Comment Re:Cause it's fuckin cool bro (Score 1) 35
He's listed like a dozen things that he wants to pay for with the tariff money, each of which would individually consume anywhere from "a large minority of it" to "more than all of it".
Comment Re:Cause it's fuckin cool bro (Score 1) 35
Not to say that spending money to do "cool things" is inherently wrong, but just as a reminder: the Trump administration cut $8B from USAID's annual budget and it's projected to lead to 14 million extra deaths by 2030, 4,5m of them children.
Comment Re:Keep jobs for immigrants (Score 1) 9
[William Stanley Jevons has entered the chat]
Comment Re:People are cheap (Score 1) 9
It's this observation that makes me skeptical about the whole humanoid hype fest.
You have a strange definition of humanoid.
The second thing is that people are damn cheap.
Depends entirely where you are. Labour in our greenhouses here (Iceland) is insanely expensive and makes it difficult to compete on the global market against imports (even imports of perishable things that are expensive to ship). Replacing workers with machines on a given task might not be economical, in, say, Uganda, while it might be a complete no-brainer here.
That said, there are also things that we could do to bring labour costs down, but don't. For example, at the same time we struggle with high labour costs and shortages in fields like agriculture, we also have problems with too many asylum seekers, most of whose cases get rejected and kicked out (economic migrants), but not for many months of limbo, living at taxpayer expense, when what they really want to do is work here. The obvious solution is to make an agricultural worker visa, where while you're guaranteed the same labour/safety standards but you're not guaranteed Icelandic minimum wages and benefits - but still far better than these people would get in their homeland. The vast majority of them would be thrilled to sign up for such a thing if it would guarantee them residence. But migration-politics is such a hotbutton political issue right now globally, it's hard to do any commonsense stuff like that.
. At the moment, making such a robot that can even perform that task well, let alone be cheap and, importantly, reliable, is a very difficult problem.
I'd also add that while picking is the glamorous AI task, it's only part of the work. In greenhouses at least (I don't have field-tomato cultivation experience) we do an awful lot to manage the plants**. You have to remove the suckers at every internode on the plant (except those at the base to get the proper number of vines per plant), you have to remove the lower leaves at regular intervals, you have to wind the plants around the string that they grow up, when the plants get tall you have to slide the tops over so that they grow at a diagonal, and on and on. And that's just the management for the mature plants - you also replace your plants at regular intervals, so you have to start new plants grow them, repot them, grow them, then plant them out (not just the planting, but also replacing the growing medium) - plus all of the side stuff like cleaning, managing irrigation, and on and on. Harvesting the fruit is just one task among many.
** To anyone reading this who is surprised about all of the plant manipulation, think of it this way: you have a finite amount of surface area for light to hit, and a finite amount of root volume for each plant. So once your plants get to a size where they're basically using all the light and basically have rooted through the whole growing medium, the only way you can keep their growth in balance as they continue to grow is to keep removing old leaves. And you need to stop any branching immediately because again all that branches would do is just grow into your other plants. And once your plants are so long that they've hit the top of your wires, the only thing you can do is slide the wires over so that the plants are growing (ever-increasingly) diagonally. Nothing you can do about the fact that the stems just keep getting longer and longer as the top continues to grow except replace the plants at regular intervals - you need to let the plant continue to grow because that's how you get new blossoms for fruiting. Removing the lower leaves also has the nice side effect that the tomatoes that are maturing lower down are left fully exposed, making them easy to harvest. You harvest as they hit maturity. Once your plants have hit their max size, you top them and go hard on top/branch removal until the majority of your tomatoes left on the plant are harvest-ready, then take them all. A good trick BTW to boost flavour right before harvest is to significantly up the EC in the irrigation solution (to levels that would normally be wasteful or even detrimental to the plant), as it results in effectively "salting" the tomatoes.
Comment Re:People that are otherwise rational (Score 1) 54
Also, our ancestors have been eating meat for thousands of years with no effect on the weather
That's a really big claim. You have not done the research or looked at the evidence to back it up. It's something you pulled out of your ass. Don't do that.
It is possible that our ancestors eating meat had an effect on the weather.
Comment Re:People that are otherwise rational (Score 1) 54
This is what the article recommends:
The report suggests measures such as a universal basic income, taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods.
