Honestly I think this whole conversation is wasted, we shouldn't have come down from the trees my opinion be known.

I have learned from this that I need to a lot less ready to randomly press keys on my keyboard and sign it off as my opinion, when my opinion living solely within my head is good enough.

That's literally what I said.

Are you talking about LNG, oil, coal, or nuclear? Because all of those also have government cheese heading their way.

So are you upset about the percentage to dollar rate? Because what's killing that ratio is the infrastructure. Literally go look on Google maps and within ten seconds you'll be able to spot one of thousands of pipelines we've laid down over the last umpteen decades. We've had a lot of time to really crank up the effectiveness of the others. We'll do the exact same with solar and wind as well because this nation is really good at that kind of stuff.

So wait, would this also apply to anyone getting code from say Stack Exchange? Or from some other location where a human wrote it? What about auto-complete code? Most LLM at the moment with code is just glorified auto-complete with a pretty big DB behind it. Additionally, what's the degree of taint here? Would lifting a code example from a UNIX manual and adapting some lines of it to modern style be taint?

I think the entire point is that LLM is an "unknown" at the moment for how copyright applies to it. And once you bring that into something that really needs to be sure about the copyright to provide a BSD style license, it could break something.

I think it's less about code without attribution and more about we don't have a firm legal understanding just yet of where LLMs fall into place in the court system. We've got some examples, but without 100s of prior cases, it's still iffy to include it and if you're an already paranoid group of people (and I mean that in the upmost respect for the NetBSD team whose steadfastness has provided an incredible collection of software, I literally am doubtful that I could say one bad word about the core group there) things that are iffy, you just aren't going to take a chance.

But I will close, that is solely my opinion on what I think drove them to this decision. I welcome being wrong on any aspect of that.

Also wanted to address this. It's up to the private sector to build the reactors. We don't have a state nuclear program, we have state nuclear regulations, but we don't have a national program for domestic nuclear energy. And lots of investors have left the sector mostly because you can build something around 36 GWh renewable for the cost of 1 GWhe nuclear. Even getting rid of some of "the most burdensome" regulatory processes:

One, wouldn't be easy because nuclear regulation is special than all the other regulatory processes. Only Congress can mitigate that. But that said, removing the "bad regulations" that are often cited would be easily a decade in the making. And we'll likely have a few Presidents in within that time frame that would all but ensure the process takes longer. Not even going to get into Congress stepping in making the whole process even more lengthy.

Two, still wouldn't be enough to make nuclear cost effective given the massive decreases that renewables have YoY. Even on a nine year time scale from your comment, nuclear just wouldn't be able to keep up with cost effectiveness, when about every three to five years renewables see decreases in double digit percentage for TCO. So even going at breakneck speed of nine years, you just cannot keep up.

So I don't think it's bullshit. But it's really whatever. We have a free market and not many players want to get into nuclear. And there's even fewer lobbyist for the nuclear industry. So even if the US opened the doors, so to say, there's a high chance no one would still want to build a reactor based on return on investment and risk evaluation. The reactors just don't make a lot of sense to the people who have cash. So barring a complete federal takeover of the nuclear energy sector, it's just not going to happen, even if the federal government got on it's knees and asked nicely with sugar on top.

It's just too much damn money and too many people want their return on their investment yesterday. The market just isn't favorable for nuclear at this moment. You need people who have multi-decade vision for investment investors and we don't have a lot of that kind of billionaire in the United States. A lot of the folks who have the majority of the money aren't looking to send their dollars out for three to five decades. They're doing good to send it out for three to five years. And I have not even the slightest idea what would be needed to sweeten the deal to get investors to drop the truckloads of cash onto a reactor that is "maybe" ten years down the road. Especially when they can see solar projects that can come online in stages, with some stages coming online in as few as two years. They can start making money back on their investment in as little as two years. That's a really big draw. You don't get to start collecting money on nuclear until at least one of the units is completely done.

