I've been thinking about this a lot lately, because I've noticed a trend in my own life that has happened countless times: I have a tendency to look at problems that others in different fields have found difficult to solve, and think I have a great idea that could change that field. And then I push to develop my solution to that problem, run into real world problems with my solution, refine and adapt, try a different solution, run in a loop until I settle on the fact that the people who are in those fields also have great ideas, they just are more aware of the constraints and that's the reason why the hard problems don't have easy solutions.
There is an absolutely enormous amount of hubris to being an engineer. I don't necessarily think its a bad thing...a certain amount of hubris is necessary for progress to be made. Our minds are creative and we can come up with amazing things, but something in there always makes us think we can do it better than the people who are stuck doing it daily. We fool ourselves into thinking they're too stuck in their mindset to have a more creative solution.
And the funny thing about LLMs is that while they can enable our competence, they enable our hubris even more.
As both a sailor and a wingsail designer, I've followed this space for a long time. I've gotta say this is just one of the thousands of trial PR announcements for different companies which develop something and think it's gonna save the world.
As to why they are never successful, I don't exactly know. Most of the companies that put these on trial just quietly retire them without adoption, and never explain why. It's not about ease of use, plenty of designs have near 100% automation and simple design. It's not really about maintenance, plenty of designs have almost maintenance-free design as well.
My best guess is that sails/wingsails/rotorsails have inherent height, which interferes with bridges and gantry cranes, and requires furling/stowing capabilities which them makes the systems a lot more complex. My next best guess is that in order to get meaningful propulsion, you introduce heeling, which is bad for container ships and potentially catastrophic for dry bulk.
My understanding was that it was not just the height but also the deck space and depth (the vertical sails have to extend down through the decks). Giving up that much cargo volume (in addition to issues at the dock you note) is not worth it.
> in order to get meaningful propulsion, you introduce heeling
I think that in order for this to work we would have to take on more traditional downwind trade routes, which would avoid a lot of the traditional heeling
Unpredictability. The sails do reduce costs/fuel but they do so in a rather unpredictable manner. Cargo hauling is all about rigid scheduals and precalculated costs: contracts to deliver at an exact time and load an exact amount of fuel. Unpredictable elements, even if on average mostly good, do not mesh with that culture.
It's not about schedules. These things don't change when you arrive; they change how much it costs to arrive and how heavy you arrive.
So the only logical explanation is that they don't do that by enough to be worth installing and maintaining, or for fuel market systems to adapt to an amount of oversupply.
The industry clearly adapts to an amount of undersupply; ships are fairly often going to burn more fuel than the route might ordinarily need due to being held up or weather or the need to reroute, are they not? So it doesn't seem implausible that the market would adapt to this; it's going to average out quite quickly. It is presumably therefore about the juice not being worth the squeeze.
Delivery at an exact time is of course a constraint, but I’ve never seen any sort of constraint on the exact fuel usage. This isn’t anything like aviation where excess fuel has to be dumped in order to land safely. If you don’t use the fuel for your voyage, you just fill up less for your next voyage. Weight effects are countered via water ballast, as they always have been.
And sails for power augmentation do not complicate timelines at all. If there’s not enough wind, you use more fuel. Nobody has meaningfully proposed relying 100% on wind propulsion.
Not sure where I've read this, one of the main causes is supposedly ship ownership. Firms that operate ships pay for the fuel and would benefit from the retrofit for some specific routes. Outside a few that operate their own fleet, most are rented and mounting something expensive for no benefit to themselves and questionable benefit outside of areas with trade winds would be pretty idiotic from that perspective.
What would make it successful is some kind of mandate for a certain percentage of power needing to come from wind. The invisible hand of the market keeps burning the cheapest thing all day long if you leave it to its own devices.
The bottom line is though that cargo shipping is a time sensitive thing in today's world and wind does not cooperate with timetables. Saildrones and sailing yachts are the only good fits for it, since neither is in much of a hurry. Commercial shipping probably needs renewably generated biofuel to run carbon neutral and still function as we know it.
Okay, so it doesn't output text, that much is understood. What are the inputs like? I'm assuming maybe a text input? maybe an AST definition? Really hard to tell how this works at all from the demos, especially since we can't really try it out.
relevant username lol. I tend to agree though...establishment democrats are a major problem for americans who want to be free of the problems that trump brought to us. Their only complaint about him seems to be that he's on the wrong team and has poor decorum. That's why so much emphasis has been placed on electing non-establishment democrats this time around. But the establishment is pro-corporate and pro-israel and they have all the money.
Totally agree. Establishment Democrats are against these expansion of powers, but then when they have the opportunity to roll them back, they treat them like they got free stuff instead of inheriting toxic waste.
I'd love to see a democratic presidential candidate who vows to openly exploit all of the illegal powers that Trump did, but in a way that hurts republicans and red states, and vow to continue doing it until constitutional amendments are passed to prevent it. Republicans would jump on board because they have no real ideology that they aren't willing to abandon for more power, and democrats would reluctantly be forced to do it because they care so much about being seen as hypocrites. Maybe a silly and potentially dangerous way to solve the problem, but at this point I'd try anything.
Be careful what you wish for, this seems to be the Newsom approach, and he may have a real chance at the presidency. California Uber Alles.
I saw a poll recently showing that close to half the country expects a civil war, and a disturbingly large portion of that group wants a civil war. Cross-spectrum as well.
