow change your response? Your emotional valence here is your choice, not something intrinsic to the setting. That is what those cognitive behavioral therapists are trying to help with. But, they have to come up with some actionable instruction to convey it to us. I think you are arguing against the chosen rhetorical device rather than an actual principle.
Whether it is rarefied academic pursuits, music and arts appreciation, friendships, love, delicious food, sex, or ... we have to decline a world of countless possibilities to engage what is in front of us. And even then, we need rest periods in order to fully appreciate those rare few branches we do take. You can't enjoy or pursue anything 24x7. The nature of our experience is inexorably tied to the exclusion of other non-experiences.
In other words, life is a constant stream of decisions and branching points. The underlying angst of "not enough lifetime" is rooted, I think, in grief for these other paths not taken, for the loss of imagined alternatives. This is supported by the delusional idea that we could defer and return to every branch (given enough time). It ignores the ephemeral and limited nature of most opportunities and potential experiences, the necessity of closing one door to open another, and that most doors are never open to us (individually) to begin with.
You wouldn't just need a hundred lives or a thousand years but some kind of combinatoric explosion of a Multiverse You, where you could explore every choice of collapsing decision point. But what does that even mean? I think it's another delusion about identity and the self to think that "you" can experience the different paths. You'd be many someones else. If you could somehow fuse them together into an experience, you've just added some kind of sci-fi "hive mind" to your experience. But wouldn't you wish you could have experienced those things as an individual...?
To get stuck with this frustration is a failure to mourn. A failure to accept a finite life and get on with it. That leaves the grief stuck in the back of the mind. This is where philosophers of mind might tell you about desires as the source of suffering, etc. Where practitioners might propose moderation or the so-called middle path. Where the CBT folks might say you are on the path so you might as well learn to enjoy it, and offer a grab bag of tricks to help achieve that.
Not useless: They got to feel good about themselves and saddle people with hours of unnecessary work as the price of their own edification.
Power, remember, is the ability to get people to do what you want them to, and it is felt when it is exercised. They exercised power so they could smell the sweet aroma of their own farts.
From my purely anecdotal experience with mentoring younger people, I've seen two main categories of venting:
1) Venting about frustrations by talking them through with someone who will listen. This forces people to put their frustrations into words and elucidate the narrative as they put it into words. This can not only help people identify their feelings and work through them, but it also forces people to decide what a mature response would be. Once you start venting to someone you know, especially someone you respect, you have an incentive to present a mature interpretation and approach to the situation. This can help immensely.
2) The other group tends to want to avoid the mature response part, and instead wants to seek sympathy and confirmation for their frustrations. They deliberately avoid discussing these issues with respected peers or mentors because they know their response is unhealthy and not a good look. They embrace online forums like Reddit and Twitter where they're free to give one-sided stories without fear of their peers calling them out for exaggerating or stretching the details. This type of venting doesn't solve anything because they don't really want solutions in the first place. There's something rewarding or perhaps freeing about hunkering down in the victim role and being showered with sympathy from random internet strangers.
I haven't seen any reason to believe the first type of venting (discussing with respected peers, seeking feedback and solutions in the process) is anything but helpful. However, the latter type of venting (online venting to collect sympathy) does seem to be quite damaging from my limited experience. There's something dangerous about going online to bond with others and seek personal affirmation in a way that's fueled by venting frustrations and victimizations. Once inside of those circles, there's an incentive to continue bringing more frustrations and more victimizations to the table to keep the bonding and community contact flowing.
The story in the article about going to a park to scream together raises my red flags as such a situation: It becomes an in-group thing where you need to adopt an outward appearance of being very frustrated to fit in with the other people in the group. Not a good incentive for improving the situation.
I blame the internet. Back in the days before it, we had to learn to live with those around us, now you can just go out and find someone as equally stupid as yourself.
I call it the toaster fucker problem. Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends "I want to fuck a toaster"
Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds "Toaster Fucker Support group" where he reads that he's actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers.
Apply this analogy to literally any insular bubble, it applies as equally to /r/thedonald as it does to the emaciated Che Guevara larpers that cry thinking about ringing their favourite pizza place.
Ok, but there are a bunch of reasons why I think you should actively avoid "markets best served by hourly work":
* It positions you against the lowest-quality cheapest providers.
* It misaligns your incentives, so that you're penalized for doing a better job.
* It totally hides the cost of ramp-up and ramp-down (if you think clients push back on daily or project rates, wait until you charge them for 2 hours of "getting in flow").
* It forces you to be vigilant about time tracking lest you accidentally undercharge customers.
* Not to mention, with virtually any client worth doing business with, you (the consultant) are much more sensitive to the cost of a project than the customer is; it is a small miracle that the customer can get a programming project completed at all without potentially hiring and then firing 3 different people. So why is all the burden on you? Why is any of the burden on you? Key consulting idea: it's not the customer's money they're spending.
