I don't expect swarms to use the same form factor as a fighter. Really I expect them to be a cross between a fighter and a missile. No guns on board, and no missiles on board. Yes, fly like a plane, and land safely back home if you can, but also the attack mode is to crash into the target (or get close enough, and explode). Size will (and design details) will be dependent on desired range and speed.

As a result, each individual craft will be a LOT cheaper than current fighters. But a swarm may well be even more expensive. (Depending on swarm size and desired range and speed.)

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.

Ok, sure, *liquid* water will see a net increase as currently solid water becomes liquid, mostly serving to increase saltwater volume, which is useless. The bigger consequence is how that more cycling through the evaporation/precipitation cycle will manifest, and it would suck if it's mostly moving water through the air to the ocean. Wouldn't be too terrible if it were the other way around, unless it's mostly in unworkably strong hurricanes. The key thing is we aren't sure.

At best, this moves the viable agriculture land. As *maybe* new farmland would open up (hardly a safe bet), existing farm land would be made non viable. When you say "energy" I assumed you meant like hydrocarbon or electricity, which obviously won't be aided. So yes, more thermal energy, but hardly an assurance that would mean a net increase in arable land.

I seriously doubt you have anything suggesting that we've had more successful agricultural thanks to atmospheric CO2 concentration shifts.

Because we know the score for the current climate and how we can house and feed ourselves. We've got very little to go on to confidently know the specifics of change. It would be foolish to assume we know, and since we are currently reasonably "good" with how things are, there's a lot more room for downside than upside. Like say I told you I'm going to rip you out of your nice house and plop you randomly somewhere on Earth to fend for yourself. Would you take that bet that you'll end up somewhere nicer than your house?

It means water from ground will move in different ways. Water in the atmosphere more, moving, well, we aren't sure where. We know how to deal with the hand we are dealt now, we have no idea if the new precipitation pattern will be over the ocean (useless), viable soil or not, etc.

It's not *impossible* that the new conditions will be viable, but if we can keep things as we are used to dealing with them, that would be the safer bet.

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.

Why do you assume financing?

I'm finding this hard to swallow.

So I'm estimating you have a system that outputs about a single megawatt hour in a month. That is likely about an 8kw set of panels. Since you mentioned enough batteries to last a few days, then I am willing to believe $15k all-in, *mostly* in battery and associated management system.

There's no way that you have a solar installer quote you $60k for a 8kw installation without battery. I see about $15k to $22k quoted. Certainly significantly more than the parts, but not $60k.

We don't get additional water, the precipitation will behave somewhat differently, in ways potentially we can't cope with.

The additional energy in terms of useful energy is not feasible to improve our harnessing of energy.

Plants are not so few for lack of CO2 today. We have never felt "oh, our agriculture is limited by CO2", it's limited by other factors, none of which are looking to "get better".

The simple fact is that "oh, 16 million years ago there was more CO2 than today" is not vaguely comforting when that's almost 16 million years before humans were figuring out how to do this whole civilization thing.

An 18-wheeler was overkill.

Everyone knows that they should have used a station wagon.

While a lot comes from the major vendors, some of the major vendors actually kind of suck and you absolutely have huge gaps in what they provide.

Particularly with firmware, you get chunks to cover bits and pieces but you have to provide certain bits and pieces. I'm frankly shocked how bad the 'ready to go' firmware even from someone like Insyde or AMI is, who you would *think* would have it pretty well down by now. You can have the most milquetoast combination of predictable components and *still* need to do work to behave as well as a Dell or Lenovo even if the components are largely the same, as they have some on staff firmware developers that build on top of the vendors and they don't share their assets with the world. Hell, it's obvious that they don't even share with themselves, some product families are worlds apart from the exact same company with the same chipsets.

Two possibilities:

- Regulatory folks have expressed "concerns", which may have motivated them to try to get some relief

- The had a plan that at least publicly anticipated tolerating 95% attrition and the other 5% were so locked in they'd pay the price needed to more than make up for the 95%. Based on a few situations I have heard about, I get the impression that not even 5% were as locked in as Broadcom presumed, so they may feel the need to buy some time to adjust their strategy to cope with that reality.

The story lines were derivative. But no more so than the current ones. The story lines have been slowly evolving since the Greek plays. (We even still use some of the Greek terms to refer to them.)

It's not just a question of whether it's justifiable. It's just simply nonsense to think that they can enforce this. Anyone can run Stable Diffusion on their computer. There's a virtually limitless number of models finetuned to make all kinds of porn. It's IMHO extremely annoying all the porn flooding the model sites; I think like 3/4ths of the people using these tools are guys making wank material. Even models that aren't tuned specifically for porn, rarely does anyone (except the foundation model developers, like StabilityAI) specifically try to *prevent* it.

The TL/DR is: if you think stopping pirated music was hard, well, *good luck* stopping people from generating porn on their computers. You might as well pass a law declaring it illegal to draw porn.

Light exposure, depth, degree of exposure, isolated from others or clustered... many factors can affect survivability.

Movies have become more derivative every decade since the motion picture camera was invented. This is the "low hanging fruit" observation.

People only have a certain number of desires, and only desire a certain amount of change. As it gets more difficult to come up with something new that people like, something old will get repeated more. As there gets to be a longer history of "something old that people liked", something new will be created less often.

It's not just movies. You can see it everywhere. Consider, e.g., software. A new edition has to change something noticeable, but it gets harder to come up with something new that people will like as much.