Is this written by someone that lost money gambling on NFTs? I don't think the demo is particularly bad and it's known that demos are the happy path so don't expect full functionality in the recording. I think every customer demo I have ever done has involved some form of magic or omissions while features were built in the background. Having not heard of this company before it looks like they have made a few attempts at different ventures but unless this is an outright scam I don't think it's worth hammering like this. People need to try things and sometimes ideas don't work out.
Rabbit Inc. Faked Their Demo (Again)
21–23 of 23 posts
Re: Rabbit Inc. Faked Their Demo (Again)
#22This seems like an overly aggressive article? I'm not sure if all exposes are like this, but they seem to be assuming a lot on very little evidence. IMO having a bit of respect/empathy for a startup is a good thing...
The follow up tweet cleared it up, he clicked the wrong item in the list during the demo… https://x.com/jessechenglyu/status/1767363848145969315?s=46&... Definitely overly aggressive gotcha type stuff. Journos usually give a chance for a response before writing such attacks.
Even clicking the wrong link, the audio says
"Our mission is to create the simplest computer, something so intuitive you don't need to learn to use it"
and the transcript for the one they selected says
"The meeting focused on creating a simple and intuitive computer, without the need for learning how to use it".
So while it's understandable they selected the wrong entry, it is a bit curious that the audio mismatches from the transcript of the one they selected.
Perhaps they're running the audio capture though some sort of GPT to make it more like naturally written?
Re: Rabbit Inc. Faked Their Demo (Again)
#23This seems like an overly aggressive article? I'm not sure if all exposes are like this, but they seem to be assuming a lot on very little evidence. IMO having a bit of respect/empathy for a startup is a good thing...
I'm not defending the typo, but sometimes I will intentionally change one letter before deploying as a janky way to make sure that I'm using the new build. He claims the typo was 'intentional' so I wonder if that's the reason?
I do this all the time. Change a character so I can quickly see that I’m running the build that I thought when iterating internally.
This theory makes the most sense to me.