* It inclines you towards finicky accounting, the kind that charges a customer for a 45 minute phone conversation.
* It conditions your customers to take a fine-tooth-comb approach to project plans and invoices.
* Not to mention: it generates more invoices.
* It forces you to negotiate with clients in the worst possible numeric domain: where small deltas to proposed rates disproportionately impact the final cost.
* It obscures the final cost of projects in ways that make clients defensive, so that their immediate thought is "oh shit this is going to add up to lots of hours we better be careful".
* For that matter, it inclines your projects towards the small and away from anything ambitious.
* It impedes your own flexibility, so that you tend to miss opportunities to interleave projects or for that matter take an occasional long lunch.
* It forces you to account for every waking hour of your day in a way that daily rates don't, when we all know that only a small subset of your work hours are truly productive.
* It makes it harder for you to reasonable toss freebie work to your best clients without damaging the expected value of your time; for instance, I can cab over to a client in Chicago and spend 2 hours looking at a design with them for free without creating the appearance that my bill rate is arbitrary.
As a general note, room air freshener sprays do nothing to freshen the air in your room. For that, you must remove the pollutant source and introduce cleaner air.
This cognitive warfare does not appear to distinguish between military and civilian targets, or it targets civilian targets exclusively.
Already, social media is a proverbial war of all against all, and tends to make any public career nasty, unctuous, and short. It seems like the military wants to expand it to where mere non-participation is not sufficient to be free of it. Programs like this shift the role of the military from defending a perimiter of civilization to managing it. They are finding ways to turn aggression inward on the population. It uses the same destructive tactics they defended against during the cold war and turns them to the domestic front.
Having read more than a few books and other sources on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat should be treated as compromised by one of the movements this force co-opts to its ends. The goal is to unmoor people from all truth so we can be pacified and managed in a liquid way. The objective is just as through a mix of constant minor punishment and increasing dependency, a zoo animal loses its skill to hunt and feed itself, so via similar systems of dependency people lose the ability to think for themselves and can eventually be trusted to reject any and all truth that could connect them into an identity or a potential resistance, because we know what happens to people found in posession of it.
I'm glad the military is tipping their hand on this, as people need to understand that the pervasive forever war modern states are fighting is against truth itself, and you can see it in every action, because once you take that from people, dominion is complete.
I really think that action changes attitude faster than attitude changes action. Learning this the hard way in my 40s, it's been really life changing for me. Particularly when you're depressed, demotivated, find yourself procrastinating, etc.
You can try this yourself -- the next time you're feeling demotivated, start with the smallest amount of tiny measurable action. If you can't get out of bed, move your fingers, shake your head, work your way up to standing up, walking, leaving your house, and very slowly building momentum.
If you're procrastinating about work, start with opening up a terminal, launch your editor, write one tiny snippet of code that just compiles, add another snippet, build momentum.
You'll find yourself making excuses, telling yourself that none of this matters, or that you're too tired, or that you're not in the mood. Accept the thoughts and push through the actions.
Very quickly, as the dopamine hits from these tiny successes arrive, you'll find your attitude changing, and this turns into a feedback loop where you end up performing more actions, further improving your mood and attitude.
On your first question the major problem was not necessarily speed, which did improve a bit for example the French Renault FT could make a bit over 4mph, but instead endurance. They were never able to solve the range and reliability problem given the technology at the time. This meant that even light tanks like the FT only had an operational range of about 40 miles. Breakdown rates were also incredibly high, and during the final offensives of the war in 1918 the British rapidly ran into a situation where they had to deemphasize the use of tanks simply because they did not have enough that were running.
Suggested readings: (this is a mix of books and articles)
* The Infantry Cannot Do with a Gun Less: The Place of the Artillery in the BEF, 1914-1918 by William Sanders Marble
* The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War by Timothy T. Lupfer
* The Marne and After: A Reappraisal of French Strategy in the First World War by Douglas Porch
* The Evolution of British Strategy and Tactics on the Western Front in 1918: GHQ, Manpower, and Technology by Tim Travers
* Operational Art and the German Command System in World War I by Bradley John Meyer
* Not Glamorous, But Effective: The Canadian Corps and the Set-Piece Attack, 1917-1918 by Ian M. Brown
> Technical debt and code coverage "as risks" cant be factored in either.
They can be measured. Lots of companies don't, which is mind-boggling.
When a release goes sideways and has to be rolled back, you figure out why. Ah, you launched a feature that revealed an intersection of edge cases in your testing? That's n developers * m hours * p dollars of blended dev salary down the drain.
