The fundamental disagreement I have with the post is the idea that you're foolish for doing something because it probably won't pan out.
So what? Why be so terrified of failure? I think it's better if kids learn to be brave, and pick themselves up in life after they stumble. Living life in utter fear of failing at anything seems like a terrible way for your children to start off life. Besides for which few things are better learning experiences than trying to start your own company.
And who knows. They might even succeed beyond their wildest dreams, as some do.
My call was not that you're foolish for doing something because it won't pan out.
It was that it is foolish to tell/teach/encourage people to expect that things like "start Google" have any reasonable likelihood of succeeding.
And it is even worse when that encourages people to fail to organize, vote, protest, push for better work and better working conditions for everybody who are not founders of unicorns.
> And it is even worse when that encourages people to fail to organize, vote, protest, push for better work and better working conditions for everybody who are not founders of unicorns.
You've lost me here. How does working at a startup make it any more difficult to do this than working at a bank or hospital? For that matter, would you discourage someone from pursuing basic research at a university or a doctorate degree because that doesn't directly advance a political agenda?
I’ve founded failed startups. I don’t regret a single one of them. I’ve worked at failed startups and big companies and I learned more and had more fun at the startups than I ever did at a big company.
The point is, if you try to found a company, you don’t have to make a billion dollars to consider it a success. In terms of personal growth it’s easily the equal of any big company job.
Everyday objects don't work like that. Saying ice cubes are cold is roughly equivalent to saying that they radiate less heat than the objects around them. If they radiated at "high intensity" then they wouldn't be cold anymore.
"A cold object that radiates heat at high intensity" is a contradiction.
Only for black body radiation do we have a perfect correspondance between spectrum and intensity. But there can be other ways of radiating. Non-black bodies. Antennas. Lasers.
For MSFT, AMZN, GOOG, the competitive advantage comes from having huge datasets (that Nvidia doesn't have). It's a symbiosis that benefits the data-rich and GPU-rich players.
This still makes little sense as that scale will always matter. If you can drop the compute cost of a model by 10x it means you can increase model integrity/intelligence/speed etc beyond what your compute bound competitors have.
Simply put, for the time being huge datasets are going to be needed and those with bigger (cleaner?) datasets will have a better behaving model.
I’m not sure your risk analysis is correct, if the driver is going to do those activities anyway, without the aid of self driving tech.
People already do things like grab food from the backseat, fiddle with the music, read their texts etc.. while driving. Are they less of a risk to those around them if they have some self driving guard rails? I would argue very likely yes.
Your conclusion of “you’re bad if you do this, so don’t do it” is rarely going to change human behavior. Giving people a tool to make the behavior they already want to do much safer is more likely to succeed.
My knee jerk reaction was to point out the flaws in your argument, but I figure thats not constructive, so here goes.
My first point is that taking eyes off the road while driving is risky business whether in a 2024 FSD Tesla or a 1996 Toyota tacoma. It's clear we don't want that.
My second point is the risk is entirely on the driver, and the people involved in the crash, not the producer of the technology who absolves themselves of all liability from the use and effects of said technology.
My personal experience that formed my opinion on this is that the technology is not ready to be fully trusted, not to the extent of taking eyes off the road (which really brought out my instinctive comment).
I will agree that this does have potential to avoid some crashes. But human nature would make us sloppier drivers.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating if there were an advanced civilization on a planet with gravity that was much higher than earth that couldn’t build chemical rockets and was therefore forced to build nuclear rockets?
What if that actually made the exploration of their solar system easier, since once they left the gravity well of their planet getting to other planets with nuclear rockets was comparatively trivial?
These things are fun to imagine, but the real fun gets to be when you start talking about all the downstream effects. For example, if you can't build rockets you can't build GPS. Building a global communication system is much harder, which means things like shipping and flying are much more difficult. Not to mention that the gravity is much higher in the first place so flying is going to require way more fuel so how long does it take for them to get to that stage of civilization and how does their technological path differ? It gets even trickier once you start thinking about how the atmospheric composition will be different as gases follow similar escape velocities (e.g. Earth loses 3kg H/s but only 50g He/s) and it also determines what can even stay aloft. In general much of the technological paths are fairly straight forward, always iterating off of the current state (leaps and bounds are not common as they're more often a lack of domain expertise or not properly contextualized around the historical knowledge). But I think people forget how connected a lot of these things are. Then again, people often question why it is important that we build rockets, while asking those questions on their handheld computer connected to a global communication network. It's quite incredible how complex these interaction chains actually are and I think make you only admire the beautify of it all that much more.
Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible.
Eg. determining location through radio signal triangulation can tell you a location pretty well, but would require placing a lot of signal stations throughout the world. Eg. remember the time-synchronisation mechanisms for watches through AM signals (including in hand watches).
Similarly, we did build a global communications network by placing expensive undersea cables across the world, but systems like StarLink are much cheaper (once you get to economies of scale for launching satellites).
