Hearted Youtube comments on Dr Ben Miles (@DrBenMiles) channel.

  1. 11000
  2. 9900
  3. 7100
  4. 6500
  5. 5000
  6. 4600
  7. 3200
  8. 3000
  9. 2900
  10. 2800
  11. 2700
  12. 2700
  13. 2400
  14. 1600
  15. 1600
  16. 1600
  17. 1400
  18. 1300
  19. 1200
  20. 945
  21. 884
  22. 870
  23. 837
  24. 825
  25. 665
  26. 645
  27. 633
  28. 606
  29. 552
  30. 550
  31. 546
  32. 521
  33. 519
  34. 507
  35. 481
  36. 470
  37. 458
  38. 449
  39. 438
  40. 430
  41. 420
  42. 411
  43. 376
  44. 349
  45. 335
  46. 328
  47. I just wanted to address a very common (and natural) misunderstanding some people are having! Lots of people think that what was creates was just a simulation of a black hole's singularity, but this is so much more than that. It's a bit of a read so buckle up! Disclaimer: I have spent a lot of time trying to understand this, but my own field of study only brushes up against quantum mechanics, so someone who is academically active in the field may be able to point out some inaccuracies in my explanations. There's two very natural misconceptions that lead to the idea that what they produced was not an "actual" wormhole, but just a simulation. The first misconception is that a wormhole only refers to the Einstein-Rosen bridge from the ER paper, which describes a theoretical wormhole created by the extreme curvature of spacetime in a black hole. The second misconception is from the fact that nobody does a very good job at explaining what a quantum computer actually is, and the fact that they are called 'computers' lends itself to the incorrect but understandable assumption that they are just simulating something. I'll tackle these misconceptions in order: ===WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE EINSTEIN ROSEN BRIDGE=== General relativity is probably the single most successful theory in all of physics. It describes space and time not as two separate things, but as a unified four-dimensional spacetime - and most importantly for this discussion, this spacetime has a bad habit of bending and skewing in the presence of concentrated, non-moving energy - or as we call it, mass. After they were mathematically proven to exist, black holes caused some issues, because the math that proves that the must exist, also completely stops working once you get to the singularity. The ER paper mentioned in this video proposed a very mathematically beautiful solution to this problem: Based on the foundation that spacetime can curve and distort, instead of concentrating energy to an infinitely small, infinitely dense point that messes everything up, a singularity must instead connect with another point in distant spacetime. This is what we usually think of as a wormhole, and one might mistakenly call an "actual" wormhole. However, I think we can all agree that anything that connects two points of distant spacetime would be a wormhole, so if you could create one through some OTHER mechanism, it would still be a wormhole - would it not? Up until recently, there was no reason to believe that there was another method through which an ER-bridge could be created through which something could move, so it would seem pointless to make the semantic point I just made above. In the EPR paper referenced in the video, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, not content with the seeming violations of causality that quantum entanglement caused, proposed wormholes as a possible explanation for this supposed faster-than-light transmission of information - but as this bridge would not be able to move macroscopic systems across space and time, so it seems like a different idea, so it seems open and shut that you cannot have a real wormhole without gravitation. This is why the discovery of Dr. Maldacena in 1997 (4:56) and subsequent discoveries - that is, the theory of ER=EPR is so huge. It's incredibly complicated, and even if I was capable of explaining it all, this is all brand new physics that hasn't been fully fleshed out - but what it comes down to is that not only can entangled systems on a very small scale display properties similar to the wormholes in a black hole, they are exactly the same phenomenon. That means that wormholes are not just a phenomenon of gravity, but in fact a phenomenon of quantum mechanics, and that it should be possible to create a wormhole by entangling quantum particles on a smaller scale. So now we know that (if ER=EPR) we can create a wormhole by using entangled quantum particles in the right way... That sounds hard. Now what? Enter Dr. Spiropulu and her team. ===WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTERS=== Quantum mechanics is complicated to say the least, so I'm going to assume you've made yourself familiar with some of