Nope. But in my experience, in well-designed cities, you rarely need to walk more than about 250 m to 500 m on either end of the trip, and if you're working in a dense urban core, you often get delivered right to your building or very close to it.

Ah, yes. Another "one day people like me will force people like you to live the way we think you should" post.

Keep dreaming!

Personally, I want a self-driving RV. Go to sleep and wake up at the destination.

Yes, the magic house.

Twenty years from now the techno-nomadic lifestyle will be commonplace. Why own a home that stays in one spot when you can own a home that lets you wake up in a different destination whenever you want? Think of the modern RV culture, but multiplied 100-fold.

A Waymo taxi is probably around 4.5m long and can hold 5 people. So 28m worth of Waymo taxis bumper-to-bumper with zero clearance between them can hold 30 people... less than one-quarter of the tram. In reality, you're probably only going to get 15-20 people in the Waymos because of the clearance between them.

Individual vehicles are just about the worst way to move a lot of people efficiently.

And will that tram pick up and deliver each of those 130 people directly at the doors of their homes or workplaces? Because I have yet to see a bus, trolley, or subway car that will do that for 99.99% of its passengers.

Waymo can do exactly that. That is exactly the reason why Waymo and Uber and Lyft (and taxis!) exist. Mass transit cannot solve the last-mile problem.

In Arizona, the police routinely have to rescue people who drive around roadblocks into flooded arroyos and wind up with their vehicles floating down the wash. It got so bad while I lived there that the city had to start charging people a fee for their rescue to curb the stupidity.

A decade from now, I have no doubt that the authorities will still have to rescue drivers in flooded roadways. I am also certain that Waymo vehicles will have stopped making that mistake years earlier. We can fix autonomous vehicles. We can't fix humans. I'll take the Waymo, thank you.

What is the different problem that they solve?

Here's one: the Waymo will never sexually harass a female passenger. And yes, a lot of women choose Waymo over Uber, Lyft, a taxi, or even public transit for exactly that reason.

It's amusing to see people assuming the "Get off my lawn!" roles of their elders over AI and autonomous vehicles. Not so long ago I recall similar "shout at the sky" attitudes on Slashdot about Uber and Lyft, which have now become the "good guys" because they employ human drivers (who sometimes sexually harass their passengers, of course).

Waymo is giving half a million rides a week right now, and that number should double by the end of 2026. Even if you could somehow shut down Waymo tomorrow, a Chinese company would move right in and take its place, because the technology is not going away.

The case was won on a technicality. The core issue was never really addressed.

Other than MBAs, I can't think anyone with a masters... If you aren't going to make PhD at Standford, Harvard, etc. in the hard sciences, they give you a masters and tell you "nice try, now please move along." People either do a PhD (free because you are teaching or doing research) or start working after their BS. After four years of undergrad, you should have the tools you need. If you don't know something, you should be able to quickly teach yourself. A PhD means you can say you are the world's leading expert in something very narrow, and you were the the first person to find/discover/explain/prove/etc. something new. Very cool!

Someone is anthropomorphizing.

This is a good way to grow. The old "the first hit is free" model. However, in this scenario, the AI companies should give their product away for free and recognize no revenue. They can report active users per month or something similar. Subsiding the sales and then recognizing the revenue feels like fraud.

I have no particular love for Intel or its products, but I do hope this is the beginning of a turnaround for them, for no other reason than their strategic importance to the U.S. domestic IC industry.

On the other hand, I've seen no compelling evidence so far that they've really learned from their previous mistakes. Only time will tell.

Does it really take $1.25 billion in opex to give away $9 billion? WOW!

$1.25 billion get you 5,000 employees making 250k each. At a charity???? (I know. There is also coffee, insurance, rent, lawyers, etc.)

Who on earth is running this place? Oh. Wait...

It's genius. Say the product is too dangerous, and you can't have it. Have the few people who actual touch it sign NDAs.

Sit back watch the news go wild.

Company valuation jumps.

Good job Intel, but I don't think most people bought a Neo over a comparable Windows laptop just because of the processor. It's more the whole package (i.e.great build quality). Now if Intel stuffs their new Neo killer processor in a machine that looks and feels like a Neo in terms of overall hardware, then they might have a shot.

The thing is, in the long run I can't see this new processor having any legs at Intel. Intel's bread and butter is high-end, high-margin products. Working on those chips is what advances your career at Intel. Working on the low-margin products will never get you noticed or rewarded.

They've never had any appetite for competing in the low-end market, and in fact have repeatedly flubbed every attempt to gain a foothold. I have to wonder how many good engineers at Intel found their careers going off a cliff after being assigned to the purgatory of discount microprocessor design.

The CIA is running Chinese language ads looking for spies.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...

The US will pay very good money for secrets.

These guys could have quietly cut a deal with the NSA/CIA. Now that China knows to look for them, they better watch their backs. Talk about poking the dragon.