Of the predictions I read, I found that the author engages in pretty heavy handed rules lawyering in order to make their predictions accurate.
For example, the author takes the stance that current self driving cars (Waymo, Zoox) do not count as self driving. The justification being that a human operator is involved some small fraction of the time.
By law, Waymo must report disengagements in California. In 2024, Waymo had ~10 thousand miles driven per disengagement, Zoox had ~28 thousand miles driven per disengagement [1]. I would say that this rate of human intervention qualifies as self driving.
On the contrary, it’s the companies doing the lawyering. A disengagement is when the vehicle reverts fully back to manual control. Tele-operation does not count as a disengagement, and the frequency of tele-operation intervention is a closely guarded industry secret.
There’s been reporting on this in several mainstream publications that was accurate as far as the systems I worked with. Unfortunately I don’t want to dox myself on here, so unsatisfyingly the best I can offer is “trust me bro”.
The tele-operation is also kinda vague because as I understand it, with Waymo at least, they are not turning a steering wheel and pushing pedals at HQ, they are saying "Pull over here" etc.
As somebody who has been reading them since the first year, I think you have it wrong. That self-driving prediction was always about Level 5 autonomy. What's changed between now and then is that we've basically stopped talking about that, instead accepting intervention-as-a-service companies as self driving.
Well, ans we're talking about within very specific locales.
Honestly, Brooks--who has been presented and self-presented as something of a skeptic with respect to autonomous self-driving--looks like something of an optimist at this point. (In the sense that your kid won't need to learn to drive.)
Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard! If someone else wants to try I warmly recommend starting with e.g. the ACX 2026 prediction contest: https://www.metaculus.com/tournament/ACX2026/
> Predicting well absent lawyering is really hard!
The author engages in rules lawyering of the evaluation of the predictions. The original predictions are clear.
Another example of this is the author's prediction that no robot will be able to navigate around the clutter in a US home, "What is easy for humans is still very, very hard for robots."
The author evaluated this prediction as not being met, "...I don't count as home robots small four legged robots that flail their legs quickly to beat gravity, and are therefore unsafe to be around children, and that can't do anything at all with their form factor besides scramble".
The author added constraints not in the original prediction (safe around children, must include a form factor able to preform an action, ...) then evaluated the prediction as accurate because no home robot met the original constraint + the new constraints.
Those robots are not "navigating AROUND the clutter", there are no consumer-deployed object recognition physics models that let a robot say "that's a ball that will roll, that's a shirt that will tangle, that's a sheet of paper that may slip", they're just charging chaotically through it. If you allow skittering robots, do you exclude a 90s RC car with the trigger taped down?
> 15-20% of the world is estimated to have a disability. So Stanford population is high, but approximately double the average of a random global population sample.
Stanford is not a random sample of the global population. Most notably, Stanford undergraduates are young, primarily between 18-24[1]. 8.7% of people in the US from ages 18-29 have a disability [2].
First, the site generator is MIT licensed but I don't see a link to the license. If someone forks this generator, would they be in compliance with MIT license requirements?
Second, the images linked in this site are quite nice. I can imagine someone choosing to use some of them as is. Are they yours to share?
Third, it appears that you are targeting non-developers. I would think about how to make it as easy as possible to customize. Decisions like putting images in "priv/output/images" seems a bit confusing.
Third: Yeah that's the challenge I'm working on at the moment.
Thanks for the feed back.
I do plan on cleaning up the repo so that you are not starting with the example and also plan on making a small tutorial video to show how much effort it takes to setup.
The baseline for watches is changing the battery every 3-5 YEARS! This modernity of charging watches daily is a pox on humanity brought on by Apple.
Pebble (and Fitbit, and others) were always in the "week-plus" timeframe for charging. Meeting the "minimum bar" of 14-17 days battery life (of the OG pebbles) is successful. Shooting for "30 days" is definitively best-in-class performance for smart-watches!
> I don't see why you are defining success as 30 days of battery life when the baseline is charging your watch every day.
Up until about 10 years ago, no one would have considered the baseline to be charging your watch every day. Even today, most watches/wrist-worn step counters don't require daily charging.
I wouldn't define 30 days as success, but I do want to start out at 2+ weeks. Battery life gets worse over time, and watches aren't meant to last for just a little while. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that will require charging more than once a week within a year or two.
Appreciate the links, but I'm guessing these are estimates with AOD disabled? That's another benefit of the Pebble (AOD doesn't reduce battery life).
Thank you for mentioning this. Not knowing the specs of a PS5, I'd assumed that the comparison was made because the PS5 now sold for less than the RAM it contains, and scalpers were now hungrily buying up all available PlayStation inventory just to tear them open and feast on the RAM inside.
But since it's 16 GB, the comparison doesn't really make sense.
Lets just zoom into a single use case. The ability of the user to buy a 3rd Party watch that integrates with their phone:
* Apple doesn't allow 3rd Party watches to send text messages. The Apple Watch is allowed to do so.
* Apple doesn't allow 3rd Party to take actions on notifications. The Apple Watch is allowed to do so.
* If you want to use the internet on your watch, you must: 1) install a 3rd party app, 2) keep that app open. Closing the app closes the connection to the internet. The Apple Watch does not have this restriction.
* 3rd Party watches cannot detect if you are using your phone. This means that they will notify users of notifications even if the user is looking at the notification. The Apple Watch does not have this restriction.
