I'm honestly surprised not to see any Libertardians here claiming that if all the workplace safety rules were just done away with workers would be living in an employment Nirvana.

So LLMs are really MAGA? That explains a few things . . .

If he's referring to bits and bytes he may be using binary (thus the leading 0s). Then the answer is 8.

Used to have to do that to address readers in security systems and set serial addresses on daisy chained PTZ cameras.

Fine, but the math gets a lot more complicated, especially when the voltage and current waveforms get out of sync (ie, power factor). But the conservation of energy still works with ideal components (which obviously do not actually exist). Also from a practical point of view, most 100 uF capacitors are electrolytic (or they are quite large) which does not play well with AC, but again the "ideal" part of the question does preclude this anyway.

I am not sure how a transformer would fit in with a DC capacitance / storage scenario. Transformers imply alternating current, and while they can be 1:1, I have never thought of a transformer as a DC component.

And yes, the AI explanation is not based on the basic formulas. That is actually the problems. Humans can sanity check an answer looking for conservation of energy. AI does not take this step. For these types of problems, a little recursion with some simple application of basic laws of physics should be able to push the "score" of a bad answer down to zero. But this is hard as a generalized solution.

sorry, my watt hours should be watt seconds. And one watt-second does equal one joule. So please explain the math here. moving from 100 V @ 10uF to 9.1V @ 110uF is exactly what you would expect. Just where does the 0.1X come from.

your question is not a paradox, you are just doing the math wrong. The initial state is 100 x .000010 = 0.001 watt hours. The final state is 9.1 x .000110 = 0.001001 watt hours. Remember the end point capacitance is 110 uF. So 9.1 volts make perfect sense.

Now what AI does with this is a completely different question.

They offer you more than minimum wage because of the existence of a minimum wage. Otherwise they'd offer you not $1 per year, but just enough to afford to return to work when added to whatever welfare they can squeeze out of government and society. Minimum wages do apply to salaried jobs as well. Check out what you can earn in countries that don't have them, and then thank a union. Or throw off the shackles of the minimum wage and get into a type of work that really doesn't have one, gig work, and let us know how that supply and demand thing works out for you.

The Luddites died in grinding poverty with all indications being that they were correct, it was their grandchildren who got the new jobs that came along as a result of the automation that ruined their grandparents. Wages and standards of living have been stagnant for a half-century at this point. There are people frantically applying to hundreds of jobs they're well-qualified for and not getting so much as an interview. Over 100 people are applying to each job opening these days, and likewise it takes over 100 job applications for an average applicant to get a job (both rather conservative estimates). If improving productivity led to rising wages, why are we not earning 40% more for the same number of hours people worked in the '70s? Why has going from mainframes and dumb terminals to present-day computing added approximately jack shit to ~90% of workers' pay?

Good for you! Especially if you work in tech. Sucks for the people who aren't part of your anecdote though.

Look up the history of the ones you don't think may have value and you'll learn about the workers who fought and/or died to get the laws in place that keep you from experiencing the same thing, which you now take for granted. Or if that's not enough, maybe you should experience a 996 work schedule in China, work alongside a nonexistent/laughably low minimum wage in a Caribbean country, or do some dangerous work in a Nigerian e-waste mine to get a taste of what happens without all those regulations.

That's why it's a mutual fund investing in multiple ventures, not individual investors putting their money into individual start-ups.

Everyone knows copyright is out of hand, even the record labels and publishers, but they're not going to fix it. I had the opportunity to ask an author that I liked if she could donate her oldest works, long out of print, to Gutenberg or something so that people could still read and enjoy them. She said she would love to be able to do that, but the publisher wouldn't allow it since they held the copyright.

I think the "developing products" in the summary is a big of a miss statement. I was at Flash Memory Summit (now Future Memory Summit) and a lot of the noise is other storage than NAND. Nothing yet compelling, but everyone is trying. A lot of this is that NAND is not staying still. A couple of vendors are likely to introduce PLC (5 level cells) as shipping solutions as early as next year, and for a lot of workloads, they are quite capable.

You need to do the math.

1. QLC SSDs are roughtly 4X the cost of HDD for a given amount of space.
2. While power is lower for SSDs, the cost savings does not even come close to the up front cost.
2a. The power for storage is literally in the noise compared to the GPU/AI compute power requirements.
3. The "other option" would be to use more older (ie smaller) HDDs, and even off-lease mining HDDs, not QLC SSDs.
4. NAND capacity is limited like HDD capacity in terms if exabytes. HDDs are still larger, although it is getting closer. Neither has the ability to ramp up quickly.

The people building these system do all the math. It is not knee jerk. They know every detail of reliability, power, space, availability, duty cycles, and multi vendor suppliers and take all these into account.

Fully loaded C-130s have landed many times in farmers fields or pastures, unloaded, and taken off again. Some crash, most don't. You'd have people on site doing a competent survey first to minimize stress on the aircraft, but it's perfectly do-able.

From inside a bunker a LONG way away.

They've been working on it for years, this is from 2018:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/micr...

We're talking drones many times that size, but this is the sort of thing that scales well. Load too heavy? Add more drones!