According to an AAIB Field Investigation report (pg. 4), two samples from the intake were tested and found to have a glass transition temperature of 54.0C and 52.8C

So some idiot printed them in PLA. PLA is great but is very much NOT temperature resistant. It has been known to sag in a hot car.

Now look at the ratio of human driven cars vs. Waymo cars.

This is why I'm waiting for someone to make a dual-DIN Android head unit with the source available so we can rebuild it free of nonsense like unwelcome ads. They don't have to warranty it. Just make some decent hardware and gimme the source, and I'll handle the rest (and sing their praises endlessly).

I could build one but I literally don't want to.

The problem was using a cheap substitute part. I'm guessing an injection molded ABS part would also have failed in that scenario.

CF-ABS is NOT like fiberglass at all. The CF is chopped into fine bits. They lend some stiffness at room temperature but not strength to the part. Certainly the carbon fiber bits don't lend any heat resistance.

It's actually less confusing as written. "Milliard" always means 10^9, unambiguously, while "billion" can mean either 10^9 or 10^12 depending on language/country.

Milliard is still the only/universal/modern way of saying 10^9 in French and several other languages. The word "billion" does still mean 10^12 in long scale languages/countries. A bunch of other languages/countries use the long scale too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Well, yeah. I thought it was pretty well known that, like the "four food groups" before it, the food pyramid came from the USDA. The USDA does not serve the same function as the department of Health and Human services. The food pyramid was developed to promote the interests of MidWestern farmers, not health. That aligns with the mission of the USDA. My understanding is that most doctors, and especially nutritionists, have never paid attention to the food pyramid.

What part of "...you're still entirely missing the point for some weird tangent that has nothing to do with what I was saying." don't you understand. I have not once argued that the statistically better system would typically be the best choice. What I said was that, if that statistically better system still fails in catastrophic ways randomly, even though it is better in the average case, that is something that needs to be addressed. It's not that nuanced or hard to grasp is it?

Consider a parallel example that doesn't involve AI at all. Let's say you have a tricky surgery coming up. You will die without out. The mean mortality rate for most surgeons on the procedure is 50%. However, your doctor tells you that you are lucky. The surgeon they have lined up for your procedure has done it hundreds of times with a mortality rate of only 5%. That is fantastic you tell your doctor. They reply that yes, it is fantastic, however there is one small thing. Every now and then, the surgeon has some sort of psychotic break during surgery and murders the patient. Sometimes they saw off their head, sometimes they sever their carotid or aorta, sometimes they inject them with a fatal dose of opioids, etc. However, despite that, their statistical performance is terrific. Now, would you just shrug and say that's fine, or would you wonder if, maybe, just maybe, they should find out what is going on there and stop the doctor from murdering patients?

Which is why some people are skilled surgeons, masters with a scalpel, and others just should not be trusted with anything sharp. I would go over my mean vs. median argument again, but it should be obvious. It should be quite clear that something can be better than the mean, but not better than the median, or, in fact, better than the mean, but still not better than the upper end of the spectrum.

Shouldn't you folks be trying to steal technical information on how to reinforce concrete?

One bad data point was discovered. Isn't it possible that there might be more?

The Pentagon's $600 toilet seat was outed as cover for black project funding. Do you really thing that they were hiding their entire Area 51 budget in nothing other than invoices for plumbing parts?

Time to subpoena some client scientists e-mails.

Rwanda

That's why I suggest a mitigation to the increases for industry based on local employment. Data centers employ very few people per-Killowatt and so contribute a lot less to the local economy compared to those other industries.

It would make sense in conjunction with an employment based mitigation. Data centers employ very few people once operational (they're not called lights-out facilities for nothing), so no mitigation. Major manufacturer provides many steady jobs, more mitigation for them.

Of course, things get complicated. There are mini data centers being set up in people's back yards where the waste heat warms the home owners house. That doesn't employ a lot of people but gets effectively double use of the energy for at least a good part of the year, offsetting other energy use, so it should see some form of mitigation as well.

The bigger question though is how long until the data centers are abandoned? The big AI companies and their investors are operating at a loss as they jocky for market share and train ever larger models. But will people actually find the AI useful enough to pay for it once the investors start demanding their ROI? Will managers come to realize that they might be better off hiring people suffering schizophrenia with frequent psychotic episodes?

Steve Lehto has a good video about this.

In Michigan the Lemon Law applies to problems that 'reduce the value to the consumer'.

Some people are attempting to return their cars over these popup ads. IIRC it was GM that was much more aggressive but I might have that detail wrong.