Comment Re:Did someone actually say this? (Score 1) 314
The need to meet mileage standards these days is so pressing that my recent vehicle purchase omitted a spare tire.
How do you know why it was omitted?
The need to meet mileage standards these days is so pressing that my recent vehicle purchase omitted a spare tire.
How do you know why it was omitted?
How well will your crystal radio work inside a metal box that significantly attenuates the desired signal? How well will it work when literally surrounded by sources of EMI? It's the shielding against EMI that adds weight to an automobile, reducing range whether electric or gas powered, plus the not insignificant design challenge of incorporating a decent antenna into the vehicle without ruining the aesthetics that most consumers value.
EMI works both ways - efforts to reduce it also impact the vehicles EMC. Failure to effectively control interference can impact the reliable operation of the system.
I don't support these schemes because they artificially increase the buying power of customers which ISPs inevitably take advantage of at the taxpayers expense.
Better to incentivize for example locally requiring low cost options in exchange for attachment rights...etc.
"For all causes of death, we found strong evidence for an increased mortality risk vs. the baseline level of the 1980s, an increase that was present even after 2010. "
The main criticism I have of this study is they don't even try to falsify their assumptions. They could have easily conducted the same analysis in a comparable setting without any known contamination and looked for similar signals.
The use of time as a "baseline" given well known general trends of increasingly unhealthy lifestyles with substantially overlapping health consequences seems hard to justify. What I found particularly surprising is when faced with contradictory evidence they dismiss it with evidence free conjecturbation.
"We raise the hypothesis that a second mechanism leading to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in PFAS-exposed populations is mediated through the occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorders caused by the severe psychologic trauma. The finding that the risk showed no or minimum decrease after 2014, when contamination mitigation measures and the health surveillance plan were implemented, provides circumstantial evidence for this."
Of course an alternate interpretation could well be you are just fooling yourself by failing to account for obvious confounding variables. Use of 1980s baseline is patently absurd.
According to the article one of the claims really is about citation: "The newspapers also claim OpenAI and Microsoft removed copyright management information, like journalists' names and titles, from their work when the information they reported was cited in answers to queries. "
So even if the unique generated text doesn't violate copyright, by not generating "copyright management information" pertinent to some facts they could still be infringing some aspect of copyright law? Interesting. Seems to me this practice is ubiquitous within the news industry, otherwise every story would have a bibliography like a scientific paper.
The copyright management bits are a DMCA thing. They are just throwing it on the wall.
The age verification pages should provide a list of politicians who made this possible so Texans know who to thank.
I mean, if those AI products use copyrighted data in coming up with their responses without citation, that is a copyright violation.
Data is not subject to copyright under US law. For example it is settled law anyone can OCR a copyrighted phone book into a database and there isn't anything the copyright holder can do about it. Copyright law in the US protects performances and the (re)production of works and derivatives. It does not limit access to or the use of information.
I've always pushed that ChatGPT and others need to produce a bibliography for each response indicating the sources used in coming up with it. Not only for copyright compliance, but also so the response can be verified.
LLMs are influenced by literally everything in their training set.
Soviet Union itself didn't even really fail. It was only because of elites who bought foreign propaganda promising easy solutions. So those elites in order to be accepted ruined everything on purpose, even things that worked well enough. But they weren't accepted anyway so all sacrifices were in vain. Now nobody with a brain will buy what westerners say. They will always try to overthrow other governments no matter what. Not because of those county's regime or anything, but just to get an advantage in economy while the country in question suffers from attendant crisis. It's all about money.
I wrote a song just for you... hope you like it.
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you!
Blame it on the west, yeah, yea
Come on and blame it on the west.
Cause the west won't mind.
And the west don't care.
You got to blame it on something.
You got to blame it on something.
Blame it on the west, yeah, yea
Blame it on the west, yeah, yea
That said, I think you're wrong that the technology is "done". There is lots of very interesting research going on, in both new chemistries and in new manufacturing techniques.
Went back through this entire thread and I don't see where I used the word "done" nor have I stated anything that would imply it. What I did do was point out the industry is mature and described some basic underlying physical constraints of the technology that limit its progress.
I fully expect advancements in both supporting technology and production yet what I don't expect is for this technology to advance in a way even remotely consistent with "cost effective as full replacement for fossil fuels" and certainly not within the next 20 years.
The increase I'm talking about is just in deployed capacity... it's a manufacturing and installation problem, not a technology problem, and it's manufacturing and installation (as well as demand) that is doubling deployed capacity every year, not technological changes.
If you want to claim that the current rate of growth is going to stop it's incumbent on you to explain why it will change.
The simple answer to "Assuming we didn't level off, 20 years would see global installed capacity increase about 1,000,000X" is the world doesn't have a million times more dollars to spend on batteries (quadrillions of dollars) than it is spending now. Extrapolation of production trends does not itself address issues of economic feasibility.
The role of grid (B)ESS is short term buffering. To move beyond that is cost prohibitive given currently available technology at either current or projected prices. (Pricing estimates - https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23...)
You yourself stated earlier "The point is that the cheaper batteries that will be available in the next 1-2 decades will make renewables cost effective as a full replacement for fossil fuels.". Yet I remain unaware of any reason to believe existing BESS technology can be made cheap enough through economies of scale alone in order to make this reality economically viable.
The norm thirty years ago for a hardware store battery was zinc-carbon, with premium batteries being alkaline. The norm today is alkaline, with fancy batteries having a lithium chemistry. So it's absolutely true that the "regular AA" battery you put in your flashlight back then had something like an 800 mah capacity; there is nothing on the market today that is that weak.
Not even close. The energizer bunny arrived in the late eighties and its alkaline batteries had been available for decades before. By the late 80s over 80% of Duracell's sales was alkaline. In 1994 (30 years ago) alkaline batteries dominated the market.
Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?