I'm just telling you, I was cheering on the small reactor designs and the kinds of timelines they were looking at delivering all the way up till they completely folded. Because even the mini-designs just couldn't keep up with how fast the price was dropping for renewables. At some point, it comes down to what investors will tolerate. And there's just not the stomach for nuclear from investors. It is what it is.

That's not their job. FERC works on transmission of energy. That's electrical, oil, and gas. Where those come from isn't their department. Hence the reason why FERC is being mentioned here. The rules are about the review of transmission lines.

But FERC is part of the Department of Energy. Who you want to speak to is the Office of Nuclear Energy within the DoE or you can direct some of your comments to the US NRC.

But FERC has nothing to do with nuclear. Everything to do with power transmission and "THE GRID" so to say.

I will attempt to make this short and sweet. That is not exactly 100% true from what I have seen in the real world. But if you want to hold tight to scripts, far be it for me to convince you otherwise. I work on legacy z/OS and IBM i machines and we have got some HPUX 11i machines in addition to a bunch of images and containers where things like socket activation is really important. (and there is a bunch of Windows servers where I work, but we are not talking about those.) So I have seen both the scripts and the systemd world a lot. Mixed bag I think is much better to described how systemd and scripts work on a day to day basis.

Now I will say the boxes that have just one or two people maintaining. They love them some scripts. And it makes sense, there are a few hands touching things. But we do not deploy new service to those boxes, because for pretty much that reason. There is a lot of validation that is required. I am pretty sure you would agree, that you would be pretty reserved on having some junior dev deploy a MySQL instance to your box and mucking with bringing that service up on startup. And I am not saying you should not, just saying, different tools do different things. And some people who scribble their name on a paycheck like having devs push all kinds of things for them on a pretty rapid fire basis.

And for the "when it breaks", I have seen both. I have seen rock solid from both, I have seen situations that get pretty hairy for both. I can only tell you what I have seen. Again, I am not dismissing you. Nothing but love for you. But "sometimes a mixed bag but mostly solid for both" is what I would call what I have seen in real life. For all the sky is falling I have heard about systemd, I have just not seen it in any of the RHEL instances for the last five or six years. And we have got something like 100,000 containers across a pretty wide amount of AWS RHEL machines. Maybe that was the case back in 2011 or something, I do not know because we did not move to that kind of deployment where systemd management shines until 2018. And we have our fair share of folks who do not like that, so I hear it all of the time from them when something does indeed fail. So maybe it is a bitter taste? I do not know. I can only comment on what I have seen. And you might have seen differently, and that is a completely valid thing. The nice thing is, because of all of the variety out there, we get to pick all kinds of things.

All I have to do is make the couple of people who are able to dismiss me happy for at least six more years till I retire. After that, I likely will not have an opinion one way or the other. I will likely just be happy with whatever fires up Civilization VI on my computer and right now my home daily driver is Pop_OS which last I checked, uses systemd. But honestly in six years, I will not care as long as I can get in a few more turns.

So I am happy scripts work for you. You should stick with it. All I know is that the:

I have not seen that ever play a major role in breakage. But you know? I am just one person, take all I have said with a massive grain of salt.

I disagree. The fragmentation is the best aspect of Linux. I don't want a one systemd to rule them all, I want multiple tools that people can select for their application. I don't want a wayland that will bring them all. I want multiple display servers that each person picks because it suits their needs. I don't a Gnome desktop to in the the darkness bind them. I want people who love E16, KDE, XFCE, WindowMaker, i3, and so on to be able to select what they want.

I wholly disagree. I think the people who want sysvinit scripts and the folks who want units from systemd are all awesome. I love the Gnome desktop, the KDE desktop, the titling managers, and the various litestep/gnustep out there. I think the RedHat, the SuSE, the Ubuntu, Slackware, Pop_OS, and so forth are amazing.

