modeless

Luckily you don't need to be infected by parasites to have a good immune system. What seems to work best is exposure to bacteria and viruses and fungi and parasites that don't infect humans. Things associated with other plants and animals. The immune system learns better from the things that it is effective at protecting you from than the things that outsmart it. So let's not bring back the human parasites.

It's true that Meta hasn't provided much software support for productivity use cases. At least the Meta VR Glasses will have DisplayPort support. So if you don't like the software on the device it will still work as a portable monitor setup for your other devices.

Resolution matters a lot for productivity, and Meta's displays have more than twice the number of pixels. Image quality for the display will be much better on the Meta VR glasses because of the lack of interference from outside light. See-through displays sound good in theory but require too many compromises IMO. There's no such thing as "black" on a see-through display, only "transparent". Definitely try before you buy.

I feel like Meta's track record of VR device support has been decent enough. Quest Pro still gets updates even though it was discontinued almost two years ago. When they ended support for Oculus Go they released an update that unlocked the device and granted root access. I'm sure you can find some complaints on Reddit but looking at what they've actually done I think it looks pretty good.

They may not recommend disabling Tailscale SSH but I do. It interferes with sshd features and adds to your attack surface. Distribute your SSH keys the old-fashioned way and disable Tailscale SSH.

Which is fine for a video game. Not at all fine if you want to train robots with it. Trying to combine both use cases into a single model is doomed to failure IMO.

TL;DR because WebGL 2 is basically equivalent to OpenGL ES 3.0, making it the most portable GPU API in the world by far, running on everything from laptops and phones to smart fridges and car head units.

Web browsers have also done a lot of behind-the-scenes work on compatibility. The behavior of WebGL 2 is much, much more consistent across platforms than native OpenGL [ES] ever was.

Answering my own question, FP8 with BF16 accumulate is double rate already, but FP8 with FP32 accumulate is half rate, and this hack doubles it to match BF16 accumulate.

They don't need to monopolize everything to justify a valuation of $1.5 trillion. That's still relatively normal company territory. Not even top 10.

Is this relevant for 4090? It has FP8 which is already double the rate of FP16. Can this hack double the rate for FP8 too?

If you look at what they actually demonstrate, zero-shot embodiment generalization is limited to controlling two-finger grippers on two stationary arms. The embodiments are all very similar, and when they're slightly different (even just replacing two fingers with five fingers) they can't do zero-shot anymore. But there's no real reason to do zero-shot embodiment generalization in practice, as it's trivial to collect a small amount of data on a new embodiment to get significantly improved performance. Zero-shot embodiment generalization, especially in such a narrow domain of similar configurations, is not an important problem to solve and doesn't necessarily indicate progress on the important problems.

Zero-shot task generalization is more interesting, but has been demonstrated by many other companies at this point, so it's not new. And it only becomes useful with high success rates on long-duration tasks, so demonstrating short zero-shot tasks with low success rates in toy environments is uninteresting.

What's hard and still unsolved in general-purpose robotics is doing real useful tasks end-to-end in real uncontrolled environments with high reliability. I guess there's just a lack of understanding generally about what's actually hard and useful in robotics.

If you're an amazing, top 1% software engineer, and you switch jobs to become a penetration tester, you're not going to be top 1% day one. There's knowledge specific to penetration testing you'll need to research and absorb and practice before you're good.

For the models, it's always day one. They don't learn from experience. Whatever they know after training is all they'll ever know. So if you don't teach them penetration testing in training, they won't know it. Maybe they could theoretically derive everything from first principles, and so could a top 1% software engineer, but that's a very slow and inefficient way to do things.