the basics of it - at the very least, the idea of quantum superposition, i.e. that quantum particles can only be described in terms of where they might be according to a probability function, until "measured" - aka, until they become entangled with you, the observer. This is important. What quantum computing does is that it weaponizes these properties. It's extremely easily to accidentally interfere with a quantum particle and thus collapse its waveform, eliminating its quantum mechanical properties - but if you can avoid that by minimizing any direct or indirect interaction with it, by removing any air and supercooling the system down to superconductive temperatures, you can send an electron or photon through a hell of an obstacle course, basically a "circuit", and only collapse its waveform at the end, producing a quantum interference pattern that tells you every single way it could get through that circuit. In a way the famous double slit experiment is the first ever quantum computer, which asked the simple question "what different ways can a photon get through two slits" - and if you measured ahead of time which slit it passed through, you are zeroing in on a different, but related question: Of the ways a photon can pass through two slits, what subset of them involves passing through this one particular slit? It's not a particularly helpful question to ask if you're trying to compute something, but it IS a very helpful question if you're trying to understand the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. See, that's what a quantum computer does: It is not a simulation of quantum systems, it is a system to build a more complex quantum system without collapsing the waveform, and then to observe the probability space that emerges. ===IN CONCLUSION === So what does all this mean for this video? To summarize, when they say they built a wormhole in a quantum computer, they don't mean they simulated a black hole. They mean they worked with Google Quantum to physically build a quantum system which was theorized to produce a wormhole and send an electron or photon (In this case an electron) through the system in such a way that it would create one interference pattern (probability space) if it traveled through a wormhole, and a different one if it didn't - and when the dust settled and they got the quantum system stable and looked at the interference pattern, it showed that they had in fact *physically created a quantum system wherein an electron passed through a wormhole*. So, in conclusion, I hope this convinces you that they did, in fact, create a quantum wormhole right here on earth :) P.S. There's a lot of other things going on here. For example, this whole thing about De Sitter space. I can't get into it now, but this is all consistent with expectations, and unfortunately does mean that we're probably not going to be zooping across spacetime through wormholes anytime soon. Still though, it's very cool.
    309
  48. 299
  49. 297
  50. 294
  51. 291
  52. 275
  53. 264
  54. 249
  55. 238
  56. 228
  57. 225
  58. 218
  59. 202
  60. 186
  61. 181
  62. 178
  63. 173
  64. 173
  65. 155
  66. 154
  67. 153
  68. 150
  69. 148
  70. 144
  71. 143
  72. 141
  73. 134
  74. 133
  75. 130
  76. 128
  77. 125
  78. 122
  79. 122
  80. 104
  81. 96
  82. 94
  83. 94
  84. 91
  85. 88
  86. 86
  87. 82
  88. 80
  89. 79
  90. 78
  91. 78
  92. 74
  93. 73
  94. 73
  95. 73
  96. 73
  97. 72
  98. 71
  99. 71
  100. 70
  101. 69
  102. 65
  103. 60
  104. 60
  105. 59
  106. 57
  107. 53
  108. 52
  109. 52
  110. 48
  111. 48
  112. 47
  113. 45
  114. 44
  115. 44
  116. 43
  117. 43
  118. 41
  119. 41
  120. 41
  121. 41
  122. 39
  123. 39
  124. Despite the fact that the thought experiment allows for no resistance in the wire... Veritasium is making several mistakes. The amount of energy required to light the bulb must be considered as "some reasonable" amount of current for the Light to turn on, NOT "any ridiculously small amount of current". The claim is that the when the switch is closed, the current starts moving which induces an electromagnetic field (EM field) in the wire near the switch. This means that an Electromagnetic Wave will be produced and start radiating from the wire and will reach the light bulb after traveling only 1 meter. However, Veritasium ignores the fact that the EM Field traveling thru the air or free space will be inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. Therefore the energy reaching the bulb after 1 meter of travel in the air, will be very very small. The counter claim would be that the amount of current needed to turn the light bulb on is very very small, and any amount of current would turn the light bulb on, but then why bother with