Oh, they absolutely are available. Tons of uncensored models on Huggingface. But you have to run your own model or find a place that hosts said models.

Unfortunately it could also tell you where to find prostitutes and how to kill yourself...neither of which can be monetized today.

Well, TODAY maybe, but...

To all these "AI simultaneously sucks and will also destroy the planet through overuse" - exactly who do you think will be buying all this power and all these GPUs to use said power, if there's no economic value to it and a competitor could provide as good or better of a service without said insane expense?

The electricity generation market was valued at $1,6 trillion per year in 2023 (just generation, not distribution, grid services, etc). If you're going to be meaningfully increasing that, you're going to need to have some sizable percentage of that in added economic activity to justify it. And then atop that, the even more expensive aspect of said datacentres to consume said power. How many hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars are you positing that the market will decide is worth spending, while simultaneously having products that non-AI competitors could perform as well or better than? Like, adding a whole new "entire GDP of Russia"'s worth of electricity consumption and datacentres for something that consumers are indifferent to, is that what you think the market is going to pay for?

The reality is: you can run Phi-3 on a bloody smartphone without any sort of AI accelerator aboard it, and so long as you steer clear of trivia questions (or redirect them to RAG), it's excellent.. LLaMA 3 IMHO outperforms ChatGPT in most tasks and can run on a good gaming GPU. ~5 second generation = the power consumption of playing a video game for ~5 seconds. These are not world-eating levels of power consumption.

And the efficiency level for a given set of capabilities is growing exponentially - both exponentially on the hardware side and on the software side simultaneously, with a very fast doubling time. Now, we can of course offset this by using exponentially better models. And sure, in many places we will. But for any given task, you hit a point where its capabilities are good enough for the specific task it's given. Wherein, you're going to choose to apply those exponential gains to "exponentially cheaper and more efficient" rather than "exponentially more capable".

The other side of the coin is training new foundations (not finetunes, that's easy). But again, you and your investors have to believe that there's an economic case on the other end that will pay for the investment. Want a trillion dollars per year worth of training resources? Better have a clear path to tens of trillion dollars in revenue coming out the other side. That's just not happening. And again, training, too, becomes exponentially easier over time for a given level of capabilities.

Drop by user-created models at say civitai at some point and start browsing. We're talking user-created stuff, not things made by megacorps.

"Refrigeration in space" is otherwise known as "painting your spacecraft white" :)

I tire of this farce. Go play some Kerbal Space Program for a while and come back when you have the slightest fucking sense of how orbital dynamics works (hint: it's not about "distances")

The tube is not loadbearing, "jackass". It exists soley for its neutronicity.

The cost of lifting ~10t of fuel for a 10-50t spacecraft+cargo (e.g. depending on how extreme dV they actually want the spacecraft to be capable of) - aka, for a very large mission (the Apollo LM was only 4t incl. fuel) - at Falcon 9 prices - is 15M. At Starship prices, like an order of magnitude or more less. This is nothing compared to the billions of dollars you'll spend developing the spacecraft and billions more on mission hardware.

You have the most insane ideas.

... access to my physical location.

If you've brought hardware, then the delivery branch (also known as - a separate company ; I'm not even sure if Dell have a company in my country ; but I know they deliver boxes through Amazon's delivery system. Or did several years ago ; that could change, frequently.) needs temporary access to that data. No other branch of the company (including it's sub-contractor infrastructure) needs that data. So they should not have access to it. And frankly, "Sales" should be checking if the "delivery address" is intended to be different to the "billing address", for every sale. It's a routine part of maintaining customer engagement.

I'm surprised that in the august company of Slashdotters, we got this far in the comments without anyone bringing up "Rule 34". Which touches (consensually or not) upon the difficult - if not impossible - problem of defining pornography.

People were probably having this conversation when Mediaeval woodcutters started making porn for printing on the first printing presses. You can see how totally unsuccessful we have been at achieving consensus in the intervening centuries.

Then your car will accumulate it's few weeks of sun in the first couple of years. Imagine what it's like with a new car on Skye - it'd take decades.

Plus the car will be full of dead midges.

The gov't needs to figure out how many people die due to time lost trying to unlatch their seatbelts.

I'm sure they already have.

(This next bit may contain distressing information. Viewer discretion is advised.)

It is possible that the government's analysis disagrees with your opinion.

Shocking idea, isn't it?

I don't know what "driver training" was like in your country, but my passenger-while-flying training (between my first and second flights) included specifically the point of how to locate your seatbelt latch while (when necessary) upside down and underwater. It takes about a quarter second. Perhaps your driver training was less comprehensive than my passenger training - quite likely ; I don't know what your driver training was like. But that's the numbers, for properly trained users.

