Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

"150 software code bases running 150 different computers." - Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe Downloading updates to your car may seem like an obvious feature, but part of why it took so long to get to market is conventional vehicles have 100s of computers running at the same time. "Your... seats suddenly became smart, and there was a computer that went with the seat. Your air conditioning became intelligent, there was a computer that went with that. Your sunroof had a computer." "Before you knew it, the vehicle architecture was this proliferation of - in some cars - 100 to 150 electronic control units that run these specific domains. The domain of an engine, the domain of a door, the domain of a seat."show more

TBPN

865,204 subscribers

24,720 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Elon Musk: I taught myself to code from a book, then sold my own games to buy better computers. “When I was about 10, I walked into a computer store in South Africa and saw an actual computer. I previously had some early sort of precursors to the Atari system, and then I got the Atari system, which I'm sure a lot of people here have played. But then I saw you could actually have a computer where you could make your own games, and it was a Commodore VIC-20. So that was the first computer I bought. And then I got some books on how to teach yourself programming. And this was like the coolest thing I'd ever seen. So I was just like, this is super awesome. And so I started programming games and then selling games in order to actually buy more games. So a bit of a circular thing. And more games and better computers and that kind of thing. Basically I'd spend money on better computers and Dungeons and Dragons modules and things like that.” Source: Computer History Museum, Revolutionaries, January 22, 2013.

Elon Musk: I taught myself to code from a book, then sold my own games to buy better computers. “When I was about 10, I walked into a computer store in South Africa and saw an actual computer. I previously had some early sort of precursors to the Atari system, and then I got the Atari system, which I'm sure a lot of people here have played. But then I saw you could actually have a computer where you could make your own games, and it was a Commodore VIC-20. So that was the first computer I bought. And then I got some books on how to teach yourself programming. And this was like the coolest thing I'd ever seen. So I was just like, this is super awesome. And so I started programming games and then selling games in order to actually buy more games. So a bit of a circular thing. And more games and better computers and that kind of thing. Basically I'd spend money on better computers and Dungeons and Dragons modules and things like that.” Source: Computer History Museum, Revolutionaries, January 22, 2013.

ELON CLIPS

149,873 views • 1 month ago

Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.” via Everything Electric Show:

Ford CEO Jim Farley on why it's so difficult for legacy car companies to get software right & why Tesla’s vertically integrated approach is the right one: “We farmed out all the modules that control the vehicles to our suppliers because we could bid them against each other, so Bosch would do the body control module, someone else would do the seat control module, someone else would do the engine control module. We have about 150 of these modules with semiconductors all through the car. The problem is the software are all written by you know 150 different companies and they don't talk to each other. So even though it says Ford on the front, I actually have to go to Bosch to get permission to change their seat Control software. So even if I had a high-speed modem in the vehicle and and I had the ability to write their software, it's actually their IP and I have 150, we call it the loose Confederation of software providers, 150 completely different software programming languages, you know all the structure of the software is different. It’s millions of code and we can't even understand it all. That's why at Ford we've decided in the second generation product to completely insource electric architecture. To do that you need to write all the software yourself, but just remember car companies have never written software like this, ever, so we're literally writing how the vehicle operates the software to operate the vehicle for the first time ever.” via Everything Electric Show:

Sawyer Merritt

1,172,741 views • 1 year ago

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done."

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done."

TBPN

58,374 views • 6 months ago

This new Founders Fund-backed startup had to go to war with a country over their domain name - before it even launched. CEO Sam Blond breaks down the legal battle: “Shortly after we acquired the domain, we got this hate mail from the escrow company holding the domain that the government of Monaco had filed what’s called a UDRP dispute against us.” “They made all sorts of what turned out to be unsubstantiated trademark claims. We got legal representation. This was a couple-months-long process that required all sorts of evidence and more, and we ended up winning the case.”

