dfdsf2

5 ms·

1.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
Indeed. And when you factor in the amount invested... yeah it looks less impressive. The question is how much more money needs to be invested to get this thing closer to reality? And not just in this instance. But for any instance e.g. a se
2.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
Highly disagree. I was expecting something more realistic... the true test of what you are doing is how representative is the thing in relation to the real world. E.g. does the pelican look like a pelican as it exists in reality? This carto
3.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
PE people and most financial analysts are stupid who analyse tech firms. Even the multiples have an implicit (fake) terminal value built in, the assumptions are more implicit rather than explicit. Comical to assume that a tech firm will be
4.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
Trick? Lol not a chance. Alphabet is a pure play tech firm that has to produce products to make the tech accessible. They really lack in the latter and this is visible when you see the interactions of their VP's. Luckily for them, if y
5.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
I regularly ask people who are in non-tech professions re. the adoption of AI and whether it has benefitted them. The answer is a resounding no. If anything managers are starting to pull-back on the adoption. This place is hyper-concentrate
6.
by dfdsf2 7mo ago
I read the first line and thought - this guy gets it. The read the second line and erm.... maybe not. The whole Agents thing has been pushed for almost a year now and it hasn't disrupted the profession of engineers on a noticeable scal