From my experience using various (work provided) devices in outdoors agriculture use, I consider the lightning connector/port less prone to failure as well. If something was to break (from torque), it seems like the tab on the cable should snap or the cable just pull out before catastrophic damage to the port can occur.
Though I still had to replace cables because the cable itself developed a break somewhere, even with one that had proper stress relief at the ends.
Meanwhile most of the USB C ports on my Lenovo laptop from 2022 are barely working because somewhere along the line either the soldering broke or the port got too loose. Possibly from too much torque but I’m not sure. So the cable has to be at just the right angle. I’ve also done some android phone battery/screen replacement for friends, and had to do a few USB-C ports when it was possible due to the same sort of thing.
However all that is pretty much moot now, thanks to wireless charging and magnetic attachment docks. As such the only time I connect a cable anymore is monthly for cleaning out photos and other data. Previously I’d be connecting cables several times a day to charge in between fields as the battery went to shit. Honestly the “MagSafe” concept is the only change I’ve seen to smart phones in the past decade that I actually really like.
Lightning had small pins inside the port that could be caught by debris and pulled out of alignment (or in worst cases, broken off altogether). USB-C has no moving parts on the device side. Apple was reportedly behind that design since Lightning was nearing release when design for USB-C started (and Apple is/was a member of USBIF)
> Lightning had small pins inside the port that could be caught by debris and pulled out of alignment (or in worst cases, broken off altogether).
Lightning has 1.5mm of height in the slot, debris has to be pretty large to get stuck and usually it's enough to just blow some compressed air into the slot to get dirt to release.
In contrast, USB-C has only 0.7mm between the tab and the respective "other" side, so debris can get trapped much much more easily, and the tab is often very flimsy, in addition to virtually everyone sans Apple not supporting the connector housing properly with the main device housing.
Does anyone have reliability data for USB-C ports? It seems to me like Lightning is more robust to repeated plug/unplug cycles. But this is only on my limited sample size of one laptop with a failed USB-C port and some vague hand waving.
It shouldn't be, my understanding is that the springy bits (the most likely wear part) in Lightning are in the port, whereas in USB-C they're intentionally in the cable so you can replace it. I'm surprised you have a failed USB port, but I've never experienced one fortunately.
I see Lightning as fragile on both sides of the connection, since the port has springy bits that can wear, and the cables also die, either due to the DRM chips Apple involves in the mix for profit reasons, or due to the pins becoming damaged (perhaps this? https://ioshacker.com/iphone/why-the-fourth-pin-on-your-ligh... ).
USB-C has an unsupported tab in the middle of the port. It's pretty easy for that tab to bend or break, especially if the plug is inserted at an angle.
Lightning doesn't have that failure mode. Also Lightning ports only use 8 pins (except on the early iPad Pros), so reversing the cable can often overcome issues with corroded contacts. That workaround isn't possible with USB-C.
I've never seen a device with a broken tab. One thing people seem to misunderstand grossly to keep regurgitating these claims is that there are thousands of USB-C ports from different manufacturers and price points. The Lightning connector is strictly quality controlled by Apple. The USB-C in your juul isn't the same as the one in a high-end device.
The tab in the USB-C port makes the port more durable since it moves the sensitive springy parts to the cable(s) which are easily replaced.
Quality control matters, Apple is arguably quite good at it. USB-C is more wild-west so if you're prone to buying cheap crap you'll be worse off.
Reversing works around some broken conditions for usb-c, power and usb 2.0 data are on both sides. Depending on how bad the corrosion is, reversing may help.
Usb 3 might be trickier, but then iPhone lightning doesn't have that anyway.
The springy bits never wear out anyway. I've never once seen an iphone that couldn't grip the cable unless the port was full of pocket lint. Main problem I see is USB-C has both a cable and port which are hard to clean.
The springy bits get torqued weirdly by debris and can be bent out of alignment and/or into contact with each other. It’s rare, but it happens. And the whole port needs to be replaced, which usually means the whole device.