So, like many things, rockets have accellerated discovery and progress, but are ultimately not the be-all solution: they work in tandem with the rest of science and engineering (including cultural development).
GPS done via land radio systems would be so flakey and expensive it would still likely not be implemented. Easy to jam too. And subject to control by terrestrial authorities.
Putting a dozen satellites in orbit - and out of reach of local authorities - is so much cheaper and more reliable, it’s not just a matter of cost - it’s an entirely different product.
Same with starlink. A big part of its advantage is someone can’t just walk over and cut a cable. And no one needs planning approval to put a cable in.
Line of sight to low orbit is about the only way to accomplish that - maybe some kind of high altitude ballon/plane could (loon?) but they’re so comparatively easy to shoot down that it makes it a very different kind of situation.
Yeah and to add to this I think people are forgetting why Bell was given a sanctioned monopoly. Because there were just cables everywhere. When people say natural monopolies exist in markets with network effects, that can mean literal networks of cables that will block out the sun. Sure, this stuff will improve too, but I think people are also forgetting about the increased surface area and the increased gravity which makes each of these cables required to be thicker or require more support.
It seems like you are looking at it only from one side.
Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface.
Detecting a StarLink terminal is relatively easy from the ground, and someone can just walk in and demolish it once they locate it.
Of course. But to Russias recent chagrin, blowing up/severing a fixed and very expensive cable (or underwater pipeline) is a generally far easier proposition than tracking down mobile and intermittent sources on the ground.
Still possible. But orders of magnitude harder. Nothing says that starlink ground station needs to stay in one place, after all.
Undersea cables get cut all the time, from shipping to nation states.
Trains don’t make cars obsolete, anymore than cars make trains obsolete. Taking out train tracks is much easier and more effective than taking out all possible roads though.
> Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface.
The cable has to come out on to the surface somewhere, though.
But barring that, dropping IEDs from a fishing boat, with a time fuse and some weight, isn't hard; the trickier part would be knowing where to drop them so they land near the cable. But there are tricks for that too.
You might be surprised to learn that Enhanced LORAN recently became operational around the UK's coast, specifically because satellite-based PNT is so susceptible to interference and jamming.
Not at all. It's only being installed in specific, high value areas within a specific jurisdiction. And mainly as a backup. Notably by a party which doesn't control GPS (albeit a close ally).
LORAN has also been used near airports in developed areas for a long time.
That isn't the 'base case' though.
The US military initially developed and launched GPS because of the reasons I stated, and it is still widely used as a base case for exactly those reasons.
> Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible.
With finite time, lifespan and resources, "cheap" is often equivalent to "possible". If you look at the connections between inventions and developments that GP mentioned, it's usually the case that the necessary prerequisites don't involve just knowledge, but something getting cheap enough to be available / worth building.
Which actually leads me to thinking that a space-adapted race really doesn't want to bother with planets and their big ass gravity well.
Resource extraction from asteroids or moons is a lot easier than carting it out of a big gravity well. Building stations in zero G rather than having to worry about orbital degradation and the like. Atmospheres get in the way of solar energy collection.
Earth is probably only useful as a vacation destination. Unless of course all those UFO reports are actual physics-defying antigrav drives with little green men.
Interesting thought. I think ground-based GPS wouldn't be too difficult though - we already have most of earth covered by GSM/3G/LTE, and with updated towers you could have something as precise, if not more, as GPS. Of course the coverage wouldn't be 100%, and navigating in ocean would be more difficult.
Planes would be replaced by trains and aquaplanes for sure. Our modern fastest trains (TGV, Maglev) are only half as slow as the fastest commercial planes. Also, you might have rocketry on such a planet, just not for orbit, and for things that right now we use jets for.
The biggest issue with be probably no detailed aerial maps, and in later stages - no space mining, so such civilisation would be limited to resources on their own planet.
Also, I'm imagining that such a civilisation would send out more signals into space to encourage someone to come and visit them, and hopefully dropship resources from orbit :D
Imagine two civilisations living like that in symbiosis - one on the orbit, able to drop things to the one that is lower, but being able to extract only information / art / mental labour / energy from below.
Higher gravity -> denser atmosphere -> airships start making more sense? In those conditions, flying could've been actually cheaper and safer, even though slower than what we have on our planet.
If you could get to space with a fusion engine, then why would taking satellites into space on said rocket be any different then it is for us (to build GPS)?
Wouldn't LTA blimps work BETTER in higher gravity for flying?
A limit often ignored for high-gravity balloons is, the pressure gradient inside the balloon reaches a point where it tears it apart. When the atmospheric gradient is compressed to some point, the distance between the bottom of the balloon and the top can create enormous forces on the fabric.
So depending on the gravity we're talking about, blimps are out!
That civilization could have invested in rail transit and tunneling instead. Positioning isn’t so hard on fixed roads, although fixing the, in the first place under oceans could be a problem. They might figure out triangulation using their planet’s magnetic field or something. It’s also completely possible that life isn’t viable at all on non-Earth like planets.
