Seems like a lot is being promised here for a 7 month old startup with one employee- SW, multiple different HW components, high end thermal mechanics delivering all of this by EOY 2024. Best of luck, I am legitimately rooting for this to be a winner (I love the concept of design meets efficient heat pumps and believe there is a substantial market here)... but how can outsiders trust to give you their money for a deposit when it's clear there is very high risk that this ever reaches market?
You're right - hardware is tough, and the scope is large. But this is an important area to build better products, there are a lot of people passionate about this/want to work on this and the hardware doesn't have to be designed from scratch. As for trust, the deposit is pretty low stakes, $100, fully refundable, reserves your place in line for a system. For those of you that placed a deposit, thank you, it means a lot!
Holmes never delivered a product that worked. Musk has delivered 4 Tesla models and counting, as well as VTOL rockets among many other accomplishments. Sure, he over-promises and under-delivers (or at least misses his timelines), but I wouldn't compare that to Holmes level fraud by any stretch.
Even if true, this will largely not affect a business like this. They make small money on each company and scale through the shear number of total companies that pay a few thousand dollars a month to use this service. People are not going to stop going on call because their revenue dropped 20%...
The market is still hot. You don't want to go IPO at say $50 and no trades. When the market crash everything will crash along with it. Some investors are probably very eager to cash out now than later.
Most schools require the organization that administers the exam to send the official scores. I can't imagine any school worth going to would allow for self-reporting of scores. It seems like the guy in charge of all of this had everyone from the exam proctors to heads of athletic departments to look the other way or just out right lie. I would be extremely pissed if I had been given an SAT or ACT by either of those two exam proctors, my college would instantly have a good reason to be suspicious about my exam scores.
I doubt these kids did any of the actual college application. If you are paying that much to get your kid into school, you are paying for someone to fill in the app, take the exams, write a bogus personal statement, and to pay off anyone to vouch for the lies. It's probably very turn key, you write a check and your kid gets an acceptance letter in the mail 6 months later. I'm sure these kids aren't in regular highschool either, they probably have "tutors" faking homeschool transcripts and credits for them. I wonder how well these kids do in college if they had to fake their application so badly.
Real commercial espresso machines are still a very manual process for many reasons. This is something you’d see in the micro kitchen of an office or an airport lounge, not a Starbucks.
how long until we start seeing computer vision applications that translate sign language? It's a pretty hard problem, but definitely something that's feasible with the right methods.
Wouldn't this be used in the same way as with any other language? I.e. customer only knows english sign language, but I don't, luckily my cash-register has a camera that can translate sign language to my language?
Companies would also be incentivized to not have too many extra cars on the road at all as they would be paying for it in terms of their running costs.
I ask myself that question every-single-day. I'm hoping they wake from their slumber and start competing against Box, MSFT, Google, etc., with real innovation. This may be a start... even if they had to buy it.
Nuclear has such a terrible reputation, and rightfully,people will always have legitimate complaints about it. We can never fully guarantee that a plant is free from the potential of catastrophe, not to mention we still don’t have a great solution to nuclear waste other than bury it in a mountain. It’s definitely a lot better than slowly suffocating ourselves by injecting hydrocarbons into the air, but we really need a revolution not evolution in energy.
Pretty much every other viable source of power - renewable or otherwise - is just as bad once you factor in all the externalities. Solar panel manufacturing ain't exactly pollution free. Nuclear would give us more time to solve those problems in an economical and scalable way.
Nothing is ever free of a potential for trouble. Solar panel could fall from the roof and hit someone over the head, and I'm sure that happened already, but nobody makes a huge deal out of it. Nuclear incidents are made huge deal of. It's a fight between Jane Fonda and Edward Teller, and Fonda is winning because a movie actress is apparently more trustworthy in a questions of nuclear energy than actual nuclear physicists. It's a highly irrational approach and it's way past time to come back to rationality on it - yes, nuclear plants can be dangerous, but the risks can be managed as all other risks are and the benefits of working nuclear industry are huge, especially compared to burning hydrocarbons, which is how we still get the majority of energy.
Sure, but a very bad nuclear incident (accidental or not) could more or less kill millions of people pretty quickly. Obviously hydrocarbons will kill more than that, but the optics of a nuclear catastrophe are in my opinion far worse than global warming which to many people is pretty abstract.
That's really the crux of the issue. Nobody cares if a thousand or two additional jobbers die falling off of roofs while installing solar panels, but if one person is exposed to sub-lethal quantities of radiation, everyone cares.
For killing millions of people quickly, you'd have to use a thermonuclear bomb (Hiroshima bomb killed about 100K people over the period of several months). No nuclear accident has ever happened that done anything like that. Chernobyl accident - where a lot of things went very wrong - killed about 40-50 people. Fukushima Daiichi incident so far has one known victim. To kill millions "pretty quickly", something very extra-ordinary - and probably impossible with current nuclear station designs - should happen, to the term of explosion of most powerful military device purposely built for mass destruction. In other words, you'd have to put an actual hydrogen bomb there - by which time, where you put it is less important.
Don't get me wrong - there are dangers in nuclear energetics. And the long-term effects of radiation incidents are still hotly debated. But as you just demonstrated, the dangers are way overestimated in public imagination and discourse. You use as an argument an imaginable incident that is at least five orders of magnitude worse than any accident that ever happened, and that is pretty much impossible given current technology, and are comparing it to very real dangers of the alternatives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_cra...