> I don’t know who told MacRumors what (and their sourcing is just “MacRumors has learned”), but I know for a fact that it is not true that the teams working on the Vision platform have “been redistributed to other teams within Apple.”
Good to know! I thought it was a bit weird for the team to have been disbanded so abruptly. Perhaps if this aspect of the story is not correct, other aspects will turn out to have been untrue as well.
> I don’t know who told MacRumors what (and their sourcing is just “MacRumors has learned”), but I know for a fact that it is not true that the teams working on the Vision platform have “been redistributed to other teams within Apple.”
Good to know! I thought it was a bit weird for the team to have been disbanded so abruptly. Perhaps if this aspect of the story is not correct, other aspects will turn out to have been untrue as well.
If they had gotten their sports programming up and running, this might have gone differently. That part of the in-store demo was incredible, and I don't even care about sports that much.
Seems like 3 is a bit pessimistic. After all, if there are 3 founders then that greatly decreases the chance that the CEO steals equity from the other 2 cofounders. The CEO generally wouldn't have > 50%, so the non-CEO co-founders could keep the CEO in check.
Seems accurate according to my experience. It’s the new investment banks in later rounds that cause it. Bigger investments, stronger guarantees, better preferences, and lack of understanding on the part of inexperienced founders, plus lack of power held by the employees options pool … recipe for “only the banks see any upside.”
alot of financial engineering happens if the company is raising large rounds, if you leave early as a cofounder, they will absolutely mess with your equity. And even if you are there, youre considered an expense, unless the CEO explicitly advocates for you
its so common that I am shocked people willing enter roles like co-founding CTO without serious legal protections in place. go spend time in NYC/SF and talk to actual cofounders
> Students would no longer get worse grades for misbehaving or handing in work late.
Is it any surprise that if kids don't have to turn in work on time, their performance drops? Yet this "innovation" is pitched as "mastery based learning" and embraced by schools across the country.
I blame schools of education, who seem to have no problem pushing one bad idea after another (as long as the new idea aligns with progressive goals).
Perhaps they don't like the explicit connection I've made to progressivism? The article leaves that part unsaid, but it's pretty clear this is where it came from.
Interesting article, and then at the end you see that this Stanford student is also pursuing his own path to fame and riches — by publishing a forthcoming tell-all book about the apparently seedy underbelly of Stanford.
Perhaps he is not so different from his subjects, at least in terms of his end goals?
He's a nepo baby; His dad is Peter Baker, chief White House Correspondent for the NYTimes and his mom is Susan Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker & former editor at The Washington Post.
He might be a nepo baby, but he also might be a person who had two extremely successful professional writers tutoring and mentoring him for years on end.
Exactly. It means that if you've ever tried to get an appt and been told there's a 4 month waiting list, AI could help get you in sooner. That is a real win.
> But, especially given the underfunded nature of the US health system, that is extremely unlikely to mean more time with each patient. Instead, it will mean more patients.
So that means if I try to make an appt, I'll have an easier time getting one? Sounds good, I guess.
reply