This new Founders Fund-backed startup had to go to war with a country over their domain name - before it even launched. CEO Sam Blond breaks down the legal battle: “Shortly after we acquired the domain, we got this hate mail from the escrow company holding the domain that the government of Monaco had filed what’s called a UDRP dispute against us.” “They made all sorts of what turned out to be unsubstantiated trademark claims. We got legal representation. This was a couple-months-long process that required all sorts of evidence and more, and we ended up winning the case.”

TBPN

50,078 views • 5 months ago

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

Corporations that are purely AI and robotics will vastly outperform any corporations that have people in the loop You can think of it like how 'computer' used to be a job that humans had. You would go and get a job as a computer where you would do calculations. They had entire skyscrapers full of humans....20, 30 floors of humans...just doing calculations. Now, that entire skyscraper of humans doing calculations can be replaced by a laptop with a spreadsheet. That spreadsheet can do vastly more calculations than an entire building full of human computers So, you think about it: what if only some of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by humans? That would be much worse than if all of the cells in your spreadsheet were calculated by the computer. And so, really what will happen is the pure AI, pure robotics corporations or collectives will far outperform any corporations that have humans in the loop. It will happen very quickly

X Freeze

16,843,319 views • 5 months ago

Time capsule! Nuclear bunker Nightwatch in The Hague was the emergency seat for the Dutch government. Nightwatch gave shelter to 150 people for a minimum of two weeks. After the collapse of the USSR it became obsolete. There were 19 of these seats spread out over the country.

Time capsule! Nuclear bunker Nightwatch in The Hague was the emergency seat for the Dutch government. Nightwatch gave shelter to 150 people for a minimum of two weeks. After the collapse of the USSR it became obsolete. There were 19 of these seats spread out over the country.

Klaas Meijer

17,457 views • 1 year ago

DID YOU KNOW: From 1998-2019, there was an exhibit at the Tech Museum of Innovation in California that had a computer with an application focusing on the Hubble Space Telescope. Each part of the application had different custom music. Barely any video of the exhibit is online.

DID YOU KNOW: From 1998-2019, there was an exhibit at the Tech Museum of Innovation in California that had a computer with an application focusing on the Hubble Space Telescope. Each part of the application had different custom music. Barely any video of the exhibit is online.

Lost Media Busters

11,596 views • 1 year ago

“It became clear AGI was 10 years away. Maybe 30. But the company was going to be out of business in 12 months.” Peter Thiel said fraud was so bad at PayPal, the woman running the fraud dept cried herself to sleep every night and they tried building AGI just to stop it. “There are some things computers are much better at than humans. There’s some things humans are much better at than computers.” “There were 20 investigators looking for needles in a haystack.” “We had a team of mathematicians and computer scientists trying to build an AGI system to track down all the bad people.” “The critical answer was figuring out the right division of labor where computers would screen through things. And then humans would qualitatively investigate them.” “That turned out to be incredibly powerful.” At the 2009 Singularity Summit

“It became clear AGI was 10 years away. Maybe 30. But the company was going to be out of business in 12 months.” Peter Thiel said fraud was so bad at PayPal, the woman running the fraud dept cried herself to sleep every night and they tried building AGI just to stop it. “There are some things computers are much better at than humans. There’s some things humans are much better at than computers.” “There were 20 investigators looking for needles in a haystack.” “We had a team of mathematicians and computer scientists trying to build an AGI system to track down all the bad people.” “The critical answer was figuring out the right division of labor where computers would screen through things. And then humans would qualitatively investigate them.” “That turned out to be incredibly powerful.” At the 2009 Singularity Summit

Jawwwn

92,932 views • 1 month ago

Does anyone know this game? I never played it in the arcade, but I had a lot of fun playing it on a PC DOS computer. All you had to do was beat your rival, but they would chase you so closely that the tension was incredible. When you win a race, you can use the prize money to upgrade your car, and with the variety of tracks, it never gets boring. I also have great memories of sitting with my friends, three of us sharing one keyboard and playing together. 😆

Does anyone know this game? I never played it in the arcade, but I had a lot of fun playing it on a PC DOS computer. All you had to do was beat your rival, but they would chase you so closely that the tension was incredible. When you win a race, you can use the prize money to upgrade your car, and with the variety of tracks, it never gets boring. I also have great memories of sitting with my friends, three of us sharing one keyboard and playing together. 😆