The Lightning port itself might be more reliable, problem is Apple Lightning cables always break, and all third-party ones (even MFi) are prone to randomly not working after a while. I'd be perfectly fine with Lightning if it were an open spec, instead it singlehandedly created the meme of iPhones always being on 1% battery.
My primary email domain is a .me. Never have problems with web forms. It can be more difficult to communicate verbally, so when saying it to non-technical folks I preface it with “my email is a bit weird” and then spell it out slowly. Young people seem to get it more easily.
I also have an email on a .email domain, I have seen it occasionally get rejected by web forms. .party would likely have similar issues.
> It can be more difficult to communicate verbally
Together with a catch all email user part, it's a fun way to find out which companies offer employee discount. "My email is foo@my-domain", "oh, are you a Foo employee?"
Every lucid dream I have becomes a nightmare. When I suddenly gain consciousness in a dream I begin to panic and the atmosphere turns sinister.
The last time this happened it turned into some kind of sleep paralysis where I became aware of my physical body but was unable to move as I crossfaded between dream and reality.
Mine have never turned into nightmares, but once I become aware that I'm dreaming and try to take control, the dream seems to fall apart and I wake up.
I've had the sleep paralysis and crossfade that you describe. But it's never psychologically unpleasant.
I've also had lucid dreams where it seems like I get stuck in a time loop and keep dreaming that I'm waking up. It feels like hours have elapsed and I've even gotten bored.
This might sound weird but what works for me is once I realize I’m lucid and the dream starts falling apart as you describe it - I quickly start spinning my (dream) body counter clockwise. In most cases this stops the awakening and I can continue lucid dreaming.
Waking up in the ”time loop” is also recurring to me, but a reality check often gets me back on track even when I’m pretty certain that I’m awake (I’m not). I usually just look at my hand. If my fingers look spooky, I’m still sleeping and can induce lucid again.
Personally every time I lucid dream I wake up a few seconds later. As soon as I realize I'm conscious, I directly remember the existence of my physical self, the feeling of my arms, my legs in my bed which directly wakes me up
Interestingly enough I've had the opposite experience. If I'm having a nightmare, usually at some point I realize it's a dream, and from there I can almost always force myself to wake up immediately. It rarely happens for me in a regular dream but when it does I can start to control the scenario to some degree.
While I believe this can just happen to some people, in my case it was a result of sleep apnea. Getting diagnosed for it and taking remedial steps has been a life changer for me.
Now that it's what you expect to happen, it probably makes it more likely to happen. I wonder if you could train yourself to expect a better outcome.
It can be difficult to control a lucid dream, so it may take some work. Most of my dreams have always lucid, but I didn't know people tried to control them until I was an adult. One of the first times I tried to control one, I tried to teleport to a beach, but instead a matte backdrop of a beach popped up, like I was in a 70's TV show.
I've had both lucid dreams (which was enjoyable) and sleep paralysis before. The paralysis was not a fun experience at all, and sounds a lot like what you describe.
I've only had the sleep paralysis a couple times thankfully, and anecdotally the last time I had woken up in the middle of the night beforehand, remembered something I needed to do on my computer, took care of it in a dark room real quick, then went back to sleep. I suspect the sudden bright light and a bit of stress probably contributed to it happening.
I we have our own folklore about it too. I believe a good percentage of alien abduction experiences are in fact attributable to sleep paralysis phenomena. Alien abductions are as real to us as night hags we're to our predecessors.
it doesnt have to be secret. for example unlocking old phones. There are certainly people waiting for the right exploits to get access to their old wallet.
Tesla FSD already works everywhere, even on unpaved roads. It just doesn’t work as well as Waymo.
Waymo works very well, just not in as many places as Tesla.
You might bet on Waymo because they have a fully working product already, but I’m betting on Tesla because of the vast amount of training data they are collecting. There’s a bitter lesson here.