wires at all? It makes no sense since in that case, one simply has to touch the battery or touch a switch connected to the battery, and not even have the wires present. So it makes no sense to setup a giant thought experiment requiring 300,000km of wire with a switch if all Veritasium wanted to demonstrate was that EM fields radiate. So, we must conclude that Veritasium earnestly believes that the energy in the EM field traveling thru 1 meter in the air is enough to power a regular light bulb with regular amounts of current. But he is wrong. Some will say that Veritasium requires "ANY" amount of current to be acceptable. But the counter to that is ... no. He claims that once current reaches the bulb then the bulb instantly turns on. That current must be considered as "the required current" to activate the bulb and not "any" current... otherwise, mere movement of anyone to even turn the switch... the blood flowing in your body, etc would activate the bulb thru induction. so since that is a preposterous assumption that such a low amount of current would activate the bulb we must then conclude that the bulb does require a standard amount of current to turn it on and simply that it must turn on immediately when receiving that current rather than a delayed effect in time due to filament heating / driver charging etc. I also find it immensely frustrating that the "papers" provided by the experts are in no way "proving" any of Veritasium's claims. They are not 1 for 1 and they are extrapolating two or more very different experiments. Additionally, they are simulations and then those simulations are extrapolated. Going back over the Power point provided by Veritasium shows that at 2.5 seconds only 0.25 volts are measured (under the simulation). That is FAR LESS than the energy needed to light a bulb. Extrapolating to a 12volt car battery and light bulb we get ~1/10th of a 12 volt battery's voltage which simply cannot light a bulb. So the answer is that current necessary to light the bulb properly must travel 300,000km down the wire in order for the bulb to receive enough current to turn it on. So the amount of time to travel that distance is the amount of time it will take for the bulb to see that current. Additionally, it is not constructive to claim that we have been told "Lies" about the nature of the electrical energy. Those are theories. Not lies. It does science a Great Disservice to rebrand past theory as "lies". @Dr Ben Miles... I agree with you on almost every point. @Veritasium, with respect, It devalues your integrity to use these methods to drive conversation. I much prefer your older more conscientious methodology where you are more careful about the things you say. I am especially focusing here on the claim regarding "Lies" in your video. Remember that your value to the scientific community is in your integrity not in your hype.
    38
  125. 38
  126. 38
  127. 37
  128. 37
  129. 37
  130. 36
  131. Good video, glad to see someone tackling exactly why this sort of TV 'endorsement' by proxy is so damaging. As someone with ME I'd just like to add that our primary symptom is not actually fatigue, it is post Exertional Malaise - which is a giant flare up of all our symptoms including feeling flu like and very unwell indeed, caused by going even slightly over our physical limitations, anything that uses energy counts - including talking, reading, and even THINKING for people at the very severe end! Thinking uses energy on a cellular level - how else would it happen after all. I would appreciate it if more people could start making sure they mention Post Exertional Malaise since it really is the symptom that rules them all, so to speak. It is what rules my entire life and it's risky - trigger it often enough or big enough, and you don't really recover back to where you were, you stay stuck at a lower level of functioning, it literally makes you sicker than you were. Over time some people end up dead, because it's so incredibly difficult to control and keep inside your limits. When 'over doing it' can simply mean you had an upset tummy and went to the loo a few times too many that day, or had to pick something up from the floor, or simply moved around in bed a bit too much that day, it is unbelievably difficult to stay inside your limits and prevent triggering PEM, many people don't manage it and therefore deteriorate over the years getting sicker and sicker. It's so poorly understood by medical staff that going to hospital becomes something to fear. Research is coming along though and I love that this video talks about how we need more people investing in genuine medical entrepreneurship, moving real, science evidence backed treatment forwards. In all areas, but hopefully soon for ME too.