Gamer_lafan

19,960 views • 4 months ago

Dear self-esteemed Madame Nirmala Sitharaman, In your interview with India Today said "Look at this stupid-self confidence with which he stands up" taking potshots at our leader Rahul Gandhi as he was talking about the sad economic reality. You asked him back whether we made a single unit which brought in foreign exchange. Here you go, Madame Ji. This is just a beginning! Last year India's Software exports were $205.2 Billion out of $776.68B total exports. This is a huge 26% of the overall export. This is our single biggest contribution to our exports. From starting the first Computer Science course in IIT Kharagpur in 1971, to STPI to Aadhaar and NPCI we've built this software industry in India from ground up. What was your party doing back then? Trying to obstruct everything and create as many hurdles as possible. Let us remind you that your party declared 1984 as 'anti-computerisation year' and worked towards obstructing the IT sector which was the future. Despite all challenges, we went ahead and did it with the support of vast number of talented engineers of India. Here is a brief history of it. How India Became a Global IT Superpower A few decades ago, India was not known for computers or software. But today, it is one of the biggest IT hubs in the world. Millions of Indians work in the software industry, and companies like Infosys, Wipro, and TCS are global giants. This transformation did not happen overnight. It was the result of important government policies and decisions that started in the 1970s. Let’s go back in time and see how India’s IT journey began. IITs and the Birth of Computer Science Courses (1970s-1980s) India’s famous IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) started computer science courses in the 1970s and 1980s. IIT Kanpur was one of the first to introduce a Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) program in 1971, with the help of US universities. By the 1980s, almost all IITs and NITs had computer science departments. This was the first step in producing highly skilled software engineers. Many of these graduates went on to work in Silicon Valley or for Indian IT companies. Rajiv Gandhi and the Computer Revolution (1984-1989 In the 1980s, India was not very advanced in technology. Computers were rare, and many people feared that they would take away jobs. But Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi saw the future. He believed that computers would help India grow. With the help of Sam Pitroda, a telecom engineer, he introduced computers in government offices. At first, there was resistance. Many workers protested, fearing job losses. But soon, people realized that computers made work easier and faster. The government also encouraged companies and schools to use computers. In 1988, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) was set up to build India's own supercomputers. This created excitement around computers, and many young students started taking interest in computer science. The 1986 Software Export Policy – India Opens to the World In 1986, the government introduced a policy to promote software exports. The goal was to make India a hub for IT services. This led to the creation of Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) in 1991, where software companies could work with tax benefits. Foreign companies also started outsourcing their software work to India. Suddenly, there were many job opportunities in IT, and students began choosing computer science as a career. The 1991 Economic Reforms – A Game Changer The biggest turning point came in 1991 when India opened its economy to foreign investment. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh introduced economic liberalization. Before 1991, starting a company in India was difficult because of too many government rules. After 1991, foreign companies like IBM and Microsoft entered India, creating more jobs in IT. This encouraged even more students to study computer science. The Y2K Boom – India Saves the World (Late 1990s) In the late 1990s, the world faced a big problem – the Y2K bug. Many old computer programs used two-digit years (e.g., ‘99’ for 1999). People feared that when the year 2000 came, computers might fail. Indian IT companies like Infosys, Wipro, and TCS came to the rescue. They fixed Y2K bugs for global companies. This made India famous as a reliable IT outsourcing destination. After this, many foreign companies started hiring Indian engineers for software work. Seeing this success, more engineering colleges expanded their computer science departments. Conclusion – The IT Dream Becomes Reality India’s rise as a global IT powerhouse was not an accident. It was the result of smart government policies, investments in education, and the hard work of young Indian engineers. From Rajiv Gandhi’s computer push to the Y2K boom, and from IITs’ computer science programs to economic liberalization, each step played a role in shaping India’s IT success story. Today, Indian software engineers are leading global tech companies, and India remains one of the world’s top destinations for IT services. The journey is far from over – the future looks even brighter! So Madame Nirmala Sitharaman, shelve your stupid arrogance and think before you talk. Your Govt is able to sustain because of Software Exports which is $205.2 Billion out of $776.68B total exports, a huge 26% of the overall export. Do you need more? We will answer you in the coming days!

