Excellent list and resonates strongly with me as the father of a 6 year old girl.
I especially love the "re-discovering the world" part. Watching my kid learn concepts, coming from a totally different starting point and putting her own spin on it has been wonderful.
That said, it is HARD to be a good parent. It's super rewarding but it's not easy.
This is so true. But as long as you’re always aware of your failings (and accepting that it’s OK not to get it right all the time) then it’s possible to ‘step up’ to parenthood like so many of us do.
"We will happily ship a Starlink kit to any customer that purchases one. With Starlink kits all over the world, we don't have much control over what users do to them. History shows us that it's hard (and maybe impossible) to make devices completely resilient to persistent attackers with unrestricted physical access – the attacker just has too much power when they have infinite time to modify the hardware. In the limit they could always just build their own user device from scratch, though we know from experience that it's pretty hard to do so. Ultimately, the only way for us to build a secure system is to assume that attackers will eventually get into the Starlink kit, and add additional layers of defense-in-depth to protect our network and the other users within it. Other parts of the Starlink network, like satellites, might be more difficult for a consumer to get their hands on, but similarly are built with layers of defense.
To provide these additional layers of protection, there are a number of security properties that we believe are important both in the Starlink kit and in the rest of the system"
All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.
The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
-------
It never once says or implies Full Self Driving is available now. Tesla intends it to really be "full self driving", when it's ready and has regulatory approval.
While there are obviously cases that FSD beta can't currently handle well, there are countless YouTube videos where FSD Beta is able to do 20+ minute commutes with zero disengagements.
100 times more capable would be 2,000 minutes, or 33 hours. Do you really think the beta, which is an opt in closed program that you have to qualify for and has caveats and warnings, needs to be 100 times more capable before it's released?
It doesn't have to be 100 times more capable. It has to be 100 times closer to full self driving before it's really a "beta" of full self driving.
As an analogy, let's say something is 30cm, and you want to get it to "almost a meter". If that's 95cm, then you need to get about 15 times closer. That means reducing the gap by a factor of 15. It doesn't mean you need 450cm.
Though I'd be fine with your time metric too. I do want to get to the point where 33 hours without disengagements is routine before "full self driving" is talked about as almost done. I wouldn't want to require that before it's released at all, I just want an accurate name applied.
Thanks for letting me know, I'm not sure why the numbers for the one I happened to click on are so far above the norm but I've now made an edit with a screenshot of more average numbers.
Intel's latest desktop parts are fantastic. They're the undisputed performance champions, the best value for gaming and consumer CPUs, and AMD has yet to catch up. The mid-level parts are even relatively power efficient (for desktop parts).
The pro-AMD anti-Intel commentary on the internet got completely out of control for a while. Intel is still very good at what they do, despite a few stumbles in recent history. It's just not fashionable to say good things about Intel right now.
The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number).
The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts.
The 5950x does roughly 10-15% worse single core and 10% worse all-core.
Intel is far behind AMD.
Overclock the 5950 a bit and you're back to where the i9 is stock, but still with less power. (I haven't actually done any research into that last sentence, but that seems plausible)
The AMD customer experience is also much better. I can upgrade - and soon will be upgrading - my 2 year old 3900x system to a 5950x. I don't have to buy a new motherboard like I would have had to with Intel. Plus my system has had PCIe 4.0 for a few years (which I have been utilizing with a super fast SSD) and also supports ECC RAM - Intel will price gouge you for those by making you go to their enterprise targeted CPUs/motherboards (to be fair, they do now support PCIe 4 on the i9).
Plus Intel withholding ECC from their consumer CPUs - even the high end ones - is just a major dick move and hurts all of the people like us on HN who want to have good hardware. And considering all the scummy anticompetitive stuff Intel has done over the last few decades, I'd say it's better to go with AMD even if their chips had a slight perf/$ disadvantage compared to Intel (but they don't). Of course, I'm not saying AMD is amazing and wouldn't do evil stuff if they got the opportunity, like Intel had, but AMD is still the underdog for just a bit longer, and in duopolies it's generally good to support the underdog if it doesn't cost you much (and here it doesn't really cost anything).
> The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number).
> The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts.
I have experience with both. The 5950X has significantly higher idle power consumption. It's a known downside of AMD parts. Unless you're running the CPUs at 100% all the time, the Intel platform will probably consume less power overall.
I know it defies all of the headlines and such, but it's true. Idle power consumption matters more than peak power consumption for most of us whose CPUs sit idle most of the time.
If power is a concern, you get the 12600K instead of the hot rodded 12900K.
> Overclock the 5950 a bit and you're back to where the i9 is stock, but still with less power. (I haven't actually done any research into that last sentence, but that seems plausible)
I can tell you haven't done any research because this isn't true. The 5950X doesn't overclock well at all. You can try to force higher all-core speeds with a lot of voltage, but it's going to become a power hungry monster of a CPU for very little gain.
The Intel really is the superior CPU.
