That's exactly what the new Direct File is. Had W-2 prefilled except for some missing special fields, and was missing the 1099-INT from my bank entirely, but the whole process start to finish (including state taxes, which was able to import the federal form directly) took 45 minutes.

Ehh, you *can* define it that way, but it's often defined as a scalar quantity W=mg, were m and g are both scalars, and *always* used that way in common parlance (and scientific parlance rarely considers weight). Even the most anal physicist, if asked their weight, would only give it in vector notation if they were trying to make a point.

You mean this Climate Commitment Act? The one with a 248 page report detailing exactly where all the funds are going? Because that's the only Climate Commitment Act I could find. So if you don't know where the funds are going, well, maybe you just didn't bother looking it up?

The "X" is actually the Greek letter Ï, "chi", so "ar-ch-iv", i.e. "archive".

Because we're not perfectly along the line between the source(es) and the lens, so the light doesn't bend around in a complete circle, but just gets bent. It's nearly impossible to get a perfect ring, as that would require a perfect point source, spherical lens, and extremely lucky positioning. Instead, some spots of the source get bent but not smeared into a circle.

That's what it is. It happens that a million grams is around the imperial ton (2000 lbs), so it sometimes gets called a metric ton (or tonne, with an e).

Lol not, lag on a CRT isn't "measured in nanoseconds." CRTs have an input rate of maybe (at the high end) 200hz. That means every pixel is updated every 5 ms at the very fastest, which is (roughly) the actual input lag of an ideal monitor (the exact minimum number depends on how you define "lag"). Modern LCD displays can get up to 500+ hz with less than 2 ms of lag, which is faster than CRTs. Of course if you're talking only about *processing* lag, sure, CRTs are faster, because they don't *do* any processing. But the practical time between the source updating a pixel and the display actually changing the pixel is faster in a lot of modern monitors than it is with CRTs (note I'm talking mainly about computer monitors, most TVs are pretty bad about... well, everything, and for those input lag is going to be much worse than for a CRT).

Not quite, the short ranged radiation is already beta particles, not alphas (both are short ranged, albeit alphas are shorter). "Batteries" like this convert the beta radiation directly to electricity (beta radiation is, after all, already electricity, in a sense).

The 15 joule number is already in terms of electricity. These batteries do direct nuclear-electric conversion through betavoltaic effects (note that such devices already exist commercially, but most use tritium which is very expensive and relatively short lived).

It's called "scientific research", and it's pretty much the definition of news for nerds. If all you want are news about currently usable technology, go to Engadget or something.

You're half right, they're not Markov chains. But OP isn't describing a Markov chain, he's talking about the transformers used in LLM, which use the output tokens from prior steps as an input to probabilistically generate the next token (based on what word is most likely next, given the entire context and training weights).

You generally wouldn't. Why would you need to upgrade it? The main reason for most systems is security vulnerabilities. That's not an issue if it's properly air gapped. You're certainly not going to trust something like Windows update or aptitude to update the system anyways (those are a *huge* security risk for state-level entities). If it really absolutely needs upgrades, you'd just pull the hard drive, or replace the entire system.

These responses are a great example of why LLMs are absolutely godawful for producing factual information, because both are massively inaccurate or just plain wrong. 1) To produce neutrinos you use protons, not electrons (it might technically be possible to use electrons, idk I'm not that kind of physicist, but no one does). 2) you don't smash them together, you hit them against a target. 3) Neutrinos are neutral particles and can't be guided using electromagnetic fields. 4) Momentum conservation means the produced neutrinos have to travel in the *same* direction as the incoming protons, not the opposite.

You're mistaking funding for income. The source of income is the end user, but funding mostly comes from investors. Income is (generally) what allow a company to sustain itself and keep running in an operating mode. Funding OTOH allows the company to setup and explore new avenues for income, which in this case means setting up mines/wells/etc, which is far more destructive (long term) for the environment than simply keeping existing projects running. Income can be used as a source of funding, in some cases, but it's a lot harder and scarcer, as investors usually demand the profits in return for their investment. The point of pushing for divestiture is mostly to limit the *expansion* of fossil fuel usage (which is sustained primarily by investors), and not to restrict or reduce current usage (which is sustained primarily by users, not investors). Obviously there are efforts to limit usage as well, but that's done through different means (like fuel efficiency, emissions standards, EV tax credits, etc ).

Which is why no one is suggesting moving to a post-quantum algorithm alone. What Chrome is implementing is a hybrid key exchange, ML-KEM768+X25519 (the X25519 part is a standard elliptical curve cypher). Unless your implementation is absolutely terrible, you can't decrease security by layering on multiple encryption schemes, so even if ML-KEM is no more secure than ROT13, it still won't introduce any new vulnerability.