Dear self-esteemed Madame Nirmala Sitharaman, In your interview with India Today said "Look at this stupid-self confidence with which he stands up" taking potshots at our leader Rahul Gandhi as he was talking about the sad economic reality. You asked him back whether we made a single unit which brought in foreign exchange. Here you go, Madame Ji. This is just a beginning! Last year India's Software exports were $205.2 Billion out of $776.68B total exports. This is a huge 26% of the overall export. This is our single biggest contribution to our exports. From starting the first Computer Science course in IIT Kharagpur in 1971, to STPI to Aadhaar and NPCI we've built this software industry in India from ground up. What was your party doing back then? Trying to obstruct everything and create as many hurdles as possible. Let us remind you that your party declared 1984 as 'anti-computerisation year' and worked towards obstructing the IT sector which was the future. Despite all challenges, we went ahead and did it with the support of vast number of talented engineers of India. Here is a brief history of it. How India Became a Global IT Superpower A few decades ago, India was not known for computers or software. But today, it is one of the biggest IT hubs in the world. Millions of Indians work in the software industry, and companies like Infosys, Wipro, and TCS are global giants. This transformation did not happen overnight. It was the result of important government policies and decisions that started in the 1970s. Let’s go back in time and see how India’s IT journey began. IITs and the Birth of Computer Science Courses (1970s-1980s) India’s famous IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) started computer science courses in the 1970s and 1980s. IIT Kanpur was one of the first to introduce a Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) program in 1971, with the help of US universities. By the 1980s, almost all IITs and NITs had computer science departments. This was the first step in producing highly skilled software engineers. Many of these graduates went on to work in Silicon Valley or for Indian IT companies. Rajiv Gandhi and the Computer Revolution (1984-1989 In the 1980s, India was not very advanced in technology. Computers were rare, and many people feared that they would take away jobs. But Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi saw the future. He believed that computers would help India grow. With the help of Sam Pitroda, a telecom engineer, he introduced computers in government offices. At first, there was resistance. Many workers protested, fearing job losses. But soon, people realized that computers made work easier and faster. The government also encouraged companies and schools to use computers. In 1988, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) was set up to build India's own supercomputers. This created excitement around computers, and many young students started taking interest in computer science. The 1986 Software Export Policy – India Opens to the World In 1986, the government introduced a policy to promote software exports. The goal was to make India a hub for IT services. This led to the creation of Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) in 1991, where software companies could work with tax benefits. Foreign companies also started outsourcing their software work to India. Suddenly, there were many job opportunities in IT, and students began choosing computer science as a career. The 1991 Economic Reforms – A Game Changer The biggest turning point came in 1991 when India opened its economy to foreign investment. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh introduced economic liberalization. Before 1991, starting a company in India was difficult because of too many government rules. After 1991, foreign companies like IBM and Microsoft entered India, creating more jobs in IT. This encouraged even more students to study computer science. The Y2K Boom – India Saves the World (Late 1990s) In the late 1990s, the world faced a big problem – the Y2K bug. Many old computer programs used two-digit years (e.g., ‘99’ for 1999). People feared that when the year 2000 came, computers might fail. Indian IT companies like Infosys, Wipro, and TCS came to the rescue. They fixed Y2K bugs for global companies. This made India famous as a reliable IT outsourcing destination. After this, many foreign companies started hiring Indian engineers for software work. Seeing this success, more engineering colleges expanded their computer science departments. Conclusion – The IT Dream Becomes Reality India’s rise as a global IT powerhouse was not an accident. It was the result of smart government policies, investments in education, and the hard work of young Indian engineers. From Rajiv Gandhi’s computer push to the Y2K boom, and from IITs’ computer science programs to economic liberalization, each step played a role in shaping India’s IT success story. Today, Indian software engineers are leading global tech companies, and India remains one of the world’s top destinations for IT services. The journey is far from over – the future looks even brighter! So Madame Nirmala Sitharaman, shelve your stupid arrogance and think before you talk. Your Govt is able to sustain because of Software Exports which is $205.2 Billion out of $776.68B total exports, a huge 26% of the overall export. Do you need more? We will answer you in the coming days!

