Of course I forgot the actual link...
https://www.nature.com/article...

I did a quick ddg search for "primordial black hole mass constraint" and there were plenty of articles. Wikipedia also cites many studies.

Here's a Nature article (2019) claiming the established range is 10^-14 to 10^-9 solar masses. They then present their new results which constrain the upper bound to 10^-11. I guess the math is in there if you take a look, or at least references. So, way less than 1.3 solar masses.

A quantum leap is inherently uncertain. Maybe that's the association they were aiming for?

Yeah! This fails all smell tests. What actual problems does it solve? What academic scholars of institutions are behind it? Is it a joint industry effort? If so which groups are involved?

According to Wikipedia: no, it has none of that. This is just speculative or wishful thinking from random dudes on the internet. No actual problems are solved and there is no industry consensus behind it.

Besides, web3.0 already refers to the semantic web. Anyone can declare "web3" to mean anything they want. It doesn't mean Google has to take it seriously or investigate. I declare it to be a mechanism for internet distributed ice-cream. Why is Google not investing in that?

Like a Xiaomi! Being able to unlock and flash custom firmware was the main reason I bought a Xiaomi. Then I fell in love with the stock camera app and flashed back to stock after testing some other roms. But I think of it as future proofing. When the phone gets old and unsupported, I can switch to a community distro like LineageOS. My old phone got another 3 years of life thanks to LineageOS (total 6 years or so for a cheap LG G2 Mini). Same thing if Xiaomi decides to do something stupid like censoring shit or inserting ads. I don't really own the device unless I can flash it.

Especially considering how many companies are building small rockets right now. The competition will be fierce in a few years which is probably why rocket lab is building the neutron. They can't be sure to be the cheapest small launch in 5 years or so. So, Astra needs to show booth that they can launch rockets AND that they can do it cheaper/better than Rocket Lab plus all the up and coming competitors.

The interesting question is how far an AI would go to prevent dangerous situations. Assume there is a a huge tanker with a human driver way too close behind you and that slamming the brakes will result in instant death. Also assume signaling the tanker driver doesn't help. A human might get out of the lane, get off the road entirely or perhaps slow down just to annoy and force the tanker to overtake. But what would an AI do? Slowing down could make the situation worse but getting out of the way creates an incentive for human drivers to bully AI drivers by intentionally driving dangerously close, forcing the AI to get out of the way.

I'm against all forms* of subsidized power for commercial purposes. There's just no reason why we should subsidize some inputs but not others. Electricity is a required input just like manual labour, screws, chairs etc. All it does is create market distortions and inefficiencies with people paying indirectly for things that could have been done better.

I think TFS (I refuse to read TFA) again shows how stupid Bitcoin is. It requires huge amounts of energy despite almost no one using. It really shows why it is necessary that we pay the *full* cost to prevent these stupidities. If the tax on coal included things like negative health effects, the cost of removing the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere etc, then we could theoretically undo whatever harm they are causing but right now it is a hidden cost for society that they are making money from.

*Actually, because of AGW, I'm all for subsidizing the building of renewables etc as long as they outcompete fossil fuels. I would not like to subsidize renewables used only for Bitcoin mining since that is the same as just giving tax money to miners. But, I don't know if that can be legally prevented and maybe we just have to live with that. We are in a shitty situation right now and radical measures are needed, no matter how market distorting they are. I'd rather see a global carbon market where a global cap is set and everyone is forced to buy emission rights (or sell carbon capture) but that was suggested 20 years ago and some people (*cough* USA) were against it.

It would be wonderful if they actually meant it since it should mean more games would be playable under linux. So far, I'd guess about 30-50% of the Windows games I've tried works on Linux. Proton is great when it works but it is very much hit and miss. I would love if it became better so I could finally ditch that stupid Windows partition...

Yeah, TFA isn't scary. The scary thing is AI controlling something important. What about a self driving car that has been trained to drive into a wall when it sees a special pre determined object? That could be hidden for years with no one knowing just waiting for activation. It would be the perfect sleeper agent. You can't really audit a neutral net to detect such malicious intent.

I hate it when people compare country statistics by absolute number. India is huge, about 20x the UK and 4x the USA. As a percentage of the population, the number of Bitcoin traders in India, UK and USA are:

1.07% in India
3.3% in UK
6.9% in USA

So, the story is reversed with "just" 1% Bitcoiners in India. (It is a lot more than I expected though. How reliable are these numbers?)

That's an important point. Our earliest radio signals have only travelled about 100 light years by now. A quick google gives an estimate of 15 000 stars within that range so there really aren't that many opportunities for any alien civilizations to pick up the signals yet. That's just for picking up the phone. A return call halves the distance.

Also, if our understanding of physics is correct, faster-than-light travel is impossible and close-to-light travel is extremely expensive. So, interstellar space travel becomes pretty much meaningless for any species with limited lifespan. If we ever meet aliens, they would probably be synthetic, with inbuilt sleep mode and tiny to keep the cost of interstellar travel down.

SpaceX started developing the Raptor engine in 2009 and as we've seen from starship, it is not ready yet (very close, but not ready). And, Raptor is a conventional, well understood engine. Nukes are not.

Yeah, but unless they already have a designed and tested nuclear engine that we don't know about they won't make it in time. Whatever tech they intend to use need to start flying right now. With human lifes on the line, you need reliable tech (if you value human lifes)

There's a earth-mars launch windows about every 26 months according to NASA. In twelve years, that's about 6 one way trips to test technology and set things up. That's not much for testing life support and perhaps local fuel manufacture. I would also like to test at least one autonomous return trip before sending humans but maybe I just value human life too much...