Probably yes. But you're minimizing the difficulty of staying in caloric deficit.
IF you can stick to one meal per day AND eat mostly protein (vs. mostly sugar / carbs) THEN it's very hard to overeat i.e. be in caloric surplus.
If you snack many times a day, mostly sugar / carbs, and slosh it down with coke or red bull (non-diet, sugary version) it's very hard to keep eating under calorie limit. Sugar / carbs stimulate your hunger, leading to more eating. It's the opposite of Ozempic.
And your glucose levels are chronically elevated which is bad for our bodies. It's basically chronic inflammation.
Now, if you eat a steak once a day, you'll find it very hard to overeat. Like physically, you won't be able to eat too much.
It's still not easy to stick to that but it's simpler and easier than calorie count everything you eat throughout the day.
Also, Tesla started FSD in 2016. The very core of their strategy was (and is) to sell $40k car with hardware capable of running FSD.
Cameras are super cheap, FSD chip is reasonably inexpensive. Lidar is not. Maybe today the cost isn't completely prohibitive (I think it still is, because you need multiple lidars) but it certainly was for the first 8 years of FSD program.
Tesla just didn't have the luxury of adding $50k to the cost of the car for the hardware, the way Waymo did. And they didn't have sugar daddy (Google) willing to burn several billions a year for many years.
So the Waymo approach was not an option for Tesla.
And given that in Austin they just reached parity with Waymo (i.e. completely unsupervised robotaxi service), they are not doing badly.
> And given that in Austin they just reached parity with Waymo (i.e. completely unsupervised robotaxi service), they are not doing badly.
There is no unsupervised robotaxi service in Austin and there won't be, for years, if ever. Just like the way "FSD" is not fully self driving and likely never will be.
So in other words, like literally every other word out of Elon’s mouth for a decade now, it’s incredibly dishonest. He lies about everything, all the time, without any acknowledgment. Nothing is ever delivered on time, most of it isn’t delivered at all, and virtually every bit of promised capability is exaggerated.
Why does anyone want to do business with a person or company like that? I genuinely do not understand.
Nope is open to the public and covers bigger area then Waymo. EDS is limiting a lot of people here's ability to critically evaluate the current autonomous auto rollout.
Any evidence of this?, even it its true right now, and they are being ultra cautious, (they are hardly going to just dump 100k unsupervised teslas in one week), it won't stay that way for long. They will overtake Waymo in a few months, then kill them by the end of the year.
This is totally false. If there are any truly autonomous robotaxis in Austin (a bit if, since Tesla has repeatedly lied and faked things like this in the past), it’s only a handful and they’re limited to a tiny area. The “robotaxis” with a safety driver are the ones that have the bigger area, probably because Tesla sucks at actual self-driving. Still. After a decade of broken promises and shitty engineering practices.
Elon has been blatantly lying about FSD for years, and yet the fans still take whatever he says as gospel. And yet the skeptics are the ones with EDS? lol, ok.
Try to find a single ablation study of a sensor suite. Waymo is in a good position to do such a study and the corporation would have benefited from showing that vision-only systems aren't viable (by demonstrating the corporation's good will to maintain public safety and by making it harder for vision-only competitors), but no such study from them.
I guess they understand that computer vision is a fast-moving target and their paper might become obsolete the next day.
Read Electrek articles with a mouthful of salt. Fred Lambert’s “robotaxi is 10x worse than a human” estimate is based on his personal statistical reasoning, which somehow arrived at 200,000 miles per accident for humans. Minor accidents that Tesla reports for robotaxis (such as low-speed collisions with stationary objects) do not make it into publicly available statistics, so his estimate might be significantly off.
Waymo routinely uses safety drivers, sorry, "autonomous specialists" when expanding to new cities[1][2]. Waymo cars occasionally contact the remote support. If support is not available, the cars just stay where they stopped[3].
Tesla has rolled out a small number of cars with no safety driver[4].
In short, you are either grossly misinformed or intentionally lying. Is it a political echochamber you are stuck in?
[1] https://waymo.com/faq/ "Our vehicles are primarily driving autonomously, but you’ll sometimes notice that our cars have autonomous specialists riding in the driver’s seat. These specialists are there to monitor our autonomous driving technology and share important feedback to help us improve the Waymo experience."
[2] https://waymo.com/waymo-in-uk/ "Our autonomous specialists who are present in the vehicle during testing are highly trained professionals."
You are grossly misinformed. Waymo self driving never disengages the way Tesla FSD does. It is active at all times. In novel situations humans will provide instructions on what path to take but this is relatively infrequent. Tesla Robotaxis are so bad they need a safety driver in every single car at all times ready to take control when the car does something stupid. The small number of robotaxis without safety drives are limited to a tiny area and not open to the public.
> Waymo self driving never disengages the way Tesla FSD does. It is active at all times
Consumer version of FSD can park a car if a driver doesn't take contol[1]. Waymo seems to require a remote command to initiate parking instead of just standing there with hazard lights on[2].