Congress Kerala

138,170 views • 1 year ago

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done." From his appearance on the show in January.

Sequoia partner Pat Grady says software is shifting from apps that demand attention to agents that work quietly in the background. This shift will change what moats will look like, and will be especially hard for incumbents to deal with. "It's two very different business paradigms," he says. "In an era of apps, you want a lot of surface area with your customers, you want them to spend a lot of time in your product." "In an era of agents, things can just be running passively in the background. The amount of surface area you have with your customers, the amount of time they might spend in your product might be de minimis. So the nature of the moat that you [will need to build] is different." "I think we'll see a lot of companies in the coming years able to live in the software world and have some of the workflows people are accustomed to. And then separately they can deploy these passive agents that kind of function as coworkers who just come back to you when things are done." From his appearance on the show in January.

TBPN

47,208 views • 3 months ago

I got to ask Jensen a question today at CES 2026. Question: What advice would you give to a new robotics founder for them to choose the right application space or the right idea so that they can have the most impact and most differentiation? Jensen's answer (short summary): The real strategic choice is between a horizontal play and a vertical one. Horizontal competition comes from every direction, but focusing on a specific vertical allows you to solve the hardest problems for a specific industry. Whether it’s EMS manufacturing or surgical robotics, that deep domain expertise is very beneficial. Jensen's full answer: Well, first of all, let's take a step back. As you know, NVIDIA, here we were just talking about AI factories. And that AI factory—our contribution, our chips, systems, infrastructure, which is software, and model technology. Is that right? That's kind of the NVIDIA stack. And that's an AI factory. In order to build robotic systems, you really need three different computers. You need the training computer, which I just described. And then you need another computer for doing simulation, because the robot needs to learn how to practice and be evaluated inside a virtual world that's physically precise, so that it doesn't have to do crazy stuff in the physical world while it's still learning. And so we create a virtual world that obeys the laws of physics, and I've demonstrated it several times, and that virtual world is called Omniverse. And so that's a second computer. And that computer is much more like one of our gaming computers, and the GPU that we use for that is RTX Pro. Basically an RTX. And then the third computer is the computer that goes into the robot. It's the robot brain. And that robot computer we call Orin today, and then the next generation is called Thor. And it has its own stack. So Thor has a super-fast inference stack. It runs a safety operating system, like the safety operating system we have in the car, because you want the robot to stay in its guardrails and not do things that it's not confident in doing. And so, you have your stack, and then you have your model. And the model could be fine articulation, manipulation, and locomotion, and each one of those, it could be system one and system two thinking. The technology necessary to build a robot is incredible. And so I just described for you, in order to be a robotics company, you have to have three computers. You have to understand all three stacks, and you have to build this robotic system, not to mention all the electronics and the mechanicals necessary to do it. It's incredibly hard. However, as you know, these pieces of technology independently have been coming together. Isn't that right? Which is really what happens to a new industry, is when there's enabling technology necessary for the industry itself, but it rides on the contributions of the technology advances in other industry that it doesn't have to worry about. And so the humanoid industry is riding on the work of the AI factories we're building for other mainstream stuff and other AI stuff. And our Omniverse was designed for other applications and different other digital twin capabilities. And so all this stuff is now coming together. The question is for robotics, ultimately, it comes down to a couple of different questions. Do you want to be a horizontal company, or do you want to be a vertically domain-specific company? The benefit of a horizontal company, of course, is that you less worry about the application, you more worry about the technology, and if you succeed, your scale can be quite large. However, horizontal plays are incredibly hard. Your competition comes from every single direction. Now, on domain, if you want to be domain-specific, then you're going to have to understand the particular application quite deeply. So maybe it's something to do with EMS manufacturing, assembly of these AI supercomputers. Maybe it's related to building cars in factories. Whatever the reasons are, your domain expertise—could be surgical robots—domain expertise could really be a benefit. My preference usually—and you asked, so I'll offer—my preference tends to be to go find verticals, but that's kind of my preference. Some companies, some leaders just would prefer to build horizontal capability, and that's fine, too.