I think the wide variety out there makes FOSS be it Linux, GNU Hurd, or any of the BSDs the best place for everyone. Because there isn't a "Linux Desktop (tm)", the Linux desktop is whatever you make it. That's different than anything else out there and is the most compelling feature of open source in my most humble opinion.

I think the hate for systemd is unfounded because we still have sysvinit in a whole lot of distros. I think the hate for wayland is unfounded because we still have lots of Xorg and hells bells, we still have directfb. I think the hate for Gnome is unfounded because we still have more DEs than people actually know about. All the hate that I hear on Slashdot or the bemoaning of "whatever someone thinks is going to replace their favorite tech" it's all unfounded. Shit we still have Delphi and COBOL compilers, I know, that's how I make a bit of my bread and butter. Anyone thinking X11 dies within their lifetime is just wanting to yell at clouds. Because so long as people want to use something, it's there to be used. WindowMaker is still out there, E16 you can compile and run it on directfb today, there's people wanting to remake the IRIX 4dwm, there's folks writing kernels in pure Rust, we've got so many various init systems out there, more flavors of firefox pre and post XUL, and if you want to fire up an IRC server or heck you want to do what the cool kids are doing and fire up a finger server, we've got all of that covered too. That to me is the best thing about all of this.

No I don't think the fragmentation is a bad thing. I think it's one of the biggest strengths of open source.

Don't quote me on this, but I believe that the usual for power transmission in drones to the motor is 18 AWG, which has max transmission of 2.3A. I believe 18 AWG is used because of the weight. So for him to push the required amps would have required a thicker conductor, which in turn adds weight. I'm sure that this can become a headache of trying to balance weight, current required, and the other factors like rotor diameter, drag vs lift calculations, etc.

Good on him for finding a good balance to achieve this speed.

Ugh. We had a consumer facing application that had this exact thing happen. It was something that was developed without the backend team being brought in. Eventually they had to setup nightly tasks to clean duplicate data into a more normalized form. Any time those tasks failed, all hell broke lose. Eventually, they had their jobs write success or nothing to the backend DB2 and we had an IBM i nightly job that would scan the table for success or lack of a message for success. Any missing success messages had the IBM machine hit a web service that would ring the person on-call that night to check what happened.

There was never not a day the on-call had to troubleshoot at least one of the scripts that cleaned their data in the middle of the night. It was a cluster.

For sure, the NoSQL got them up and running and got them through their first two versions of the product. So major win there. But as soon as the complexity increased, the ability for their NoSQL solution to keep working just fell out and their resistance to change made it harder and harder till they dug themselves a hole they could barely get out of. At some point early on it should have moved to a proper object on the IBM, but they just dug in their heels and keep going with a solution that was creating more and more debt for them.

There's good solutions and NoSQL can be among them, but there's a point where you have to realize that a different technology is required. It isn't to say one is better than the other any more to say that a hammer is better than a screwdriver. But people can get so stuck in picking one or the other that they can get themselves into trouble.

Here's the deal. Everyone got frustrated with Flash, they wanted something open that wasn't Flash. So HTML5 was created. Now, it's too Javascript heavy. Yeah, that's what everyone wanted.

Yes because the HTML spec is a 1400 page tome of text, not even getting into all the various java script, HTTP/3, and so forth. It would take a person months to digest the full specification and five times that to just begin hammering out the basics to properly rendering the DOM. HTML 5 is completely unknowable to a small development team. Again, that is because we wanted it to subsume not just Flash, but every aspect of application development. This was the entire plan.

So many forget that the vastness of things people wanted the web "to do" created a specification that only incredibly large teams can implement. The Chrome-aid was exactly what people wanted because in their ignorance they thought Google's "do no evil" would just go on forever.

When xhtml was being dropped and HTML5 started coming down the pipe with Google steering the majority of it, what other outcome was everyone expecting? We are 16 years out since and two decades out from all the original discussions and WHATWG Ian Hickson's (from Google) dismissal of Opera's and Mozilla's proposals. We knew then that this is where we were heading and very tech savvy people were still tripping over themselves to "get rid of Flash" so hard.

