With all the hidden fees and exorbitant cleaning fees, I think it is much cheaper to book a hotel than an airbnb nowadays. No wonder demand is going down.
It makes a lot of sense if I am traveling with more than two, staying more than two nights, and I want to cook my own meals and/or do laundry.
I’m traveling to upstate NY for a wedding during the fall. All of the shitty motels and hotels were $350/night and Airbnb was $400, but I ended up with a lot more comfort and creature comforts as well as it being 20 mins closer than any of the chain hotels; those are the only reason I chose it for a one-night stay.
It tends to succeed in a few situations for me - vacations in backcountry areas, a backup to Hipcamp for campsites and getting a single room. I have found bizarrely it is not cheaper to find a comparable hotel unless the destination is popular.
If you just need a room for the night, sure, of course you should book a hotel. Airbnb never made sense in that case to begin with. For a slightly higher price, however, Airbnb gets you a 1 bedroom apartment (or 2-4 rooms for an entire group) plus a living room, functioning kitchen, multiple bathrooms, and depending on the property a private patio, pool etc. No hotel can compete with that.
People still put spare rooms in their house on Airbnb, and you can still book them. It will be a lot cheaper than a hotel. But that's not what anyone really means when they are talking about Airbnb anymore. The vast majority are looking for a private space.
It's like tech people have to relearn why we had age old things in the first place. We're starting to workout why hotels are a good idea now.
I saw Elon Musk questioning why we have medical regulations the other day, he was saying that it "slows down innovation" and so he thinks medical regulation should be abolished. He did the same for content moderation on his platform.
Well I don't agree that regulations stifle innovation, they might slow down the rollout of innovative products, but there is a very good reason why regulation was established in the first place. Could it be better? Yes.
If writing something in blood made it correct I'd keep a pot of mouse blood handy for math tests. The fact that safety regulation is written in blood is one of the tells that it is overdone - it should be written with a dispassionate and distant consideration of the costs and benefits.
The major argument for rolling back most safety regulations is the fact they are written in blood during what was, effectively, a moral panic. Just tightening the regulations every time something goes wrong leads, ironically, to bad outcomes. The optimum state is to tolerate some level of risk.
I think it'd be hilarious if it wasn't so on-brand for Elon that he has a company that is designing brain-computer interfaces as an implant and while, to be clear, Neuralink obviously has medical and research leadership, not one of them is flagged on the company's website. Their "company" section is literally Blog and Careers.
The popular talking point is the FDA slowing things down. The large criticism given by most is the FDA not allowing drugs already approved by other large foreign medical regulation to be used, like the NHS or Australia's review body.
There is moderation on Twitter today things do occasionally get removed like death threats and the ilk.
You're likely misremembering his 'medical regulation = bad' arguments, and misremembering his twitter content policies as well.
>I saw Elon Musk questioning why we have medical regulations the other day, he was saying that it "slows down innovation" and so he thinks medical regulation should be abolished
Is he just posturing for his fans?
I see so many statements of this nature from him and I just can't believe that a person that successful can be so monumentally stupid.
> I see so many statements of this nature from him and I just can't believe that a person that successful can be so monumentally stupid.
Clearly, you're not a student of history then. The trope of folks being good at one thing and believing that this can be extrapolated to other things is based on an almost infinite history of humans doing this exact thing, from politicians, business leaders, engineers, scientists, artists and just ordinary folks. When you couple this with the amplifying effects of having the money to surround yourself with 'yes'-folks that continuously reinforce your 'brilliance', and having the power that results in politicians kowtowing to you, then it is incredibly difficult to break out of that supreme belief in your own genius. It is literally a trap as old as humanity.
I see many, many tech people take an extremely simple position on a topic contrary to general knowledge.
Then they say something like 'I believe in strongly held beliefs, held weakly'.
I'm so bored of debating people with opinions on things they've spent zero time researching or even thinking about. Just say you don't know. It's okay.
this is like complaining about small talk. small talk is meant to draw people in. same with saying outrageous things. no one wants to chat in depth immediately and saying wild things draws a crowd.
no one is going to talk with you if you're drawing out all the nuance of medical regulation (nearly an 5k essay to broach) with nuance.
As a 'captain of industry' and generally wealthy man, Musk is much more constrained by regulation than he is protected by it. Unlike the common man.
So he's responding to his incentives, railing at the constraints on the ingenuity and productivity of people like himself. Likely underdeveloped empathy does not help.
In my view the difference comes down to accountability. In all of the heavily-regulated environments I’ve worked in, humans are responsible for compliance in systems.
If an LLM generates vulnerable code that evades detection and makes it into production, and that vulnerability is exploited, who is responsible? Presumably, the humans who were tasked with reviewing and approving the code.