Comment Re:So robots are the new fat cat capitalist class (Score 1) 9
Leave it to Slashdotters to complain about tomato-picking going from "repetitive mindless activity at maximum velocity" to "only the cases that you have to use your brain to think about because a robot isn't smart enough".
I guess we should have people manually screwing the caps onto toothpaste tubes also.
Comment Re:Or alternatively... (Score 1) 9
Every economy will always have some unemployed and underemployed people, as every economy is constantly shifting, as does people's status as to what kind of work they can carry out. That doesn't mean it's efficient or sustainable to say, "Oh, you lost your job yesterday? You're a farmer now!". Japan has an unemployment rate of ~2,5%, which is actually quite low. Japan is famous for making "busywork" jobs for people. "Oh, you have a traumatic brain injury and have trouble walking quickly? Just stand over there and hold this sign."
Comment Re:3D printing wasn't the problem (Score 1) 99
Will do!
RoboCrop: Teaching Robots How To Pick Tomatoes (phys.org) 9
alternative_right quotes a report from Phys.org: To teach robots how to become tomato pickers, Osaka Metropolitan University Assistant Professor Takuya Fujinaga, Graduate School of Engineering, programmed them to evaluate the ease of harvesting for each tomato before attempting to pick it. Fujinaga's new model uses image recognition paired with statistical analysis to evaluate the optimal approach direction for each fruit. The system involves image processing/vision of the fruit, its stems, and whether it is concealed behind another part of the plant. These factors inform robot control decisions and help it choose the best approach.
The model represents a shift in focus from the traditional 'detection/recognition' model to what Fujinaga calls a 'harvest-ease estimation.' "This moves beyond simply asking 'can a robot pick a tomato?' to thinking about 'how likely is a successful pick?', which is more meaningful for real-world farming," he explained. When tested, Fujinaga's new model demonstrated an 81% success rate, far above predictions. Notably, about a quarter of the successes were tomatoes that were successfully harvested from the right or left side that had previously failed to be harvested by a front approach. This suggested that the robot changed its approach direction when it initially struggled to pick the fruit. "This is expected to usher in a new form of agriculture where robots and humans collaborate," said Fujinaga. "Robots will automatically harvest tomatoes that are easy to pick, while humans will handle the more challenging fruits."
The findings are published in Smart Agricultural Technology.
The model represents a shift in focus from the traditional 'detection/recognition' model to what Fujinaga calls a 'harvest-ease estimation.' "This moves beyond simply asking 'can a robot pick a tomato?' to thinking about 'how likely is a successful pick?', which is more meaningful for real-world farming," he explained. When tested, Fujinaga's new model demonstrated an 81% success rate, far above predictions. Notably, about a quarter of the successes were tomatoes that were successfully harvested from the right or left side that had previously failed to be harvested by a front approach. This suggested that the robot changed its approach direction when it initially struggled to pick the fruit. "This is expected to usher in a new form of agriculture where robots and humans collaborate," said Fujinaga. "Robots will automatically harvest tomatoes that are easy to pick, while humans will handle the more challenging fruits."
The findings are published in Smart Agricultural Technology.
Comment Re:Venus is orders of magnitude easier to colonize (Score 1) 35
Still more friendly than Mars, with more usable local resources
In a Major New Report, Scientists Build Rationale For Sending Astronauts To Mars (arstechnica.com) 35
A major scientific report published Tuesday argues that sending astronauts to Mars is justified by the quest to find life and conduct research that robots alone can't achieve. "We're searching for life on Mars," said Dava Newman, a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report. "The answer to the question 'are we alone' is always going to be 'maybe,' unless it becomes yes." Ars Technica reports: The report, two years in the making and encompassing more than 200 pages, was published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Essentially, the committee co-chaired by Newman and Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, director of the University of California, Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory, was asked to identify the highest-priority science objectives for the first human missions to Mars. [...] "There's no turning back," Newman said. "Everyone is inspired by this because it's becoming real. We can get there. Decades ago, we didn't have the technologies. This would have been a study report."
