Readit NewsFor example, it would be wrong for me to say that "hyperloop got a ton of hype and investments, and it failed. Therefore LLMs, which are also getting a ton of hype and investments, will also fail." Hyperloop and LLMs are fundamentally different technologies, and the failure of hyperloop is a poor indicator of whether LLMs will ultimately succeed.
Which isn't to say we can't make comparisons to previous successes or failures. But those comparisons shouldn't be your main argument for the viability of a new technology.
This is a big rewrite of history. Phones took off because before mobile phones the only way to reach a person was to call when they were at home or their office. People were unreachable for timespans that now seem quaint. Texting brought this into async. The "potato" cameras were the advent of people always having a camera with them.
People using the Nokia 3210 were very much not anticipating when their phones would get good, they were already a killer app. That they improved was icing on the cake.
It always bugs me whenever I hear someone defend some new tech (blockchain, LLMs, NFTs) by comparing it with phones or the internet or whatever. People did not need to be convinced to use cell phones or the internet. While there were absolutely some naysayers, the utility and usefulness of these technologies was very obvious by the time they became available to consumers.
But also, there's survivorship bias at play here. There are countless promising technologies that never saw widespread adoption. And any given new technology is far more likely to end up as a failure then it is to become "the next iPhone" or "the new internet."
In short, you should sell your technology based on what it can do right now, instead of what it might do in the future. If your tech doesn't provide utility right now, then it should be developed for longer before you start charging money for it. And while there's certainly some use for LLMs, a lot of the current use cases being pushed (google "AI overviews", shitty AI art, AIs writing out emails) aren't particularly useful.
Like, I'm an adult who never intends to have children, but I still support robust public education. I could make some arguments about how paying taxes for schools is somehow in my best interest. But the reality is I support public education because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I think it will personally benefit me.
The thing is, conservatives and Republican voters don't lean that way because they're just too stupid to vote for Democrats. It's because they have a different moral framework. And that's something that can be hard to reconcile and address. Changing someone's political views requires changing their entire worldview, which is incredibly difficult.
Every other EVs and HVs assign first half of brake pedal for regen and bottom half for mechanical brakes. Tesla uses bottom half of gas pedal for the same, which eliminates the need to accurately determine the appropriate pedal force that corresponds to intended braking force to be added up with regen to match intended deceleration. Mapping regen to gas is `set_motor_torque(1.25 * gas_pedal - 25);` and that's much simpler.
Obviously Apple can improve things for the final release (and it seems like they're taking some steps in that direction). But these issues should have been identified long before the beta was released, and the fact that they weren't does not inspire confidence.
For this market cap to make sense, Tesla would have to eventually become the dominant car manufacturer worldwide. And that just doesn't seem like a reasonable prediction, given that legacy car manufacturers are starting to figure out EVs, and newer EV-focused manufacturers are making huge strides.
I don't know when (or even if) Tesla's stock price will fall back down to Earth. The old saying is that the market can remain irrational longer then you can remain solvent. But I do know that Tesla's stock price is not a good indicator of how well they're doing as a car manufacturer.
Elon is too toxic, and they got distracted with the whole cybertruck nonsense and kicked the model 1/smaller more euro-focused one into the long grass
This is the risk when you tie your brand to a single person, especially someone who loves being in the spotlight. Whenever that person does something controversial, that reflects poorly on the brand.