Was just in a Waymo in SF and we were attacked by a gang of cyclists repeatedly swerving at and trying to cause our waymo to crash. Really powerless feeling. And they were doing this knowing humans were inside. I don't pretend to know their motivation other than perhaps misplaced social rage, but I'd imagine a litter robot would be immediately destroyed.
Indeed, I was surprised to hear about “Lowell students” robbing people on Muni and “bicyclists” causing trouble in Mission Bay but when I observed some of this anti-social behaviour (when I saw them they were doing wheelies and swerving at people walking) I was rapidly able to discern why the statements were relatively vague as to the categorization.
I suppose it shall be the case for the short term at least that we must admit that “humans” really cause harm. Though perhaps that’s over specific and I should recognize that most crime is committed by eukaryotes.
The motivation is that they keep getting away with it. And they're going to keep getting away with it until society decides we're going to stop tolerating shit like that.
Unless you have insider knowledge, this seems incredibly unlikely. Do you really think most GMail users even understand what this functionality is, much less use it? Google is many things, but they're not suicidal. I'm sure they did the math of the ongoing cost of supporting this functionality, versus whatever revenue people who care about it (and are still paying nothing) might bring in and realized its a cost savings for them. Losing 0.3% of all users is likely in their interests.
How has it evolved over the years? Certainly internet access on the playa has gotten easier than when you first launched it. What was the first connectivity solution?
I've had to replace the handset (mic and speaker) and the LEDs in the sign a few times since 2013, but I've mostly left the hardware alone otherwise except switching to Starlink in 2022.
Until then, it got Internet via Burning Man itself through what they call the "participant network", which they still provide: https://internet.burningman.org/
This consisted of setting up a Ubiquiti NanoBridge (then later NanoBeam) with their supplied config on top of a 20 foot tower aimed at the 60 foot radio tower near Center Camp. Sometimes they wouldn't provide the config or get the participant network running until like Tuesday or Wednesday of event week, it might at best provide 400kbit/sec total or have permanent 50% packet loss, or just be down for days at a time. It wasn't great.
I hear it has drastically improved in recent years, but I haven't tried using it.
It’s been some time since I’ve been, but I had good luck with a directional antenna with a hotspot pointed at the closest T-Mobile tower (~12 miles in Gerlach if memory serves) if that might ever be relevant to your backhaul/uplink use cases.
Our first time out on the playa together, my girlfriend and I stopped by this phone booth and made a couple of calls. And because we stopped, we saw the FSM camp next door, and a giant sign saying "Weddings Here", so we inquired. They offered us free rings and then announced our wedding over a loudspeaker. In 2 minutes we had an entire wedding party, complete with best man, an elder to give away the bride, 25+ guests, and an officiant. My newly-minted best man even gave me one of my favorite playa gifts ever as a wedding gift. We opted not to "make it official", though they offered. It was a truly incredible experience. Thanks FSM!
"For the rest of the week of Burning Man, a phone booth is standing on the dusty street corner of 3:30 and Celba, in front of the Temple of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Black Rock City, Nevada for anyone to use."
The FSM is a fetish attempt to mock some of the world’s largest religions. One day I hope to see the FSM come to be the exact mockery of the people who made it, ie the ones who take somethings in life so damn seriously that they make it something they serve and worship, and then ask it to help them back.
so a pantomime of an actual wedding? what was her take on that? transient vows, transient friends , transient rings, a parody minister? Quite possibly the most Reddit experience I've ever heard of.
It has always been a challenging but highly rewarding experience for me. It is what you make of it - if you choose to be cynical about "very well off tech people", that's all you'll see. But Burning Man is multitudes. For me, it's about witnessing pure human creativity and playfulness. Your first time out on the playa at night will likely be one of those lifetime memories you'll appreciate having.
The page shows all green, which coincidentally is also how it looks when Azure is down. That page is for SLA/billing purposes, it won't show live incidents as they occur.
Just to be clear, I am talking about the suckers, marks, and rubes in the United States that believe blatant fascist propaganda and are so unbelievably and completely stupid and deluded as to support undermining the rule of law merely so that their political tribe can 'win'. You have learned nothing from history, future accounts (if we live through this) will paint you in a very poor light, and you should all be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. Unfortunately for you and I both, we will all likely suffer greatly due to your failings. Thanks.
I think that's actually a very interesting insight that would be helpful for PMs on GCloud to take note of. As a single founder, setting up Google Cloud, it's like they start out by assuming you're bigco, forcing (I assume most) of their users into a arduous process of removing components they don't need.
Google AI Studio is one of Google's solutions to this problem, but in typical Google fashion, it's bolted-on without any clear connection in the ecosystem. If you're also using GCloud, it's hard to remember it's even there.
