If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's probably science?
Simulation hypothesis is creationism with extra steps and always has been.

Yes, it's usually some kind of sensationalism that's based on some kind of argument from ignorance about some unfalsifable hypotheses.

So I've taken a closer look at the current data frome the Fraunhofer Institute.
First off, in order to get the data for Germany only, you have to select the country to be Germany at the top right of the page, which the link I provided in the other post does not do, possibly leading to confusion (given that there's a good portion of nuclear in there still, while Germany stopped that in April).

I downloaded the data for 2023 as a CSV and calculated everages from the 27023 (at this point in time) data points.
We have a total average "load" of 51632.85MW. And an average generation from "fossil gas" of 5315.96MW. A simple division shows the average electricity generated by fossil gas to be 10.3% of the total.
In 2022 (35041 data points), where we have a full year with both winter at the start and end, we had a average total of 55095.62MW and fossil gas average of 5155.67MW making it 9.36%.


Using this simplistic view, not a lot seems to have changed there in either direction, while absolute average gas use for electricity so far has increased by 3.11%.
I sure do hope that we do not increase natural gas use despite everything. Just because we now do import it from other places, doesn't erase the logistical issue that I've complained about all this time (how people accused me of shilling for US LNG).

I said it's only about 10%.
There's statistical data that anyone who's interested can look up with more details:
https://www.energy-charts.info... though a word of warning, the "year" charts are fairly laggy as they contain hourly data. Not a good example of "German Engineering".

Since natural gas use is something that can be ramped up and down rather quickly, the numbers fluctuate a lot between lower single digit percentages to about 20% from what I've seen taking a look at the monthly (a bit easier to navigate) graphs from 2022. I'm not sure if it still averages out at about 10% though.

The nuclear phase out certainly was dumb. But it's not as related to the current situation as a lot of people still seem to believe.
A main problem of the current situation was that the former German chancellor and Kremlin puppet Gerhard Schroeder started Germany down the path of natural gas dependence some two decades ago.

And while today natural gas only makes up about 10% of electricity production, making it less of an issue there, it's widely used for domestic and industrial heating. Like water boilers or instant heaters run on natural gas and can't just be switched to electric. Likewise you have industrial furnaces like for glass production that run on natural gas and can't be easily exchanged to electric. These structural issues have been building up over time and would be here regardless of whether nuclear was kept or not.

Critics like myself, pointing out that making large parts of the country dependent on a fuel that has to be imported in large quantities in regular intervals was a bad idea, where often dismissed with "wanting war with Russia" (how did that work out?), "hating Russians", "wanting American LNG instead" (doesn't even make sense).


The nuclear phase out and natural gas dependence coincided, but from what I understand they're not directly related.
The Greens of that day wanted the nuclear phase out. The Social Democrats were indifferent about it on their own. The natural gas thing where Gerhard Schroeder also was chair of the Nord Stream project after leaving office in Germany (yeah, totally no conflicts of interest there), is on Schröder doing his own thing.

I want something that can be used as a checklist, because from my end it already looks like it's implemented in "a similar fashion" where AMD also pairs it with some low latency stuff, because the interpolation does necessarily increase input lag.
Also because as I know people who like to pretend to be critical and objective, to some literal apples and orangers are of "a similar fashion" and then to the same people if you painted a green apple in red, then that makes the red apple totally different.

We had PDAs and phones long before that hack convinced people that he invented them by putting one into the other.
And even the credit for that goes to Apple's engineers coming up with a solution of how to neatly fit all that into a small case and not to Jobs.
If someone said to you to build a time machine without being more specific, and somehow you managed to pull it off, would you be the inventor of the time machine or the person that told you to build one?
And the next thing you'll know is people claiming that Elon Musk invented the internet, electric cars, tunnels, and rockets. That's where we are in today's world it seems.

Otherwise yes, it just means that we've had people think about the implications of such technologies.
And they being writers, themselves being familiar with the issues of communicating complex concepts only using a few words, already understood that it'd be problematic unless it happens between people with more intimate knowledge of each others.

In writing fiction as well in programming, if you do work for someone else a considerable part of your task is going to be to understand what someone else, who most likely has no idea how to express themselves in easily appliable terms, needs to be done, which is at times not what they think they want. The usual approach to that problem is to enter in a continuous dialogue or of the customer doesn't want to do that, they can accept what they get or take their business elsewhere (possibly repeating the same thing).

Can you be a bit more specific about that?