> Tesla Robotaxis are so bad they need a safety driver in every single car at all times ready to take control
Every single robotaxi in Austin doesn't have a driver behind the wheel. So a driver can't be ready to take control. Stop lying. I no longer believe that you are misinformed.
Not for a very long time. Just think about how big of an advantage lidar and radar are at night or radar is in snow and rain?
If Tesla had been smart they would have used regular cameras and event based cameras where the pixels send a signal whenever their brightness changes enough. These can have microsecond latency. And multi spectral cameras. Combined this data would provide very rich data for neural networks.
lol its running now and growing every day, the thing about Tesla's solution is it works globally and the costs are much much less than Waymo will ever be able to achieve (Given there reliance on third parties for most of the hardware) Waymo and uber will be gone in a year.
> lol its running now and growing every day, the thing about Tesla's solution is it works globally and the costs are much much less than Waymo will ever be able to achieve (Given there reliance on third parties for most of the hardware) Waymo and uber will be gone in a year.
A year? They'll be gone in two weeks!
Seriously, what portion of your financial and emotional net worth is tied up in TSLA?
> None, it's just obvious to anyone who has a high school level of business knowledge.
That's a highly ironic statement given your position on "cost per mile".
With a small amount of business acumen, you'd know that betting on technology staying expensive is a bad idea. This is seen in all industries, but especially electronics, where there are many competitors continuously optimizing for cost. E.g., we're at the point now where an internet enabled phone is basically disposable, costing people ~ a few hours of wages.
History has shown that technology costs decrease over time, and rapidly if it's a critically important technology. If you don't agree, share a counter example.
Phones were about $400-500 years ago now they are over $1k which is not 'a few hours of wages' well not for most of us. I agree technology prices decreases over time but Waymo is starting at 5x the cost, by the time a Waymo costs even the same price as a Model Y, let alone a Cybercab it will be too late. That's my prediction, I could be wrong though, maybe Elon and Tesla are lying and so are all the users of least version of FSD.
Try to avoid cherry picking if you want to have a discussion where you or the other person learns something. All the Elon stans on this site that I've encountered are highly disingenuous, starting to think that's not a coincidence.
Well Tesla just launched their robotaxi 6 months ago whereas Waymo has been going for a decade? Just looking at a point in time is a bit silly, look at the change over time.
The bottom line is cost per mile and Waymo can't complete here, there is also style, Waymo's vehicles are extremely ugly looking cars vs the Cybercab. Tesla also has integrated everything from the chip up. Waymo is a cobbled together solution from multiple third party (very expensive) components.
Is the consumer going to pick a more expensive, ugly, non integrated vehicle for their trip?
> Is the consumer going to pick a more expensive, ugly, non integrated vehicle for their trip?
The consumer does not care about which car picks them up or what hardware integration it has. The consumer cares about which car is available in their service area, how quickly it will arrive, how much it will cost, how quickly it can get to their destination, and that it will do so safely.
> Well Tesla just launched their robotaxi 6 months ago whereas Waymo has been going for a decade? Just looking at a point in time is a bit silly, look at the change over time.
I am only refuting the claim that Tesla has reached parity with Waymo in Austin. They are nowhere near.
Because Tesla has a history of over-promising and under-delivering, I will want to see Tesla scale up the robotaxi business to the level of Waymo (which is currently far ahead) before I proclaim them the winner.
You are not really backing your claims with facts or numbers, just opinion and future predictions which may or may not come true.
> And they didn't have sugar daddy (Google) willing to burn several billions a year for many years.
Tesla's market cap is $1.3 trillion. Granted the company itself doesn't have access to all of that, but surely if they wanted to spend, say, $10 billion per year on something big like FSD, they could have.
> didn't have the luxury of adding $50k to the cost of the car for the hardware
A little more extreme, but: Tesla has sold something like 8.5 million cars total. If they simply dumped an extra $50K of material into every single one of those cars without raising the price a dime, that would be only $425 billion. That's a ridiculous sum of money, but still <checks notes> substantially less than $1.3 trillion.
I'm not a fan of Tesla's approach to self driving, but
> If they simply dumped an extra $50K of material into every single one of those cars without raising the price a dime, that would be only $425 billion. That's a ridiculous sum of money, but still <checks notes> substantially less than [their market cap of] $1.3 trillion.
That is an apples to dishwasher comparison. Money is fungible only when it's the same kind of money on both sides. You can't compare market cap like that. (Even for a company whose market cap is seemingly divorced from reality like Tesla's)
Tesla Robotaxi is a Potemkin village con whose only purpose is to inflate Tesla stock. Musk is relying on this more and more, most recently with his claiming SpaceX will put data centers in space.
Tesla has the dumbest (and many of the richest) shareholders in recent history. They absolutely would have funded it. Tesla could probably do an offering tomorrow to raise $100B and the share price would be back to ~$420 in a month.
(1) is true, but actually driving is definitely harder without hearing or with diminished hearing. And Several US states, including CA, prohibit inhibiting hearing while driving, e.g., by wearing a headset, earbuds, or earplugs.
Chrome took at least a thousand man years i.e. 100 people working for 10 years.
