I am not a regular basketball fan. I love to play and I love to go to love games but I’ve never enjoyed the TV experience. Ben is right. If they released an NBA package where I could enjoy the game as they demonstrated in the Apple Store I would have bought the Vision Pro that same day.
I could “feel” the basketball dribble past me. I could hear the squeaky shoes as they rushed past. It was an experience I haven’t had since high school sitting on the bench :p
You get me! My mind was blown when I first saw that basketball demo in the Apple Store. I asked how many games they broadcast like that, unfortunately the answer was "none, just a demo."
Looks like they still haven't fulfilled the demo's initial promises.
“They’re wirelessly charged, with a pad that can charge multiple bricks at a time.."
Did LEGO solve this problem and Apple didn’t? The Apple AirPower is what I’m referring to and it was a matter of physics that was the mighty hurdle Apple had to contend with. But they were also trying to pump out ~15w per device. These bricks will be measured in milliwatts per brick. But I’m curious if there is any additional information about this? How many bricks can be charged at a time? Can they be placed anywhere on the pad? (I hope so.) It would be great if specs were released. I would buy the pad alone just for charging other IoT devices.
Edit: It will not be usable by anything other than Lego Smart Bricks. It will use a proprietary or highly customized inductive standard designed specifically for the new Lego Smart Bricks.
Wireless charging for electronics has been a solved problem going back to my Palm Pixi. The problem is getting to the insane wattages and charging speeds people expect from their devices these days.
I'm sure these tiny, low wattage devices don't really pose a problem.
I would bet that the pad in question has LEGO studs on it that connect to a physical charging circuit to the bottom of the brick. They've had various motor bricks for a long time with similar connections.
There’s a tendency to treat the recent Uber revelations as uniquely egregious, but this framing misses the more important point: the egregiousness is not new, only the vector has changed.
Consider the nomenclature. Even during the Kalanick era, when “move fast and break things” was operational doctrine, you would not have seen internal naming this careless. I was there. We called drivers “supply” and riders “demand.” Clinical, yes, but accurate and apolitical. The language reflected the business model without editorializing about the humans within it.
What’s worth examining is not whether Uber engaged in questionable practices. Of course they did, and of course they still do. The real question is why the practices look different now.
Growth stage vs. profitability stage.
Uber in 2013-2016 was optimizing for growth. Uber in 2025 is optimizing for profitability. These are fundamentally different objective functions, and they produce fundamentally different behaviors. The perverse incentives remain constant; the tactics they generate do not.
Here’s the key distinction: growth-stage illegality and profitability-stage illegality carry asymmetric risk profiles. When Uber was in growth mode, the company had optionality. Infinite capital and public goodwill meant the growth team could deploy aggressive guerrilla tactics to enter new markets, absorb the legal consequences, and move on. The expected value calculation favored action.
Profitability-stage Uber has no such luxury. The levers available to a mature company fighting for margin are few, and they all point in the same direction: the humans. Drivers. The “assets.” When you squeeze there, you’re not circumventing a government. You’re directly degrading the livelihoods of your own platform participants. The reputational and regulatory exposure is immediate and personal.
This brings me to Spain.
When Spain blocked Uber from operating, we did not wait for lawyers to navigate the legal system. We shipped a technical solution. I watched this happen in real time.
Here’s what we actually built:
The goal was simple: keep the Uber app functional for Spanish drivers and riders despite the government blocking our server IPs at the network level. We needed a system that could rapidly distribute new, unblocked IP addresses to every app in the country without requiring an app store update.
The solution was a Lua interpreter embedded in the Uber app paired with a gossip protocol for peer-to-peer distribution. The Lua compiler allowed us to push executable code to the app dynamically. No app store approval needed. It was essentially a remote code execution backdoor into our own app, which was both brilliant and terrifying in hindsight. When a user opened the app, it would fetch and execute Lua scripts that contained the latest routing logic and server whitelist.
The workflow once it was live: when Spain blocked a batch of our IPs, our infrastructure team would publish a new IP whitelist. That list would seed into the gossip network, where each active Uber app became a node, sharing the updated configuration with other nearby apps. The propagation was exponential. Within hours, millions of devices had the new routing information. The Lua script would compile the updated whitelist and redirect all trip service requests to the unblocked servers.
The tech stack was essentially a censorship-circumvention system: Lua for remote code execution, gossip protocol for decentralized distribution, and a dynamically compiled IP whitelist that the app used to route around the blockade. Same playbook Tor uses for bridge distribution or how Telegram distributes proxy servers to users in Iran and Russia.
The Spanish government quickly realized they had exhausted their options. We forced the outcome, Uber was unbanned, and operations resumed legally.
Here’s the part that matters: it was illegal, but the illegality accrued to Uber’s benefit without harming users. Drivers kept driving. Riders kept riding. The Spanish government got cast as the obstruction, and Uber was welcomed back as the protagonist.
That’s the difference between growth-stage rule-breaking and profitability-stage rule-breaking. One makes you the hero. The other makes you a landlord squeezing tenants.
Just because they weren’t the first mover into predatory practices doesn’t mean they can’t say no to said practices. Each actor has agency to make their own operating and business decisions. Is Valve the worst of the lot? Absolutely not. But it was still their choice to implement.
What makes Valve special is that they were the first mover on those practices like lootboxes, gamepasses... but they never pushed it as far as the competition where it became predatory.