I'll add the possibility that your driver training might pre-date the availability of seat-belts. (My first car, a Volvo 122S, had seat belts as a factory-fitted but not legally required feature. You could remove them, but YOU had to do that.) Which would raise questions of whether your driving license should be suspended until you have taken (and passed) the current driver-training programme. I'm cool with that - I've advocated since I first shovelled a driver's brains back into his skull that driving licenses only last for 10 years before the driver has to re-sit the exams. As a flying passenger, I had to re-sit the courses and exams every 2 to 4 years (the numbers changed over the years) - so when seat-belts were changed from "2-point" or "3-point" harnesses to the now-standard 4-point harnesses, that was automatically covered in the (re-) training programme. Still, a quarter second.

My next heresy : the only people allowed to fit, or re-fit after removal, child restraint harnesses should have to pass appropriate training. Because no child has ever been strangled, or had their neck broken, by a well-designed child seat badly installed by one of their parents. But I'm sure you're happy with untrained people strangling their children through their own inability to retain and read the fitting instructions.

OK, for me specifically, this issue will change my annual games-spend from 0 to 0, which may not be a big deal for the industry. But that is largely because I'm not interested now - and never have been (since I last played an "online" game") - interested in playing games with "online content", because I spent so much of my life several hundred miles from an internet connection.

But adding adverts to games - well that just increases the number of "no chance" barriers by 1.

Clearly EA think they've already saturated their market, and are now in what Cory Doctorow would call the "enshittification" stage of their development.

Investors should take note.

? It's not a fusion rocket.

It's a fission rocket - bloody close enough.

additionally, have you factored the weight and storage space lost on the fusion rocket, to make room for 2x the fuel,

It's an ISP of 5000, it doesn't matter.

If you want to get there quickly, you're always loading it fully with fuel. The only difference is in the transfer time. All of them are "very fast", just varying degrees of "very fast".

It's like trying to say we should only fly airplanes on the couple days per year when the jet stream is strongest. It's such an immensely stupid idea.

1) the 'now 2 months' is down from the 'best time of 6 months', caused by mars being literally closer to the earth.

That's not how Hohmann transfers work. Just stop. And a minimum energy transfer to Mars is 9 months anyway, not 6.

In order to achieve the 2 month travel time, it must launch WITHIN THE LAUNCH WINDOW.

Get this through your head: There Are No 'Launch Windows' With Nuclear Propulsion. You don't leave a craft that can travel to Mars a matter of months sitting idle rusting away rather than repeatedly ferrying back and forth, just because some times the trajectory is somewhat longer and others it's somewhat shorter.

There are launch windows with minimum energy Hohmann transfers because that's what you need to have Mars be at the right place when you intersect its orbit. It takes roughly the same amount of energy to intersect Mars's orbit regardless of when you launch a Hohmann transfer, but unless you time it right, Mars won't be there. Launching at any other time requires more dV to dogleg it - and dV is dearly bought when it comes to chemical rockets. It isn't dearly bought with nuclear rockets. So launch windows simply don't apply to them. You launch on an elliptic which doesn't terminate at Mars' orbit, aka you applied more delta-V than was necessary to get out that far, but that's happening by definition if you want to get there faster. A minimum energy elliptic can only intersect Mars orbit opposite its starting position, but the higher the energy of the transfer, the more rotated the interception point is.

I will repeat: your capital cost is in your rocket. You're not going to leave it sitting around waiting for 2 1/2 years when you could do 10-ish trips during that timeperiod, just because some are longer than others and some somewhat shorter, and thus raise your capital cost per kg tenfold. They're all varying degrees of "short", and you have flexibility; you're launching on all of them. Unless you're an utter moron who likes throwing away 10x more capital at a project. You do not have to intersect the planet at a specific location on its orbit in opposition to your starting point when you apply more than the minimum dV.

since the ships ARE NOT THOUSANDS OF KM APART, due to ALL LAUNCHING IN THE SAME WINDOW

Launching just days apart in the same window (which again, THERE ARE NO WINDOWS), they're MILLIONS of kilometers apart. Do you not even know how far Mars and Earth are apart, or can you not divide a travel distance by the number of days of the trip?

And for the last goddamn time, the exhaust doesn't even remotely resemble a collimated beam, even if it did it would still be orders of magnitude weaker than ambient radiation, and even if it wasn't all you had to do was microscopically off-angle it. This is such a stupid line of discussion.

Yes, and you clearly don't.

Nobody is going to leave the capital investment of a spacecraft that can do such quick transfers sitting idle waiting for a "window" when they can head there and back repeatedly in the same timeperiod.

Your costs are in your spacecraft, not your fuel. You're not going to leave it sitting idle for years waiting for a "window" to make a single delivery when you could make ten deliveries in that same timeperiod. Doing the former would mean increasing your capital costs by an order of magnitude per unit cargo shipped. Which is a braindead idea.