$2000.

$2000.

> this is ambiguous even to OpenAI

I took their words as “can neither confirm nor deny”, in the that they are _presenting_ it as ambiguous, but I suspect it’s… less ambiguous to OpenAI.

He did some work for The Witness and wrote some nice technical blog posts about it [1].

I don’t know the extent to which he contributed beyond that, but he is therefore by some reasonable definition _a_ game developer.

[1] the-witness.net/news/author/casey/

Neat!

Not sure if this is meant to be practical, but I think this would work better if the upcoming turn was centered in the view once it’s within a certain range, as a kind of anticipation. This helps prepare for the jarring shift in perspective and, in case there’s multiple turns in short succession (as there might be when exiting a highway, for instance), gives you a visual heads-up about what’s next.

There’s no better way to ruin usability than to hide how the system actually works in an effort to make it “easier”.

Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler. Anything else is deceptive.

With or without AI, if I had to talk about EBITDAs for my job, I too would have to take up knitting to feel like I’m doing something real. I’m sure Charlie Munger would agree.

On the scale of injustice, these are cosmically distant crimes.

> Drone and defense teams get boards back in 7 days

Oh

What’s the speculation about what leaked? Are we talking about next-gen on-device neural accelerators or something along those lines?

One of the things mentioned was specific metal finishing techniques for manufacturing.

The implication being at least some of this is to do with OpenAI making consumer hardware, as designed by Ives.

So just an accelerated version of the standard UI design trends cycle (which is bad).