I got to ask Jensen a question today at CES 2026. Question: What advice would you give to a new robotics founder for them to choose the right application space or the right idea so that they can have the most impact and most differentiation? Jensen's answer (short summary): The real strategic choice is between a horizontal play and a vertical one. Horizontal competition comes from every direction, but focusing on a specific vertical allows you to solve the hardest problems for a specific industry. Whether it’s EMS manufacturing or surgical robotics, that deep domain expertise is very beneficial. Jensen's full answer: Well, first of all, let's take a step back. As you know, NVIDIA, here we were just talking about AI factories. And that AI factory—our contribution, our chips, systems, infrastructure, which is software, and model technology. Is that right? That's kind of the NVIDIA stack. And that's an AI factory. In order to build robotic systems, you really need three different computers. You need the training computer, which I just described. And then you need another computer for doing simulation, because the robot needs to learn how to practice and be evaluated inside a virtual world that's physically precise, so that it doesn't have to do crazy stuff in the physical world while it's still learning. And so we create a virtual world that obeys the laws of physics, and I've demonstrated it several times, and that virtual world is called Omniverse. And so that's a second computer. And that computer is much more like one of our gaming computers, and the GPU that we use for that is RTX Pro. Basically an RTX. And then the third computer is the computer that goes into the robot. It's the robot brain. And that robot computer we call Orin today, and then the next generation is called Thor. And it has its own stack. So Thor has a super-fast inference stack. It runs a safety operating system, like the safety operating system we have in the car, because you want the robot to stay in its guardrails and not do things that it's not confident in doing. And so, you have your stack, and then you have your model. And the model could be fine articulation, manipulation, and locomotion, and each one of those, it could be system one and system two thinking. The technology necessary to build a robot is incredible. And so I just described for you, in order to be a robotics company, you have to have three computers. You have to understand all three stacks, and you have to build this robotic system, not to mention all the electronics and the mechanicals necessary to do it. It's incredibly hard. However, as you know, these pieces of technology independently have been coming together. Isn't that right? Which is really what happens to a new industry, is when there's enabling technology necessary for the industry itself, but it rides on the contributions of the technology advances in other industry that it doesn't have to worry about. And so the humanoid industry is riding on the work of the AI factories we're building for other mainstream stuff and other AI stuff. And our Omniverse was designed for other applications and different other digital twin capabilities. And so all this stuff is now coming together. The question is for robotics, ultimately, it comes down to a couple of different questions. Do you want to be a horizontal company, or do you want to be a vertically domain-specific company? The benefit of a horizontal company, of course, is that you less worry about the application, you more worry about the technology, and if you succeed, your scale can be quite large. However, horizontal plays are incredibly hard. Your competition comes from every single direction. Now, on domain, if you want to be domain-specific, then you're going to have to understand the particular application quite deeply. So maybe it's something to do with EMS manufacturing, assembly of these AI supercomputers. Maybe it's related to building cars in factories. Whatever the reasons are, your domain expertise—could be surgical robots—domain expertise could really be a benefit. My preference usually—and you asked, so I'll offer—my preference tends to be to go find verticals, but that's kind of my preference. Some companies, some leaders just would prefer to build horizontal capability, and that's fine, too.