They have a track record of not engaging in these practices. It might be true that someday, we will get the wrong people in leadership positions at Valve that would entertain this behavior, but so far I don't think its going to happen. Valve has been time and time again, on the side of sane thinking around these topics. So IMHO your concern isn't really warranted as of yet.
Totally! We think this is because the brain is hard-wired evolutionarily to interpret smells by danger level first. So maybe there's just more "bad smell" receptors, or maybe the brain treats unknown smells as "uh oh, danger". Lots of cool stuff to test!
This article gets the phenomenon right but the causation wrong: it's not "AI spending vs. AI replacing jobs". both are happening simultaneously, and they're causally linked.
The spending-revenue gap is real. Hyperscalers are projected to spend $300-550B on AI infrastructure in 2025[1] while generative AI revenue won't exceed $30-40B [2]. Amazon's capex jumped from $48B in 2023 to $84B in 2024 to a projected $100B+ in 2025[3], that's capital intensity doubling from historical norms of 11-16% to over 22% [4].
But here's what the article misses: this isn't financial desperation. When Amazon's CEO announces 14,000 layoffs and explicitly states that AI will enable "fewer people doing some jobs"[5], he's revealing the strategic logic — show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome. Companies aren't cutting jobs despite AI spending; they're cutting jobs because they know AI spending will pay off.
To be clear, the article treats the spending-revenue gap as evidence of irrationality. But infrastructure buildouts always precede revenue: railroads looked insane before they transformed commerce, electricity grids consumed massive capital before delivering returns, the internet required enormous infrastructure investment before creating trillion-dollar companies.
What's different now is companies are pulling the future forward. If we take this article at face value which I can appreciate is a BIG “if” then AI is already automating 25% of tasks and delivering 10-55% productivity gains[6] so they're not waiting for AI to replace jobs organically. They're cutting headcount now to fund the infrastructure that will make those cuts permanent.
More broadly, this is rational capital reallocation in a winner-take-all race. Companies that don't build AI infrastructure won't gradually decline, they'll lose competitive positioning entirely. That's why Meta is using off-balance-sheet financing for a $27B data center[7], why Oracle is borrowing $25B annually despite already carrying 450% debt-to-equity [8]. They're all-in because the alternative is obsolescence.
The real story isn't "spending causes cuts" it's that AI infrastructure commoditizes human expertise, the complement to compute infrastructure. Companies are trading labor costs for compute infrastructure because they've correctly identified compute as the new moat. The job cuts aren't the price of spending on AI; they're the business model shift that AI enables.
The article is right that we're not seeing mass AI job replacement yet. But the job cuts are happening in anticipation of replacement, not as an unfortunate side effect of spending. That's not desperation just business strategy.
This misses the point. The expenditure is financed by stock price increases driven by retail enthusiasm. Meta hasn't spent 1 dollar in AI that it hasn't made in increased mcap. The moment that dries up all the data centers are cancelled. You don't play with the food you eat.
This reminds me of delirium tremens a bit. Same compensatory mechanism, different sleep process - or at least that's the pattern I'm seeing.
The MIT study shows CSF waves—normally a sleep-only process that flushes metabolic waste—intruding into wakefulness when you're sleep-deprived. Your brain is apparently so desperate for the cleanup that it forces the process to happen anyway. Cost: attention lapses.
From what I've read, delirium tremens during alcohol withdrawal seems to follow a similar pattern, except it's REM sleep intruding into waking consciousness instead of CSF flushing.
What strikes me is the system-level similarity here. Sleep normally maintains clean states: you're either awake (alert, reality-testing intact, no CSF flushing) or asleep (offline, dreams permitted, maintenance running). But when the system gets stressed enough—whether through sleep deprivation or the neurochemical chaos of alcohol withdrawal—it seems to start making desperate tradeoffs.
The brain apparently needs certain processes to run. Period. Total no-brainer! CSF flushing can't wait indefinitely. Neither can REM sleep, which serves its own critical functions. So when normal sleep architecture fails, the system appears to force these processes anyway, even though the conditions are completely wrong for them.
Maybe that's why the costs are so specific. CSF intrusion during wakefulness costs you attention. REM intrusion costs you reality testing, because REM is the state where your brain accepts impossible narratives without question. Same compensatory mechanism, different critical process forced into the wrong state.
What I find interesting is how the brain knows what lever it needs to pull and how it pulls it. Sleep deprivation forces waste removal. REM deprivation forces wakeful dream states; which might be a side effect not the actual goal. The brain seems to know what maintenance is overdue and attempts the repair, consequences be damned.
Thanks for sharing those studies, fascinating stuff, I had no idea the delirium tremens sleep disturbances were so similar to narcolepsy type 1 (but given narcolepsy is treated with essentially GHB it checks out).
Kind of like an extreme REM rebound. A lot of the GABAergic drugs seem to markedly suppress REM. Interestingly cholinergic drugs seem to do the opposite (increasing REM at the expense of slow wave sleep).
It's very much like REM and SWS (CSF flushing) are a kind of a biological yin and yang.
>The card information will be known to the viewers by using RFID (radio-frequency identification) technology for the very first time at the WSOP. Each card has a microchip embedded in it that has no impact on the cards or play, but with a specially-outfitted poker table, can send an encrypted signal to decipher the card’s rank and suit. The WSOP has used this technology during the 2012-13 WSOP Circuit season with success, and it is found throughout European poker events as well.
I could “feel” the basketball dribble past me. I could hear the squeaky shoes as they rushed past. It was an experience I haven’t had since high school sitting on the bench :p