Tesla's website literally says the Rocket version is "Not approved for public road use." And has "Seating for one." Any battery that can perform that demo can certainly power basic driving. You're accusing them of deception when every modification you describe is plainly stated on their website. (E.g. It's drive-by-wire, and the seats are modeled chassis elements. Yes, it's wildly minimal.)

The expectation that a vehicle that did a literal standing barrel roll (even if only a single time) be functionally equivalent to a Toyota Camry is madness to me. The much more interesting question is what type of localization system in 3D space were they running?

I've never seen a good blog post or metric establishing what % of a new model's "intelligence" can be captured. I'm not disputing the document's claim. Widespread effort at distillation is clear evidence that it is highly effective. I guess I just don't have an intuitive or technical sense for how powerful distillation is.

I get that plenty of people don't like big corporations or stock buybacks or certain CEOs, which is fine. But as someone who wants to see AGI happen FASTER, I really want to see a clear financial reason for maximal AGI investment.

If the model labs aren't clearly profitable, or open source models eat all the 'model layer' profit - what financial force will push forward very expensive experiments/scaling, etc.?

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/5cll43/while_you_wer...

Power density and cycle life are truly impressive. Energy density is super low

California has added roughly 17GW of grid-scale batteries in the last five years. Modern GPU (NVIDIA). Modern electric car (Tesla). Reusable Rockets (SpaceX).

I agree that the US has an "Only Elon-led companies can get things done outside of computers" problem.

Here in California, PG&E has a "base service fee" of $24/month. That you owe even if they sell you no (as in ZERO) electricity:

https://www.pge.com/en/account/billing-and-assistance/base-s...

My understanding is that the S-1 showed a Q1 loss of xAI of $2.47 billion in Q1. But with the Anthropic Colossus-I rental agreement at $1.25B/month or $3.75B/quarter, xAI should now be net-neutral to cash-flow positive.

If Colossus-II rents networked GB-200s, that could be up to +$47B/year at $9/hour/GB-200 for 555,000 GB-200s. For reference, current rental rates are $10-$27/hour for the same hardware. With Anthropic at a 55% month-over-month growth rate (implying a $150B/year run rate by August, or, more likely, sometime in late 2026), it seems very possible that xAI could be highly profitable as the only available compute resource.

I'm not saying +$47B Colossus-II deal will happen, but even a small fraction of that remains highly material to xAI economics. xAI is likely already cashflow neutral. (Where am I wrong?)

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt...

Two articles that cover this in depth are: 1. Revised Fold-Away Rotor Aircraft Concepts Emerge From Special Operations X-Plane Program. December 2024: https://www.twz.com/air/revised-fold-away-rotor-aircraft-con...

2. Bell’s Plan To Finally Realize A Rotorcraft That Flies Like A Jet But Hovers Like A Helicopter. September 2021: https://www.twz.com/41997/bells-plan-to-finally-realize-a-ro...

The second article covers decades of prior wind tunnel testing on the folding rotor concept.

This crap will only stop when there is: 1. A ton of new housing for all people. 2. Treat everyone the same. Same amount of test time etc.

Otherwise, our society is just a race to see who can claim the most special 'privilege' via some form of 'issue' or 'need'.

It would be great to see detailed demographic breakdowns of exactly who's making these heavy special-privilege claims, as the details may surprise a variety of commentators on this forum. Though I don't think Gary has access to that data.

US origins of the key technology here give the US a veto here regardless of ASML's Dutch headquarters.

Honestly, to me, one of the most exciting aspects of Lip-Bu Tan as CEO of Intel is actually spinning in his US startup portfolio. To use the old John Doerr quote, "No conflict, no interest!"

But my hope is that Intel becomes a successful operating business. I'm still not convinced that the Chairman of the Board of Intel doesn't want to break it up in a "part out" deal. And I'd strongly suspect that the media focus here is part of a larger fight.

Until the board of directors that oversaw the disastrous 10 years of Intel is fully replaced, Lip-Bu Tan's "Conflicts" are great things in my book.