OpenAI's platform, by contrast, is streamlined, easy to use. With Google, I feel like I need to wade through the documentation first before even using the darn thing.
This is a meme within Google already. People even complain that some internal tools assume you're serving a billion users when you just want to make a little webserver. But same with GCP.
> As a single founder, setting up Google Cloud, it's like they start out by assuming you're bigco
My impression of anything enterprise (big or small) related to Google is that they just don't care / value solving it.
Which is sad, because "How does an enterprise customer pay for X?" is a non-trivial and incredibly important UX problem.
They have great technical solutions, but these are hamstrung by a frankly amateur understanding of how companies (startups to Fortune 500s) need to sign up, pay for, and track things.
From an outside perspective, one of the biggest gaps seems to be that internal Google product teams don't have to dogfood the full GCP et al. project/org experience. They get prebuilt billing structures (or just get to avoid them with internal cross-billing).
---
If I could waive a magic wand, Google would appoint an "Enterprise Czar", reporting directly to Pichai, who is a non-technical, retired founder / CEO.
That person would have one job: try to sign up, run (their team), and budget strategic Google initiatives (like AI) as a blind external party.
They would then deliver continuous reports to Pichai about how hard / easy this is.
Because potential Google customers don't give a shit if it's this internal team or that internal team's responsibility for integrating New Product X into GCP billing.
They care that the experience is terrible, filled with friction, and often flat out doesn't work.
Sergey's out spending $100 million to lobby against the billionaire tax in California. Lest his net worth shrink from roughly $250 billion to $237 billion. Can't become a pleb now! [0]
not that I'm intending to defend Sergey here but, if you could spend 0.04% of your net worth to protect 5% of your net worth (and probably all of your easy liquidity)... wouldn't you?
I think that argument should stop with advocacy for law. I have no problem with this when it's means playing optimally within the current laws, things like hiring world class tax attorneys. But if using your immense wealth to ensure the rules that everyone plays by favor you specifically, instead of the country/world, It feels like this is closer to bribing a judge than hiring a tax attorney.
I would normally agree with that, but in this particular case "everyone" is just over 200 individuals. And he could be opposing it on principle as well.
A one-off retroactive wealth tax is a rather questionable form of taxation even if (like myself) you are in favour of looking for ways to tax the super rich more effectively.
When I read about these one-off wealth taxes I find one thing really astonishing. The argument against wealth taxes in general is that people would change their behaviour, which would reduce the tax take over time. That's certainly true.
But then left wing economists believe that imposing it retroactively and calling it a "one-off" does not change people's behaviour. Technically, it cannot change their behaviour with respect to this specific taxation event.
But I find it utterly naive to believe that this sort of hit and run taxation will not change people's behaviour in other ways that would reduce tax revenues.
No one in their right mind would ever believe that a tax that brings in $100bn over 5 years will not have to be replaced by some other tax paid by the same group or by the somewhat less well off who decided to stay.
> if you could spend 0.04% of your net worth to protect 5% of your net worth
If I was anywhere near being a billionaire I wouldn't. There would be much better things to spend my time and effort on. That's not even counting the fact that I would probably care about the ethical aspect too.
0.95x of an obscene amount of money I can't spend is still an obscene amount of money I can't spend. That 5% wouldn't make any discernible difference in my life.
They’ll be back for the less rich people too until no more rich people are dumb enough to stay. Look at CAHSR. There’s no end to how much money California politicians can spend.
There’s not a revenue problem in California. There’s a spending problem.
I'm no OpenAI apologist here, but I appreciate this perspective. Apple definitely played their timing right for maximum pre-IPO damage. It gives them tremendous negotiating leverage on a possible settlement which could give them a chunk of OpenAI.
OpenAI did not launch any hardware (yet), and I don't think their IPO pricing hinges on them launching an iPhone competitor. To me, it looks like Apple wants to launch a similar AI hardware and is slowing-down the competition to be the first-to-market.
Funny thing: they are barking at the wrong tree here.
The risk is not hardware launch per se. It's the unresolved lawsuit from a powerful company that's hanging over OpenAI and what may be revealed if the case goes to trial and discovery. All that will get priced in by institutional investors. If OpenAI is shopping the IPO, it's likely among the first questions large investors performing due diligence will ask.
The worst scenario is OpenAI tells investors that the risks are low, there's nothing damaging, the costs are immaterial, and tries to push forward. Then the case goes to trial and emails, Slack messages, documents are revealed in discovery that run counter to everything OpenAI told investors. Court issues an injunction, awards damages, OpenAI has to dismiss execs, secondary lawsuits are filed, existing investors release letters they had no idea, underwriter backs out, etc. That outcome could crush an IPO.
reply