Having been to Gatwick plenty of times, the weakness with this vs the already existing valet parking is that the valet parking is just 1 story of the short stay car park.
You just drive up, drop your keys and go, your car is parked in a long line of cars that they can asynchronously drive off to long stay. The key thing is the location - you're a 30 second walk over a bridge into the terminal. Probably a hundred cars can be sitting waiting to be driven off to the long stay at the time, so they can handle the drop off/pick up of many cars at once. Whereas with this solution each "bay" will be occupied for a time while the autonomous robot drives off the previous vehicle, so you either need to over-provision - have many robots servicing a single bay to cope with peak times, or you'll need some local skid buffer.
From a customer point of view. This is on the outskirts of the airport so it's a much longer walk without a covered path (so you'll get wet because at some point it will start raining again in the UK). It's maybe slightly better than long stay, where you do need a bus journey (which tbh isn't that bad). But I'm not sure how much juice is in this application to squeeze.
Presumably this robotic valet will shift more towards long-term parking distant from the airport when it's known a customer is not returning. Today that's presumably cost ineffective.
Take a look at most successful journalism today. It's behind a paywall. You get paid by the people who are interested and value your work.
Can Google steal it and present it in an AI overview? Well kinda. Today Google is doing a trick - they're saying "You can refuse to consent to being fed into the slop machine, but if you do we won't crawl you for Google so you'll get no search traffic. But you're not going to get search traffic anyway! So you might as well opt out of being fed into the slop machine. And companies are starting to do that [1]
It's really interesting, because essentially what it means is Google is turning into a walled garden, but there's nothing growing inside it so they have to continually import new plants to live in their walled garden and they're going to have to pay to do that. So soon Google will be paying news sites for the right to plumb their feed into the slop machine.
I think this is a reasonable set of objections to how cut and paste works if you were designing it from scratch. I'm not saying I agree with the conclusions, cut AND paste, is 2 operations so it seems silly to say you can undo both with 1 undo. It's kind of a RISC/CISC thing, is your opcode CUTANDPASTE or CUT and PASTE?
I think there's two elements to this. First - all the things you list are important too, and we'll get to that. But there's no point in getting to those things if the candidate can't write 5 lines of python and has no idea how the language operates.
Second, hiring at startups is massively different to hiring at big companies. At big companies you have a website and a linkedin and a recruiter and external recruiters and they're all funnelling CVs to you dozens at a time. You're glancing over a CV and if it looks roughly right you'll do a phone screen. People lie on their CVs. So you need a few questions like this just drop the 90% of candidates who have literally no chance at getting the job. Keep in mind, the external recruiters will interview the candidates you reject, find out your interview questions, find the answers and tip off future candidates.
We're also hiring for a different set of skills. At a start up everyone is doing everything. Does it matter how well you can talk to customers? Maybe! That could be useful. In a large company if you ever talk to a customer as an engineer you will have been at the company for years, you'll have a Sales guy, Technical Sales guy, an Account Manager, your manager, and maybe a Project Manager all in the room if you ever get to see a customer.
The praise for the Chinese labs is generally around how they deliver fantastic results with less resources. xAI is the opposite, they're struggling to keep up with frontier - massive churn, selling off compute because of lack of adoption, acquihiring to fix their deficits, whilst having the most resources of any AI Lab. It makes it difficult to evaluate things like "Is the API price competitive because they have an efficient model, or because they don't need to make money".
It's not a problem for you maybe, but if you run a business providing some niche specific software in some area, having the model suck up all your code and learn from it is pretty harmful because your competitors and customers will be able to vibe code your product after the next model release. You're training a competitor to your business. People are very worried about this which is why companies like Claude don't train on enterprise data, and for lots of companies this exact situation is a deal breaker.
>The Org Chart Survivor - Your company made you 'AI Lead' on top of your actual job. You use it, it helps sometimes, and you've stopped trying to explain to leadership what it can and can't do. You run little experiments and post the results. Just try things, you keep saying. Just try things.
This was scarily accurate, and I think the options for the answers were fairly representative of peoples' different views.
I think what's interesting is that on social media we're generally discussing one of those 15 questions, not all of them in context. Multiple things can be happening in parallel. I'm not convinced about it's use in medical imaging and I think the companies are going to probably mostly go bankrupt, but much like the internet or railroads something of value will emerge from the other side. It's not like crypto in the fact that there is actually something of value there beyond just crime.
I agree, I think we should go back to the old system of letting them be fully private and just taxing their gains heavily to pay for the public debts/needs.
Why 50% and not 100%? The obvious answer is it creates strange incentives. Maybe something like 5% across the board for all large tech companies make sense?
Or instead, they could just continue the simple route of taxing companies via corporation tax and dividend tax without having to worry about ownership at all.
The hardware will become obsolete but we may end up with an oversupply of cheap power - overbuild on things like Nuclear and solar. That would be nice.
You just drive up, drop your keys and go, your car is parked in a long line of cars that they can asynchronously drive off to long stay. The key thing is the location - you're a 30 second walk over a bridge into the terminal. Probably a hundred cars can be sitting waiting to be driven off to the long stay at the time, so they can handle the drop off/pick up of many cars at once. Whereas with this solution each "bay" will be occupied for a time while the autonomous robot drives off the previous vehicle, so you either need to over-provision - have many robots servicing a single bay to cope with peak times, or you'll need some local skid buffer.
From a customer point of view. This is on the outskirts of the airport so it's a much longer walk without a covered path (so you'll get wet because at some point it will start raining again in the UK). It's maybe slightly better than long stay, where you do need a bus journey (which tbh isn't that bad). But I'm not sure how much juice is in this application to squeeze.
reply