Beyond "not working", concurrent editing is likely to silently lose data, or corrupt data, or possibly just fill up your drive with lots of "conflicted copies" that you have to manually reconcile.
When I read about this project, it doesn’t seem like concurrency is much of a concern. I think it’s _supposed_ to be treated like sharing a document with someone else.
If a capsule is a recipe, like in one of the examples, that’s pretty cool. If a capsule is a recipe _manager_, then I think it would get messy.
For anyone who finds themselves in the vicinity of Atlanta. I can highly recommend the Mimms Museum of Technology and Art. Which was also formerly called the Computer Museum of America, but AFAIK has no relation to the one in San Diego.
Anyway, it's clearly a labor of love. They have some very cool artifacts from the space program (e.g. a some of the Space Shuttle and Apollo main computers). And a large fraction of the floor space is devoted to a new, very comprehensive exhibit on the history of Apple, with just about every product they ever made plus some internal prototypes.
The blog post doesn't seem to mention what strikes me as the most interesting application of a model like this, namely extracting semantic information from its latent space. It mentions robotics applications, but only in the context of generating realistic world models for simulation.
If you have a robot deployed in an environment, generating synthetic views of the environment you're in doesn't have any obvious value. What does have obvious value is the latent knowledge that the model could have used to generate those synthetic views.
For instance, the fact that Atlas is capable of identifying regions of the input images that look like "floors", and smoothly interpolating them and filling in gaps with more floor, suggests that it has a concept of "floor-like walkability" which it's learned from the examples in its training data. And being able to identify the regions of 3D space that correspond to that semantic label would obviously be useful for robot path planning.
There's plenty of literature about e.g. using neural networks to estimate walkable areas from a point cloud. And you could imagine just bolting one of those methods to the front of Atlas, using the synthesized point cloud (instead of traditional photogrammetry or LIDAR) as input. But that seems like it's throwing away a lot of potentially useful semantic information, on top of being needlessly inefficient.
As a World Labs customer, I suspect they are using existing 3D assets when creating their environments. For one thing, a vendor of 3d models for AI mentioned Word Labs as a customer on a webinar.
I don't know if that undercuts what you're saying entirely. But if they're just protecting the splat in real-time based on the camera path through a 3d world, would the model truly understand that it's a floor?
I am not sure why creating synthetic view of the environment should not have any value.
When you plan your path to go somewhere you can imagine how it would look like based on what you know and when new information comes in that contradicts it it gets updated to what it's really like.
The robot could do the same thing. It could create images/views of what path it wants to take and start acting on it without knowing the real situation yet.
Granted, the 3D representation that atlas also provides is probably more useful than just an image but the idea remains the same, we are giving robots a kind of idea how the current world around them most likely is based on previously learned data of other locations
What is the scenario you're thinking about? This is kinda what happens with VLAs, the latent knowledge of an LLM can help in action generation pipelines, but it's also kinda slow.
Surely there are all kinds of interesting and constructive classroom discussions to be had about lawbreaking.
Classrooms teach about reality (among other things) and there are many things in reality that don't involve obedience to the law, as it exists at a particular time and place.
Another interesting non-hypothetical example: many US states have so-called "blue alerts" which are used to send cell phone alerts whenever a police officer is attacked or injured. I used to live in Texas and blue alerts were a fairly frequent occurrence.
The stated justification for blue alerts is to warn the public of dangerous criminals. But they are only issued in response to attacks on cops, regardless of the level of danger to any other people. Also, at least in Texas, they're broadcast statewide. Texas is an awfully big state, and so the alerts are guaranteed to be irrelevant and non-actionable for the vast majority of people who receive them.
So it's fairly obvious to me that blue alerts are first and foremost a propaganda operation, aimed at perpetuating the stereotype that policing is a uniquely dangerous job. (It is indeed more dangerous than an average office job, but it has a much lower rate of fatal injuries than construction, or farming, or driving garbage trucks.)
> However, on issues events, github.event.pull_request is always null.
This is extra dumb because even if you thought this condition was correctly testing the user's identity, it shouldn't have "appeared protective" upon even a moment's thought. If it worked correctly, it would obviously just exclude one bot user while allowing all other users, so it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
But more likely, this condition was never intended to be "protective" at all, and it's only being described that way because the writeup is LLM slop.
