Here we go again with this.

NVidia shipped 100k AI GPUs last year, which - if run nonstop - would consume 7,4 TWh. Crypto consumes over 100 TWh per year, and the world as a whole consumes just under 25000 TWh per year.

AI consumption of power is a pittiance. To get these huge numbers, they have to assume long-term extreme exponential scaling. But you can make anything give insane numbers with an assumption like that.

I simply don't buy the assumption. Not even assuming an AI bust - even assuming that AI keeps hugely growing, and that nobody rests on their laurels but rather keeps training newer and better foundations - the simple fact is that there's far too much progress being made towards vastly more efficient architectures at every level - model structure, neuron structure, training methodologies, and hardware. . Not like "50% better", but like "orders of magnitude better". I just don't buy these notions of infinite exponential growth.

At launch it was the most expensive stock to short on the whole market. One of the fin sites did a cost breakdown.

I like their business model but wow, the claws EU allowed Apple to have are quite something.

Hopefully businesses can offer different versions of their app to each set of 999,999 customers Especially hobby projects.

Some military guys project AI could be more deadly than nukes.

And we're trusting Zuck with it.

True, and neither does Hamas. For that matter, neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian people get to claim the moral high ground, since both overwhelmingly support the actions of their governments. Both are in the gutter, and digging downward. A pox on both their houses, and I don't think we should support either one. I am okay with humanitarian aid to starving people, though.

Everyone (including Slashdot) is presenting the study wrong. It's forecasting that world incomes would drop by nearly a fifth relative to what they would have otherwise been, not relative to the present.

I suppose. I prefer to plug in every time I park, then I basically never have to pay any attention to range except on long trips.

Yeah, that's another side of my second reason, though cycles really only begin to bite when you get close to full or close to empty. Oscillating near the middle is fine.

Correct. Funny thing is? I covered this stuff in a different reply in the thread. I'm getting "corrections" there saying stuff I said in this reply, while getting stuff I mentioned in that reply here.

For example, Ireland having ministers be registered civil witnesses is like my comparing them to public notaries here in the USA - and yes, the paperwork has to reach the state for you to be considered married under the law.

I'd argue that civil marriage in the USA isn't particularly religious though? It's mostly designed around property management and custody of children.

You're having to try to spell it out, I think, because it's not actually particularly true. You can get married in the USA without ever going to church, seeing a priest, having a ceremony beyond signing some paperwork in front of a clerk, etc...

Sure, you can do the whole religious wedding thing, but the state isn't going to recognize that unless it gets its bit of paper, properly filled out.

Hell, remember Vegas and the Elvis presided wedding trope? What's religious about that?

Also, want to point out that this particular marriage was ended in London, IE England, the UK.

You're going to have to identify the religious assumptions, because at least to me, I don't see "marriage" as a religious thing by default. Marriages started more between people of some prosperity and was a symbol of the transfer/joining of assets, the creation of diplomatic between families, like with a treaty, etc...

Not very religious to me.

I'm also going to have to disagree on it being a "first and foremost' religious construct. That's more European, I think, and even then, it was more because the church became the main record-keeper for a fairly long period of time, they had the halls and regular meetings to announce marriages, to perform a ceremony that might make the couple more likely to stick it out, they were the ones doing counseling, etc...

It became religious, it didn't start that way, I think.

At the moment. But meanwhile they're having problems with elderly being forgotten, only found mummified in their homes long later, people aren't retiring in the country until extremely late, if at all, entire towns are being abandoned, there's a real problem with keeping up with all the elderly's care needs, to the point that they're looking at using companionship robots, etc...

Uh, as guruevi noted in another reply, this isn't actually "super extra true" in the USA. MANY other countries are even more explicit about having marriage based on a specific religion. For example, many countries in Europe have actual literal state religions. The Church of England, for example.
In comparison, the USA is actually fairly distanced, to the point that a US civil marriage is compatible with something like 90% of people's religions, maybe with a little nitpick here and there, mostly to deal with divorce and marriages beyond 2 people.

While I'd guess you're talking about Christianity here (which is itself a fairly big tent), it's also compatible with Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc... While it might be informed by Christian beliefs, I'd argue that the very existence of "no fault divorce", which is incompatible with the biggest faction - Catholicism.

And yes, it's going to be a complex contract system which would be hard to make less complex - you're talking about merging two households into one, with a high likelihood of raising children. Separating that back out once it's had a while to congeal is going to be complex, especially if there's significant assets involved. Tempers can run high. People can be greedy, etc...

I'd argue that allowing priests and other religious officials to sign marriage certificates as the witness/performer of the ceremony is just being reasonable (on average), saving the time of some government official to repeat the same thing. Kind of like what allowing a public notary to do it would. Though yes, I'd require that they acknowledge that the state has its own rules on who can enter a marriage/civil union that is recognized by the state, and that they're certifying that any couples they sign for meet the requirements to the best of their knowledge.

I used to be "civil unions for all, if you want to be married, find a priest/religious official to do the ceremony", but I've moderated over the years.

Marriage is the most complicated contract most people enter into their entire lives. It's entwined with various government benefits, rights, privileges, duties, etc... As the government is the ultimate arbiter of contracts, the ending of a marriage (which is a big messy contract) generally involves some government work, because among other things, government is the ultimate recorder of marriage contracts.

Lawyer, intending to do work on divorce case A, instead opened divorce case B, and filed the divorce finalization for B, instead of the A they were intending to.

Both parties were getting divorced, but all the negotiation stuff wasn't completed yet for B.

Apparently, this has been favorable for the husband, but the lawyer firm that did the bad action is/was representing the wife. So now the husband's lawyers are going "no take backs!"

The latest judge in this seems to be taking the position that they were trying to get divorced anyways, no need to undo the divorce just to do it again.

Spot on.

More people will do real porn too, because they can always claim it was a fake.