If it's a mobile device of any kind (and thus, battery powered - laptops included), then yes ARM's big.LITTLE setup makes sense.

But if it's a small AC powered box like a mini desktop PC, who cares whether it's 1, 0.1 or 0.01W idle. Just add some mix of [more cores] and [higher performance cores] up to whatever thermal or cost envelope is targeted. Although personally I'm hoping to see some RISC-V options in this space.

Any server out of harms way (rented or otherwise), is likely much safer than a server in harms way (as in: one in location that might be bombed / shelled / shot up / stolen by Russian soldiers / whatever). Not to mention connectivity to the servers involved. Networks in war zones tend to be unreliable...

If nothing else, it provides temporary redundancy (on original server + on temporary server where backup is stored), and buys archivists time to come up with a (better) long-term solution.

More exactly: dishonesty used to not be rewarded, in most cases, over much of human history.

People tend to trust each other, until shown otherwise. After which liars, fraudsters etc. are treated with disrespect. Often punished in various ways.

In these fast-moving days of internet & social media, not so much. Fake info is rewarded with clicks, and those spreading it often profit somehow.

Society's reward / punishment mechanisms are failing us here.

Then given time, such deepfakes will be exposed as such. Probably sooner than later. What 'version of the truth' goes into the history books, hinges on after-the-fact verification. Building said to be destroyed? When things quiet down, people (including reporters, vloggers etc) will go there to see and film for themselves. And thus, confirm or debunk previously made claims. No deepfake will survive such scrutiny over time. Of course, time delay between fake info spreading and its debunking, can be considerable.

Let's start with proof of work based ones.

Don't know if non PoW-based crypto currencies have similar energy consumption problem. That is: ignoring the multitude of other problems with (most? all existing?) crypto coins.

Yeah, either [humans still duping stories & bits of summary] OR [editors replaced long ago by random summary-generator bots]

Which you think more likely? Nice subject for a /. poll. :-)

Sorry about that. Had something planned for Wednesday, but hard disk died just when I was ready to go.

Maybe, Google ultimately (still) is more a tech company than one that makes end-user targeted products.

So where cool technology & users' desires overlap, users may be in for a nice ride. But where it doesn't, Google moves on & users are left with a product with lousy support.

One could call it "product cycle mismatch": Google's idea might be the length of time technology X is cool, 'new', interesting and/or under development. End-user's idea might be lifetime of a device's hardware that happens to include technology X. Could be short for some devices like smartphones, could be long(er) for devices like laptops or monitors.

Or perhaps Meta concluded that developing their own OS wasn't worth it. That [having readily available middleware + custom UI layer] was more important than owning the software stack underneath.

Personally I take pleasure in reading that side stepping a go-to libre software option comes at considerable cost. High enough that it doesn't make economic sense.

For end users, that is [black box, where some of the value lies in (closed-source?) software included] vs. [end-user value lies in the hardware offered, with the software slapped onto the box not being the decisive factor. Modding options aplenty?]. In other words: Meta's 'loss' might be their end-user's win.

rm -rf * worked faster than admin could kill the process.

I could go the entire rest of my life reading about stupid NFTs, each & every time googling or hitting Wikipedia, because I still don't understand what exactly 'it' is that an NFT buyer is supposed to have 'bought'.

Propose to file such stories under "It's funny, laugh" section from now on?

I was thinking the same. From the photo's I can't make out if, or (more interesting) how it's done. But in the FAQ on the company's site, it reads:

So either it is reinforced, or it can be produced as such. Just not obvious how it's done. Would be nice to have a video showing how rebar is integrated during the 3D print process.

Burning fossil fuels also produces heat, and CO2 emissions which capture heat from the sun long after the fossil-burning heat has dissipated. Like, until centuries after. The extra heat captured over time by CO2 in the atmosphere is way, way more than the initial heat you got from burning coal / oil / gas / whatever. Kind of like you burn 1 kg. of coal, and then (over time), the heat of burning 1 kg. of coal is captured again, and again, and again, many times over, even if that 1 kg. of coal was only burned once.

This means than any method of energy production which avoids the CO2 emissions, is most likely a win-win overall when the goal is to not heat up the Earth long-term.

Even if efficiency would be low, that needn't be a problem as long as there's net energy output, and (most of?) the heat output can be used somehow.

How would you know whether or not it's economically competitive, until you have done the math, built the equipment, ran the experiment(s), compared results with previous expectations, and re-calibrate against current knowledge / cost / technology options? Both technology and market prices are changing over time, you know.

"price is sky-high because it's complex" says nothing. Put some numbers on it, attack part(s) of the problem, use results to improve solutions, repeat until (economically) feasible.

Theoretically possible -> proof of concept -> practical engineering-wise -> commercially viable.

If that is your biggest issue with the money spent on scientific endeavours like a space telescope, then how about:

We remove a (1) multibillionaire from this planet, divide his wealth (even if it's in the form of stocks, BitCoin or whatever) over all the people you're concerned about, ... and still have the James Webb up there (+ change). Except for that one (1) multibillionaire, surely a better solution for everyone?

Same thing for 2, 3, 4, ... etc multibillionaires: acceptable. Bring it on.