Length and width wise, it's smaller than a Model Y. It's deceptively styled to look a big boy car, but it's a matchbox. That's why no reviewers will show themselves or anyone else towering over it. It's for those who want a big car, but without all that space. Rivian calls it a mid-size SUV, but that is straight up bullshit.
"Matchbox" is rather hyperbolic and would better match the upcoming R3/R3X which is around the size of a VW Golf (though that still isn't that small… Honda Fits, kei cars, and Fiat 500s are smaller still).
It's about a foot longer than my crossover, which is about the same size as a RAV4 or CR-V and there's no way I could call it tiny.
If you want to see a reviewer next to it for scale, Doug DeMuro is 6'4" and has what you're looking for, from various angles over the course of the review. Looks like a reasonable size to me.
> It's deceptively styled to look a big boy car, but it's a matchbox. That's why no reviewers will show themselves or anyone else towering over it. It's for those who want a big car, but without all that space.
I miss the days when men looking to compensate would buy sports cars. It wasn't any less ridiculous, but at least they (edit: the cars) were better looking and more fun to drive.
If only those ridiculous guys who wanted something fun to drive had realized how much more fun they could have by making fun of people and feeling superior.
I guess it depends on what they were compensating for. Up until the 80's and 90's at least there was more association of racing cars with road cars that you could buy.
So that would associate you with the (A man's manly-man maybe?) driver of that car.
But now race cars are not really much like a production road car. And those older men with money don't necessarily want to be like the ever younger drivers being employed to win races.
As you say, ridiculous, but at least the sports cars were cool.
"straight up bullshit" would be calling a 4runner-sized vehicle a "matchbox". Really highlights how ridiculous American's unnecessary lust is for massive vehicles.
He's summing interviews across all AI giants. But the ones about to IPO can interview someone almost infinitely many times, because everyone wants on the bandwagon.
New York City had hybrid in-person and remote as an option, so only about 4 months were remote for most students. Seems like a perfect A/B test case to test the theory that a remote learning was actually associated with cognitive decline 5 years later. Meanwhile every year since 2020 there have been studies published from nearly every country on the neurological and cognitive damage from mild covid cases. Seems to be more of a cognitive dissonance issue, that people don't want to confront the elephant in the room. 100 years ago when TB and Polio were taken more seriously than today, the common solution was fresh air. Schools today are even more sealed off to the point where a simple lack of oxygen starts to noticeably reduce cognitive ability after a few minutes.
Monocular depth estimation can be fooled by adversarial images, or just scenes outside of its distribution. It's a validation nightmare and a joke for high reliability.
It isn't monocular though. A Tesla has 2 front-facing cameras, narrow and wide-angle. Beyond that, it is only neural nets at this point, so depth estimation isn't directly used; it is likely part of the neural net, but only the useful distilled elements.
January 2026 might be the month of langs created to be used by AI. Usually the chief concern is saving on tokens, prompted by context window anxiety. (This completely disregards the fact that agents thrash the context window by doing wrong things, then attempting to fix them; or by reading unrelated stuff; or by calling unhelpful tools; etc)
Interesting take, because I think precisely the opposite. Coding agents let us produce a lot of code, code that we need to read and review. That means we need languages optimized for code generation by AI, and code review by humans.
Not a language, but we are having very good success using https://brannn.github.io/simplex/ for autonomous one-shot workflows. It seems to be a very high-fidelity input for LLMs.
Not working well with something that doesn't conform to the WICG User-Agent Client Hints specification is an interesting definition of "closed." More like, "I have standards." And it's hardly closed if you can get the information by using literally almost any other client.
That’s also a downside: When your funds can be transferred away by anyone who happens to acquire the key without triggering any fraud prevention or additional verification checks, losing your entire bank account at 4AM Sunday morning becomes much easier.
In addition to the security issues, they would have to deal with non-negligible transaction costs every time they wanted to convert it to actual money so that they could purchase something. If they were using it as an investment, they had to deal with the opportunity cost of underperforming $SPY.
It really comes down to the burglar's expectations. If most crypto holders used geographically separated multi-sig, these attacks wouldn't be worth the effort anymore.
It’s the same logic as iPhones bricking themselves after being stolen. Even if your specific phone isn't an iPhone, the fact that most phones are now useless to thieves discourages the crime across the board.
Our knowledge is constantly expanding, allowing us to build things differently than we used to. Modern cryptography, which makes things like multi-sig possible, is only a few decades old; it didn't even exist when the current banking industry was being established.
This isn’t just a problem in the Netherlands or a thing of the past. 2025 actually saw the highest number of attacks ever recorded [0].
There are ways to prevent this. Like using multi-sig with geographical separation (so you can't move funds alone) or setting up forced time-delays. Ultimately, being your own bank is a massive responsibility, and I think too many people take that reality too lightly.
No, there's not. There are rarely good reasons behind what banks do because these are organizations that are run by mediocre people who are not incentivized to not suck. They don't care at all about anything. This "fraud prevention" thing only gets in my way and doesn't prevent the less sophisticated people from sending their money to India.
> If your bank doesn't want to raise the limits, there's probably good reasons behind that.
Why would their having reasons make me feel better when my payments don't go through? We complain when Apple plays nanny and makes their product a walled garden. How is a bank different? They should be doing their job without causing inconvenience for me.
It typically doesn't, it just implements compliance with laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.
Withdrawal and transaction limits are commonly such a thing, politicians get hounded because some people were frauded out of their monies and they feel a need to show that they're doing something about it.
Banking is very international, you can put your money in some other jurisdiction if you'd like to. Many transnational banks are connected to the usual payment providers, you can probably figure something out if you put your mind to it. One way to do it is to start a company, business accounts at banks generally have different limits and then you pay a lawyer or bean counter to clear how to do the books and pay appropriate taxes.
I can only really use Canadian banks because that's what Interac, Canadian system for sending money by email works with. The bank does decide what I can pay for because it limits the amount of money I can spend via Apple Pay (like $500), and in general (like $1000). You need to bring your physical card and call them to temporarily increase the limit to buy anything expensive.
Web searching a bit seems to say that e.g. tourists can use their foreign issued cards and typically carry their issuers' limits with them, unless the merchant has their own limits for some reason.
Putting stricter limits on intermediate devices like pocket computers doesn't seem very tyrannical to me. Interac's web site says the typical default limit would be 2-3000 CAD, i.e. 12-1800 euros or so, unless you have a small business account, then it's more like 25000 CAD.
If you often find yourself spending thousands of CAD on a whim, perhaps it would be a good idea to open accounts with a bank that is tailored to people with a lot of money. I'm sure there are some available in Canada.
Yeah all of that sounds way more convenient than your grandma irrecoverably losing her life savings because somebody kid fished her for her crypto authentication.
You can redeem stablecoins in blocks of a million if you are a registered bank. This is the only way to redeem them. Otherwise you can only trade them.
No, it's not. It's not possible to come to the US soldiers with a bunch of US dollars and some demands and get what's demanded in return for the dollars.
Only trust of the other market participants backs the US dollar.
Seigniorage accrues to private entities instead of the state, enriching the owners of those private entities rather than everyone in the state that issues the currency.
Data centers in space make sense when you want it to cost 200x more than on land, be unavailable for repairs and upgrades, and be either high latency or be out of commission during periods of darkness.
reply