Nah, I find it difficult to believe that everyone wanted something other than the Chrome-aid. Where we are at is EXACTLY where everyone wanted to be then. And now that we are here all I hear now is, "Oh no, not like that!!" No, our chance to avoid the Chrome-aid was back in 2003 and we were so stuck up our own asses about how bad Flash was, that we prostrated ourselves and begged Google to take our browser choice.

Where we are is exactly where everyone wanted us to be outside of the few Opera and Mozilla engineers. And the only thing people could do about Mozilla was complain about security models that they kept playing with, which eventually lead to the outrage in 2010 when discussions about dropping XUL and XPCOM began. Everyone got so wrapped up about inconsequential bullshit and praying that someone would save us from the shitty Internet we had then, I mean we basically GAVE Google the "web".

Hate the Chrome-aid? It's exactly what we always wanted in 2003/2004 but suddenly now that Google is attempting to turn a dime on that technology, "OH NO!! SOMEONE SAVE US!!" They're all gone. No one is here to save us. The web IS CHROME and that is the end of that story.

It might be what we need but it's not at the price tag a private nuclear industry can afford. There's is only one option that can ever make nuclear an option in the United States and that is a fully controlled government ran and funded state program. Not when we can literally build 38 x 1 GWh solar installs for the cost of a single 1 GWh electrical nuclear plant. And right now, solar is still not completely refined, it's still has massive room for increasing effectiveness and driving costs down. It would not surprise me if by 2030 we could build 100 GWh solar for the cost of a single GWh nuclear. Paired with LFP batteries, Na-Ion batteries, and other grid base storage becoming double digit percentage cheaper each decade, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2030 we could have online 1 TWh batteries across the nation for less price than enough nuclear to power Alabama alone.

There is zero denying it. Solar and battery just keeps getting cheaper every year and investors look THAT. Nuclear cannot compete in free market, full stop. There are zero ways someone is looking at $17B and ten to fifteen years at nuclear and same size plant solar costing $860M and two year turn around. Toss in 10 GWh LFP storage for double that price and there's just not even a starting argument.

Nobody anti-nuclear uses this argument anymore. Nobody who matters at least. It's just dollars. It's just price tag. That's the only argument anymore. The "oh no waste" as soon as you could build 5 GWh for the cost of a nuclear plant, that argument vaporized from the talking heads. It's 100% cost arguments. Solar just keeps getting cheaper at utility scale that we don't even have to worry about the sun shining. We are very realistically getting to a point where we can build collection and storage ten times what we need in an area. And the massive decreases in price haven't even started, we're still at the very start with solar. That's why you see rich people stumbling over themselves to get investments in now. Why you see literally oil companies buying lithium and sulfur mines as fast as they can.

And that's why I'm pointing it out here. Nobody uses the dangers of nuclear waste argument who matters. It's pure free market here. Solar and wind costs keep falling off a cliff. Investors see massive dollar signs. Nuclear, private investors see high risks and little reward. There will never be nuclear in the United States again that isn't solely government owned and operated. There are zero people left in this country that want to take that kind of investment on. Fifteen years is way, way, way too far away for any investor. Everyone wants their returns yesterday. The rapacious free market we have in this country has assured nuclear is dead. And with the UK doing studies and inital production of sodium ion batteries from sea water, which I'm not sure if you've checked, but we've got a lot of that lying around. We're going to be producing batteries for fractions of pennies. Storage will be the least of our worries. LFP removes the whole nickel and cobalt from the equation and replaces it with iron...IRON of all things. Yeah you give up density and you massively increase weight, but for grid based, none of that matters. If you can take lithium and iron and produce a battery from that's thirty-two cents per kilowatt, which that's the current going price for LFP in China, you can build a 80 ton battery for all anyone cares about. If it's only a couple million to store enough power for 30,000 houses for 14 hours, we can build thousands of those for the initial investment cost (not even the full cost) of a nuke. And the only reason we aren't seeing that take off right now is because we've got a bit of a tiff with China at the moment. But China is correct in what they're saying at these climate summits, they aren't worried about competing with Western nations because they aren't even in the running with the massive production lines that they're created so far.

