I think the difference is that, in the table tennis example, it happens unconsciously and you can't help it. But you're right, it likely happens in most sports.
The mixed boys/girls classes example is, as you said, deliberate. And I too remember holding back on purpose in such situations when I was a kid.
With the arcade, no one was deliberately holding back. I'm sure of it.
Is it that you’re holding back against weaker opponents, or that you’re more excited and engaged when you’re playing against someone that forces you closer to the edge of your ability?
Hauling "hundreds of pounds of supplies every single day" is a fringe use case, essentialy nobody does this, it's not relevant.
"Maybe you don't understand people's needs and motivations as much as you think you do."
It's the opposite. You're confusing "needs" with "wants" and extrapolating the needs of the very, very few people who genuinely need a truck onto the entire population.
The vast majority of people use their cars to transport only themselves to work each day, then maybe pick/drop off one more person, then maybe go buy groceries.
I don't think you quite understand just how ridiculously niche valid use cases for trucks are. It's literally just towing, or some very specific off-road hauling. Everything else is going to be handled way better by something else, starting with a regular car, ending with a van.
Hell, for most people even a car is way overkill, a bike works perfectly fine to go to work each day, I assure you. So does public transport. You don't need 2 tons of steel just to to move your 100 kg body around.
To your analogy, I can use my dinky little chromebook 99% of the time and only boot up my PC when I actually need the power.
- My trucks require roads and do more damage to roads than trains do to rail tracks? No problem, roads are paid for by the taxpayer, while the rail companies have to pay to build and maintain their tracks.
- My trucks produce harmful emissions and particulates that trains don't? No problem, I don't pay for any of that.
- My trucks kill people in accidents? Again, no problem, not paying for any of that.
Yay, we've successfully optimized out any inefficiencies of trucks by externalizing literally all that's possible to externalize. Isn't the free market great?
I can't draw a pelican. Literally my only point of reference would be AI pelican drawings from the test. Otherwise I wouldn't know how to draw one at all.
I would be able to draw an accurate bicycle, but I'm an outlier on that. Most people could not draw one [1].
"Cyclist" and "someone on an illegal e-bike" are not one and the same thing.
> And you can see here "normal" bikes clocked at 36 Km:
No, those people freewheeling on a regular city bike on relatively flat ground are not doing 36 km/h. That's around 20 km/h by my somewhat well tuned eyeballs. Have you never been on a bike and measured your speed?
You're not going to be seeing cyclists going 36 km/h beyond significant downhills or sporty people on drop bar bikes putting in significant effort.
Decisively declaring long-term predictions wrong only two years later seems a little premature?
E.g. a company of the size of Meta/Google/Ms may very well be dying and still producing numbers that look like growth for the next few years.
---
Also, how in the world is a Jan 2025 prediction that "I believe we’re at peak AI" getting a simple "Wrong"? How are we deciding what "peak AI" is here?
---
Or, "July 2025: I am not trying to be dramatic, but it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Cursor is going to die" -> "Wrong (Cursor gets a $60B exit)"
"August 2025: These models have clearly hit a wall where training is hitting diminishing returns" -> "Wrong"
I guess this is just trolling at this point? This is like a research paper tier question, "wrong" doesn't cut it.
---
Very unimpressed with this analysis. Extremely poorly done, and pretty clearly not impartial at all. Shameful. Like, the guy does sound wrong to me, but the analysis is terrible nonetheless.
A better example would be mixed boys/girls sports classes in school, where the boys deliberately hold back as to not injure/scare the girls.
It's a pretty obvious and human thing not to go out and completely destroy a much weaker opponent. We're social animals after all.
There also may be an element of energy conservation, there's objectively no need to put in any more effort than necessary. Inefficient.
reply