Not mutually exclusive though.
You could want dynamic and realistic lighting and then still do some visual designs that essentially cheat the realistic lighting that is used everywhere else.

Something like that can and is often done in postprocessing based on information from the various "maps" that are generated in the process, where it does not interfere with the ray tracing.

That is the actual ray tracing where rays are cast and check for collisions with triangles and then carry the information from that hit with them to the next hit. I'm not sure how that works with all the "denoising" approaches that NVIDIA is using. But it ought to be possible to be done without interfering with ray tracing.

The article is one of the examples of bad journalism where the topic is beyond the author's understanding but still letting his imagination run wild.
It goes on some vague statement that was being made by a higher up NVIDIA employee in a "roundtable discussion", where video game industry insiders talked about the future of AI in the industry.

So that's a fairly flimsy basis to make some grand predictions on. At this point I'd call it little more than conjecture fuelled by the current AI hype which made the author of the article dream about the future.

AMD is also introducing frame generation with FSR 3, which is supposed to be launched very soon.
But of course we don't talk about that... while "Team Red" has already been salivating over it being better than DLSS 3.

I'm just waiting for the "at least it's not AI" and "at least it works on all graphics cards" knee-jerk that someone who doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground would use.

We've had that already. It's called the "Holodeck" in Star Trek. And the writers chose to frame it in a way where it caused a lot of problems, where in DS9 they even joked about failing to keep the Holodecks from malfunctioning.
But seriously, even the Trek writers saw issues with the very idea of having complex things being generated based on just a few simple prompts.

What the went into in only a few episodes was that the generations were vague, which then either meant that you had to lower your expectations or that you had to spend a lot of time to fine tune essentially everything. For the latter the writers thought that there would be people that specialize in it.

And those are just the things that the writers, likely not with much programming experience, could foresee decades ago.
In reality, especially if you want software that runs well in realtime with dynamic user inputs, there are a lot of case specific requirements to make things work with a decent compromise between accuracy/precision and performance that require insight that genrate AI hasn't even began to scratch the surface of.

It becomes a black and white thing if you applied that "if criminals can benefit from it, we can't allow it" kind of reasoning consequently.
Then there would be almost no liberties for anyone except those that stand above the laws.

That's the entire point there when making legislation, you can't just consider how something would benefit criminals and then categorically rule it out, you also have to consider what good it might do for society and weigh that against the "bad".

One of the foundations of your Western societies is that it's better to let 10 criminals get away than to punish a single innocent person (Blackstone's Ratio). Thus there are presumptions of innocence until there's proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

At least in principle that is, because even in current times we do have people who are obsessed with punishing all criminals harshly, and will quickly go for a historically notorious knee-jerk to justify their erosion of liberty, while dismissing criticism as "pedophiles", "terrorists" or the likes.
I see the DMCA as one of those (perhaps milder) symptoms where the presumption of innocence is flipped around into presumption of guilt, where the defendant effectively will have to prove their innocence to get the pre-emptive actions that were taken against them reverted. That way the DMCA has become a repressive tool and it's concerning that Apple is resorting to using it here as well.


And of course the US isn't the only place where this has become an issue.
When I look at what's happening in the EU with their own measures for copyright and "think of the children", proposing widespread censorship and mass surveillance, combined with the rise of the "alt-Right" in various places I see a lot of parallels to what happened around the same time during the previous century.

I still want a source where it becomes clear that the DMCA helps to prevent worse for those "small people".
Because I see things like those still happen if the "plaintiff" wants it to happen. Nintendo is such a case, where they will use anything, including the DMCA to get the names and addresses of users so they can sue the individual user. Just like in the case that you provided with Arnie Lerma, they used the individual and not the platform, which is clearly still a possiblity under the DMCA.

Until then, as it stands the DMCA is mostly used to justly and unjustly censor people and it is used in a way where what would be technically perjury is mostly without consequences to the plaintiff as platforms are rather overcautious than taking any chances under the DMCA.

Without, they can be sued for copyright infringement even if they took it down

Any sources for that?

The more important question within the context of what I wrote as a reply to GP's statement is:
What exactly does the DMCA do for sites like Slashdot, protecting them from arbitrary lawsuits (about what?). Or how would the absence of the DMCA beyond a doubt lead to tons of arbitrary lawsuits?

The common wisdom here would be that the DMCA is used as grounds for lawsuits by entitled people, which is then also used to shut down otherwise valid criticism. And not that the DMCA protects you from such lawsuits. The DMCA is abused as a tool by authoritarians to protect their authority from being criticised.