Also a weightlifter (masters olympic weightlifting, nationally ranked). TRT and steroids are actually the opposite. Once you go off of them, your body starts to revert, muscle mass is lost, and often by more than you started with (because the body's natural production rates change with supplementation). It does take time, which is why sports regulatory bodies typically require specific time periods of hormonal therapy before they can participate, but their bodies will eventually adjust.
Sports regulatory bodies still test for hormonal PED, but their concerns have long swayed away from them because of the fact that they are so easy to detect and have the built in disadvantage of potentially altering your life negatively outside of sport. The current concerns have shifted to peptides and other forms of PEDs, because they are much harder to detect because they are 1) often naturally occurring but in smaller quantities, 2) don't actually directly act on the musculoskeletal system, but rather trigger natural processes that act on the system, and 3) often have half-lives dramatically shorter than most drug tests can even account for, and therefore require near continuous monitoring.
Agreed you lose your peak, however once a steroids user you will mostly retain more mass than a natural. It only takes a fraction of stimulus to retain mass versus adding it.
The extrapolation I'm making, and admitting it's an extrapolation, is that a sexed at birth male competing in womens sports will have had a developmental period of hormonal advantage over females which follows them regardless of gender identity.
So here’s the thing with that. My testosterone is in the cis female range. Has been for a while. I strength trained for years and even after having started estrogen. I continued going to the gym while on HRT and my capacity kept decreasing rather than increasing. So I looked into this. Because visibly I still had the muscles I’d gained. To actually activate said muscles, you need testosterone. That’s how it works. No testosterone = the muscles never activate = they atrophy away. While I looked the same in terms of muscles that I had while I was doing 12 pull-ups, I quickly came down to being able to do 0 unassisted. Now the visible bulk is also reducing because they just never get activated. A cis male on steroids still has testosterone after cessation. Hence the muscles they gained can retain stimulus for activation. I’ve been tracking my body comp through DEXA scans for years now and after starting HRT, within a year I was at the higher end of cis female muscle mass and had lost kilos of muscle throughout my body. Can I still beat most cis women at lifting? Yes. Only because I’m trained, not because I lived for years under heavier testosterone influence. I cannot outlift or outrun trained cis women, only untrained ones. I am unable to outlift my brother who is completely untrained. I used to be able to hold my own arm wrestling with cis men but now I know it’ll be foolish to even try it because even cis men with zero training ever have arms twice my size and active testosterone stimulus to be able to activate their muscles.
I'm pretty confident in asserting that no industry in the history of industry has ever gone from birth to full regulatory capture faster than the AI industry has.
I think keeping models around for a defined period of time is fine, but fracturing your model offerings like that (keeping around multiple versions of the same model) is very hard to do economically. The economics of the AI ecosystem are dominated by queueing theory constraints that make it extremely cheap to serve predictable traffic loads, and extremely expensive to serve unpredictable loads, and any time you split your offerings like that, you make both less predictable and therefore more expensive to serve both versions.
If I were paying anthropic prices, I'd expect it, but Deepseek is a super scrappy upstart in comparison and intentionally arbitraging on price. I would never expect them to do that.
So my country has somewhere between 100-200 million MAU for facebook ane.
Facebook marketplace is huge here.It's basically our craigslist. Hobby groups/communities are also huge. If I wanted to find the local jogging or chess club, I'd use Facebook.
Just remember that outside your bubble there's a whole wide world with billions of people living in it
$295 one time permanent license with free upgrades and can be migrated between different computers?
I don't have a single reason to do any form of video editing, let alone professional video editing, but that kind of pricing model makes me want to buy a license just to make sure that companies like this stick around.
Black Magic supports all three platforms and they’re not exactly a large company. They show every day that there is no excuse/reason not to support multiple platforms. Anything else is just an excuse by a lazy developer. The developer for Blender is also the same. A user of both programs.
Black magic also make a program that support/ties into the camera hardware on smartphones and they support both Android and iOS.
> $295 one time permanent license with free upgrades and can be migrated between different computers?
I've been using Resolve since version 14, still getting upgrades to it! My license does only work on one "computer" at a time though, so when I switch between Linux and Windows, I need to re-enter and activate the license, as when I do that it deactivates the previous (other OS) one. You have seemingly unlimited amount of times to switch though, as I've probably done it on a bi-weekly basis for quite some time.
I don't know if something has changed, but if you buy resolve now you can have it activated on two computers at the same time. I've got my resolve studio license activated on my mac laptop and linux workstation at the same time.
Plus you get the license for free when you buy a camera from them!
I’ve been using DaVinci Resolve Studio for 12 years now with frequent updates, with the license I got with the original Pocket Cinema Camera for £800 (still a fantastic pocket size cinema camera, shoots raw cinemadng and ProRes with a beautiful sensor).
Having a powerful video editor you can grab any time you need to is useful in a way few other bits of software are. Sure, for trimming and even some basic editing or watermarks, ffmpeg works great, but there are times when having full editor ui is beneficial
It really is amazing. DaVinci used to be something that required a dedicated workstation with proprietary hardware cards, and most used it via renting editing bay time in studios equipped with it. Like just buying one of the workstations and then renting it out was a viable business model if you had teh startup capital (and I randomly knew someone who operated such a business years ago).
There is an absolutely enormous amount of hubris to being an engineer. I don't necessarily think its a bad thing...a certain amount of hubris is necessary for progress to be made. Our minds are creative and we can come up with amazing things, but something in there always makes us think we can do it better than the people who are stuck doing it daily. We fool ourselves into thinking they're too stuck in their mindset to have a more creative solution.
And the funny thing about LLMs is that while they can enable our competence, they enable our hubris even more.
reply