    35
  132. 34
  133. 33
  134. 32
  135. 31
  136. 29
  137. 29
  138. 28
  139. 28
  140. 28
  141. 28
  142. 27
  143. 27
  144. 27
  145. 26
  146. 26
  147. 25
  148. 25
  149. 24
  150. 24
  151. 24
  152. 24
  153. 23
  154. 22
  155. 22
  156. 22
  157. 22
  158. 20
  159. 20
  160. 20
  161. 20
  162. 20
  163. 19
  164. 19
  165. 19
  166. 19
  167. 19
  168. 19
  169. 18
  170. 18
  171. 17
  172. 17
  173. 17
  174. 17
  175. 17
  176. 16
  177. 16
  178. 16
  179. 16
  180. 15
  181. 15
  182. 15
  183. 15
  184. 15
  185. 14
  186. 14
  187. 14
  188. 14
  189. 14
  190. 14
  191. 13
  192. 13
  193. 13
  194. 13
  195. 13
  196. 13
  197. 13
  198. 13
  199. 12
  200. 12
  201. 12
  202. 12
  203. 12
  204. 12
  205. 12
  206. 12
  207. 12
  208. 11
  209. 11
  210. 11
  211. 11
  212. 11
  213. 11
  214. 11
  215. 11
  216. 10
  217. 10
  218. 10
  219. 10
  220. 10
  221. 10
  222. 10
  223. 10
  224. 10
  225. 10
  226. 10
  227. 10
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230. 9
  231. 9
  232. 9
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 9
  237. 9
  238. 9
  239. 8
  240. 8
  241. 8
  242. I'm writing up my PhD in Medical Physics at the moment. I have several papers but they're in a scattershot of tangentially related areas (and they're also a bit crap if I'm honest, one got 8 citations at least...), so I don't really feel like the expert of some niche area like you suggest I might feel. I think the idea that you can commercialise your research shows that your PhD was in a more applied area, there is literally no way you could commercialise any aspect of my research, it's too 'pure', theoretical nanoscale radiation transport simulations etc. I do struggle with the extremely isolating social circumstances of the degree, I like working in a "team" but a PhD (at least for me) is 98% solo work. I think there are some additional employment opportunities my degree will make available to me, given my field is medical and medical always has some funding, however the job market will always be tough. I've decided my priority is to find work in my home city, as that's where my family, friends and hobbies are. I'm happy to step sideways or completely out of my field in order to do that, rather than prioritising staying in medical physics, even to take a paycut. Ironically a PhD has taught me how much I value my non-work social connections and personal outdoor hobbies over what I actually do at work. Still I'll be aiming for the world of medical physics at the start! I wonder if we will see a resurgence in local industry due to COVID. COVID has highlighted the weaknesses of a global economy, of outsourcing your industry to other countries. Hopefully there will be a bit of a local STEM employment boom in the next few years as a consequence of that! Plus there's always money in medical right? ;)
    8
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250. 8
  251. 8
  252. 7
  253. 7
  254. 7
  255. 7
  256. 7
  257. 7
  258. 7
  259. 7
  260. 7
  261. 7
  262. 7
  263. 7
  264. 7
  265. 7
  266. 7
  267. 7
  268. 7
  269. 6
  270. 6
  271. 6
  272. 6
  273. 6
  274. 6
  275. 6
  276. 6
  277. 6
  278. 6
  279. 6
  280. 6
  281. 6
  282. 6
  283. 6
  284. 6
  285. 6
  286. Thank you for this most interesting (and somewhat scary) video! "...If these images become commonplace, easily scattered across the Internet, constantly in your newsfeed, what happens? Just like the instant access of the Internet has dulled our attention spans and kept us hungry for the next novel thing, will this devalue our own imaginations, because we can create without consequence or without effort?" That's a darn good question. I wish I could just say no, this kind of AI will help us use our imaginations in ways we normally don't use them now because it's too difficult or costs too much - but that's just some people, the ones who are already creatively motivated to express themselves. What about the rest of us, the majority who are just consuming information? Will we lose interest in art itself, because "anybody can do that?" Wish I knew the answer to your question. "In training an AI we are teaching it about our world. If we aren't careful we'll imprint the imperfections of our society into the brain of that AI. You're only as good as the examples you learn from, which is true both for people as well as for artificial intelligence." This is another extremely fascinating subject. I'm not sure I agree with the statement "you're only as good as the examples you learn from," but I agree you only start out as good as the examples you've learned from. Humans can learn on their own by rational deduction, detecting our implicit biases and overcoming them. It isn't easy, in fact it's one of the hardest things we can do, and it seems to get harder with age. But surely an AI could do the same thing. I used to think there was no way a computer could paint an original picture, but here we are.
