No, he said that he was not involved. He had his own research model to develop, his startup will probably continue his work there but I wonder if he thinks its viable in the short term since he's launching a startup. I thought it was a moonshot.
That's a good point. I think it would be bearable if they actually had a good feedback platform & interact with their users. Feedback Hub is just terrible: slow, featureless & built on top of their buggiest ui platform.
It is worse for anybody looking for an appartment. Of course the person already living in one isn't worse off, but that has never been the issue that rent control creates. It disincentivises repairs and new constructions.
FSD - Is there any point re-hashing how long Musk has been wrong about this?. Ride share/robotaxi is yet another dream layered on top of this failed vision.
Robots - Not currently available. What does exist are demos that are being questioned as fake. Why the FTC hasn't investigated this as blatant investor fraud is open for debate.
Ah, I'm glad I'm not missing out by using Visual Studio. It's probably even slower in VS, I'm sure. I've been dual wielding VS for building/running and VSCode/Cursor/claude-code/codex-cli for AI editing, and it's a much better experience. Although if it wasn't so shitty in VS, I would do it all in the same UI.
EDIT: I'm especially pissed at Microsoft for not improving VS's rendering speed. They are all about making its backend services async, spinned out to external processes to be able to use the latest dotnet version, while the main IDE process is stuck in NET 48 seemingly forever, with zero improvements made to rendering performance. Perhaps the Vello Sharp news I'm hearing recently will kick MS into gears (one can hope).
I wouldn't based any policy based on people's opinion IMO. There has to be a cost/benefit study to base your decision on. Anyway kids can be pretty smart. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that this program is beneficial even that early in life.
Often times, educational programs are put in place without rigorous study, based on opinion. And the program design space is so large that it is hard to have a clear conclusion on an entire concept, like early gifted and talented programs.
My perspective is that the mos important thing in the early grades are that kids are engaged and not being held back. But there are many ways to address this.
It seems to be similar to what Yan Lecunn argues also. I wonder what does Sam Altman, Ilya sutskever and other major LLM creators mean when they say they aim to create AGI. Do they acknowledge that the current architecture isn't sufficient as well, or do they think scaling will be enough? Or do they not say at all?
reply