The Humanoid Hub

40,043 views • 6 months ago

From Dan Lorenc on the malware attack that almost took down the entire internet last year: “There’s a popular compression library that’s used in almost every piece of software. And it had been maintained by one person in his spare time for the last 20 years. And then a couple years ago, somebody just decided to start helping him. They jumped in, fixed a bunch of bugs, and did a lot of great work. And then that first person got tired of working on it. So he handed the whole project over to this other person. It turned out that other person was just a pseudonym and was not a real person. And within six months of getting control of the project, they had put in a carefully orchestrated set of malware that was really hard to detect and no one noticed. And because it was so widely used, the exploit would've basically given that person remote access to any computer running that piece of software, which was basically everything connected to the Internet. But because it was open source and the code was transparent, some random engineer just happened to be running some benchmarks on a weekend. And he noticed that program was a little bit slower than it used to be, and that it was making a weird cryptographic operation to check something. And right before this thing got widely deployed across every device, he dug in, and discovered that there was a backdoor put in. This was the closest thing to a full-blown internet crisis that we’ve ever had. And they still have no idea who did it. It was just an anonymous email account. No one ever traced it back to an individual. And that's the long game. This person spent years just doing good work and earning the communities trust.”

From Dan Lorenc on the malware attack that almost took down the entire internet last year: “There’s a popular compression library that’s used in almost every piece of software. And it had been maintained by one person in his spare time for the last 20 years. And then a couple years ago, somebody just decided to start helping him. They jumped in, fixed a bunch of bugs, and did a lot of great work. And then that first person got tired of working on it. So he handed the whole project over to this other person. It turned out that other person was just a pseudonym and was not a real person. And within six months of getting control of the project, they had put in a carefully orchestrated set of malware that was really hard to detect and no one noticed. And because it was so widely used, the exploit would've basically given that person remote access to any computer running that piece of software, which was basically everything connected to the Internet. But because it was open source and the code was transparent, some random engineer just happened to be running some benchmarks on a weekend. And he noticed that program was a little bit slower than it used to be, and that it was making a weird cryptographic operation to check something. And right before this thing got widely deployed across every device, he dug in, and discovered that there was a backdoor put in. This was the closest thing to a full-blown internet crisis that we’ve ever had. And they still have no idea who did it. It was just an anonymous email account. No one ever traced it back to an individual. And that's the long game. This person spent years just doing good work and earning the communities trust.”

The Peel

47,683 views • 1 year ago

"It is in some ways offensive to me that iOS is a nearly 20-year-old computer on which you cannot make software for the computer itself." — John Gruber "At this point, an iPad Pro costs like $2,000. And you can't use it to make apps. It's kind of bizarre." "Even if it was just like, 10 people — a consumer-level of TestFlight distribution — where you can make apps for your friends and family and distribute it on up to 10 devices. And it doesn't go through Apple, doesn't need approval, you just make it and distribute it." "Yes, it's disruptive to Apple's business. But the disruption is inevitable anyway. So why not go with what's cool, and do the coolest thing possible, that makes new possibilities available to your users and developers on your platform?"

"It is in some ways offensive to me that iOS is a nearly 20-year-old computer on which you cannot make software for the computer itself." — John Gruber "At this point, an iPad Pro costs like $2,000. And you can't use it to make apps. It's kind of bizarre." "Even if it was just like, 10 people — a consumer-level of TestFlight distribution — where you can make apps for your friends and family and distribute it on up to 10 devices. And it doesn't go through Apple, doesn't need approval, you just make it and distribute it." "Yes, it's disruptive to Apple's business. But the disruption is inevitable anyway. So why not go with what's cool, and do the coolest thing possible, that makes new possibilities available to your users and developers on your platform?"

TBPN

64,424 views • 2 months ago

We just open-sourced Simulang, a JavaScript library that gives you and your coding agents the ability to fully control computers. Simulang is our scripting framework for desktop automation. It allows you to write deterministic computer use code that can be replayed dozens if not hundreds of times. Much faster and cheaper, compared to LLM agents. It ships with a skill out of the box. That means you can turn natural language prompts into Simulang code directly, and your agent can now see the screen, click, type, and navigate. It gives your AI agents eyes and hands to control the computer like humans do. Try these things with Simulang: - upload your pile of invoices to the expense platform - find 50 people with specific criteria on LinkedIn - open your calculator app and do some math - find all buttons on your favorite app using accessibility tree - or draw a bunny with MS paint 🐰 In this demo, we show how Simulang took over when the coding agent couldn’t open and click on the target LinkedIn profile page. Give it a try:

