typewithrhythm

How often are you actually doing this though? I think I probably work in something greenfield about once a decade. The hard part is always going down a rabbit hole in established code bases. I can do the boilerplate in a few days. It saves time, but not really even one hairy issue a year.

I saw a Matic, seemed impressive, but I have very few points to compare with personally.

Why does anyone innovate? When I sell something I don't care if the dollars come from the end user or the subsidy, I just want more of them.

Every category I can think of where China is near-first there is some international manufacturer that has a better product.

Several areas where there are much higher volumes or outstandingly better value though. Things like automotive lidar, construction assemblys (like double glazed window units), consumer electronics like quadcopters.

Mostly it costs hundreds of millions to develop a chip; it relies on volume to recover the cost.

NVIDIA also tailor their chips to customers. It's a more scalable platform than their marketing hints at... Not to mention that they also iterate fairly quickly.

So far anyway, being on a specialised architecture is a disadvantage; it's much easier to use the advances that come from research and competitors. Unless you really think that you are ahead of the completion, and can sell some fairly inflexible solution for a while.

The big lidars are for ground truth collection. They get used in projects ranging from autonomous development all the way down to budget adaptive cruise control or parking sensor benchmarking.

NVIDIA orin series is the big one for tensor horsepower. Horizon robotics and Qualcomm also have competitive automotive packages.

They are all expensive, but less than the risk adjusted cost of developing a chip.

Tesla fsd is far from complete enough to be a data point; people who pay the 10k are gambling that when fsd is improved the cost will be much higher.

I don't think the throughput of a general purpose device will make a competitive offering; so being local is a joke. All the fun stuff is running on servers at the moment.

From there, AI integration is enough of a different paradigm that the existing apple ecosystem is not a meaningful advantage.

Best case Apple is among the fast copies of whoever is actually innovative, but I don't see anything interesting coming from apple or apple devs anytime soon.

It depends; it feels like in some categories the premium between a material that's very suitable, and some ersatz lookalike is massive and depressing.

I love a good petrochemical, but sometimes it would be nice if the cheap thing store wasn't so callously targeting veneers and pleathers that last just long enough to loose the receipt.

Labour centric protectionism.

I've at least found that the wifi+Bluetooth chips seem to be significantly more robust than the standalone bt ones.

Huh, I had no idea that cables would have their shield grounded at both ends... Single point ground is such a standard in electrical design that the guidance is generally "do otherwise only if you have the ability to make many prototypes to nail RFI issues".

It's a case of high trust, high skill structures not being maintained while trying to introduce outsourcing and minimum viable skill lower cost employees.

The idea of owning your own quality only works if you can trust the dev to understand quality, and want to implement it. Independent almost adversarial QA is required when you can't trust the devs.

Before the AI stuff it seemed people assumed everything would get smaller and more portable continuously.

Not consumer computing, but desktop computers would disappear.