> the vast amount of training data they are collecting
They keep pushing this point. And they do appear to be collecting an absolute firehose of data from the millions of vehicles they have on the road. By comparison, Waymo collects a lot less data from many fewer vehicles.
Which leads to some tough questions about Tesla's tech. If they have (conservatively) 10x the training data that Waymo has, why can't their product perform as well as Waymo? Do they need 100x? 1,000x? 10,000x?
Assuming they were at parity with Waymo today, this would suggest that their AI is only at best 10% as effective as Waymo's, and possibly more like 1% or 0.1% or whatever. But since they can't achieve parity, it's not even possible to bound it.
It's entirely possible that their current stack cannot solve the problem of autonomous driving any more than the expert systems of the 60s could do speech translation.
I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why a system that is at best 10% as effective would ever be expected to be the leader.
Data isn’t as useful here as in other domains, since when you change the car’s behavior even a tiny bit, a lot of the timeseries is invalidated. It’s not evergreen, and it can be quite subjective what it means to “pass” a scenario that one previously failed.
Also, Tesla collects data from its fleet, but that data’s fidelity is likely quite limited compared to other companies, because of bandwidth if nothing else. Waymo can easily store every lidar point cloud of every frame of driving.
FSD and Waymo are completely different products. FSD isn't even autonomous, as the user manual reminds you:
Always remember that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) (also known as Autosteer on City Streets) does not make Model Y autonomous and requires a fully attentive driver who is ready to take immediate action at all times.
I hope for the best for Tesla, but they are many years behind Waymo. The world definitely needs a second working self-driving system! Right now comparing Tesla and Waymo is nonsensical. Once you can sit in the backseat of a Tesla while it drives there might be some worthy comparisons to be made.
My definition of "works" includes the fact that a self-driving car will never drive into a parked fire truck, or many other things i've seen tesla FSD do.
Well and because they actually have real self driving cars without a safety driver. Tesla doesn't have that and only has demoed it in very specific scenarios.
I own a Tesla, though I don't own FSD, but this year, Tesla has given all cars a trial of FSD on two occasions. It works remarkably well. I backed out of my driveway, then enabled FSD and it drove all the way across Portland to a friend's place with zero intervention. It was about a 15 mile, 30 minute drive.
It navigated neighborhood roads without markings and tons of cars parked on the curb. It got onto the freeway and navigated, including changing lanes to overtake slow traffic. Once I got to their place, I was able to tell it to automatically parallel park on the curb.
As far as I'm concerned, Tesla has fulfilled their promise of full self driving. The "supervised" requirement is basically just being used as a legal loophole to avoid liability if it fails.
> The "supervised" requirement is basically just being used as a legal loophole to avoid liability if it fails.
"If it fails" - so it is supervised for a reason then. It makes sense because FSD has an intervention rate in the low double digits according to community trackers like https://teslafsdtracker.com.
I don't understand the "bitter lesson" reference here. The bitter lesson is that general methods of computation are more effective. How is one of the two not using general methods?
My understanding is that Waymo is applying specialized centimeter-scale mapping and lidar to achieve superior results.
In contrast, Tesla is using dumb cameras and just dumping boatloads of data into their model. It’s a more general solution. Maybe the reference doesn’t fit perfectly - the model architecture is likely similar under the hood - but there’s some analogy there.
Just saying they have better results because of mapping and lidar is incredibly reductive. They have an extremely sophisticated AI/ML stack and simulators.
One challenge for Tesla and Waymo has been the piecemeal permitting process. Even though California gave Waymo a statewide permit they have still needed to work through various cities/counties for permits. I imagine one goal of Musk's is to make that all go away sometime next year. I'm not making a comment on whether I agree that is a good idea. Just speculating.
If training data is such an edge for Tesla, how is it that Waymo works so much better than FSD with only 1/1000th the data?
