It's not important tho and Colonel Kink is just wrong anyway, he was going to be appointed contingent on background checks and formal acceptance, he didn't, in the end, formally accept it but turned them down
Last edited:
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
It's not important tho and Colonel Kink is just wrong anyway, he was going to be appointed contingent on background checks and formal acceptance, he didn't, in the end, formally accept it but turned them down
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You are the one saying he never was on the board. Are you now accepting you were wrong? He agreed to not own more that 14% to take the board seat. Doesn't sound like someone who's intention is to buy all twitter stock regardless
you want to keep digging that hole dowie?
Last edited:
I've got no idea why you're stuck on this or why you can't understand what has happened here but no, I'm not wrong.
They agreed to appoint him to the board, this was contingent on a background check and formal acceptance of the offer, he didn't formally accept the offer but notified them on the morning he was due to be appointed that he won't accept the board seat. All you've done is share tweets announcing the appointment that he was due to take up but never formally accepted.
How is that so hard for you to follow? It's literally there in black and white from the twitter CEO.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Then don't, you literally asked me a direct question and I answered. For some reason, you've had a massive reading comprehension fail even when presented with a clear statement from the CEO.
He was due to join the board but turned it down, how is that so hard to understand?
Moving on…
Anyone see the Tesla robot? It seems a long way behind the competition.
You have Boston Dynamics robots doing parkour around indoor gym and the Tesla robot can’t even wave to the audience without looking like it’s going to fall over.
What am I missing?
Anyone see the Tesla robot? It seems a long way behind the competition.
You have Boston Dynamics robots doing parkour around indoor gym and the Tesla robot can’t even wave to the audience without looking like it’s going to fall over.
What am I missing?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Alt lite sympathies.
Tesla got to that stage in just a year, Boston Dynamics has taken a three decades to get to where they are mostly using control theory (they're not big on AI/ML AFAIK).
If Tesla nails the software/training aspects for this thing they could progress further quite rapidly and they've got a good ML team so I'd not discount it.
Fair enough. Let’s see where they are in a few years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,413
- Location
- Surrey
Surely that is a joke comment?
Why stop at 3 decades? The world is what, 4.5 billion years old, surely it took Boston dynamics 4.5 billion years old to create their robot?
What has the length of time, given one started when a pc didn't even exist, got to do with anything here when comparing the 2?
Are you trolling here? You asked me a question in your previous post - you seemed to think I'd got something wrong because Colonel Kink had made a different assertion, I've then answered your question and you've ignored it - why is that?
You're not making any sense here, Boston Dynamics was formed in 1992, it's not some arbitrary period of time I've made up, they've been working on this for 30 years.
dlockers
D
dlockers
tHeYvE gOt A gOoD mL tEaM
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,413
- Location
- Surrey
How can you not see what's so blatantly obvious to everyone, which is how silly and thoughtless it is to say "tesla did something in 1 years which took another company 30 years to do which is why tesla is better"
"It took 1000 years for civilisation to perfect rice growing, and just 1 month for walkers to create ready salted crisps, therefore walkers are better at making food."
All the while ignoring technological advances made in those years. Boston dynamics probably even invented some of the advances that tesla now enjoys.
Tesla bot may be better, but using the time it took tesla in 2022 to make a basic bot, and comparing it to the time it took Boston dynamics to make a bot in 1990 is nuts.
Also, Boston Dynamics founded in 1992. Tesla wasn't founded in 2021 but you know that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,280
- Location
- The South
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,413
- Location
- Surrey
Don't forget this is SC, though you're right
Last edited:
What are you talking about?
It was said that the Tesla robot was worst. The argument for this being that Tesla haven't worked on it for as long and that's why it's not as good.
And yes Tesla wasn't founded in 2021, but they have been a car manufacturer from the beginning, unlike Boston Dynamics which has always worked on robotics.
Eh? Who said they were founded in 2021? They've been working on this robot for 1 year.
Notably, you're ignoring my question, your trolling attempt is quite transparent now.
It's not much good he's not actually interested in any of this, he's just clutching at something to have a go at/change the subject as his previous attempt at a dunk failed when he was presented with clear evidence.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 17,413
- Location
- Surrey
I'm fairly certain the opposite is what was said.
Did you read the second paragraph of his post?
Irish Tom literally asks "what's the fuss", and dowie replies with why there's a fuss in dowie's view.
The argument was clearly "they haven't been working on it as long and look where they already are"
Last edited:
- Status