Landing page yes but is it actually working with production performance?
I have strong doubts after executing your own demo query of "Summarize the reviews you have on products in the OCR category." in the system.
If the idea is just demo and collecting leads, then you could have cached at least your demo queries.
Why they won't enable search for their main web user crowd is beyond me.
Perhaps they are just afraid of scale. With all their might, it's still possible that they can't estimate the scale and complexity of queries they might receive.
A user's personal data really does not have that much scale. Worst case they can cache everything locally. I've imported thousands of chat sessions into a local AI chat app's database, total storage is under 30MB. Full text search (with highlights and all) is almost instant.
They did staged rollouts for almost every recent feature.
I think it might be in their interest if you just ask the LLM again? Old answers might not be up to their current standards and they don't gain feedback from you looking at old answers
So it very well could be that thinking on a worn neuron, trying to do memory access on it, might damage it even more (leg analogy)? It could be possible that the "swelling" could be redirecting brain to use other paths but with caffeine you're utilizing a worn-out neuron.
Maybe with chronic deprivation + caffeine habit, you're weakening your cognitive function - repeatedly using a misfiring neuron. At least, with no caffeine, you'd feel your memory is hazy and hard to recall, go to sleep.
IANANeuroscientist, but my idle-thought was that a lack of sleep could cause a buildup of waste byproducts, and structural adaptations might either reduce the effect of the buildup or else make its removal marginally easier.
Both will seem dull going forward.
TTS will feel more natural every passing year so the current spending for any TTS model will seem kind of wasteful after 1-2 years.
Boeing is 64% of spirits revenue. Without Boeing, they don't exist anyway. Not to mention how Boeing's stock might be down, but they are not going to disappear at all.
Just from a strategic standpoint, USA has Boeing, EU Airbus and China has the Chinese Boeing /Airbus. Major aviation companies just aren't created any more, no major government would let their strategic assets fall like that.
And 16 years later it has only "sold" less than a dozen airframes overseas (and non delivered). It was only this year (2024) that a Comac aircraft has completed its second international flight (Vietnam).
Comac have a long long way to go yet; they have yet to tackle the certification issue let alone the delivery and operational issues. Maybe another decade?
Only then could it be considered a proper international airframer.
> Patrick Michael Shanahan (…) is a former United States federal government official who served as the acting United States Secretary of Defense in 2019.
which is to say that these are companies that are, in essence, controlled by the US Government when it comes to their strategic future, so in cases like this one here the money involved is of secondary importance.
> which is to say that these are companies that are, in essence, controlled by the US Government
Shanahan was in government for two years under a different administration, after 31 years at Boeing, and then returned to the private sector at the helm of a publicly-traded company. Nothing about this screams “controlled by the U.S. government.”
A high-executive getting appointed as Minister of Defence and then rapidly returning as a CEO of a company which has lots of Government contracts tells me exactly that. Had this happened in Russia or China the Western media would have had no qualms in painting said companies as Government pawns.
Depends on the stock you’re trading in, and judging from the news, spirit stock might just be even less solid than Boeing. As far as I understand, a lot of Boeings issues are connected to Spirit as a subcontractor. At the very least, you can rest assured that the US government won’t let Boeing fail completely.
Uhh, it’s a public traded company, you sell the stock if you don’t have faith in the company fixing things.
There are two commercial airline manufacturers in the world and a rapidly growing global population. Boeing has a 10+ year manufacturing backlog of 5600+ aircraft. Airbus has a backlog of about 7500. Both companies produce around 550 commercial units a year.
> Both companies produce around 550 commercial units a year
Boeing has significantly lower production rates nowadays - due to supply chain issues and massive incompetence that led to a near crash. For the 737 Max, their highest selling model, they're capped at 38 by the FAA, below the 45 they did last year and well below their 57 target (all figures in per month).
Their only other jet in manufacturing is the 787 which has a healthy backlog.
The 777X is delayed for years and won't see any deliveries before 2026.
Also, they have union negotiations with two important unions that have been saving money for years for a strike coming up in the next few months. And they're in the midst of a CEO change after the previous CEO was ousted by airline customers. Oh and their credit rating is on its way to a downgrade, meaning it will become even more expensive for them to get the loans they need to fix themselves.
Boeing are not going to get any better any soon. It will take years of hard effort and lots of money, which means their stock will be in the gutter for years to come.
> which means their stock will be in the gutter for years to come
You're missing the point of my reply. The person was acting like accepting billions of dollars in $BA stock was an unconscionable thing. It's a highly liquid and relatively stable stock. Even if they have a 6-month lockup, the price won't likely materially change. Will Airbus continue to take market share from Boeing? Sure. But Boeing isn't going anywhere in any of our lifetimes.
And you're missing the bigger picture. Boeing are in a slump, and things will only get worse in the foreseeable future.
And the problem is that when the foreseeable future is over, it will be the 2030s and we'll probably have entirely new radical designs flying. Hydrogen propulsion, CFM Rise, blended wings, etc. etc. If Boeing are bleeding money and taking on expensive debt, how will they prepare for those times? If multiple of their designs are being years late, how will they have the engineering capacity to think of future designs?
Boeing the company is going nowhere. Boeing the commercial airplane maker is circling the drain in terms of how competitive they are. Their military and cargo jets, as long as the massive backlog, will keep them up for the next two decades easy. However if they can't improve themselves by next decade, they'll be forever behind.
Who the fuck are you arguing with? I’m not suggesting $BA is a good investment. I said it’s a totally fine vehicle to accept payment in because it’s relatively stable and easily converted to cash.
Do you find yourself doing this a lot? Forcing conversations into a direction where you can drop your fifteen minutes of research on a topic?
This is the part I'm arguing with, directly quoted from you. They're in for a bad decade of heavy and expensive debts, missing delivery targets, prolonged strikes. This does not make for a stable stock price.
People don’t seem to understand this simple reality about the stock market. Pessimism or optimism about a company’s future is already priced in. People don’t wait for a company to fail before they start selling.
The economy expects us all to be guild navigators - doesn't matter how your body is transformed if you're producing some economic value in the near term.
Here's a wild guess: Through SpaceX design experience (rip apart, challenge all assumptions and rebuild better), Elon Musk (Falcon Aviation) will try to build a far more efficient and safe alternative to existing 737s.
With Trump coming to power, Boeing's tarnished credibility will be a major issue to address. I'm expecting US government will incentivize this process. Boeing will lose good engineers out to this fresh competition.
I love me some wild speculation, but it seems more likely that SpaceX needed a more capable jet to ferry large, critical parts from Hawthorne to Brownsville. Otherwise they'd need to go on a trailer.
Now for my own wild speculation: SpaceX has shown renders of using Starship to do point to point passenger travel. And Elon appears to fixate on goals like that. My impression is that he would view reverse-engineering a passenger plane as a distraction for the company.
Any case similar to this? What kind of boards you find to be more fitting for the case of OpenAI? It may not be Tesla but you’re probably drawing another reference from history, right?
It is hard to think of a case of a public charity that owns a controlling interest in a for-profit subsidiary and that is all they do. The Morman church owns a lot of businesses, but it is still the Morman Church.
Note that in the US, private foundations are not permitted to own a controlling interest in a for-profit company, so the example has to be a public charity. IKEA is controlled by a Dutch nonprofit foundation, but it has no obligation to the public except to give away a small portion of the profits.
If the idea is just demo and collecting leads, then you could have cached at least your demo queries.
Everybody's too landing-page focused these days.