> Plus Intel withholding ECC from their consumer CPUs - even the high end ones -
This is what I was talking about when I said the pro-AMD anti-Intel rhetoric was out of control. It's like basic facts don't matter any more. People just want to hate Intel.
The AMD parts are already running close to max. You can squeeze a few percent more out of them, overclocking like in the old days is out of the question.
>It's just not fashionable to say good things about Intel right now.
Well, being single-handedly responsible for the nearly complete stagnation in processor performance for 10 out of the last 12 years probably has something to do with that.
That said, Intel's products and their performance are indeed quite underrated especially once you consider that they're being generated on a relatively old process node; it will be interesting to see what kind of performance they'll be able to wring out at 5 or 7nm.
I’ve always assumed that Intels terrible corporate culture was responsible for that stagnation (told to me by former Intel employees). What upset me was the pointlessness of having their employees suffer that culture and then the rest of the world suffer the lack of progress.
>The pro-AMD anti-Intel commentary on the internet got completely out of control for a while.
Not really. It was entirely justified, but things have changed. Prior to Alder Lake Intel really was just plain worse than AMD in most respects.
Processor vendors have leapfrogged each other many, many times before. A new architecture is supposed to beat everything else on the market. Recent years have been weird because Intel bungled 10nm at about the same time AMD bungled Bulldozer. We are getting back to normal.
It is clocked 1.6x higher than M1 chips (single-core), but also the CPU architecture isn't from 2015 like Intel's desktop chips were from generation 6 through 10.
A single core at that 5.2GHz turbo can consume ~40W alone, however.
Geekbench doesn't load ATM. Are these numbers legit (both for the 5950X and 12900K)? Does Intel really outperform AMD single-core by 62%? Sniff test says that's way too much, but what do I know. I also doubt the multi-core difference. Yes, the 12900K seems to be a well performing CPU, but then again 5950X is a 16 "P" core part...
Intel has always had a huge lead over AMD on single core. AMD did manage to compete on multi core with the Zen chips but still hasn't gotten close on single core
I don't know why you're being downvoted. What you're saying is, in my experience, true. AMD is the multi core king. Intel is the single core king.
Multi core CPU performance benchmarks push your CPU and all its cores to the limit, but that doesn't reflect the typical real-world use case because the typical real-world use case involves programs that aren't able to effectively utilize all CPU cores. On top of that, gaming is the only typical use case where you are going to be pushing your CPU to the limit (i.e. the place where you actually need your CPU to be fast) and games don't CPU-parallelize well, meaning higher single core performance is generally best in the case of gaming.
Macs aren't made for gaming. They're made for productivity, multitasking, and creative work (the one major area where a multi core CPU can be fully utilized) so it makes complete sense for Apple to go the multi core route, but I can't say the same for AMD and their 8+ core gaming CPUs.
Intel had a dwindling lead in single core perf over the past few years, but when AMD came out with Zen 3, AMD actually had a non negligible lead over Intel. But Intel is now winning again with the 12th gen chips. So they are trading blows these days.
Gotcha. Is the cost efficiency comparable as well? Could I buy an AMD gaming CPU with similar single core performance to an Intel gaming CPU for about the same price?
I didn't see where the VCA hospitals explained how tilting gives vertical information that is stated in the Smarter Every Day video. This was fun to see though, because watching my dog listening for movement underground (gophers, insects), and just in general, it occurred to me that a horizontal head position, only gives horizontal direction, but not whether it's above or below. Tilting solves that and 2 tilts, 90 degrees of difference, gives complete directional location. A slight rotation left or right, with one ear more forward than the other, can give range. It's amazing what a few hundred million years of evolution can come up with!
It seems obvious in hindsight, but that's an interesting insight I hadn't thought of before.
This got me curious about how we can roughly determine if a sound is coming from above or below us even without tilting our heads. A quick search led to this interesting but somewhat open-ended stackexchange answer:
> Localization in the vertical plane (elevation) is less well investigated. As far as I know it is the shape of the outer ear (pinna) that transforms the frequency characteristic of incoming sound. In terms of directional hearing it is thought that sounds coming from above lead to a different head transfer function than sounds from below. This means that localization can only be accomplished when the sound has a particular familiar characteristic that is slightly disturbed in the frequency domain when encountered at different angles of elevation (Hofman & Van Opstal, 2003). [1]
From this, it seems like the pinna is shaped in such a way that it filters audio differently depending on whether it came from above or below? Can anyone who has more experience with ears confirm or clarify this?
I agree that the website is very unclear for people who don't already know what comma do.
Their meta description is better, but still not great.
"Make driving chill. Upgrade your car with a comma three. comma is building the Android for cars. We have an open source driver assistance system that runs on most modern cars."
It's essentially an aftermarket version of the Tesla Autopilot system.
I especially love the "re-discovering the world" part. Watching my kid learn concepts, coming from a totally different starting point and putting her own spin on it has been wonderful.
That said, it is HARD to be a good parent. It's super rewarding but it's not easy.