kremer
The Camera Drone Company That Fell to Earth
In June 2016, Antoine Balaresque, the cofounder and CEO of the hot new startup Lily Robotics, stood before a room of business students at Berkeley's Haas School of Business, ready to reveal the PowerPoint slides that had made him an instant startup celebrity. Wearing the ubiquitous Silicon Valley uniform of a T-shirt and jeans, he appeared slightly bashful, with unruly hair and a boyish face still round in the cheeks. He seemed self-conscious about being feted by the room of business school students. Jessica Pishko is a San Francisco-based journalist who writes frequently about incarceration and social justice issues. Sign up to get Backchannel's weekly newsletter. The presentation began like most of Balaresque's talks, with the Lily Drone promotional video: A slick film showed the drone swooping through the air, capturing footage of users engaged in a series of outdoor adventures. When the video finished, Balaresque began to recount the origin story of his "flying camera." It started in 2013, with a family trip to Yosemite National Park, during which Balaresque's mother took a group photo.
How An Allegedly Fake Video Killed A Much-Hyped Drone Startup
The Lily Camera, a throw-and-shoot camera, is displayed during CES Unveiled at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in Jan. 2016. On Dec. 20, Lily Robotics was up against a wall. It was five days before Christmas, and dozens of eager customers who had spent more than $499 to pre-order the company's flagship product were wondering if they were ever going to see it. A San Francisco-based startup that had promised to build an autonomous flying camera, Lily was among the most-anticipated consumer hardware companies in Silicon Valley. In May 2015, its splashy launch video, featuring a four-propeller robot whizzing around a kayaker and snowboarder, went viral and was watched 5.3 million times in its first month.
RCC Cannot Compute Certain FSA, Even with Arbitrary Transfer Functions
The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.
RCC Cannot Compute Certain FSA, Even with Arbitrary Transfer Functions
The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.
RCC Cannot Compute Certain FSA, Even with Arbitrary Transfer Functions
The proof given here shows that for any finite, discrete transfer function used by the units of an RCC network, there are finite-state automata (FSA) that the network cannot model, no matter how many units are used. The proof also applies to continuous transfer functions with a finite number of fixed-points, such as sigmoid and radial-basis functions.