The goal of the report is to help build a case for meaningful science to be done on Mars alongside human exploration. The report outlines 11 top-priority science objectives. [...] The committee also looked at different types of campaigns to determine which would be most effective for completing the science objectives noted above. The campaign most likely to be successful, they found, was an initial human landing that lasts 30 days, followed by an uncrewed cargo delivery to facilitate a longer 300-day crewed mission on the surface of Mars. All of these missions would take place in a single exploration zone, about 100 km in diameter, that featured ancient lava flows and dust storms.
Notably, the report also addresses the issue of planetary protection, a principle that aims to protect both celestial bodies (i.e., the surface of Mars) and visitors (i.e., astronauts) from biological contamination. [...] In recent years, NASA has been working with the International Committee on Space Research to design a plan in which human landings might occur in some areas of the planet, while other parts of Mars are left in "pristine" condition. The committee said this work should be prioritized to reach a resolution that will further the design of human missions to Mars. "NASA should continue to collaborate on the evolution of planetary protection guidelines, with the goal of enabling human explorers to perform research in regions that could possibly support, or even harbor, life," the report states.
The goal of the report is to help build a case for meaningful science to be done on Mars alongside human exploration. The report outlines 11 top-priority science objectives. [...] The committee also looked at different types of campaigns to determine which would be most effective for completing the science objectives noted above. The campaign most likely to be successful, they found, was an initial human landing that lasts 30 days, followed by an uncrewed cargo delivery to facilitate a longer 300-day crewed mission on the surface of Mars. All of these missions would take place in a single exploration zone, about 100 km in diameter, that featured ancient lava flows and dust storms.
Notably, the report also addresses the issue of planetary protection, a principle that aims to protect both celestial bodies (i.e., the surface of Mars) and visitors (i.e., astronauts) from biological contamination. [...] In recent years, NASA has been working with the International Committee on Space Research to design a plan in which human landings might occur in some areas of the planet, while other parts of Mars are left in "pristine" condition. The committee said this work should be prioritized to reach a resolution that will further the design of human missions to Mars. "NASA should continue to collaborate on the evolution of planetary protection guidelines, with the goal of enabling human explorers to perform research in regions that could possibly support, or even harbor, life," the report states.
'Food and Fossil Fuel Production Causing $5 Billion of Environmental Damage an Hour' 54
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: The unsustainable production of food and fossil fuels causes $5 billion of environmental damage per hour, according to a major UN report. Ending this harm was a key part of the global transformation of governance, economics and finance required "before collapse becomes inevitable," the experts said. The Global Environment Outlook (GEO) report, which is produced by 200 researchers for the UN Environment Program, said the climate crisis, destruction of nature and pollution could no longer be seen as simply environmental crises. "They are all undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health and they are also [national] security issues, leading to conflict in many parts of the world," said Prof Robert Watson, the co-chair of the assessment. [...]
The GEO report is comprehensive -- 1,100 pages this year -- and is usually accompanied by a summary for policymakers, which is agreed by all the world's countries. However, strong objections by countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Turkey and Argentina to references to fossil fuels, plastics, reduced meat in diets and other issues meant no agreement was reached this time. [...] The GEO report emphasized that the costs of action were much less than the costs of inaction in the long term, and estimated the benefits from climate action alone would be worth $20 trillion a year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100. "We need visionary countries and private sector [companies] to recognize they will make more profit by addressing these issues rather than ignoring them," Watson said. [...]
One of the biggest issues was the $45 trillion a year in environmental damage caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, and the pollution and destruction of nature caused by industrial agriculture, the report said. The food system carried the largest costs, at $20 trillion, with transport at $13 trillion and fossil-fuel powered electricity at $12 trillion. These costs -- called externalities by economists -- must be priced into energy and food to reflect their real price and shift consumers towards greener choices, Watson said: "So we need social safety nets. We need to make sure that the poorest in society are not harmed by an increase in costs." The report suggests measures such as a universal basic income, taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods.
There were also about $1.5 trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, food and mining, the report said. These needed to be removed or repurposed, it added. Watson noted that wind and solar energy was cheaper in many places but held back by vested interests in fossil fuel. The climate crisis may be even worse than thought, he said: "We are likely to be underestimating the magnitude of climate change," with global heating probably at the high end of the projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Removing fossil fuel subsidies could cut emissions by a third, the report said.