I'm lowballing here: it's likely way, way more.
If ai gives 10x speedup, to reproduce Chrome as it is today would require 1 person working for 100 years, 10 people working for 10 years or 100 people working for 1 year.
Now, it takes a skilled person to guide Claude Code to generate this but I have zero doubts that this was done at least 5x-10x faster than Antirez writing the same code by hand.
Not to take away from your experience but to offer a counterpoint.
I used claude code to port rust pdb parsing library to typescript.
My SumatraPDF is a large C++ app and I wanted visibility into where does the size of functions / data go, layout of classes. So I wanted to build a tool to dump info out of a PDB. But I have been diagnosed with extreme case of Rustophobiatis so I just can't touch rust code. Hence, the port to typescript.
With my assistance it did the work in an afternoon and did it well. The code worked. I ran it against large PDB from SumatraPDF and it matched the output of other tools.
In a way porting from one language to another is extreme case of refactoring and Claude did it very well.
I think that in general (your experience notwithstanding) Claude Caude is excellent at refactorings.
Here are 3 refactorings from SumatraPDF where I asked claude code to simplify code written by a human:
I hope you agree the code written by Claude is better than the code written by a human.
Granted, those are small changes but I think it generalizes into bigger changes. I have few refactorings in mind I wanted to do for a long time and maybe with Claude they will finally be feasible (they were not feasible before only because I don't have infinite amount of time to do everything I want to do).
“I want this thing, but in a different language” seems to be something that the current generation of cutting edge LLMs are pretty good at.
Translating a vibe is something the Ur-LLMS (GPT3 etc) were very good at so it’s not entirely surprising that the current state of the art is to be found in things of a “translate thing X that already exists into context Y” nature.
This. If you use a modern frontier model like Opus 4.5, there's nothing to learn. No special prompting techniques. You give it a task, and most of the time it's capable of solving a big chunk quickly. You still need to babysit it, review its plan/code and make adjustments. But that's already faster than achieving the same results manually. Especially when you're at low energy levels and can't bring yourself to look into a task and figure it out from zero.
At the same time, I can refuse to be a loser in chess and I'll still have 0% chance of beating Magnus Carlsen.
I'm very much a proponent of hard work to the best of your ability but I'm also a realist.
I'm pretty good at programming. I doubt Usain Bolt would ever be as good as I am at programming, even if he tried, and I certainly wouldn't be even close to be as good as Usain Bolt in running no matter how hard I tried.
I know how fast I was running in high school compared to 30 of my peers (my class) and there was never a path from there to a world class athlete.
I think there are 0 people in NBA that don't have natural ability placing them in 1% of general pop.
Your statement might be applicable to jobs that can be performed more than adequately by 20% percentile talent but not to most sports or music, which have brutal odds due to "winner takes most" dynamics.
There are 540 NBA players. There are ~40 million men aged 18-35 in US.
To beat those odds you have to supremely talented and supremely hard working.
Contrast this with estimated 1.6-4.4 million software engineers.
You can be mid but hard working programmer and beat brilliant but otherwise flawed programmer (not as hard working, oblivious to politics etc.), for some definition of "beat" (like better pay or higher position in company).
As to people in leadership position: consider that to succeed as a manager / leader is more about being good at politics than at solving complex equations.
Then again, the outsized successes were created by competent leaders: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos.
Are you looking for facts that will contradict your opinion?
Justin Bieber clearly was that. His youtube videos got him discovered at age 13-14.
Vanessa Paradis made her first public appearance as a singer at age 7.
There are several children prodigies I've seen on YouTube (singers, drummers, guitarists). They clearly have such talent that even at young age they do music better than most people would do with infinite amount of practice.
As to your question, the prodigy is, by definition, extremely rare. They clearly exist (Bieber, Paradis) but, by definition, you can't expect to have a lot of them.
And "why aren't 7 year olds headlining for Taylor Swift" is not a fair bar.
There are reasons 7 year olds don't do world wide tours that have to do with things other than musical talent. Like being in school or not being allowed to take a bus by themselves.
I think it's safe to say that ORM in Django is, in fact, better in all possible ways than an ORM someone at some company just wrote. Including speed and handling edge cases.
We only know what OP wrote and he doesn't sell himself as a genius but as someone who was competing with really, really bad ideas.
Probably yes. But you're minimizing the difficulty of staying in caloric deficit.
IF you can stick to one meal per day AND eat mostly protein (vs. mostly sugar / carbs) THEN it's very hard to overeat i.e. be in caloric surplus.
If you snack many times a day, mostly sugar / carbs, and slosh it down with coke or red bull (non-diet, sugary version) it's very hard to keep eating under calorie limit. Sugar / carbs stimulate your hunger, leading to more eating. It's the opposite of Ozempic.
And your glucose levels are chronically elevated which is bad for our bodies. It's basically chronic inflammation.
Now, if you eat a steak once a day, you'll find it very hard to overeat. Like physically, you won't be able to eat too much.
It's still not easy to stick to that but it's simpler and easier than calorie count everything you eat throughout the day.
reply