When your feature delivery slows to a crawl over time, you dig in – your programmers aren't getting worse over time... are they? No, you find that a ticket that took your average developer x hours to deliver at the beginning of your development now takes 2x or 3x. Make a value stream map and you'll find out that your test suite has become so sluggish that your developers can't iterate quickly, that QA now measures regression time in days not hours, and as a result your developers are taking on less work to compensate. X dev hours * Y blended rate in ongoing waste, plus factor in the value of missed sales because of missed features if you want to really put a point on it.
> It's not really about finding the right metaphor it's about lacking a common, shared unit of account.
Name the local currency you get paid in – dollars, Euros, pesos. That is the shared unit of account. If you don't care about it, start walking up the org chart. You won't have to go far before you realize that's what actually matters, and that engineers who can translate technical risks and inefficiencies in their world to dollar values are highly valued.
Crypto democratizes and decentralizes finance, banking the unbanked, debanking the overbanked, and rebanking the debanked. Using lightning network crypto eliminates middlemen and the annoying experience of transacting money between businesses and customers. With brain wallet seeds you can take your wealth with you anywhere as long as you can remember it or write it down where nobody else will see it, ever. For maximum security you can send your funds to a burner address, withdrawing them from circulation and ensuring nobody can ever steal them.
I know you said no loans, but I can't skip mentioning DeFi which enables anybody to borrow their own money from themselves, anytime, fully electronically and without centralization.
Then you have smart contracts, which are like a computer, but on everybody's computer at the same time. You can write full programs with complexity nearing that of FizzBuzz and run them worldwide for only hundreds of dollars.
Just imagine a world without crypto. It would be like a world without hackysack, or a world without mail order swords on the shopping channel. Unrecognizable and primitive.
This article of course presents automatic programming as if it's a brand new
thing that is only now possible to do thanks to "AI", but that is only how
companies that sell the technology find it convenient to present things to
market their products. The thing to keep in mind is that program synthesis is an
old field and a lot of progress has been made that is completely ignored by the
article. Of course most people haven't even heard of "program synthesis" in the
first place, simply because it is not as much hyped as GPT-3 and friends.
From my point of view (my field of study is basically program synthesis for
logic programs) code generation with large language models is not really
comparable to what can be achieved with traditional program synthesis
approaches.
The main advance seems to be in the extent to which a natural language (i.e.
English) specification can be used, but natural language specifications are
inherently limited because of the ambiguity of natural language. Additionally,
trying to generate new code by modelling old code has the obvious limitation
that no genuinely new code can be generated. If you ask a language model to
generate code it doesn't know how to generate - you'll only get back garbage.
Because it has no way to discover code it doesn't already know how to write.
So Copilot, for example, looks like it will make a fine boilerplate generator -
and I'm less skeptical about its utility than most posters here (maybe partly
because I'm not worried my work will be automated) but that's all that should
be expected of it.
December 2015: "We're going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years."
January 2016: "In ~2 years, summon should work anywhere connected by land & not blocked by borders, eg you're in LA and the car is in NY"
June 2016: "I really consider autonomous driving a solved problem, I think we are less than two years away from complete autonomy, safer than humans, but regulations should take at least another year," Musk said.
March 2017: "I think that [you will be able to fall asleep in a tesla] is about two years"
March 2018: "I think probably by end of next year [end of 2019] self-driving will encompass essentially all modes of driving and be at least 100% to 200% safer than a person."
Nov 15, 2018: "Probably technically be able to [self deliver Teslas to customers doors] in about a year then its up to the regulators"
Feb 19 2019: "We will be feature complete full self driving this year. The car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention this year. I'm certain of that. That is not a question mark. It will be essentially safe to fall asleep and wake up at their destination towards the end of next year"
April 12th 2019: "I'd be shocked if not next year, at the latest that having the person, having human intervene will decrease safety. DECREASE! (in response to human supervision and adding driver monitoring system)"
April 22nd 2019: "We expect to be feature complete in self driving this year, and we expect to be confident enough from our standpoint to say that we think people do not need to touch the wheel and can look out the window sometime probably around the second quarter of next year."
April 22nd 2019: “We will have more than one million robotaxis on the road,” Musk said. “A year from now, we’ll have over a million cars with full self-driving, software... everything."
May 9th 2019: "We could have gamed an LA/NY Autopilot journey last year, but when we do it this year, everyone with Tesla Full Self-Driving will be able to do it too"
Dec 1, 2020: “I am extremely confident of achieving full autonomy and releasing it to the Tesla customer base next year. But I think at least some jurisdictions are going to allow full self-driving next year.”
-
Elon’s just been repeating the same promise for the over half a decade now. Oldest trick in the book.
I was really, really angry that the review had not attempted to contact me about this.
But the other compiler venders knew what I'd done, and the competition implemented DFA as well by the next year, and the benchmarks were updated.
The benchmarks were things like: