Retric

8 ms·

211.
by Retric 4mo ago
> The garage door I can certainly believe. Its AI brain just won’t be trained to look for that sort of thing. Why not? That’s likely to come up at minimum thousands of times per day, and likely vastly more as the system improves.
212.
by Retric 4mo ago
Image processing is a great way to get clean pictures but takes you further from direct observation. You could if extremely unlucky remove a supernova from your image not just meteors and cosmic rays.
213.
by Retric 4mo ago
I agree Tesla’s stock is horribly overvalued, it’s the poster child for the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. My point is as a benchmark it still makes SpaceX look like a bad investment.
214.
by Retric 4mo ago
That’s an option. However, these satellites provide a predictable path so you don’t needed to detect them from image data. Which means you can even prevent them from showing up on long analog film exposures.
215.
by Retric 4mo ago
Tesla’s numbers looked vastly more reasonable. “In 2025, SpaceX generated $18.7 billion in revenue, with its Starlink satellite internet service accounting for $11.39 billion, or 61% of total sales.” Tesla had higher revenue number in at
216.
by Retric 4mo ago
Sure but it’s not the only one. Add in SPY, QQQ, and IWM Force Index Funds and the percentage of Americans buying SpaceX early due to rule changes looks bad. Edit: Ops SPY didn’t change their rules.
217.
by Retric 4mo ago
S&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.... Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this ch
218.
by Retric 4mo ago
Without rapid purchasing by indexes SpaceX’s stock would likely to tank as ever more people would be able to sell over the first year. It’s a 24 year old company with a current high flying stock price based on very questionable numbers.
219.
by Retric 4mo ago
Few schools allow unrestricted internet access these days. The general question here is risks vs rewards and with any new technology both are unknown making caution perfectly reasonable be that internet searches or anything else. So sure in
220.
by Retric 4mo ago
GMO etc is arguable but there’s limits around what you can call some things based around how they are made.
221.
by Retric 4mo ago
When it works the first time you’re done, when it fails you spend more time on it. This biases the cognitive investment around failure. > I don't think about hoping anymore. Running the exact same prompt again that already failed d
222.
by Retric 4mo ago
AI needs a great deal of handholding which is different than just offloading tasks. You spend a lot of cognitive energy playing a slot machine hoping the RNG works out this time. There’s definitely a skill to using AI but it just doesn’t g
223.
by Retric 4mo ago
You misunderstand the issue. It’s a significant problem for some kinds of observations and largely irrelevant to others. Satellites don’t include light sources and there’s nothing to illuminate them when in earth’s shadow. In order to int
224.
by Retric 4mo ago
Nobody is giving people at a government agency the authority to write arbitrary fines, there’s going to be at minimum guidelines. If the base fine is X, then every actual fine would be X + Y where Y is the profit motive causing the behavior
225.
by Retric 4mo ago
You can apply a fine multiple times in a year if they don’t stop. As that 4% is based on global revenue you’re eventually going to make it unprofitable.
226.
by Retric 4mo ago
Around 7 people the US get the plague each year. Yes that’s low, but it’s low specially because measures actively keeping it low. Which means understanding and maintaining these systems is still valuable as even if millions aren’t actively
227.
by Retric 4mo ago
> If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine. I’m not saying they would get a rebate just that for this to be meaningful for a mid
228.
by Retric 4mo ago
Rich and retired are very different thing. A CEO can be out hundreds of millions due to a long prison sentence, but most fines don’t scale nearly that far.
229.
by Retric 4mo ago
I think in theory general case I’d rather be able to find it easily than have more charge when it’s located. You can generally use one while plugged in. Anyway, the root of their issue is other people unplugging it, which is a bigger issue
230.
by Retric 4mo ago
They boot reasonably quickly, just turn it off. While on they are constantly listening for a “find my” signal so it’s easy to locate. For the overwhelming majority of people it’s a good tradeoff.
231.
by Retric 4mo ago
By that logic regulators should lower fines if the action wasn’t profitable. Which creates an expensive legal fight around the net profits of some action were after guilt is determined. Instead, it’s much better to scale fines based on the
232.
by Retric 4mo ago
The fine is only part of the story. They likely spent more money than the fine fighting it over 5 years as fines increase next time if you don’t stop.
233.
by Retric 4mo ago
While “most fit” seems tautological it’s also subtly wrong. There’s a great deal of randomness in survival and a great number of genes involved at the same time. Extremely harmful mutations have massive selective pressure, but things with
234.
by Retric 4mo ago
We don’t disagree with the underlying facts. That said, in many ways 335 employees is the midpoint between 3 employees and 30,000 employees. The CEO can’t keep track of everyone’s names and what they’re doing, you need layers of management
235.
by Retric 4mo ago
Depreciating assets is one of several possibilities.
236.
by Retric 4mo ago
That argument supports any levels of losses, however I also think it’s rather misleading. Growth means some inefficiencies, but their expenses are largely around commodities like electricity and data centers not a sudden army of salespeople
237.
by Retric 4mo ago
> I don’t know why you’re being dismissive of them I’m aware of multiple cases of benchmark cheating/“optimization”. So, taking benchmarks a face value seems laughable.
238.
by Retric 4mo ago
Fraud seems like a more direct issue.
239.
by Retric 4mo ago
Someone else isn’t a 1:1 replacement, when people refuse to work for you you’re stuck offering higher wages and or taking worse employees. How well a job is compensated on average very much depends on how willing and able the average person
240.
by Retric 4mo ago
Companies game benchmarks, but sure they are better than nothing.

More ›