    6
  287. 6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 5
  296. 5
  297. 5
  298. 5
  299. Loved the video! I wonder if the catalytic converters, and the mechanism/materials behind them, could be used in the capture of carbon. I wonder how it compares to the activated carbon/carbon salt filter. Heck, I see no reason why we can't make cars carbon negative, once we switch to electric, we could keep the catalytic converts in cars and have them eat the air in front of them and release a less carbonated version. Maybe start installing these carbon eaters on wind turbines. Gotta have them more decentralized, embedded in other products, can't just have giant factories for them only, that's not feasible. At best they'll be marketed towards factories that require carbon in their manufacturing process, putting these in the middle of no where is just silly. Transportation costs of carbon will likely reduce what little economic advantage it might have. Also has potential in extreme areas, where a constant supply of trucks/trains/boats is not possible, such as far up north when the ice roads don't exist or in the middle of a desert for oil stuffs. No ones going to pay any money to setup a giant factory in the middle of nowhere that's designed to burry material, there's 0 direct profit incentive. Once someone designs a carbon capturing machine for less than $100 and figures out a way to market it so that it appears or actually does provide both individuals and companies legitimate value, it'll finally work, until then it's just an expensive experiment. Imagine if I could get 10M+ in funding for my poorly thought out ideas lol, that'd be fun. "Hey guys I built a shapeshifting robot it only cost 10M" :'). Anyone could build anything for 10M, once they make it for less than $1000 and I'll be impressed. I know "well you gotta start somewhere", but starting at such an insane price likely means they're approaching the problem with "gold coloured glasses", and not in a way that might be economically efficient and therefor likely to hit the market or see mass adoption. If I had insane funding, my projects would all be completed, but they'd suck mechanically due to the lack of limitations. It's like trying to build a house in creative mode in Minecraft, you can build all sorts of stuff but building it again in "the real game"/survival mode isn't feasible. That is where too many researchers are today. They get really good at using practically unobtainable blocks in creative mode, then when they're put into the survival game they have no idea how to use cobblestone and wood properly. That is why the great inventors actually sold their own products, they not only had the theoretical ability but the understanding of manufacturing and supply chain that allowed them to steer their inventions in directions that where manufacturable and that provided value to their customers, instead of just theoretically doing something once in a lab with someone else's money. The trick, is having a carbon capturing device that everyone owns (either in their car or house), that is affordable to the individual and that captures at least 1.2x the average human carbon output. Not only that, but there must be an economic incentive for the individual to own it, either because it'll give them a reliable source of cheap carbon or because it's already built into cars/turbines/things they own as a result of sanctions. I worry blasting a shittonne of carbonated water into our crust might make things even worse, sounds a bit like fracking to me lol. What if it somehow expands, like a pothole, and causes giant cracks in the earth? Very dangerous and careless approach, but im a highschool dropout who am I to judge. I'm also sceptical of membranes, their use in industry generally seems temporary before superior, more reliable and efficient tools are found. It's almost like, a lazy catch all mechanism (pun intended). Can't we use like electricity or something? Maybe a giant gas chromatography machine :')? I'm curious about recycling and consumer level mass spectrometry. Methods of separating materials and checking what's inside them. We're a year or two away from sub $1000 3d printers capable of printing basic ICs and computers like an arduino at home, the real gap is in the sourcing of materials. We throw away all this copper and plastic, yet when we need copper and plastic we buy it from another continent. There's so much sitting in our local garbages! We need an affordable decentralized approach that allows individuals to recycle their own materials for use in home manufacturing.
    5
  300. 5
  301. 5
  302. 5
  303. 5
  304. 5
  305. 5
  306. 5
  307. 5
  308. 5
  309. 5
  310. Hi Ben - There are one or two completely separate points I would like to raise. I may have to split into separate comments to avoid a ridiculously long comment. Most important thing first - The SAFETY implications of Veritasium giving people "a little knowledge" (was it Edison who said "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?) - I was VERY alarmed at some of the comments on his video, people seriously talking about whether it would be considered "stealing electricity" from HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES, if they weren't actually making a physical connection but just relying on induction to tap energy from the lines in their community. (I think the user name was ZEET) The DANGER of even getting within a few FEET of HV lines makes me shudder. High voltage can jump several feet - It doesn't give people any warning - it just fries people in an instant before they get "close" - The air ionizes and then there is a massive three phase flashover - They certainly wouldn't be able to touch the lines anyway for that reason. Even at 230 / 400 volts (industrial three phase - so called "low" voltage) one small mistake causes the air to be ionized and again, a three phase flashover. (An electricity supply engineer I knew, made a small mistake changing a three phase meter and needed 6 months off work - became a born again Christian - said it was like a hand grenade going off. Unqualified people can be VERY casual about electricity - operating industrial switches with a pair of pliers, so they can keep the cover open to make fuse changing easier - DAFT things like that - We have to do everything we can to stop giving people HALF BAKED information about how electricity distribution works - Everybody thinks they are an electrician for some reason but most are blissfully ignorant of the dangers they cause to themselves and others. I just think we have to be very careful before giving people the false idea they can put some cable "near" a transmission line of ANY voltage and "tap off" free electricity - desperately poor people will do desperately stupid things. It wouldn't work anyhow because Veritasium's claim is very misleading and gives desperate people false hope that there are ways to tap off free electricity in poor communities where this is rife anyway. People get killed even trying to steal live cable in Britain. ANYWAY - that was my main concern first. On second thoughts, I would like to do some actual experimentation work to illustrate one of my objections to the sweeping claim made by Veritasium - I don't mind things being "unintuitive" - who am I to argue with nature - but if I can show nature doing something that is supposed to be impossible, if we are to take his word quite literally, then it MIGHT be a good reason to re-examine his claims. I think I should be able to construct my experiment in a day or so - that would be better than me making thought experiments, which seem to be all the rage. OK so just one more thing - Should be more up your street... Optics being your field of expertise, you may be interested to know of another quite famous You Tube scientist making a claim I feel sure you would dispute - Just like you, it's been "bugging me" ever since hearing Professor Moriarty of Sixty Symbols fame, (Nottingham University) inform us that if the E field of electromagnetic radiation is oscillating, say, vertically (for example - as in a simple upright radio antenna) then it can "slip through" the narrow gaps between the vertical bars of a suitable polarizing filter (say, a WIRE GRID polarising filter typically used with 10GHz microwaves for teaching purposes) BUT WOULD BE BLOCKED (he say's) with the filter bars turned HORIZONTAL relative to the VERTICAL E field vector. He even has a special "snake like" plastic rule, to physically demonstrate how it slips through the gaps in one orientation but cannot physically pass through in the other. That video (about 3D glasses) has been up for nine years and I'm quite sure no correction has ever been made ... Last time I checked a year ago, only TWO comments out of about 1000 at the time, pointed out that this is not how polarising filters work - and that the orientation he describes PASSING light / radio etc is in fact the orientation which BLOCKS - because the E field - or the magnetic field at 90 degrees to it obviously, is then effectively able to "induce" current into the bars. (my layman way of thinking about it) Forgive my LAYMAN talk - it's just easier for me to remember how it all works if I pretend there is no near field/far field distinction - then for me it just looks like two relatively long conductors parallel to one another (rather like Veritasium's very long wires just 1M apart) and straightforward EM induction. No, I have no qualifications in this so I lack confidence expressing my doubts in an actual Professor, but i have checked many many times, invested in ex school equipment etc so I can learn for myself - and so I am quite certain Prof. Moriarty is wrong. What say you? I've just checked again - The Sixty Symbols video is now 9 years old and is called HOW 3D GLASSES WORK, 650,000 views, about 1,300 comments now - I don't fancy trawling through every single one again - The first 50 or so recent comments are just the usual fawning over how wonderful this explanation is - which bugs me even more of course. I still cannot see any amendment or correction. The relevant bit starts at 4 minutes in. Sorry for the lengthy message. Oh and yes - it felt wrong for Veritasium to say we've been taught "lies" - I will try to get my experiment together ASAP - nothing posh - just to illustrate a possible flaw in his sweeping statement. If I end up proving him correct I'll be gobsmacked.
    5
  311. 5
  312. 5
  313. 5
  314. 5
  315. 5
  316. 5
  317. 5
  318. 5
  319. 5
  320. 5
  321. 5
  322. 5
  323. 5
  324. 5
  325. 5
  326. 5
  327. 5
  328. 5
  329. 5
  330. Automation will follow a threefold rollout, we're in between the first and second. 1. Businesses use robots 2. People use robots 3. People have robots in their pockets. It's the same trend as Computers. A motorized, humanoid robot with a traditional kinematics system akin to a 6 axis arm, are probably going to fit the 80s-00s mold of personal computation, personal automation, and Tesla has quite impressive battery and motor technology that can and will be used in this robot. Largest hurdle, for them at least, will be creating an interface platform between the hardware and software, which would allow independent software engineers to create and improve existing "commands/programs", potentially even profit off their contributions. Constructing a humanoid robot is simple, having it be smart enough to perform useful labour efficiently, is the problem they must solve. This however is just a fad, shapeshifting robots, aka mesh morphing robots, will take over after this, which will allow the consumer to fit a humanoid robot in their pocket. I personally hoped that mesh morphing robots would reach the consumer space before their traditional counterparts, but with the progress being made by boston dynamics and musk it doesn't look likely. I expect he'll release some barley useful product 2.5x past his initial release date, to actually compete in this field would take initial capital investments comparable to that of SpaceX, I'm not so sure he has anything other than good motors, batteries and money to throw at the problem, and I don't think that's enough to solve the second stage of automation, this far into the race. He'd have to acquire BD and/or a few other companies to really stand a chance.
