Not at all. We've been working on this for a while, and we're now comfortable with the reliability bar we've hit to begin a gradual rollout to the public. As people said, this has been years in the making.
Make sure to do whatever "express interest" is required inside the app. We've often done a first-come, first-served approach for getting people off of waitlists, so get in now :).
Sorry about that. Please file in-app feedback (now under Help > Leave Feedback) any time you experience something like that. There's a dedicated "Car Condition" tag.
We comply with the posted speed limits. Definitely on 101 near San Francisco where there are 55 mph zones (and maybe even 50 mph?) it's pretty noticeable. But we do hug the right lanes.
> I have an updated, I found out that T2 4K is an HDR movie that needs to be played with MadVR and enable HDR on the TV itself, now the colors are correct and I took a new screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/KTOn3Bw.jpg
> However when the TV is in HDR mode the 4K looks 100% correct, but when seeing the screenshot with HDR off then the screenshot looks still a bit wrong, here is a screenshot with correct colors: https://i.imgur.com/KTOn3Bw.jpg
Yes, there have been a couple re-render the whole thing. There was a good write up somewhere that I cannot find now where there was a discussion of keeping RenderMan bug compatible with the original or not. They also upped the shading rate and a few other quality knobs.
> A total of 15 participants received CTX310 and had at least 60 days of follow-up. No dose-limiting toxic effects related to CTX310 occurred. Serious adverse events occurred in two participants (13%): one participant had a spinal disk herniation, and the other died suddenly 179 days after treatment with the 0.1-mg-per-kilogram dose.
> Editing of ANGPTL3 was associated with few adverse events and resulted in reductions from baseline in ANGPTL3 levels.
The article seems to hinge on the core assumption that revenue is much less than spending:
> Those expenditures may be approaching $1 trillion for 2025, while AI revenue—which would be used to pay for the use of AI infrastructure to run the software—will not exceed $30 billion this year
While it's clear that the author is summing up the spending from the big players, it's not clear to me that their math is right for revenue. Yes, OpenAI, Anthropic, Thinking Machines, SSI, etc. have pretty limited direct revenue (including zero!).
But this comparison assumes no revenue growth for other top computing users. Some companies are certainly saving money on some tasks and increasing revenue, particularly in fields like customer support. See the confusing figure in section 5 of https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/econo... .
That chart is by number of respondents and not weighted by revenue. Like the MIT study, it would not be surprising that "just pipe this to an LLM" isn't enough for most fields or companies. But a few have likely made material improvements.
10% of respondents saying they've seen a >10% revenue gain could be substantial, if they're bigger firms with high leverage in computing.
Edit to add: the comparison also makes a classic "GDP vs market cap" style mistake. Capital expenditure has multiple years of useful life. Revenue is annual. You'd want to compare depreciation vs revenue.
