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.

Actually it's true for any symmetric distribution. IQ happens to be normally distributed (by construction: the underlying raw scores are mapped to a normal distribution, though I suspect the underlying scores are themselves probably normal as well), which is very much symmetric. So, you know, maybe don't cast shade on other peoples' intelligence while making a false claim of your own?

The fact the law has been broken has already been decided, and not by the judge, but by a jury.

The mere existence of other app stores is not enough to say Google is not a monopoly, if those other stores have negligible market presence. Googles monopoly then became illegal when engaged in anticompetitive behavior with their monopoly (monopolies are not inherently illegal unless abused somehow). What *should* happen (and should have happened a decade ago) is Google being split up. But what they'll end up getting is a fairly minor slap on the wrist in a field they only marginally care about as a prop to their real business of ad sales.

Well no, because exactly no one recommends using them by themselves. They're meant to be used with standard key encryption/signing algorithms, so you'd need a QC to break that anyways. Actually at this point laying post-quantum algorithms probably makes sense too, if you're really paranoid.