> When we asked Google whether it developed this feature with or without Apple’s involvement, Moriconi confirmed it was not a collab. “We accomplished this through our own implementation,” he tells The Verge.
It would be helpful to have some examples that show the prompts needed to develop simple shapes, then how to iterate to add improvements. A video of you using it to create something specific would be great.
I first tried "a work table with a roof" which gave me a reasonable model but with a flat roof, then I tried "a work table with a pitched roof" which gave me a very unlikely and unworkable model with the halves of the roof disconnected and not contacting the vertical supports. Then I tried the "Adam Pro" option and it came out looking more like an Adirondack chair than a table, but not one you could sit in! =)
I would like to know what to write instead to get a more useful model. Very cool project though!
Personally, I'm not demanding to enable tinkering on everything if that's raising prices, it could be as simple as having some "This unit is serviceable" label, I'd let people to value it and manufacturers to follow it.
TBH, I think most people wouldn't care, specially in USA, it is way easier and cheaper to replace than to repair, workmanship is really expensive here.
But If a manufacturer shuts down a Cloud service that bricks my device they should open the interfaces and protocols to make them functional.
Mission accomplished: who'd tell disrupting your competition poaching their talent and erasing value (giving it away for free) would make people realize there is no long term value in the core technology itself.
Don't get me wrong, we are moving to commoditization, as any new tech it'd be transparent to our lifestyle and a lot of money will be done as an industry, but it'd be hard to compete as a core business competence w/o cheating (and by cheating I mean your FANG company already has a competitive advantage)
Whoa that's actually a brilliant strategy: accelerate the hype first by offering 100M comp packages, then stop hiring and strategically drop a few "yeah bubble's gonna pop soon" rumours. Great way to fuck with your competition, especially if you're meta and you're not in the lead yourself
But if Meta believe it's a bubble then why not let the competition continue to waste their money pumping it up? How does popping it early benefit Meta?
Same is true for lots of things. Classic example is we are so leetcode obsessed because all the people that were leetcode obsessed got hired and promoted. We've embraced p-hacking, forgetting Goodhart's Law (and the original intention of leetcode style interviewing. It's just the traditional engineering interview, where you get to see how the interviewee problem solves. It is less about the answer and more about the thought process. It's easy to educate people on answers, but it is hard to teach someone how to think in a different framework... (how much money do we waste through this and by doing so many rounds of interviewing?))
is the owner of the address a perpetual owner of the GPL? Example:
- Step 1: Create evil Corporation
- Step 2: Buy that address
- Step 3: Create a new GPL, still GPL but technically a new version. This can make sure the sole owner of the claimed IP (remove the FSF of course).
- Step 4: Sell your updated license to anyone that'd want to go around previous GPL.