I also don't see any evidence that Waymo can't work anywhere. They recently expanded to Austin, and it seems that it immediately drives better than FSD.
Tesla FSD will never catch up to Waymo until they switch to LIDAR and have human assistance when the vehicle gets into complicated scenarios such as emergency vehicles blocking the road and redirecting traffic.
I'm betting on Tesla not for the technology, but because President Quid Pro Bro is probably going to issue an Executive Order that turns every Tesla company into a federally blessed monopoly.
Indeed, it was not very long ago that FSD would happily take a straight line through a roundabout, lanes or "skirts" be damned, essentially treating it as a standard intersection.
Training data is trivial to collect. Betting on Tesla because they have more training data than Waymo is like betting on Roscosmos because they have more employees than SpaceX.
It looks similar to a cable/fiber rollout where they have to onboard each region individually. I know they are currently doing this in the Atlanta metro.
Like cable/fiber, once they have good models of the business and what it costs to roll out, they have the freedom to accelerate and do regions in parallel. If the business works, I would expect them to scale the pace of rollout.
This is the root of the misunderstanding, I think. You’re begging the question.
More data does not necessarily mean better data. You can collect many more individual driver experiences, but if they do not have sufficient resolution in the necessary dimensions, they may never provide “better data.” Similarly, even if the magic data is hidden somewhere in there, if the model cannot practically extract the insight because of their sizes/disorganization vs the computational/storage capacity, this too would mean they are not better data.
Of course you can make the argument that some of the sensors are unnecessary, but when one fleet has had millions of vehicles for years and isn’t working, and one started with dozens, has recently grown to one thousand vehicles, and is working, the evidence is not in support of the argument.
Waymo was able to do this with less miles. How much data does Tesla really need at this point? Assume you have all the data in the world that you could ever possibly want. How much of that can you really compress into a car for real FSD?
Tesla was supposed to have what they needed when they released the Model 3. Then they had to upgrade the cameras and CPU which meant they had to re train. Then they re-wrote, so again retrain. Now it's new cameras and compute again. Cycle repeats.
How over-fitted are their models to the cameras? I'd expect a layered architecture where a sensor layer does object-recognition and classification and then hands over this representation of the world to a higher-level planning model. You should have to retrain the whole stack for camera revisions - hell that's how it would work across car models with their different camera angles.
Uhm, we already have FSDs, both the USA and China, just not the Tesla FSD. China is running auto taxis in a few limited areas with full setups that rely on LIDAR, and I hear they are pretty good.
There are some "where" issues with Tesla too. I have an intersection where it consistently can't tell that its view is obstructed. It'll just yolo into the intersection then pause (after pulling out into the lane) when it realizes that it wasn't actually able to see. Its consistent behavior, and seems to be a flaw with obstruction detection.
I might argue that every traffic light is sort of a where too. Mystery meat yellow light handling is scarily bad.
Waymo vs Tesla definitely smells like bitter lesson to me yes, 100%. With Waymo being on the bitter side, to be clear. Future will tell if the intuition is right on this one
FWIW, Waymo has more cameras than a Tesla. Both companies are removing sensors over time. In some ways removing sensors is easier to prove out with real-life data than adding them. I think it is going to be fascinating to see how it plays out.
Tesla added back the radar and improved the cameras in HW4. My guess is that ultimately they'll converge to a similarly capable sensor/compute suite with Tesla improving theirs and Waymo paring down.
Well, one thing is that many of us rarely take taxis. (Aside from reserved private cars to the airport now and then.) I'm unconvinced that self-driving changes the equation enough for most of us. I do have a trip coming up that 50% cheaper Uber might lead me to not rent a car but that's rare.
Car ownership is pretty high in a lot of places. It's still pretty much central urban--lower ownership, harder to re-find a parking spot--vs. everywhere else. Taxis may be more common in some places but there are still a lot of privately owned cars and taking taxis or having drivers is really not the norm in most places.