The GEO report is comprehensive -- 1,100 pages this year -- and is usually accompanied by a summary for policymakers, which is agreed by all the world's countries. However, strong objections by countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Turkey and Argentina to references to fossil fuels, plastics, reduced meat in diets and other issues meant no agreement was reached this time. [...] The GEO report emphasized that the costs of action were much less than the costs of inaction in the long term, and estimated the benefits from climate action alone would be worth $20 trillion a year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100. "We need visionary countries and private sector [companies] to recognize they will make more profit by addressing these issues rather than ignoring them," Watson said. [...]
One of the biggest issues was the $45 trillion a year in environmental damage caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas, and the pollution and destruction of nature caused by industrial agriculture, the report said. The food system carried the largest costs, at $20 trillion, with transport at $13 trillion and fossil-fuel powered electricity at $12 trillion. These costs -- called externalities by economists -- must be priced into energy and food to reflect their real price and shift consumers towards greener choices, Watson said: "So we need social safety nets. We need to make sure that the poorest in society are not harmed by an increase in costs." The report suggests measures such as a universal basic income, taxes on meat and subsidies for healthy, plant-based foods.
There were also about $1.5 trillion in environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, food and mining, the report said. These needed to be removed or repurposed, it added. Watson noted that wind and solar energy was cheaper in many places but held back by vested interests in fossil fuel. The climate crisis may be even worse than thought, he said: "We are likely to be underestimating the magnitude of climate change," with global heating probably at the high end of the projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Removing fossil fuel subsidies could cut emissions by a third, the report said.
OpenAI Joins the Linux Foundation's New Agentic AI Foundation (nerds.xyz) 11
OpenAI, alongside Anthropic and Block, have launched the Agentic AI Foundation under the Linux Foundation, describing it as a neutral home for standards as agentic systems move into real production. It may sound well-meaning, but Slashdot reader and NERDS.xyz founder BrianFagioli isn't buying the narrative. In a report for NERDS.xyz, Fagioli writes: Instead of opening models, training data, or anything that would meaningfully shift power toward the community, the companies involved are donating lightweight artifacts like AGENTS.md, MCP, and goose. They're useful, but they're also the safest, least threatening pieces of their ecosystem to "open." From where I sit, it looks like a strategic attempt to lock in influence over emerging standards before truly open projects get a chance to define the space. I see the entire move as smoke and mirrors.
With regulators paying closer attention and developer trust slipping, creating a Linux Foundation directed fund gives these companies convenient cover to say they're being transparent and collaborative. But nothing about this structure forces them to share anything substantial, and nothing about it changes the closed nature of their core technology. To me, it looks like Big Tech trying to set the rules of the game early, using the language of openness without actually embracing it. Slashdot readers have seen this pattern before, and this one feels no different.
With regulators paying closer attention and developer trust slipping, creating a Linux Foundation directed fund gives these companies convenient cover to say they're being transparent and collaborative. But nothing about this structure forces them to share anything substantial, and nothing about it changes the closed nature of their core technology. To me, it looks like Big Tech trying to set the rules of the game early, using the language of openness without actually embracing it. Slashdot readers have seen this pattern before, and this one feels no different.
Netflix Faces Consumer Class Action Over $72 Billion Warner Bros Deal (reuters.com) 29
Netflix's $72 billion bid to buy Warner Bros Discovery has triggered a consumer class action claiming the merger would crush competition, erase HBO Max as a rival, and hand Netflix control over major franchises. Reuters reports: The proposed class action (PDF) was filed on Monday by a subscriber to Warner Bros-owned HBO Max who said the proposed deal threatened to reduce competition in the U.S. subscription video-on-demand market. "Netflix has demonstrated repeated willingness to raise subscription prices even while facing competition from full-scale rivals such as WBD," the lawsuit said. [...] The lawsuit said the Warner Bros deal would eliminate one of Netflix's closest rivals, HBO Max, and give Netflix control over Warner Bros marquee franchises including Harry Potter, DC Comics and Game of Thrones. On Monday, Paramount Skydance launched a $108 billion hostile bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery with an all-cash, $30-per-share offer.
Slashdot Top Deals
You're at Witt's End.
