No, "typically" it's a "know-it-when-you-see-it" kind of thing. Trying to delineate precise word count boundaries is a misrepresentation of how these words are used. The numbers you gave are reasonable guidelines but are certainly not determinative.
That chart implies it is possible for somebody to write a work that wins the Hugo awards for best novelette and best novella, which I’d really like to see happen!
If you’re looking to play an official Tempest 2000 where some money (presumably) makes its way to Jeff Minter, then Digital Eclipse have published an “interactive documentary” bundle of his games and the surrounding history, available on pretty much every current platform: https://www.digitaleclipse.com/games/llamasoft
A seriously trivial bug report, but the font you’ve chosen doesn’t support ℔, making articles like https://britannica11.org/article/22-0688-s2/putting_the_shot look odd. Potentially might be worth rewriting ℔ to a more normal (these days) lb?
Good catch — thanks. That’s a font coverage issue. I’ll either swap in a fallback font for missing glyphs or normalize those cases. This only sounds trivial, this project is full of items like that.
You didn’t know Boston Dynamics was involved in weaponised platforms until 2 weeks ago? That feels like wilful ignorance at this point; DARPA was sponsoring BigDog which was revealed two decades ago: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8802-robotic-pack-mul...
Just to clarify: I didn't work at Boston Dynamics, I worked for a company that used their hardware (among others) as platforms for our own projects.
I knew about BD's history with DARPA, of course. The issue was that my company was doing some actually really interesting non-defense work, and then decided to pivot and mount teleoperated weapons on these platforms for a new demo. That’s when I submitted my resignation :)
People sometimes do things they aren't sure about, and then change their mind when the proof is right in front of them. I don't think this makes them a bad person, or wilful ignorance, maybe naive or optimistic, but you could accept employment with a company who you know had "shady" sponsors in the past hoping they'll do better in the future, then when the evidence mounts against the future actually being better, you decide to leave.
Human emotions and reasoning could be internally inconsistent and conflicting, yet everything is as it should be, counter-intuitively.
Yep. Boston Dynamics has been dependent on military contracts since their founding in 1992.
The "no more military weapons" statement seems to have been after they were acquired by Hyundai.
Boston Dynamics' business is, basically, "mobility platforms." After all these years the basic development is all done; now they're pivoting to commercial markets.
There's no real difference between a "murderbot" and, say, a police riot-control platform, a fire-fighting platform, a forestry platform, etc.
They might not be explicitly developing weapon packages any more, but there are plenty of other companies who will be happy to take the money to build them onto Boston Dynamics' platforms.
“Your privacy is very important to us.” is technically true though. It probably does take away something from their profits, and sometimes the whole business idea, if they don't continue to rampantly violate it...
DARPA sponsors lots of things that aren't specifically about weapons or killing people - medical treatment, logistics, etc. that are useful for defense/war but generally applicable.
Sure, Boston Dynamics is a bit more obvious there, but merely having DARPA funding doesn't mean it's about killing people.
Oh, I had thought that when dang said somethings took 15 years and pow they happened, maybe my interpretation was that dark mode is definitely something which can occur within the future in a similar fashion.
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a blind person / person with low vision without a smartphone these days: they’re a near-essential window into services that aren’t accessible though plain paper.
If you’re selling shoes to potentially 10,000 people, but ten customers consistently buy your entire stock, then you’re making the same money. But you’re limiting your future expansion, because whenever the other 9,990 potential customers try to buy your shoes they find none on the shelves and either choose to not use you in the future, or worse tell people how bad you are at supplying shoes.
Given finite server availability, my guess is that OpenClaw users were degrading the service (or start hitting service limits soon) for “normal” users, causing Anthropic to get worried that their cashcow in Claude would start to get negative press.
reply