About 10 years ago I implemented cookie based sessions for a project I was working on. I had a terrible time debugging why auth was working in Safari but not Chrome (or vice-versa, can't remember). Turned out that one of the browsers just wouldn't set cookies if they didn't have the right format, and I wasn't doing anything particularly weird, it was a difference of '-' vs '_' if I recall correctly.
IIRC there is (or was?) a difference in case-sensitivity between Safari and Chrome, maybe with the Set-Cookie header? I've run into something before which stopped me from using camelCase as cookie keys.
Can't seem to find the exact issue from googling it.
I made something like this and briefly had it online but I didn't think there would be enough demand to make the time and costs of running it worth it.
There weren't good CAD tools to send the designs to the machine until recently. Early CAD tools mostly produced drawings and it was a separate step to manufacture from there.
The way inkjet and laser printers work is also quite different from the way a 3d printer works. The similarity is mostly in the gantry, so there was nontrivial innovation required here.
To some extent 3d printing is probably also a reaction to decreased access to domestic manufacturing. It doesn't make a lot of sense to produce most parts in plastic if you can get a cast or milled part quickly and cheaply.
People like that drive cars like that because they're interesting and being forced to live with the thing makes him better understand it and why any given aspect of it is a pro or a con and for who in what situations it has nothing to do with whether it's overall a good car for sale in a particular market at a particular point in time.
The CEO of a major car company saying a foreign phone companies car is "fantastic" and he "doesn't want to give it up" is sending a far stronger signal than you are admitting here.
If you want long-term thinking then people have to be able to buy into stories about what's going to happen long-term. When Musk does that, you call it a lie. The benefit of financialization is that it provides cheaper access to capital, which should make long-term investment easier, not harder. America still has lots of capital intensive industries that are capable of thinking long-term. I don't think financialization has much to do with the strategic problems that many American companies face.
At the same time that Intel was allowing product quality to degrade, Nvidia, a 30 year old company, was continuing to innovate.
No, I don't have a personal axe to grind against Musk. I'm just pointing out his persistent, repeated lies. Being an engineer, he should be able to gauge their capabilities accordingly, or at least make those optimistic predictions closer to the finish line.
"Lies" is pretty charged phrasing for what are explicitly declared as best-case timeline estimates, which the media then loves to (disingenuously) revise into "promises."
The not-so-big management secret is that even if Musk took your advice and sandbagged his timelines, then the timelines still wouldn't be met. However it would move the actual time of completion further to the right! By using best-case predictions, things are actually getting done sooner. Call it the Applied Parkinson's Law.
They've been selling something which doesn't exist for years, as a fixed fee, or subscription. Most large companies end up walking a tightrope of getting away with as much as possible. But FSD can only be described as a lie, a euphemism if you're feeling generous [1].
It's a company worth unthinkable amounts of money. Most people would have less patience with a guy running a Patreon in his spare time who had claimed for years his supporters would have a product soon, let alone an organisation swimming in funding (Twitter debacle aside).
The US is actually permissive relative to other countries. In most countries if you disclose your invention before filing you lose the right to patent it.
Everybody loses right to patent it. Which is fair.
In US someone else can still patent your invention if you didn't. That's where the extortion is to patent it.
ANS encoding was invented and published by it's inventory without patent explicitly for everybody to be able to use it.
And yet Microsoft just patented a subset of it. It was granted a patent on a thing they didn't invent and was already published for the explicit goal of leaving it patent free.
In theory that patent is not valid since it is based on something that was already published, but I agree that in practice some companies will pay to avoid going to court.
In theory you can't patent something that has already been described prior to the filing date. In practice I'm sure there's been things that've been patented that someone else independently invented beforehand. It's also not always clear if something is a new invention or not (e.g., some chemical has been known for a while but someone realized it could be used to treat some disease).
reply