I've seen a big uptick in "prove you're a human" screens recently. Our ISP had issues the other day, and I suspect I was assigned a new IP (I've had previous ones for years). I've been attributing it to that. But, now I'm wondering if it's something else.
I dread the day which will certainly eventually come, when Google disables my account for some bullshit reason. So many things will stop working all at once, and there practically no way I can expedite restoring it
It's not just that; there's a new capability unlocked. You can now have self driving cars charge at remote places and come back without human interaction. Imagine you live in a place with no grid power
I have a robot vacuum that manages to do automated direct contact charging just fine. I don’t understand why wireless would be any easier. It seems more complex and less safe than a direct wired connection.
I also have a lot of trouble believing in the scenario of a neighborhood that has an automated charging station for EVs but no grid. That seems like very misplaced priorities.
Robo vacuum charging is almost inherently safe. They probably charge at something like 12V/2A. Voltage too low to penetrate skin, wattage too low to cause serious injury unless you’re really trying.
You can kind of just leave them exposed and live.
None of that applies to a 220V, 50A (or whatever amperage) charging. That can absolutely kill somebody; jet fuel may not melt steel beams, but 11,000W sure will.
You’d end up needing some kind of recess probably, and then getting cars to connect to it like planes refueling mid-flight is a nightmare. You could try some sort of USB-C like signaling before power is sent, but people are never going to enjoy “exposed 220V contacts that may or may not be live depending on if things malfunctioned”.
The point wasn’t that my robot vacuum is handling large current but that “moving device connects to power” is a solved problem. A car capable of driving itself onto this pad could as easily drive itself to a spot to plug in. Extendo-arm from the car could easily slot into an outlet in the floor. Or vice versa. Or a wall or pole.
Planes refueling mid flight is hardly an apt metaphor given the charging station isn’t moving at all and the car can move as slowly as needed.
This seems like one of those “reality has a surprising amount of detail” situations.
Surely getting something to autonomously without fail extend an arm and plug in for the lifespan of these vehicles vs just park in this allocated spot you would park in anyway is an obvious tradeoff.
It’s definitely a trade off but both options have a lot of real world concerns. If safeguards on the wireless pad fail you could easily cook an animal or start a fire. The bottom of the car now needs to be metal free to allow this to work. Distance matters which means if it charges your Porsche it might not be able to charge a Rivian and certainly not with the same efficiency.
I also frankly do not believe the 90% efficiency claim because it seems so much higher than any other wireless charging I’ve heard of.
This seems like one of those things that seems cool but is not generally practical. As a convenience for wealthy Porsche EV owners, sure. As a general purpose charging solution? I doubt it.
Starting a fire, maybe, cooking an animal, extremely not likely.
Turn on an induction stove to max. Put your hand on it. Did it burn your hand? No. Put a ferrous pan on it. Suddenly, really hot.
Same concept happening here. A 36" induction stove top is likely putting out about the same inductive power. If the risk of being over the pad while it operated was enough to burn someone, so would cooking food on an induction stove.
Maybe? I’m definitely not an expert in inductive charging. I would think a cat laying between the charging pad and the receiver would be getting a big hit of radio waves. Maybe not.
Inductive current generation isn't utilizing radio waves. This isn't like a microwave oven.
If you put a chicken breast in a microwave oven and turn it on, it will rapidly cook. If you stand next to a radio antenna emitting hundreds of watts you can potentially get burns. These things use electromagnetic radio fields (E + H) to blast energy out, and those fields can stably radiate out on their own.
Inductive cooking and charging is radically different. If you put a chicken breast directly on an induction cooktop and turn the cooktop on, nothing happens. The unit doesn't even really increase its energy usage, because there is no load. This is because this energy transfer is relying on just the magnetic fields (H). It relies a lot on the target being harmonically in tune, and the other side needs to actually be conductive and at least somewhat magnetic. Non-magnetic materials don't couple with these magnetic fields. This is why some pans (like aluminum and copper) "don't work" with induction cooktops.
So if a cat did climb on the charging pad, maybe some parts of the collar would energize and heat up.
If animals were significantly affected by things like wireless charging pads or inductive cooktops we wouldn't be able to survive MRIs.
> A car capable of driving itself onto this pad could as easily drive itself to a spot to plug in. Extendo-arm from the car could easily slot into an outlet in the floor.
Those two things really aren't comparably difficult. Eg in the dumbest case for pads, you could make the pads slightly smaller than axle diameter (to prevent dead shorts) and have the car randomly jostle around the space until it detects current flow. I've seen some amateur systems that work vaguely like this. Some signal that charging is nearby, and then a semi-random search to find exposed contacts.
That's not going to cut it on a recessed outlet. Your odds of hitting it randomly are tiny, and it will probably the damage the port with enough repetitions of ramming it into the floor.
> Planes refueling mid flight is hardly an apt metaphor given the charging station isn’t moving at all and the car can move as slowly as needed.
