My concern is that the companies that bought them to run LLMs will become miners themselves to try to recoup some of the costs.

RWNJ is Slashdot's Tucker Carlson. Educated, erudite, pretending not to know things in order to justify the worst possible conclusions. I wonder if he wears a stupid bow tie.

Yeah, you've nailed this. This part of TFS made me laugh:

"This is so cool to me to have the opportunity to be at the forefront of this," one 18-year-old told the New York Times.

LLMs aren't new any more, given how fast the computing industry moves in general, though they are still the hot thing. This kid is nowhere near the forefront in any way. This is just the latest development in a field that's as old as computing.

It's still relevant. In particular it's how you get around restrictions.

If they did that it would increase emissions a lot. They also have already tried to do that but courts ruled that a) California could still have its own emissions standards because California invented emissions standards as far as the US is concerned and b) other states which previously chose to follow California's emissions standards before the US had them can continue to follow California's.

Of course there's no guarantee that the conservative-owned SCOTUS won't change that again.

The standards for operation of commercial trucks, busses etc. are already set by the federal government. States implement them but are not in charge of them, except for filling in the blanks left by incompetent and inadequate federal law as usual. Maybe you should educate yourself about the status quo before agitating for changes to it.

Also Honda, and GM was also well invested at one point, but they seem to have given up on it.

Every battery company of note has proprietary electrolyte. The differences between one battery chemistry and another can be significant.

Most of them are using Chinese batteries.

It's not simple to figure out what you're talking about, a search doesn't return anything obvious through the flurry of marketing content.

It applies to every CAN standard? There's like five of them.

Since after the 1990s, you mean? While there were a few CAN vehicles in the 1990s, it didn't really become popular until the 2000s because the interface chips were still relatively expensive.

Most of them aren't video cards as they don't have video output. A DAC and ports cost money that you don't need to spend to run LLMs. The other uses for these cards are mostly scientific, and there's not enough money in that to justify owning them. Perhaps the AI bubble crashing will lead to a push towards some kind of crypto still efficiently mined with GPGPUs. Eew.

Yes, and they suck now.

Generally agreed. They are also slow in common real-world driving scenarios, e.g. on twisty roads. You can't ride them at 10/10 in case you find a little patch of sand or oil as you will then die. I have been stuck behind sportbikes and superbikes in a 240SX with a stock motor a bunch of times, the motorcycles probably have 4 times the power to weight ratio but not enough traction. Also if you lose the front tire at speed you will likely die.

Aptera wants to create commuting vehicles that will be in the crush of traffic going 70+, and can lose pressure in just one tire and end up with just two left which don't naturally track straight. It's an insane proposition right on the face of it.

Yes of course, but realistic in that skimming fraud is still occurring and it is still only really viable when involving the magstrip.

If you're doing an attack it's beneficial to have it not be noticed. Also most readers I have used have two different slots- an insert and leave one for the chip, and a slide through one for the strip.

I'll find out in mid January, lol - it's en route on the Ever Acme, with a transfer at Rotterdam. ;) But given our high local prices, it's the same cost to me of like 60kg of local filament, so so long as the odds of it being good are better than 1 in 8, I come out ahead, and I like those odds ;)

That said, I have no reason to think that it won't be. Yasin isn't a well known brand, but a lot of other brands (for example Hatchbox) often use white-label Yasin as their own. And everything I've seen about their op looks quite professional.

In my experience, with only rare exceptions, the limit should be three. More than three, and you are likely involving people working on multiple projects who don't really need to know what the people on other projects are doing beyond what an email every few months would provide.

Those rare exceptions are situations where you have a meeting of managers in an org or similar with each other, where everybody is working towards the same goals, and they're planning towards those goals.

Or the way I usually describe it is that the usefulness of a meeting with n participants is one over the square of n minus 2 for all values of n greater than 2.

Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule. Extending that to involuntary manslaughter when the person didn't actually pull the trigger but directly created a situation where the police did seems like not that much of a stretch to me.

To my knowledge, you are pedantically correct, but that doesn't mean you aren't in legal jeopardy for the death; you just won't face murder charges. You could still very easily be hit with civil wrongful death claims, and maybe negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter charges for creating the situation that led to that death.

Maybe, but only if you assume that the intent is to share that video with others or whatever.

On the flip side, I can think of a lot of useful reasons to do so, mostly involving use of large amounts of AI to go back and process the data. Imagine losing something and being able to ask, "Where is this," and getting an answer about where you left it. Imagine being able to say, "Was [insert person] part of the conversation where I said [insert subject]" and getting an answer. The potential impact of always-on recording for assisting with memory recall is enormous, assuming adequate storage and processing power.

Also, it completely solves the "You look familiar" problem, both in the "Did I meet this person?" sense and in the "What is his/her name?" sense.