The panels just get a little warmer (but never more than as warm as they'd get if they were just mounted in the sun but not yet wired up, which they can stand just fine)
Does being hotter make them less efficient when turned back on?
Yes, but not enough to matter.
And only while they rapidly cool toward a new thermal equilibrium over the next handful of minutes.
Why didn't you just buy Mexican fireworks like everyone else? It's not like they were hard to find.
Or visit a Chinatown in the lead-up to Chinese New Year?
Solar farms and some domestic users are being charged during peak hours to take their electricity rather than being paid
Fortunately, photovoltaic solar can be throttled back or off at electronic speeds. The panels just get a little warmer (but never more than as warm as they'd get if they were just mounted in the sun but not yet wired up, which they can stand just fine). Let their control know when the power rates are getting near zero or switching over to negative and they'll just shut down. So it's just "heck, our investment isn't making money", not "fertilizer, we're paying the grid to take our power".
Wind turbines need a load to keep them from overspeeding and tearing themselves apart - at least until they can be "feathered" to something near full-stop, which takes a while (and which smaller house-sized windmills aren't necessarily of doing, or doing automatically).
Concentrating solar power (CSP) also takes a while to shut down. But phoey on them. They shouldn't exist, now that we know they spend their days turning birds that get near the focus into falling "smokers" when they try to land on the nice roost and their feathers, heads, and feet suddenly get hit with temperatures approaching half that of the solar photosphere.
Sounds like a typical google result.
It *is* just search results. This isn't about "training"- this is RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation). All it's tasked with doing is to summarize the top search results. This isn't a case of "The AI thinks you should put glue on pizza", it's a case of "the AI is told to summarize a bunch of articles saying to put glue on pizza".
The irony here is that the solution here is going to need to be to put *more* emphasis on AI and less emphasis on search results.
I get what they were going for. But the tech just isn't ready yet, and some things (such as the lack of a screen) will always be iffy, so it obviously should have just been a cell phone accessory. Probably could have worked pretty nice as a cell accessory. But the cell accessory market is hardly as glamorous as the "new device that makes your cell phone obsolete" market.
They also were about a year or two early, and a year or two behind on the frontend devel. Waiting for a cloud response is just not a practical way to do things. With some development work, you could make a hybrid of cloud queries on a high-end model and local queries on a low-end model (like Phi 3). The low-end model could be fine-tuned to act as a "manager", incl. ability to issue commands to find definitive answers (RAG for search results, code gen to run mathematical operations, queries on your your data in the phone, etc), and to command the apps in your phone (there's been neat work on having models learn how to control arbitrary apps). It could also start answering queries on its own while waiting for the cloud, and then seamlessly merge in the results when the cloud stream started to arrive (incl. backtracking if the cloud suggests a better solution). But all this takes time and development work. A rush to market doesn't cut it.
Would also be a lot more useful after some of the anti-hallucination mechanisms mature. RAG helps a lot with that, but it has its own limitations. My money is still on MoEs with cos similarity between hidden states of each expert run fed back into add+norm for the next layer, since a confident answer should get similar hidden states between different experts.
Elaborate on what you mean by "globalist".
They had a chance to do this right. They could have, say, mandated a series of tests (which they can update the rules for at regular intervals if they prove insufficient) for testing whether models are memorizing and leaking data that they shouldn't. But as always, leave it to the EU to legislate methods rather than outcomes.
And big companies don't want to be fined into oblivion, so yes, it matters. And with rules like:
untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet
You might as well have just entirely banned scraping from the internet. Who wants a diffusion model that's great at everything except has no bloody clue what a face looks like?
How many commercial products do you see on the market?
Nobody is saying that "neural implants" are new. Trying to make them practical, such as not getting rapidly encapsulated and not having a hole in the head allowing infections to spread straight into the brain and having sufficient bandwidth for common tasks - is the point. This is not easy (particularly the first issue), which is why it's taken so long. The old meat cleaver-like Utah Arrays in particular just plow fat pins straight through blood vessels and trigger an immediate immune response.
Shh, we're supposed to be bashing tech that utterly transforms the lives of paralyzed people because the guy who owns the company is a jerk.
The GP was talking about "glacier ice that is already in the water", not ice that has newly moved from land to sea.
And said ice functions as a barrier for the land ice, greatly slowing down its ability to progress into the ocean.
Also, it's an example of Bad Amateur Science that floating icebergs shed by glaciers don't affect sea level. What's true in the case of a glass of water in your kitchen is not true in the ocean. Freshwater ice, melted and diffused in seawater, results in an elevated sea level. It's a small impact (only about 3% that of land-based ice melting), but still meaningful.
Basically: a chunk of ice, floating in water, displaces its own weight in water. At 0C, Freshwater ice is
Seawater at 0CC however is 1,028g/cc, aka 3% more. For a given amount of displacement, there's an extra 3% of freshwater ice volume and mass. This melts to a volume 3% larger than than the displaced volume.
Think of it using a extreme example. Pretend that neutron stars were stable containable liquids and not highly explosive condensed states maintained by gravity, and that you had a bucket containing a thin layer of it at the bottom. You fill the rest of the bucket with a giant chunk of ice. The neutron star "sea level" rise from having the ice atop it is basically immeasurable. That's your starting point. Now let the ice melt. Now the entire bucket is full of liquid. The "sea level" has risen dramatically.
Of course, it's even more complicated than this in reality, because you don't have a separation of saltwater and freshwater, but rather they merge, and the net density isn't exactly a linear weighted average between the two. Close, but not exactly.
Right. You, a rando on the internet, know so much more than the FDA, because you read something on the internet somewhere. *eyeroll*
Yes, if you commit cross-border crime, you very much are subject to the laws of the state in which the crime occurred, regardless of whether you were physically there at the time.
Now, whether you'll actually get extradited is a much more complicated question.
Yes, that's what extradition law is about. This isn't surrender as per a EAW. Extradition requires principles such as dual criminality, where what they're charged with has to be a crime in both the sending and receiving state, and speciality, where the subject can only be charged with the pre-agreed-upon list of charges. Extradition involves a high degree of sovereignty of the sending state, vs. EAW which is more like handing off a criminal in the US who fled across state lines.
"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."