Remember that the gravity is higher. Your mountains are more dense and your oceans have more pressure. You're not living on a world with 14psi. You're not living in a world with the same ground, air, or ocean composition. All these change. So all your drills have to be thicker and harder. All your cables need to be stronger.
All projectiles become much shorter range weapons. Maybe once they've got gunpowder they can finally fight at range, though each shot would require a lot more gunpowder relative to the same shot on earth. Maybe it sort of washes out if you figure the inhabitants are all stronger and more sturdy as a result of the gravity.
Such an effect may even highly discourage ranged combat in the first place. I'm sure you'd still have ballista but bows? Probably crossbows. But there's definitely a butterfly effect for sure.
Dune has a take on this that the movie doesn't do a great job at explaining. But the shield is made to prevent high velocity projectiles and energy weapons. This way the shield can be hidden and fool enemies because the user is still able to interact with daily objects. Like you can eat while wearing the shield and since you'd have body guards it's much harder to get in and stab someone wearing a shield. The Apple version of Foundation has a similar shield but it is more sensitive. Dune's shield has obviously affected many subsequent works.
> once they left the gravity well of their planet getting to other planets with nuclear rockets was comparatively trivial?
We are actually on that planet. Spacecraft have what is called delta-v, which is basically a measure of what orbit changes they can perform given the amount of fuel they have onboard. For example getting from the ground to LEO has one measure, and getting from LEO to moon orbit has another.
It varies somewhat by the specific rocket to get into space (due to drag and effects of higher gravity), but once you are there it's basically the same for all spaceships.
It takes around 9.6km/s (no relation to gravity, just a coincidence) of delta-v to get into LEO, however once you are there it's fairly cheap to get around the solar system. To get from Earth LEO to a captured orbit around Mars needs a delta-v of around 5km/s - yes, less than to get into Earth orbit. To get out further to Neptune would need around 12km/s of delta-v.
Oddly enough nuclear rockets aren't particularly powerful and tend to be extremely heavy. Their strength is that they're highly efficient, so they can just keep going with relatively little fuel. Chemical rockets, by contrast, tend to be extremely high power but also extremely inefficient. Here's a few comparisons:
----
NERVA [1] / Nuclear / 1969 / 246kN thrust / 18,000 kg mass, 841s ISP (seconds of specific impulse - higher is better/more efficient, a little is a lot) / The only completed possibly launch viable nuclear rocket engine, as far as I know.
F-1 [2] / Chemical / 1959 / 7,770kN thrust, 8,400 kg mass, 263s ISP / Powered the Apollo rockets
Merlin [3] / Chemical / 2007 / 981kN thrust, 470 kg mass, 282s ISP / Powers the SpaceX Falcon 9 in a group of 9
Raptor [4] / Chemical / ?? / 2,640kN thrust, 1,600 kg mass / 327s ISP / Powers the SpaceX Starship in a group of 33
----
So what really matters in a rocket, for getting off Earth, is its thrust to weight ratio. NERVA isn't inefficient because it's dated (which was part of the reason I included the F-1), but simply because nuclear itself has an inherently poor thrust to weight ratio. However it just keeps going and going and going, which makes it absolutely awesome for travel once you're already in space.
It's even "fast" in space, because of how travel in space works. You don't just keep thrusting in space; instead you make a limited burn and then coast to where you're going, making a final reversal burn towards the end. So even if it takes hundreds of times as as long to reach a higher cruising velocity, it'll end up getting to the destination long before a chemical rocket, for any sufficiently distant destination.
> It's even "fast" in space, because of how travel in space works. You don't just keep thrusting in space; instead you make a limited burn and then coast to where you're going, making a final reversal burn towards the end.
The dream of course is that you keep thrusting, accelerating until the halfway point, then flip around and burn to decelerate. In that scheme, your thrust doubles as artificial gravity too!
Interesting. You’d need about a billion files to store all possible 6 character file names assuming you limited yourself to latin alphanumeric characters. How big are these USB drives?
Wait a second. Even if your story is right, how are you so confident that selling out is the right play?
OpenAI is an early mover in a hot field with no real competition yet. If they want to take a shot at a trillion dollar market cap and become the next Apple what of it?
What if they shoot the moon? Is it really that unlikely?
I agree, and I’m profoundly disappointed that people are celebrating the infliction of such misery on a younger generation.
If the food in your fridge or the clothes in your closet were suddenly drastically more expensive and you could make a profit selling them, would that be a good sign for your society and community? Would you view it as a sign of prosperity that your well stocked pantry was now a source of funds you can tap by selling to starving people?
Housing is a basic human need and it’s all but unaffordable. Even if you personally profit surely you can see that this is corrosive to society as a whole.
So what? Why be so terrified of failure? I think it's better if kids learn to be brave, and pick themselves up in life after they stumble. Living life in utter fear of failing at anything seems like a terrible way for your children to start off life. Besides for which few things are better learning experiences than trying to start your own company.
And who knows. They might even succeed beyond their wildest dreams, as some do.