Luxe Neo bidet attachment - easy to tee into supply, fits under toilet seat,
options for rear/male only, or both rear/front male/female separate spray nozzles.
I fall apart when responding outside the bounds of my training data, too. Does that imply I’m not thinking?
This idea is often used to argue that LLMs will never be capable of novel idea generation, but I don’t think it’s a good argument.
For one, the LLM has such a large breadth and depth of knowledge that it could conceivably learn relations between concepts in a way that no human has before.
Secondly, novel ideas occur at the margins. Very rare is the case where someone comes up with a fundamentally new idea out of the blue. Instead, novel ideas arise just at the edge of one’s expertise. If you dial up the temperature of an LLM, it will generate novelty, and then it’s just a matter of evaluating merit.
Iterated inference at the margins of LLM knowledge will lead to novel knowledge synthesis.
> I fall apart when responding outside the bounds of my training data, too. Does that imply I’m not thinking?
You can use reasoning. Whether LLMs can is a matter of research and debate. I'm not an astrobiologist but if someone claimed that frogs live on Pluto, I would never hallucinate an answer in which I confidently assert that they do.
I would argue that the absolute majority of people don't come up with really novel ideas either (and I'm speaking of myself too). Most people just develop existing ideas, and maybe apply them in new contexts.
Now, when you say that do you mean they don't come up with ideas they have never heard of, or that no one has ever heard of? It's not as obvious that most people don't reinvent existing ideas that are new to them.
I would say they rarely come up with ideas no one has ever heard of.
The one they haven't heard of is unlikely to be a truly novel, and more likely just the application of some idea in a new circumstances.
(but this starts to be close to a philosophic discussion).
The reason that I thought of this is I was previously discussing about potential for AI in science, and my take was that given how rare are truly novel ideas, I could believe AI in the future can make progress comparable to what many scientists are doing.
The rarity of entirely novel ideas is not the point of contention. What matters is the ability to synthesize fresh concepts from a personal standpoint, akin to how crows and primates can navigate unprecedented situations.
Take book writing as an instance; while it may seem that all conceivable themes have been explored, an individual writer can still originate unique storylines and concepts without prior exposure to similar ideas.
Language models, on the other hand, do not truly invent new ideas; they amalgamate existing ones from their vast repository of training data. What appears to be novel is, upon closer inspection, a recombination of pre-existing information and concepts.
"Okay Google tell me what 5 flowers would say discussing shoe sizes with 28 pigs". There, thinking outside of the box, delivered. ChatGPT a nice story.
We’re all glorified relational DB when you think about it lol
Notion was one of THE new tastemakers. Every startup copying their designs, now there’s AI generators to make “notion style art”. To see their new pages and additions have such clunky copyrighting is disappointing and I hope just temporary, not a sign the tastemakers have left the company.
But to give you a more substantive response, I think the tastemakers are not in control in the slightest. Everything about Notion now screams "we don't give a crap about note-taking or personal wikis, we want a piece of that juicy enterprise market".
Notion defnitely had something to it when it only had to be a documentation platform. It was fast, clean and elegant, and that helped to forgive the missing bits (table support or plantUML kind of plugins)
But now that they've added a ton of features requested left and right, and effectively presented Notion as a one-stop solution to every documentation problem, I don't see much taste and elegance persisting. Not that the people you know lost their taste, more that it doesn't matter if they have to say yes to absolutely everything to keep being a one-stop solution that does it all.
In my or people started changing the way they write to stop triggering Notion features, and on the other side figjam and spreadsheet documents are coming back even as it could have been a Notion page.
There's definitely a shift IMHO. Notion will keep being used, but it might not be the first choice when other simpler options are available.
I really don't. Notion is one of those tools that entrepreneurs gravitate towards for it's simplicity, and then engineers rip out for being a parasite. At the end of the day it's an overpriced CMS that can very easily be replaced by any number of different alternatives. Their "taste" is just as overrated and overpriced as Apple's is.
reply