You are no less likely to get a virus if only 20 get on you versus 100. Viruses reproduce. As long as one gets into your system, you may get sick. Now, you immune system may protect you, or it may not. That isn't a function of how many of the virus gets into your system, but rather or similar virus having been seen before.

This is why the studies that have been down on mask effectiveness in actual use show very tiny differences versus not wearing a mask.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality there is.

People have been complaining for the 8 years about this effect at least.

I want to point out, however, the manipulation is the problem. By putting themselves in the middle to massage these triggers, social media has become actors rather than a passive service. As such, they bear responsibility for these actions.

Also, claiming these PRIME factors are no longer useful is incredibly stupid. The behavoir is obviously working, so it is copy worthy.

The true problem lies in the solidification of views due to reinforcement..

And the root cause is the impression from millions of people. We aren't built to deal with what amounts to mobs of this size. We are trying to use our individual based tools on the multitudes problem.

But we are

I didn't say I was worried about the morality of AI's, did I? Humans have a long history of immorality, enough to be a worry without the technologies encouraging such behavior.

I definitely said the morality I was writing about was the humans that were using it.

We have people that act an treat their animals like children, but they are permanent children, the expectation is never for them to grow up.

AI is already treated like a grown up, and worse it is treated like a slave grown up, ordered to do the tasks we don't want to do.

This has moral implications as well as implications of habits we develop.

My biggest concern about technology is not just how it controls us in all the little paper cuts, but how it makes each individual worse morally for its use.

I very clearly stated they would work with batteries? The idea would be to have a closer match to actual total usage to lower the reliance on fossil fuels.

There modularity might make them a better fit for the swings in power demand that large nuclear doesn't handle very well, however.

Large nuclear as a baseline for the normal powerloads works as well as Dams, but peak demand is usually handled by spinning up a generator that burns fuel, either coal or Natural Gas for the most part.

If you can trade that for smaller nuclear with batteries to save the power not used during the non peak usage times, you could better match the need and use the batteries when peak goes above what you can generate.

This is better than solar and wind as both can't be forecast well enough to manage exact usage, but does allow for them to operate. This should reduce our reliance on Coal and Natural Gas.

In Maine, Natural Gas determines the price of electricity due to its usage at peak energy and their need to lock in a price once a year.

The nuclear option should have a much more stable price over the lifetime of the reactor.

Hardware is right. This uses the GPU, you know, that thing games depend on? And each image takes several second to be rendered, though the article didn't mention any time frame for the changes they made. This is definitively not something that can be done in real time now, so what you are left with is 4GB of extra space, plus the space the cached large sized texture will take, the hours it would take for every image in a 40GB game, which are on the small side these days, so you could turn that 40GB into 38GB to download.

The amount of savings on this is too small for it to be practical.

Also, a significant limitation is this encodes the image in the 512x512 size. We know from traditional compression techniques, including Jpeg, that the larger the resolution, the more information you can throw away, because we are very detail oriented creatures. This throws that advantage out the window as a first step.

There is another interesting project that is using AI to compress video that holds more promise for my time.

There are absolutely models available with this filter turned off.

Two other ideas that come from this:

Build heat sinks in the ocean along the equator. The amount of heat soaked up by the ocean is limited to the surface area that directly faces the sun. We can use optics to focus heat onto pillars that travel far down into the ocean to increase this absorption area. This should be much cheaper than shooting things into space.

The other options is either a heat sink or a heat exchanger between our atmosphere and the night side of the Earth. The temps on that side in space are low enough to afford such a solution. This idea needs a lot of fleshing out, but some mixture of these could get us 80% there. And the goal is not a permanent solution from these, but to buy the time we need.

Getting the experience any of these projects would take would of course be useful for future projects.

We can move objects closer to the sun to block more light, but that is quite a bit of material to pump up.

So, we change the approach. We send up and object that is, let's say spherical so it can spin on an access to not be always facing the sun. We move the spinning spheroid into an orbit that keeps pace with Earth but is close enough to the Sun to block enough light to cool the planet. By controlling the distance from earth, we get the same result of having more mass up there, but we now have to account for the issue of direct heating of the object, much closer to the sun.

We could have several of these spheres orbiting a central point, that provide a longer period out of the direct path of the sun, at the expense of much higher costs.

While we are dreaming, would it be easier to just strap some rockets onto an asteroid or two and move it into such an orbit?

I never thought I would be trying to design an anit-Ring World. I am sure we can come up with some way of moving the asteroids in and out of that orbit, making them thermal batteries. Maybe cheaper than nuclear bombs to terraform Mars?

Only if we have enough time to do so. The Climate Alarmist, as can be seen right now on the FP of Slashdot say we don't have that time. My solution buys us that time, because it can be done much more quickly than reengineering our grids.

Also, I don't mind us spending money to save lives, and all the other solutions I see floating around require serious detriments to the poor in all countries, but significant damage to those in 3rd world countries. If we can have both at a higher price, lets.

We need the opposite of this. We need mirrors that reduce the amount of sunlight into our atmosphere if we want to lower the temps. Use a ring of mirrors around the earth that orbit in lockstep with the earth to prevent them getting too hot.

Use actuators so we can have finer control over the amount of light let in. We don't want to cover more than 1% of the surface, because we want fine, not gross control over the temp. We should try to avoid being over any country but try to have the satellites always in the summer zone.

This will give us a control to test if part of the climate change is from the sun. (Hint: The sun is the largest source of heat for our planet, so it is likely.) while giving us time to fully develop and implement a plan for the future.