As the famous quote states, it is easier to write code than to read it. An LLM would be great for improving developer tooling to generate boilerplate code, etc., but I see tremendous risk for any firms attempting to let an LLM design and build any substantial non-trivial pieces of system code. And the effort required to review the code is at least on the same order of magnitude as it would be to write the code (beyond the trivial “make me an HTTP controller or HTML form for these operations” and the like)
ARM should gain about 30% in a single gen to be competitive with Apple/Qualcomm processors. It's going to be interesting to see if they can achieve this. Ultimately, competition is good for the consumer. Android phones are so far behind Apple, it is not funny anymore.
The Cortex X4 Running at 3.3.Ghz on a N4 gets GB6 ~2250. #681.8/Ghz
The Apple A17 Running at 3.8 Ghz on a N3 gets GB6 ~2950. #776.3/Ghz
On a clock per clock basis, A17 is only about 14% faster. Consider X4 had 15% IPC uplift and resulted in real world 11% performance improvement on GB6. And they are claiming X5 would have the largest YoY IPC uplift, which I think we could consider to be 15%+ or 20%, a Cortex X5 would have similar if not slightly better than A17 performance on a Clock to Clock basis.
And it would be good enough for Microsoft / ARM PC.
Apple lets their CPUs and GPUs run at a higher max frequency/power draw, but you're absolutely right that in clock-to-clock performance they're only marginally better in both CPU and GPU performance.
If you clock CPUs low enough, many CPUs in the past could match Apple in clock-to-clock performance. This is because clock speed does not scale with performance.
"The absolute top end Android processors get about 76% of the performance of Apple's processors" isn't the strong argument you may think it is tbh. Per clock performance is uninteresting (it's not like performance is linear with clock speed anyway, and target clock speed is a huge part of the CPU, so I don't even understand why you'd want to adjust for it even in principle in this comparison).
Per-clock performance is THE metric. Apple can't sustain those peak clocks for more than a few seconds before throttling down. Once both chips are running at a sustainable 2-2.5GHz, the IPC starts mattering a lot.
If Apple can't sustain those clock speeds for long, that's reflected in the benchmark result. Benchmarks and real-world performance are the only metrics which matter in the end.
And higher clock speed doesn't proportionally improve either real world metrics or benchmark results, so "benchmark score divided by clock speed" is a useless metric.
The CPU peaked out at 14 Watts in multicore Geekbench. That's close to the peak CPU power consumption of the entire M1 chip in devices many times larger than an iPhone.
GeekerWan had it throttling 200-300MHz when simply running specInt/specFP. It essentially throttles down to the same speed of the iPhone 14 at slightly higher wattage.
For mobile devices, real-world peak CPU performance hasn't gotten much better than my aging iPhone 12 because most of the extra performance has come at the expense of heat/power.
I assume this comment is just here to supply various vaguely CPU-related technical info in case someone is curious, not to argue against my point? Because if it's the former then that's fine, but if it's the latter it doesn't really hit the mark
>it's not like performance is linear with clock speed anyway
It doesn't scale well beyond certain clock speed, which is why extreme overclocking dont get you a linear performance boost. But at the ranges mobile SoC it is about as linear as it gets. i.e Clocking your SoC from 3Ghz to 3.3Ghz will get somewhere around ~10% improvement in most workload.
>and target clock speed is a huge part of the CPU
Target clock speed is a huge part of considering for power usage.
As you suggest, the performance benefits of increased clock speeds is highly workload specific. I agree. It's roughly linear for some workloads up to a point, and highly non-linear for other workloads (especially memory bandwidth constrained workloads, which is a relevancy case given that it's SoCs we compare, not stand-alone CPUs).
Yes, target clock speed is a big part in considering power usage, but also fab process, memory architecture, etc. Adjusting for clock speed makes no sense, though adjusting for power consumption might.
This is why we should only trust reviews from reputed independent publications. But good for the market and AMD if these claims are true. Competition breeds innovation.
Agreed - it's great to see AMD actually competing with Nvidia. Everyone will benefit, probably even including Nvidia as well since they can't make enough GPUs to satisfy market demand, and since they may become less likely to rest on their laurels.
The reasons mentioned are exactly the reasons to have work-life balance. You have time, you have energy, you have less responsibilities. You should travel, explore various hobbies, and experience new things. By the time you are in your 30s, you will have too many responsibilities to do anything else.
Apple pays a premium to TSMC to reserve the early runs on the next gen nodes. They can do this because they can charge their users a premium for Apple devices. I am not sure the rest of the players have that much pricing power or margins.
