正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Russell's approach was revolutionary: Instead of using off-the-shelf components like everyone else, Luminar developed everything in-house. Custom lasers. Custom receivers. Custom scanning mechanisms. Custom processing chips. The industry veterans were skeptical. But Russell saw what they missed:

254,636 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

14 条评论

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

At 25, he became the world's youngest self-made BILLIONAIRE. Not through apps, crypto, or social media. But by solving the ONE problem Ford, Volvo, and BMW couldn't crack. Here's why the entire industry is fighting over his game-changing invention:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Meet Austin Russell. Born in Newport Beach, California, he showed extraordinary talent from the start. By elementary school, he had memorized the periodic table and was diving into advanced physics. By 13, he filed his first patent - for a groundwater recycling system.

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

At 17, Peter Thiel's fellowship offered him $100,000 to drop out and pursue his dreams. The condition? Skip college and build something revolutionary instead. In 2012, Russell founded Luminar Technologies with a vision that would transform autonomous vehicles forever:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

The self-driving car industry faced a critical challenge: Existing sensor technology couldn't reliably detect objects at range. Dark objects? Nearly invisible. Distance perception? Limited. Complex environments? Unreliable data. The stakes were literally life and death.

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Traditional lidar used 905nm lasers, but required low power to be eye-safe. Russell's breakthrough came from switching to 1550nm wavelength. This enabled stronger signals while staying completely eye-safe. The results transformed the industry:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Luminar's system could: • Detect objects at 250 meters - unprecedented range • Work in complete darkness • Identify low-reflectivity objects • Process environmental data in real-time The automotive world was transformed:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Major manufacturers started lining up: Volvo committed to integrating the technology into their vehicles. Daimler Trucks began strategic collaboration. Other major automakers initiated discussions. But the real breakthrough was still coming:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Through vertical integration and innovative manufacturing, Luminar made lidar viable for mass production. Their high-performance system could be produced at scale. On December 3, 2020, everything changed:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Luminar went public through a merger with Gores Metropoulos Inc. Russell's stake: 104.7 million shares - about one-third of the company. By day's end, his net worth hit $2.4 billion. The industry would never be the same. But here's the bigger picture:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Russell didn't just improve existing technology. He completely reimagined how autonomous vehicles could perceive their environment. While others iteratively improved old systems, he started fresh with a fundamental breakthrough. This principle extends beyond self-driving cars:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

The next wave of innovation will come from those who dare to rebuild systems from the ground up. Whether it's finance, healthcare, or energy - the biggest opportunities lie in questioning "the way things are done." And that's where you come in:

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

The future belongs to those who can see beyond incremental improvements. Who can reimagine entire systems. Who aren't afraid to start from zero. What industry will you revolutionize?

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

Want more on becoming the future of tech? ⏩ • Join our 300K+ community • Follow @BaptisteVicini for more on APIs, tech, and the future of AI. • Repost for your network if you found it helpful! ♻️ The future's connected. 🌐 Become part of it...

Baptiste 的头像
Baptiste1 年前

I am Baptiste Parravicini: • Tech entrepreneur & API visionary • Co-founder of apidays, world's leading API conference • Passionate about AI integration & tech for the greater good Follow for insights on how APIs are connecting our future Repost for your network 🔄:

相关视频

Pylon's 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 is our Analytics. That ends today. We've completely rebuilt our Analytics from scratch. Here's what we tried, what we screwed up, and what's coming. 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭, The Basics (Nov 2023) Our first attempt at analytics was quite loved by customers. At the time our customers were mostly small startups with simple needs. We built an out-of-the-box set of dashboards that covered the common use cases of support analytics (SLA-tracking, CSAT, TTFR, TTR, basic filtering...). As we moved upmarket... 1/ Everyone was requesting custom metrics 2/ Queries were becoming inefficient and slow We needed an upgrade. 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟮, Advanced Reporting (June 2024) We knew custom reporting was going to be blackhole of work that long-term led to fully customer-customizable dashboards. We had four choices: 1/ Do nothing for now 2/ Do custom work per customer 3/ Build full custom reporting in-house 4/ Use an embeddable analytics vendor At the time Pylon was under 10 people total and we had no capacity to do the frontend work so we chose Option 4 (use a vendor). This was the first time we chose to not build a core feature like this in-house as we ultimately want full control of the end-user experience. We built out the new reporting with the chosen vendor over ~3 weeks. On the surface the new reporting looked really good (not visually, but in terms of functionality). You could add custom charts of any type, create custom formulas, label the Y and X axis, and effectively build most of what you would want. It was really great for demos. But in practice it was incredibly hard to use, lacked core capabilities (like the ability to filter off of dynamic custom fields), and visually looked not stylized to the rest of the product. We started to discover some of these issues during the implementation, but it still felt like there was more upside than downside so we released it. Feedback was not great but we hoped our vendor would fix changes quickly. Unfortunately they weren't fast enough and we lost confidence that they would be a good long-term solution. As a stop-gap we also built out a data warehouse integration so customers could export their data back to Snowflake or BigQuery to use with their own BI tools. Finally, a few months ago the vendor told us they were being acquired. That was the final straw. We needed to move off ASAP. 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟯, New Reporting (Today) Today's release is back to being built entirely in-house. It's been rolled out in beta to all customers with an option to flip back to old analytics until we plug some custom reporting gaps. This time we have the capacity to do it right between Wendy (prev product design at Amplitude), Matt, and Tom. We've managed to greatly improve: 1/ Desired filter options (custom field support) 2/ Performance 3/ Setup UX 4/ Style (looks native) Early feedback has been really positive so far and as we bring it out of beta we're thinking about how to make the best natively-offered reporting of any support platform. 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟰 (What's coming soon) To get to first-class reporting, we need to study not only our learnings, but also what the incumbents have screwed up as well. Funny enough, Zendesk's analytics have similar complaints to our v2, and for the exact same reason as we did: they integrated an external tool. In 2015 they bought a company called BIME Analytics which they became Zendesk Explore. The complaints they have to this day are similar to our v2: 1/ Steep learning curve 2/ Advanced, yet still not enough flexibility 3/ Random feature gaps 4/ Data accuracy and reliability concerns 5/ Performance issues 6/ Complicated UX v4 will follow three core principals: Offer a simple default setup. We want to continue being startup friendly and we'll feature gate custom reporting and data exports by tier in the product. Offer maximal configuration, with AI-assisted setup. As we go upmarket, customers will want to Explore (pun intended) data in every single direction. We need to allow them to do that. For those more complicated use cases we think AI will be the Ultimate (also pun intended) way to reduce setup friction. Build it all in-house. Although using a 3rd party embedded analytics provider didn't work for us, we don't think that is the case for everyone. It's just in customer support, reporting is REALLY important. They are probably some of the highest-complexity reporting of most SaaS vendors (maybe second to marketing products). So... we have to do it right. And since this is end-user facing, we have to own every detail of it. If you got this far, thank you for reading. See our new Analytics at

