Aphasia comes in many forms, and he could have issues with auditory language processing that didn't affect his ability to read or write.

But yeah, it's probably someone speaking on his behalf.

nVidia has three things working in its favor right now: CUDA, better raytracing, and better upscaling tech. Setting those aside, red and green teams are pretty close in performance. The real interesting competition is going to be the next generation, where nVidia is sticking with a monolithic design and AMD is going for GPU chiplets. Could be some pretty big market upsets there.

You're welcome to speak. You're not welcome to speak with complete immunity to the consequences of what you say.

That hasn't been how you change your IP address in Windows since Windows 7.

Start -> Settings -> Network -> Properties (your current default route NIC is selected by default, but you can pick another if you want) -> Edit -> Select "Manual" from the dropdown box in the popup to override DHCP -> Hit the button to enable manual configuration of IPv4, IPv6, or both -> Enter your IP data. Closing it out involves clicking "save" and then closing the Settings window.

Compare this to a mac, where the path is Apple -> System Preferences -> Network (default is auto-selected) -> Advanced -> TCP/IP tab -> Select the appropriate IPv4/IPv6 dropdown box and pick manual -> Enter your IP data in the space below. Closing out involves clicking "Ok" on the advanced settings window and closing the System Preferences.

Now I get personal preferences are a thing and that we all prefer the user interfaces we're used to, but the OSX and modern Windows UIs are pretty similar these days, at least in terms of design principles if not exact steps.

This is not "a day to fight through bureaucracy to change three lines of code." This is "a day to change three lines, and properly evaluate the consequences of that change," which for something as core to their gameplay loop as the competition management, isn't really that surprising.

Back, oh... 30-50 years ago, it was pretty commonly accepted that you did your first real and rigorous algebra course in 9th grade. You would be introduced to the concepts - the idea of variables, and the like - as early as 4th grade, but algebra as a full course was pretty much the purview of a high school education. It was one-size-fits all, but it also cut down on the number of fields that 8th grade teachers were required to be proficient at teaching.

There was a big push toward "accelerated studies" and the whole pile of advanced placement / early college / my son or daughter is smart and gifted that resulted in splitting the high school education tracks into a "I attended a prestigious elementary school with good teachers and tutors" and "I had the basics and little more because my school district was poor." High School used to help correct that, but the split instead reinforced it.

Honestly, if we want to ACTUALLY fix math education in America, we need to stop re-teaching it every two or three years. It's completely absurd that kids learn three different syntaxes and methodologies for multiplication (6 x 9, 6 * 9, 6(9)) from second grade through eighth, and the teaching of division is a much bigger mess. People like to rag on "new math," and there's reason to do so, but the core idea - that we should probably standardize how we teach these massively important concepts - is a really good one.

The objection isn't to people playing around with math. That's pretty clear. The objection is to using said math to scam people, con people, dodge taxes, gamble with, or transfer funds for criminal enterprises... which, to be perfectly blunt, constitutes the vast majority of uses for crypto right now. The people using it to actually pay for things day to day are few and far between.

Because crypto isn't used end-to-end, and is instead converted into whatever the local currency is, stopping it doesn't require complex and invasive technological measures, they just tell the people running the exchanges that they're not welcome to business in the country.

Very, very different use case.

RTGs are for when you need a small amount of completely maintenance and oversight free electricity for decades. Specific energy values for RTGs are in the low single-digit W/kg range. They're great for lighthouses, remote listening stations, deep space probes, and the like, but you're not going to run more than a few lights off of one.

Compact fission reactors will, depending on the design, require some degree of maintenance and monitoring. The upside is that specific energy for a compact fission reactor starts at about 50 W/kg and only goes up from there.

As mentioned elsewhere, this is almost certainly for tax reasons. Elon Musk has billions of dollars in stock options maturing in the next couple years, and CA has a significant income tax. Texas has no income tax, for individuals or for corporations. If Tesla plans on getting into finance - which pretty much every auto dealer does these days, as it's where the money is - then it behooves them to move as much of their income as possible to Texas.

So, no, I don't think Tesla is going to pack up shop and leave CA: There's too much investment already here, there are too many hiring options here, and there are a bunch of excellent ports (for, say, shipping automobiles to other parts of the world) for it to make sense to abandon operations and leave. Moving some financial constructs, on the other hand, does make a fair amount of sense.

Especially since said financial operations don't suffer millions in losses if the power grid freezes, overheats, or otherwise fails - unlike manufacturing and engineering.

The SF bay area may be a bit more challenging, as most of the bay coast is either already developed or protected wetlands. Furthermore, the most of the bay itself is fairly shallow as a consequence of gold mining runoff during the 1800s, and dredging a path for ships to reach the port of Oakland is already a large task.

However, the bay area would be an ideal location to try electric truck deliveries: distances are short, traffic tends to be stop-and-go or on surface streets a lot of the time, and there's already a lot of charging infrastructure in the area.

The free market is a poor system for setting the price and supply logistics for things with inelastic demand. Health care is the big example, but basic foodstuffs, shelter, water, power, and the like all tend to have problems when they're left to the free market. On the flipside, the free market is *very* good at settling prices for elastic goods, and for driving innovation and luxury.

The free market is an excellent system when you're dealing with elastic demand, there is no collusion between any of the parties, and all the parties involved are fully informed. When you start taking away those critical elements, it very quickly breaks down, and can end up offering far worse outcomes than other systems of resource allocation.

Nuclear has a bunch of problems.

First, because the consequences for failure are so dire, we require (and rightly so) that nuclear power plants be made as safe as we reasonably can make them. Very few other small-scale human activities can have as drastic a long-term impact as a nuclear disaster, and minimizing the chance of needing to write off entire swaths of land for the foreseeable future is important.

Second, waste is a problem. It's not an unsolvable problem - we know there are ways to vastly reduce the amount of waste we produce - but it isn't a problem we've solved *yet.* As such, we still have to cope with spent fuel storage, and like the nuclear accident problem, it's a long term issue.

Third, it's expensive. Between safety regulations, initial investment costs, staff requirements, fuel refinement requirements, supply chain logistics, security, and the like, it's not cheap to operate a nuclear power plant. They're great when you need a lot of power in a localized area, but the whole myth of "power too cheap to measure" is just that.

Fission power has a place as a transitional energy source, but it's not where we should be looking for large scale electricity generation going forward. Maybe if we ever figure out aneutronic fusion things will be different, but fission is a complicated fiddly mess.

Min specs for the *tech demo* is a 1080 Ti and 32GB of RAM. That's not the minimum spec for the engine, which is an iteration on UE4 and carries forward the relatively broad scaling options that engine had.

No, it does not. You need to be in the driver's seat (or there needs to be enough weight to make the car think you are), you need to apply torque to the steering wheel on a semi-regular basis (not much, and there are ways to get around it) or it shuts off and the car coasts to a stop, and it turns off on its own if it encounters something it's unsure about.

It's a neat feature for making trips on well-lit uncrowded highways less tiring, but it's not magic, and you need to do a fair bit of fuckery to get it to act out of spec.

People are paying money for and investing in the cryptocurrency equivalent of &some_artwork.