benzor

It's indeed sad to see. Game networking techniques have been known for multiple decades and yet still haven't made their into any of the major publicly available engines (notably Unreal and Unity). What gives?

As a game dev of 10+ years myself, I have a few theories:

1. Multiplayer networking is the "secret sauce" that creates moats/barriers to entry for incumbent studios. Think Rocket League or Fortnite or StarCraft 2. The tech exists, it's functionally well understood, but hard to implement at a high level of quality. Why not keep it to yourself? There is more money in holding onto your game revenue monopoly than trying to sell the network tech.

2. Game genres differ greatly in their networking needs. Rollback is great for fighting games but that's about it. StarCraft uses delay based deterministic lockstep. FPS games use (typically) ad-hoc server authoritative state syncs with client side prediction. Other complex games use full determinism with rollback, sending only inputs over the wire. Some cheapo indie games using client authoritative models (open to cheating but easy to implement, arguably fine for coop games). There are even more variants and blended approaches but you get the picture: there is no one size fits all approach and many are mutually exclusive so it's harder to package into an engine as a comprehensive solution.

3. Networking a game properly involves very leaky abstractions. It is impossible to write gameplay code for a networked game without understanding the nuance of the network model. This makes it substantially harder to develop the game, and this hurts the major game engines' marketability, with both major players Unity and Unreal guilty of selling themselves as "look ma no code required" solutions. Similar to point 1, not worth the money to sell this.

I don't see a great way out of this unfortunately. The only good networking middleware I know of is Photon and they're not exactly an easy to use product either. Hopefully we see better open source tooling in the future.

We don't need any understanding of AI/ML in government to effectively regulate the autonomous vehicle industry. Design an appropriate set of tests, make companies run the gauntlet, only approve the ones that pass. The test criteria is simple: does this software meaningfully and statistically significantly reduce the risk of accident/harm/death compared to the average human driver? Add caveats and conditionals as you wish for conditions/weather etc. but it's fundamentally a black box test with no knowledge of technical internals required.

I agree with your point that government regulation is fundamentally reactive to private sector innovation, hence lagging. That being said, this particular issue of autonomous driving has been a hot topic for the better part of a decade now and I would like our governments to tackle it.

It's really quite sad that the regulation of autonomous vehicles been so slow to come along. Public roads are filled with other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians that did not consent to be a part of a large scale beta test for partial driving automation that could fail at any time. I believe this is a case where self driving software should be default illegal until proven safe. Most companies in this industry, thankfully, seem to be moving carefully and rolling out their products conservatively; Tesla seems to think "move fast and break things" is an appropriate motto for 5000 lbs projectiles on public roads.

This is an excellent answer and took the thoughts right out of my mind.

To elaborate a bit for GP: No I would not have classified early stage Google or Facebook or Amazon as "perpetually unprofitable tech" because, frankly, they clearly weren't. All 3 of these companies had strong, obvious moats that enabled them to preserve pricing power. All 3 of these companies had a small handful of initial cap raises and have grown entirely via Free Cash Flow ever since. The fact that all 3 of these companies continue to operate with staggering profitability decades later confirms this. (You can of course debate the ethics of having such a moat, antitrust etc., but you cannot deny it's there.)

There's some nuggets of truth in here, but I am disappointed that this article sidesteps what I feel is the most important reason for startup success in 2020: easy and abundant access to cheap capital.

- Interest rates are at all time lows, borrowing is cheap

- The Fed's balance sheet is at an all-time high. The economy is flush with cash, particularly the investor / VC class

- This excess cash creates an (arguably artificial) wealth effect and drives an appetite for risk

- Large unicorn startups that are perpetual money losers continue to operate only because they are effectively subsidized by regular capital raises. Look no further than all the Silicon Valley darlings such as Uber, Netflix, AirBnb, Tesla, and so on. All of them would cease to exist without continued capital injection from secondary share offerings or VC raises

- These companies achieve growth and put pressure on the competition by offering their services below the real cost that would be needed to achieve profit, hence driving huge share price growth

- This share price growth attracts new investment from the momentum-chasing crowd, increasing appetite for subsequent secondaries, and then the cycle repeats

I don't mean to be cynical, but it's hard to see this ending well for some of the nouveau riche. Tech has been a great avenue to riches by offering real innovation in some cases, but the article's error-by-omission really gives the wrong impression.

You and GP are arguing two different things and are both right.

GP's claim is that Tesla would not be profitable without regulatory credit sales: this is true. Tesla's profit for 2020 is $721M and its credit sales for 2020 are $1.58B, just over double. It's fair to say that, were those credit sales to fall to zero, Tesla risks losing its profitable status. Here we're effectively discussing net profit margin for the company as a whole.

Your claim is that Tesla's automotive gross margin on car sales is 20%. This is also true, but only includes COGS (Cost of Goods Sold), so car parts and assembly costs. It does not include other expenditures such as CapEx or R&D. 20% sounds great (and it is), but when we look at the net profit margin, $721M of profit on $31.54B of revenue gives only a 2.2% net profit margin which is not as impressive.

It's therefore rather unfair to say that GP's claim is a misconception, it's actually perfectly true.

I too am skeptical (but happy to be proven wrong) about Honda's L3 claims. I think the "automaker optimism" is really just referring to Tesla loudly claiming they "will hit L5 this year" every year since 2015 while continuing to struggle. I don't see other automakers making such aggressive promises, thankfully.

They mention in the article that the smell is produced synthetically (presumably for this exact reason).

Please try refuting the ruling on its reasoning instead of peddling conspiracy theories.

Your claim relies entirely on the veracity of Tesla's safety report. Unfortunately I am inclined to mistrust any such vehicle safety claims directly from Tesla's own website. There is a conflict of interest in that they are incentivized to publish the most favorable numbers. We should be rightly cynical and rely only on numbers from an independent third party, as we would normally do for other companies with a less favorable reputation. Until we have such independently verified stats, we can't take those claims at face value.

I agree that anyone who feels uncomfortable with Tesla's ADAS should simply turn it off. But don't you think it's unfair for the company to place an unfinished product in the hands of a consumer and pass off the risk-management responsibility to them? Tesla's cavalier attitude towards autonomous vehicle safety is concerning to me. They seem to adopt the "move fast and break things" approach, whereas teams like Waymo and Cruise are releasing things in a slower and more controlled manner. And not coincidentally, they've have far less accidents that way.

As with most investing questions, keep in mind that the instrument (i.e. the way you place your specific bet) matters just as much as the actual sector.

Crypto, marijuana, self-driving, take your pick: you could totally nail the sector choice and still lose a lot of money if you make a wrong bet. Trade carefully, and diversify...