* Apple does not have ‘interprocess communication’(IPC) like Android.
* Apple restricts making 3rd Party App Stores. This makes it difficult to make a community of people making watch faces.
All points come from Pebble's blog [1]. This is just a single type of integration that Apple intentionally makes difficult, there are many others (e.g. 3rd Party Photos App, ...)
> in the worst case you're buying bogus keys or stolen accounts
Maybe this is just a hole in my knowledge but I don't see how this could be the case.
Regarding stolen accounts: Once I activate a Steam key, I can't deactivate my copy to get my key back (I don't think anyways). How would a stolen account generate steam keys?
Regarding bogus keys: If the keys primarily didn't work I suspect that we would see deplatforming of the site by payment processors. They generally don't like when all their customers issue chargebacks.
I think there is some risk that keys sold in a grey market are purchased by stolen credit cards but I can't imagine that this is too prevalent. I would think that the credit card owner would dispute the charge and Steam would deactivate the key.
A good number of these sites sell accounts, not keys. You buy an access to an account that you log in to, with the key enabled on it. Again, best case it’s a region swapped key between 5 people and g2a get paid and the devs get nothing. Worst case it’s a stolen credit card purchasing a single key.
> I would think that the credit card owner would dispute the charge and steam would deactivate the key.
Yes. Chargebacks are painfully expensive for the vendor. One chargeback for a $10 game likely undoes 4/5 sales.
You've twice asserted that "the devs get nothing". Can you please explain that?
Edit: I tried reading that link, but it loads and a few seconds later it is replaced with a "widget failed to load" error that removes all the text. Fun.
Sure - they got that key from _somewhere_. The reality is that if a key is being sold for $5, approx $0 will go to the developer - g2a get a cut, payment provider gets a cut, and either the key was bought for a rounding error of that price, or it was cribbed from a humble bundle or something. Yes you technically get a license for the game but none of that money is going to the people who make or fund the development, it’s going to middle men.
In the worst case, people buy the key from a store operated by the developer using a stolen credit card, flip it on g2a for 30% less and then the card owner files a chargeback on the initial purchase. Vendor bans the key, and the key sites just say “ok” and give you a new key under the guise of customer service but in reality it’s to cover the fact that a high number of their products will have that fate. A single chargeback will cost the dev the purchase price plus another $25 from their merchant, which means not only does that purchase net them 0 it costs them money if it was sold by them in the first place.
You might say you’re supporting games by purchasing them but it’s a bit like streaming music - listening to your favourite band on Spotify will net them approx 0, but buying their album on bandcamp will give them a lot. They’ll see as much from Spotify as they will from you pirating it.
It's likely because I use DNS-level blocking for a lot of junk and their "widget failed to load" was likely caught in that "junk" list. And the "widget" loader is badly (on purpose?) behaved and blanks the page.
I just read that article and while using stolen cards to buy keys is briefly mentioned in the first paragraph, that doesn't even seem to be the focus of the article.
On the surface, if a game developer generates and sells keys directly, they will always have to deal with fraud. It's a fact of life in ecomm. The fact that the keys are being flipped to a key reseller is beside the point, they will have to deal with the fraud. If they are giving away blocks of keys for free or highly discounted and those are making their way to a reseller, that is also something they need to deal with. They should be able to trace the providence of any given key they have issued. If they have commercial agreements in place about the disposition of keys from a batch and they can demonstrate that the batch was misused, that's a commercial contract dispute they need to solve.
I'm going to guess that most of these devs are using Steam to distribute their game and using their ability to generate keys they can sell. This, as far as I understand things, side-steps the Steam cut of a sale. If Steam is the one facilitating the sale, guess who is the merchant of record and deals with the charge-back.
Other than the dev selling a key directly and getting hit with a chargeback, if they are getting $0 in revenue from a key, that's their own fault for providing a key for free. If they didn't provide the key for free, then they would have had revenue. As for direct sales... they are in a better spot than merchants of physical goods. Those merchants not only lose the revenue and other aspects of devs, they physically are out the product. A dev can at least revoke the key.
I'll just close this out with, I don't buy from key resell sites as I find them less than reputable in most cases.
> I would think that the credit card owner would dispute the charge and Steam would deactivate the key
There's a real issue for both Valve and the game dev if this happens. The public isn't going to take this key doesn't work or worse my game stopped working after I bought it and blame nebulous credit card fraud, they're going to blame Valve and/or the dev
> There's a real issue for both Valve and the game dev if this happens. The public isn't going to take this key doesn't work or worse my game stopped working after I bought it and blame nebulous credit card fraud, they're going to blame Valve and/or the dev
It's actually worse than that. G2A have a "consumer friendly" approach whereby if your code doesn't work, they'll basically just take your word for it and give you a new one. In effect what it means is they don't really care if the codes are stolen/duds, they'll just go through _more_ to avoid them having a chargeback against them.
For example, the author takes the stance that current self driving cars (Waymo, Zoox) do not count as self driving. The justification being that a human operator is involved some small fraction of the time.
By law, Waymo must report disengagements in California. In 2024, Waymo had ~10 thousand miles driven per disengagement, Zoox had ~28 thousand miles driven per disengagement [1]. I would say that this rate of human intervention qualifies as self driving.
[1] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2025/02/03/2024-disen...
reply