And the reason why is because we've still got people like yourself who cannot see the writing on the wall. Nuclear is dead. It died from being to expensive. And there is no new technology on the horizon that will save it from that fate. I thought the small nuclear was going to save it. Boy did I wish that nuclear could be saved by the small nuclear folks that were working on micro reactors. But once those companies started folding, that was it, that was the last chance nuclear had to be appealing to investors. No private dollars are going to go to nuclear ever again and that is all there is. The end.

And there it is. With that, nuclear is dead. If government isn't an option to saving nuclear, then hang it up. It's over.

This is literally the whole thing that keeps happening to all these kinds of devices. This was literally the expected outcome and Neuralink's difference was supposed to be mitigation factors for this.

It's a thing called scar tissue. The brain does not like foreign objects inside it. Who knew?

This was the thing that was supposed to set the Neuralink apart from others. Being able to use statistical analysis in real time to fine tune the signal that was coming from the brain. And input signals (while constantly changing because of the ever increasing tissue surrounding the "threads") were to be kept maximized by some unknown mitigation factor that made the "threads" so unique in this domain. Clearly there are no means for them to ensure that the signal input remains clear enough for the computer to do it's thing.

All in all, this shows that Neuralink pretty much only has the really quick CPU and fancy formulas as their sole trick up their sleeve here. They've clearly made no inroads on the whole brain rejection of implants. How much continually refining the algorithm can go is indeed interesting, but eventually the brain will form granuloma around the implant and the probes will barely pick up anything after that point. There's no trick math that can calculate the signal from zero input. So this Neuralink is just basically all the others like it but with a fancy computer to help out. Got it.

Just curious, what's your solution to making people better drivers that isn't also running into that nanny state thing you mentioned?

There's way more people on the road today than yesterday, going to be more people on the road tomorrow than today. At some point, just saying "make better drivers" doesn't work anymore without some sort of intervention. We can build it into cars or we can hire 100,000 more patrol to nanny us. But either way you slice it, I'm curious how you purpose we fix things that isn't "nanny state".

I'm all ears.

Yes. It absolutely will do this. But if a powerful console is what you were expecting, clearly you haven't been paying attention to Nintendo since the GameCube. They aren't looking to capitalize on hardware power but on their Intellectual Property. That's literally what they have going for them. The fact the people will fall over themselves in droves for a good Mario platformer, another open-world Zelda, a shoot 'em up Metroidvania, a Mario Kart, or any other of the IP that Nintendo commands a pretty hefty loyalty over.

I mean every go round we hear everyone shouting the "shortcomings" of Nintendo's console or their shitty consumer tactics of having everyone rebuy all their old stuff for the newest platform. And every time, millions of people empty their pockets for Nintendo, showing that all that lackluster hardware or all that abusive relationship that Nintendo puts their customers through means jackshit at the end of the day. Because people kept begging Nintendo to depart them of thousands of dollars of cash.

So yeah. The console will be absolute trash from a pure specs view. Yeah. So bullshit marketing thing will happen and suddenly you need to rebuy literally everything for the new console. And lots of Nintendo fans will absolutely do it to a degree to make Nintendo profitable yet again. Or it'll be a WiiU, but the biggest killer of the WiiU was Nintendo hoping that the Wii name would carry people into it. The marketing for the new console was trash so it never had the penetration to draw any third party from the word go.

That said, I won't be buying Nintendo's newest trash. I'm pretty done with supporting their massively hostile approach to consumers. But even so, I'm not doubting that should they actually market this fucking thing, that they'll convince enough people with their strong IP to fork over another couple of thousands on a garbage system.