Marty Kausas

115,123 次观看 • 1 年前

Not true. Pete Hegseth's clothes are custom-made. A few years ago, my friend and I had a debate about whether you can spot custom tailoring. This friend has more than 30 years of experience working with some of London's best bespoke tailors. He believes that an educated eye can spot the difference between a custom and an off-the-rack suit. I don't think you can, assuming certain conditions (too detailed to get into here). Ultimately, we agreed on one thing: you can spot custom tailoring when the clothes are so ugly that no designer would ever make them. This explains a lot of the clothing you see nowadays. On a television segment aired long ago, Pete Hegseth said he used a company called Book a Tailor. And in the recent email hack, it was revealed that Kash Patel's email address was linked to this online clothing review, indicating he uses Rocky's HK Fashions. Long ago, Gavin McInness also talked about his tailor. They all share one thing: they wear clothes that were made in low-wage East Asian countries. I should note at the outset that there's nothing inherently wrong with East Asian tailoring. In fact, some of the world's best tailoring is done there, including at firms such as WW Chan (Hong Kong) and Atelier BRIO (Beijing). I would stake my reputation on saying that some of the best East Asian tailoring today rivals that of Savile Row. Seoul is also a tremendous hub for quality custom tailors (e.g., Assisi, The Finery Company, B&Tailor, Hamin Kim, among others). However, these people are not using such firms. Instead, they are relying on a new system developed sometime in the late 20th century that has since taken off with the development of digital information technology. In this system, someone with little experience in the clothing industry will set up a custom clothing company. For the sake of discussion, let's call this person Mark and the company "Custom Threads." Mark doesn't know much about tailoring, but he likes suits and wants to make money. So he contacts one of these factories in East Asia and sets up a partnership. Mark meets with clients in the US. Since he's wearing a suit and has a tape measurer around his neck, customers assume he knows what he's doing (some may even refer to him as a "tailor," even if he's not one). He takes detailed measurements of these clients, jots down their fabric choice, and sends the information to his partners in East Asian. The garment is then made by adjusting the block pattern, sewn straight to finish, and delivered to Mark, who presents it to the customer for a fitting. Small adjustments are made here and there — maybe taking up the sleeve or nipping the waist. But since Mark is not actually a technically trained cutter, he may miss things, such as a wrongly placed neckpoint that makes the jacket scissor in or out. If the customer is very far off from the block pattern, it may not fit him at all. But Mark is not in a good position to address these matters — he neither has the skills nor the margins to put this customer in a proper garment. If Mark is not very well educated on tailoring, then his customers are even less so. Thus, the customer is just happy with the crude hallmarks of custom-made goods, such as the monogram he asked for. Or the contrast colored buttonhole that he believes makes him stand out in a good way. The customer doesn't know how to check for more meaningful issues, such as front-back balance, so it's the blind leading the blind. This system is very different from the system of your grandfather's generation. If a man wanted a custom suit, he would have gone to a custom tailoring shop, which may have been owned by someone who wasn't a cutter, but the cutter would have seen you in person and thus been able to address technical issues. At the very least, the person running the "front of house" would have had more experience in the clothing trade (e.g., Tommy Nutter). Last year, The Wall Street Journal did an article about a pastor-turned-tailor. He, too, relies on this system: he measures customers and sends the info to an overseas factory, where the clothes are made in China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with Chinese or Thai tailoring. But when the starting price is $300 for a suit ($500 after Trump imposed his tariffs), you can be sure he's not using the best shops. This is why Hegseth's suits look the way they do. He got his clothes from someone with little experience in the clothing trade and has no technical tailoring skills. Thus, both he and the company owner are easily led by stale trends (e.g., short jackets, tight pants, low-rise, etc.). Hegseth has little experience with custom tailoring and a low level of personal taste, so he checks every possible custom option — funky lining, contrast buttonhole, etc. This is why I often tell people that they should try ready-to-wear first. Custom tailoring is not a guarantee of quality tailoring, especially not in this new system where people with no experience or technical skills are just sending measurements to a distant factory. Hegseth also demonstrates the one bit of common ground I found with my friend during our debate: you can tell clothes are custom-made when they are so ugly, no designer would ever make such a thing.

derek guy

819,919 次观看 • 4 个月前