    5
  331. 5
  332. 4
  333. 4
  334. 4
  335. 4
  336. 4
  337. 4
  338. 4
  339. 4
  340. 4
  341. 4
  342. 4
  343. 4
  344. 4
  345. 4
  346. 4
  347. 4
  348. 4
  349. 4
  350. 4
  351. 4
  352. 4
  353. 4
  354. 4
  355. 4
  356. 4
  357. 4
  358. 4
  359. 4
  360. 4
  361. 4
  362. 4
  363. 4
  364. 4
  365. 4
  366. 4
  367. 4
  368. 4
  369. 4
  370. 4
  371. 4
  372. 4
  373. 4
  374. 4
  375. 4
  376. 4
  377. 4
  378. 4
  379. 4
  380. 4
  381. 4
  382. 4
  383. 4
  384. 4
  385. 4
  386. 4
  387. 4
  388. Great video! Deep tech is a fun word! I worry students are discouraged from pursuing deep tech as a result of deadlines, risking the entirety of your student loans, education and career on a moonshot paper idea seems stupid. Especially when most of the potential rewards are so far removed from the researcher. It reminds me of a video on neural nets that I watched, an AI in mario kart was given a -100 penalty for falling off the edge of the track, but not enough of a reward for moving forward, so the AI learned their best bet was to just sit there, or to move extremely slowly, because it was too scared to take any risks, as a result of the penalties far outweighing the potential rewards. Mario learned to drive forward after the penalties where reduced or incentives increased. (Source "MariFlow" & "MariQ") Your distinction between shallow and deep tech was really spot on, I personally find the difference to be whether or not you can build your invention with parts that are already mass produced, and simply assemble them together, or if new recipes and factories must be designed and built to mass manufacture the components necessary to build your device. It's easy to buy a bunch of components and assemble them, it's a lot harder to design and build the components to then assemble into a single object. On a software level, this means any program that simply interfaces between preexisting libraries would be shallow, whereas the requirement of brand new untested algorithms would be deep. The best way to do deep tech in my experience is incrementally. Lets say I need IPMCs for my MMRs, it's in my best interest to mass produce and sell IPMCs to other companies, then start incorporating them into my robots. Don't try to do too many new things at once, go one step at a time and make a profit along the way. If anyone of your startups ever mass manufacture IPMCs give me a call, I need a lot, so does the rest of the world.
    4
  389. 4
  390. 4
  391. 4
  392. 3
  393. 3
  394. 3
  395. 3
  396. 3
  397. 3
  398. 3
  399. 3
  400. 3
  401. 3
  402. 3
  403. 3
  404. 3
  405. 3
  406. 3
  407. 3
  408. 3
  409. 3
  410. 3
  411. 3
  412. 3
  413. 3
  414. 3
  415. 3
  416. 3
  417. 3
  418. 3
  419. 3
  420. 3
  421. 3
  422. 3
  423. 3
  424. 3
  425. 3
  426. 3
  427. 3
  428. 3
  429. 3
  430. 3
  431. 3
  432. 3
  433. 3
  434. 3
  435. 3
  436. 3
  437. 3
  438. 3
  439. 3
  440. 3
  441. 3
  442. 3
  443. 3
  444. 3
  445. 3
  446. 3
  447. 3
  448. 3
  449. 3
  450. 3
  451. 3
  452. 3
  453. 3
  454. 3
  455. 3
  456. 3
  457. 3
  458. 3
  459. 3
  460. 3
  461. 3
  462. 3
  463. 3
  464. 3
  465. 3
  466. 3
  467. 3
  468. 3
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1