Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X, the moonshot factory

x.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#191

Post by valval »

Marrand wrote: post #187
owlbynight wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These engineers won't be having fun, because these engineers will be working for Elon Musk. Also, it's a rebrand. He fired the vast majority of the engineers he had. Everyone is hating on "X" because the people who possess the ability to think critically, i.e. engineers, are rightfully perplexed by every single move that this moron makes. It taps into the uncanny valley response for smart people, and it is amplified…

Wrong X

It’s like a hater bot just spewing out mindless hate. Funny how that works.

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#192

Post by ConceptJunkie »

oh_sigh wrote: post #51
scblock wrote: post #3

X by Google, X by Twitter, X by X. Terrible branding on all sides and I am so not interested in any of this bullshit.

Google X doesn't really need brand recognition, because they're supposed to pump out brands, not be the brand. IE Waymo, verily, etc.

"Google" is the brand name for enshittification.

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#193

Post by opportune »

astrange wrote: post #183
opportune wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do over the domain 360*Z_719

If it's supposed to be degrees, then since 360==0 doesn't that mean the range is [0,360) so 360 degrees is actually an out of range value for an angle? I've always wondered this but never enough to ask it.

Z_719 is the shorthand for integers in [0, 718], with Z_n typically connotating the algebraic group or ring of integers up to n. In this case 360(Z_719) is an ideal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_(ring_theory)) over that domain.

While the ordered sequence of Z_719 is just {0, 1, 2... 718} then wrapping back around to 0, for the ideal 360(Z_719) you get {0, 360, 360*2 % 719 = 1, ...} which is the basis of my joke :)

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#194

Post by ManuPop »

giobox wrote: post #149
ke88y wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google launched its X/moonshot org in 2010 [1]. 14 years later, have any “landed?” Waymo, Brain, and Chronicle

I can't speak to the other two, but it's laughable to suggest in 2023 Waymo has "landed" - where is the contribution to Google's bottom line? Where can I buy or use Waymo tech outside of some very restricted demo neighborhoods? What is the likelihood this changes in the next few years? I'd be far more prepared to argue Waymo is presently another poster child for a failing Google x project.

Describing “landed” as “Waymo is profitable and deployed in most of the US” would be like arguing that the space program was a failure because it didn’t lead to profitable space ports and space routes.

The equivalent of the moon landing for self driving tech is closer to “they have driven a lot of miles without anybody in the driver seat”, which both Cruise and Waymo have done (>1M miles)

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#195

Post by iainmerrick »

yreg wrote: post #117
iainmerrick wrote: post #102

I always felt that calling this a “moonshot factory” was foolishly overblown. Just like you don’t generalise your code until you have at least two instances to work from, show us two successful “moonshots” before you even start thinking about a “factory”.

Moonshots don't imply moon landings. I take the name in a humbler manner — X is a lab that works on risky projects that might not make it anywhere, and Alphabet is okay with that.

That's a fair point!

Although, it still feels to me like the "factory" part implies they've figured out a good way to spot good investments:

At X, we’re trying to build a “moonshot factory”, a place where the processes and culture make it easier to make radical breakthroughs — repeatedly.

...but their track record doesn't really bear this out, I think?

If they had studied successful moonshots from the past and pinpointed some important elements of their approaches, that would make sense, but if so the website doesn't talk about it.

It looks like an incredibly cool and fun place to work, but who knows if they're funding the right ideas and the right people, or if it's all just random?

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#196

Post by giobox »

ManuPop wrote: post #194
giobox wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to the other two, but it's laughable to suggest in 2023 Waymo has "landed" - where is the contribution to Google's bottom line? Where can I buy or use Waymo tech outside of some very restricted demo neighborhoods? What is the likelihood this changes in the next few years? I'd be far more prepared to argue Waymo is presently another poster child for a failing Google x project.

Describing “landed” as “Waymo is profitable and deployed in most of the US” would be like arguing that the space program was a failure because it didn’t lead to profitable space ports and space routes. The equivalent of the moon landing for self driving tech is closer to “they have driven a lot of miles without anybody in the driver seat”, which both Cruise and Waymo have done (>1M miles)

What utter nonsense. Google is a publicly traded for-profit company, not a sovereign government or charitable cause.

The entire point of Google's moonshots is new profitable businesses, of which Waymo is not and has never been. Comparing to the United States Government because they both used the term "moonshot" is beyond silly.

For a Google moonshot to land, it has to make money, or it won't continue to exist. It's really not a complex concept.

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#197

Post by madcaptenor »

starkparker wrote: post #138
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #82

Also of note is that the stock ticker symbol "X" is, for whatever reason, US Steel [0]. If Elon ever takes his X Company public, I bet there will be a lot of erroneous buys of US Steel, similar to what happened when Twitter originally went public [1] (an unrelated penny stock with the ticker symbol TWTRQ surged), or when an unrelated company with the ticker symbol ZOOM surged when people started buying Zoom videoconf…

IIRC the X came from the 1980s when it branched out into energy, bought Marathon Oil, and reorganized into an umbrella company named "USX" in which the US Steel part became just a subsidiary. They exited that in 2001 but apparently? kept the symbol.

It's actually the other way around - they already had the symbol X and that's why they became USX.

New York Times, July 9, 1986, on the founding of USX: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/09/business/us-steel-new-nam...

"Mr. Roderick explained that for months the company had considered more than 200 new names, ranging from U.S.S.A. and Amcor to Maxus. U.S.X. was selected, he said, because ''it had a continuity from the U.S. part.'' He added that X had been the company's symbol on the New York Stock Exchange since 1924. "

There's no obvious connection between X and US Steel - maybe somebody just thought X sounded cool?

Re: X, the moonshot factory

#198

Post by tehlike »

foooorsyth wrote: post #143
tehlike wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brain is everything you know of today in GenAI space, and many more internally used products and technologies.

>Brain is everything you know of today in GenAI space I know ChatGPT, Midjourney, StableDiffusion, Adobe Firefly, And GitHub Co-Pilot in this space. Where’s Google? Let me guess: Brain’s research led to those products? Even if that were the case, Google still failed to market and capitalize. Are they running an open research lab for the greater good? Or are they still interested in launching market-leading products?

Sure, google didn't capitalize on their tech before others did.

But google is a fast follower. Let's wait and see.

Also - did you miss "many other internally used tools/infra" part - if they can feed ads infra and increase revenue by a meager 1%, that's more than enough to make up for all others combined in revenue generated.

Post reply on HN