Change your reference point to the plane carrying the fuel and they get an awful lot closer. The planes are moving a lot relative to the ground, they're moving very little relative to each other. I'm not sure if you've watched them doing it, but relative to each other it's actually a very slow process.
> Your odds of hitting it randomly are tiny, and it will probably the damage the port with enough repetitions of ramming it into the floor.
Why would it be random? The scenario here is self driving cars. Suddenly we are talking about random jostling instead of actually targeting.
> Change your reference point to the plane carrying the fuel and they get an awful lot closer. The planes are moving a lot relative to the ground, they're moving very little relative to each other. I'm not sure if you've watched them doing it, but relative to each other it's actually a very slow process.
What is your point here? I’m totally lost. You seem to be trying to hand-wave away the difficulty of refueling mid flight. The specific difficulty there is the fact that it’s happening at high velocity, not the difficulty of plugging a hose into a port. (Traditional mid air refueling is manually directed anyway.)
You are probably fully capable of fueling your car at a self serve gas station. Try doing the same at highway speed. Just reach out the window of the vehicle you are in and fill up your friend’s car from a gas can. Should be easy since the cars are “moving very little relative to each other”, right?
I guess if you see the video on the linked post, you'll see what the usecase is unlocked. A neighboor city with a wireless charger station or a road wireless charger station can receive a self driving car above it, charge the car and with some kind of NFC do the payment and goes back.
The 3D rendered video of a car driving over the pad doesn’t really show anything unlocked. There are a lot of possible ways to build automated charging stations. This is not necessary tech for that scenario.
I have a govee kettle which has a limited Bluetooth support, which is mostly used to configure WiFi, but can also turn kettle on and off and reports temperature. Not sure if this is interesting to anybody, but if yes I can wrap it up in GitHub project
No matter how much the business makes, at some point their stock price comes up to the equilibrium with the rest of market. And since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks at one point or another. That's just a system
> since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks
Is that a system or is it individual greed? Every economic system has its own weak points that can be exploited by bad actors. Capitalism works. What doesn’t work is letting people get away with dirty tricks.
We'll never solve major challenges like the ever rising income gap, global warming and other environmental concerns and the inevitable cycle of enshittification without it.
The problem is that especially America views unrestricted capitalism as some kind of religion beyond reproach. They consider it a fact of life. But it is very hollow, it glorifies profit above all and has no eye for externalities.
As they currently control a lot of the world trade we're kinda stuck with that system. Trump voters are so angry because they've been getting the short end of the stick for decades. And he is alienating most of his allies meaning everyone is looking for ways to become less dependent on the petrodollar.
Unfortunately they voted for someone who will make it even worse. Instead of 'sticking it to the man' they're giving it to the man.
The system of capitalism works fine with one exception: it doesn't handle negative value. And this is what's being exploited here. You can lose customer's data and it's their problem. Borrow, take risk, lost money, and declare corporate bankruptcy - no personal loss. Destroy environment - say sorry and that's it. That's not free market. When CEOs have their personal assets taken, and kidneys removed to pay for the corporate debts - this is when things start changing
Do I understand it right that people now claim an ownership of the actual mathematical methods? What next, people patenting the letters and the numbers? And then the sounds? This starts going ridiculous.
A lot depends on the concreteness/vagueness of the idea.
"Just use some polynomial" would be an idea so generic that it wouldn't merit attribution. "Just use a cyclotomic polynomial of degree 24" is a lot more concrete.
(I have no idea where the exact limit lies and I have no idea how precise or vague were the ideas in those discussions.)
These kinds of responses aren't helpful. Your response essentially muddies the water because it sets an artificial standard that nobody can/will meet. Yes, you're correct. There likely is some grey area with how we decide to give credit. Are we talking about the same story? This isn't "a polynomial". This is a research program that has been ongoing for years or possibly decades with nontrivial contributions. If you're not sure what does or does not deserve credit, you should engage with the community instead of suggesting that the idea of giving credit is "vague".
Hashing out a problem is a complicated thing. From the point of the AI, or another person, even a negative suggestion ("I tried computing those Jacobians and they showed nothing of value") can be very helpful in steering you away from non-productive paths, but we rarely attribute such negative suggestions in print, we may not even remember them.
All in all I think that OpenAI should have mentioned using material from those people, but I would also like to know what material and to what extent.
Laws would not fix the root cause, which is: world became too globalized, and that brought an onslaught of bad actors. Unless some sort of social score system is introduced, it will be very hard to make a quick decision whether someone makes a claim in good faith. But then everybody loses their privacy and ultimately their agency, which arguably many of us already lost to google and facebook. I don't think there is a simple soilution.
While true, parent comment's first point (that the plaintiff would be unwilling to make the winning argument) would have an impact on their ability to spend the defendent to death. Judges do notice when you don't have an actual argument.
reply