Simular

14,414 views • 2 months ago

Marc Andreessen: Most successful companies started “product first” “There are products that become companies, and then there are companies that come up with a product. One of the interesting things over the years is that many of the most successful technology franchises were products first, way before they ever became companies.” In this talk, Marc gives a few examples: • His team at the University of Illinois worked on the research project that became Netscape for three years before it became a company • Bill Gates and Paul Allen were deep into PCs before there was a software business • Jobs and Wozniak built the first Apple computer as hobbyists • Mark Zuckerberg was running Facebook out of his dorm room before he ever thought of starting a company • Twitter was a side project at the failed podcasting app Odeo Marc believes that this “product becomes a company” template is successful because “it’s a demonstration that the product has to exist. The market needs the product so badly that somebody actually built it and deployed it and you can actually see evidence that people want it before there was an economic motivation to do so.” He contrasts this with the failure cases he often sees when entrepreneurs try to figure out the idea after starting a company. “It’s very easy in that process to fool yourself into believing that there’s a market because you want to find something and you have a very strong motivation to come up with an answer. It’s hard to go through that process for three months and then say, ‘you know what, we can’t come up with any good ideas.’” There are of course there exceptions. Marc gives Hewlett Packard as an example. But that’s more the exception than the rule. As Marc explains: “The moral of the story is it has to be a really good idea. That often will be an idea that is preexisting at the time you decide to start a company. And if it isn’t, be really careful because you’re walking on sharp rocks at that point with a high risk of falling off the cliff into the ocean.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2010)

Marc Andreessen: Most successful companies started “product first” “There are products that become companies, and then there are companies that come up with a product. One of the interesting things over the years is that many of the most successful technology franchises were products first, way before they ever became companies.” In this talk, Marc gives a few examples: • His team at the University of Illinois worked on the research project that became Netscape for three years before it became a company • Bill Gates and Paul Allen were deep into PCs before there was a software business • Jobs and Wozniak built the first Apple computer as hobbyists • Mark Zuckerberg was running Facebook out of his dorm room before he ever thought of starting a company • Twitter was a side project at the failed podcasting app Odeo Marc believes that this “product becomes a company” template is successful because “it’s a demonstration that the product has to exist. The market needs the product so badly that somebody actually built it and deployed it and you can actually see evidence that people want it before there was an economic motivation to do so.” He contrasts this with the failure cases he often sees when entrepreneurs try to figure out the idea after starting a company. “It’s very easy in that process to fool yourself into believing that there’s a market because you want to find something and you have a very strong motivation to come up with an answer. It’s hard to go through that process for three months and then say, ‘you know what, we can’t come up with any good ideas.’” There are of course there exceptions. Marc gives Hewlett Packard as an example. But that’s more the exception than the rule. As Marc explains: “The moral of the story is it has to be a really good idea. That often will be an idea that is preexisting at the time you decide to start a company. And if it isn’t, be really careful because you’re walking on sharp rocks at that point with a high risk of falling off the cliff into the ocean.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2010)

Startup Archive

35,823 views • 11 months ago

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: "Tesla, like lots of cars now, they send software updates over the air to their cars, so your car gets its operating system updated while it's parked in your driveway. What the company's CEO [Elon Musk] was announcing that day in 2022 was...your car out there in the driveway has just been upgraded to one that can drive itself...Within a few hours, it had led to some news...[chain reaction accident on SF Bay Bridge]."🤦‍♀️

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: "Tesla, like lots of cars now, they send software updates over the air to their cars, so your car gets its operating system updated while it's parked in your driveway. What the company's CEO [Elon Musk] was announcing that day in 2022 was...your car out there in the driveway has just been upgraded to one that can drive itself...Within a few hours, it had led to some news...[chain reaction accident on SF Bay Bridge]."🤦‍♀️

Emoluments Clause

3,169,156 views • 1 year ago