I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill".
Reading the article and the linked government statement, it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval.
Still bad in the sense that they're presumably trying to push boundaries, but it's a far cry from actually carrying out "illegal drilling".
While you're waffling on whether it's technically "illegal drilling" or "illegal not-yet-drilling":
1. the US president has previously threatened a war of conquest in Greenland, a territory of a NATO nation
2. the executive chair of the firm that is doing the illegal not-yet-drilling -- and also a top stakeholder -- is friends with said US president and donated to his campaigns.
A large part of the problem is that trust has gone completely out of the window, because the US is being run by an autocratic rapist. This phrasing isn't meant to be inflammatory, rather I'm merely describing a technical problem here - someone who doesn't respect "no", the idea of consent, the rule of law, etc. The reality itself is what is inflammatory.
One correction: the US is not being run by an autocratic rapist. The US is being run by a cabal of authoritarian/monarchist billionaires, and the aforesaid autocratic rapist is just their representative in the executive branch, supported by the majority in Congress and the Supreme Court.
The US is being run by the autocratic rapist, but he's got stakeholders just like everyone else. It's the CEO/board distinction that Yarvin laid out in support of Trump, while he was going through the process of compromising his views for political expedience. No need to value competence or love of country like the idyllic kings of old when it's easier to find a rabid dog that just bites people and shits all over the place, but can always be removed by the board.
> That can all be true, but this is still posturing and they haven't yet broken any laws.
Posturing is to say that "they haven't yet broken any laws". Transferring equipment to a place for which the company had no permit is breaking the law. Once again, this is what happened and it's an act of breaking the law - both formally and substantively:
Quote from the OP:
That has prompted Greenland’s government to issue a “strong warning” that no approval had been granted to land the kit.
The article reads like the act of landing the drilling equipment in Greenland was in itself illegal. Not the same as drilling, and ofc IANAL, but still...
Whenever conservatives, far right or large businesses clearly and openly plan something unethical or illegal or plain damaging, everyone else has a duty to pretend they dont see it. We must extend infinite amounts of benefits of the doubt, even at the price of making ourself look like dumb. (Or course, no benefit of doubt is extend to their opposition.)
And now in 2026 with NSPM-7 anyone who speaks up against literally anything the US does, can get put on a domestic terrorist list, which sets them up to be punished extrajudicially such as being de-banked. And then if the administration gets their way such individuals will be stripped of citizenship, detained in a concentration camp for a while because contractors make money off of that, and then eventually deported to some unknown place.
I believe it is also completely legal for Greenland to plant high yield weaponry and ordnance pointed to the site of the American company's operations. I could be wrong.
They are deliberately lying to US investors to persuade them to purchase or take sale decisions on the basis of false information. This falls directly in the category of "Security fraud / Stock Fraud", that is a crime prosecuted by The United States Securities and Exchange Commission if I'm not wrong.
> I guess the headline has been changed? The HN title says "illegally drills wells" but the article now says "prepares to drill".
Unrelated to the topic here, but does anyone else get pissed when news sites change articles, without any indication, without any differences and/or old version linked somewhere?
I've sometimes read the article, had a whole argument with someone, where they quoted something from the article that completely changed the meaning of the first version of the article and what I was arguing about. With more and more sites blocking archiving services (archive.org etc.), it's even harder to find the original texts, some existing for weeks or even months before being changed.... it gives me a total "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" vibe.
No news sites change headlines and edit articles all the time. Often there's a "last updated" date on the article and it can be days or weeks later than the original posting date. The last-updated date is better than nothing, but without a changelog it's very hard to know what version of the article you or anyone else read at any given time.
> it sounds like the issue is that the company did receive permits to ship their equipment to one location in Greenland, and then moved that equipment to a second location without permission, while the overall drilling operation is still waiting for approval.
It seems that they just lied to the investors about having any permit, even after Denmark government denying repeatedly that.
Agreed, but I'll just add that annular eclipses occupy an intermediate point on that scale.
With a partial eclipse, shadows look odd and the sunlight "feels" noticeably dimmer and more muted, but if you're not paying attention you might not notice much out of the ordinary.
An annular eclipse is much more dramatic and unmistakable. It's not as striking as totality, and of course you can't directly observe it without eye protection, but the "ring of fire" is beautiful in its own way.
reply