I know you didn’t ask and probably don’t care, but free climbing and free soloing are different things. Free climbing uses a rope, but does not allow you to use artificial means to ascend, like pulling on gear you put on the wall. The gear is just there to arrest a fall.
Free soloing is where you climb without a rope. Free climbing uses a rope for safety, but upward mobility is hands and feet on wall. Aid climbing is where you climb by fixing gear to the wall and use it to ascend.
If you know what you’re doing, free climbing is pretty safe. Free soloing is not, but people do it successfully without their huge balls weighing them down.
As a side note, bouldering is also climbing without a rope, but you don’t climb high enough to make a fall fatal.
deleted by creator
It did pass and is tied to performance of the company. He doesn’t actually get a 55B bonus. His bonus is in the form of stock, its award is tiered based on revenue-tied performance, and he can’t sell the stock until 5 years after it’s awarded, as to prevent a pump-and-dump incentive structure.
Insurance companies give people discounts based on driving habits good driving habits, like the lack of speeding and hard braking… which can be determined by gps. They also charge more for people that drive more miles per year because it exposes the vehicle to more possibilities of being involved in accidents.
It’s not unreasonable for them to ask for access to your gps data… it is definitely unreasonable for you to give them access to your gps data.
People can’t seem to understand that it’s a tool in the early stages of development. If you are treating it as a source of truth, you are missing the point of it entirely. If it tells you something about a person, that is not to be trusted as fact.
Every bit of information you get from it should be researched and verified. It just gives you a good jumping off point and direction to look based on your prompting. You can drastically improve your results on any subject with good direction, especially something you don’t know a lot about and are starting out in your research. If you are asking it about specific facts you want it to regurgitate, you are going to get bad information.
If you are claiming damages from something you know gives false information, maybe you should learn how to use the tool before you get your feelings invested, so you can start using it more effectively in your own applications. If you want it to specifically say something that can grab a headline, you can make it do that, it’s just disingenuous and not actually benefiting the conversation, the technology, or the future.
They have a long way to go to solve AGI, but the benefits to society along the way outpace current tools. At maturity, it has the potential to change major socio-economic structures, but it never gets there if people want to treat it like it has intuition and is trying to hurt them as the technology starts getting stood up.
Nope. OTA. No need to change any hardware.
deleted by creator
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. They have a large waitlist and are early in iteration on this product.
I’d bet they have hardware recalls for the next 18 months that taper off as they ramp up. The amount of new engineering that went in the cybertruck is insane compared to any other vehicle in their lineup.
This is why you see all of the legacy automakers having problems making EVs, having tons of recalls, and pulling back. New technology is hard to mass produce until you work out all the kinks in the design and workflow.
I wouldn’t by a CT because I don’t like the aesthetics; but, if I did, I wouldn’t buy one for at least 3 years from now. Same reason I won’t buy a Rivian R1S. They aren’t at the point the recalls are down to manageable. Rivian may be good in another year or 2. The ford EV line… seems like them pulling back means they won’t have a decent EV track record for at least a decade, if they’re still around then.
This is not an unreasonable statement. I’ve had a Tesla for 7 years and tell people that don’t have a way to charge at home that it will be the only drawback to owning one. Especially if it’s a commuter and you don’t travel.
When I had a charger at home, it saved me about 1800$ a year on gas alone compared to electricity increase. Plus, you don’t have to leave 15 minutes early for work to stop and fill up on your way in and the incidental breakfast taco or Red Bull purchase while you fill up stopped, as well.
I work remotely now and travel all over the country. There are plenty of superchargers on major roads and destination chargers at hotels, but I have had 2 instances where I had to plan specific routes to visit remote national parks or I wouldn’t have enough charge to get back. I was able to plan them and see the parks, but it took a bit of forethought to make sure.
If you have a way to charge at home, it’s a no-brainer. My gas savings alone would have covered the cost of the car in the life of the vehicle if I kept the same driving habits. If you drive a ton in super remote areas, you have to pay attention to where the 2100 superchargers are. The car does that for you, but on the occasional remote trip, there are pockets of road uncovered by charging stations.
As for superchargers eating batteries, I’ve lost around 5% of my total range in 8 years and can get around 317 miles on a full charge (335 from factory). I hardly ever drive more than 250 miles before I stop for a break, so it hasn’t affected me at all yet.
Get an EV and you’ll never have to go to a gas station again. None of the chargers I’ve seen have ads on them.
Wouldn’t be anti-environmental… it would be for all vehicles including ICE and commercial, as well.
They’ll still have to replace them more often or won’t be able to drive their vehicles or pass a state inspection to get their annual registration completed unless their car is road-worthy, thus costing them more money in tickets and remedies of said ticket.
I’m dumb enough that I was thinking it was “Owen, Owen, Fozzie , Owen, Owen, Fozzie, Fozzie, Fozzie…” before I figured out what the hell was going on.