That was my initial thought as well, until I remembered they do contain RNGs in their fundamental logic - that's referred to as the temperature.

They found introducing an element of randomness into them made them seem more "realistic". Although clearly there are only so many alternate pathways they can take even with randomness involved.

Good point! Let's see just how poorly EVs are performing in the cold in Norway.

Just because they're selling doesn't mean they perform well in the cold. That isn't a direct correlation...

This makes no sense to me. Are you telling me that in 1948, when a record or file was requested, and then...

A paper requisition was created and physically delivered (IE via the mail), the requisition was sorted by hand to eventually reach the correct person, who then went into a set of records to determine if the person requesting the file was allowed to access it, then that order went to some warehouse of files where the physical file was located, then a physical copy was made of the file, then the process essentially in reverse, sending the file back to the person who requested it.

Imagine that was the process of EVERYTHING you needed a record for (like a birth certificate, or military service record, etc). The only way this was slightly efficient was if the scale was small enough (like getting a marriage record from the local courthouse).

That's supposed to be more efficient than nearly instantaneous access via computerized records? Whatever this productivity measures it is affected by other factors, besides computers being involved. You know, maybe the fact that we do far, far more complex things in this day and age than in 1948?

I can definitely see how this could save significant fuel in cities and other areas with traffic lights that stay red a long time.

However I live in a small rural town, and end up manually shutting this off most every time I drive (we have two vehicles with this system). The reason is simple - on average I'd say the vehicle is only off between 1 and 3 seconds when this kicks in before I drive again. There's simply no way this is saving enough fuel to be more than a rounding error.

Then there's this little thing called thermodynamics. The electrical energy required to start an engine (especially the larger one in my pickup) is significant. That means more fuel is consumed to recharge the battery depletion from starting the engine. I'm very interested to know what the break-even duration is there. IE how long does an ICE need to be shut down to save enough fuel to compensate for the restarting of the engine? 5 seconds? A minute? It would be great if someone could do some tests with this (where's MythBusters when you need them?) Then there is also a small surge of extra fuel consumption to start an engine as well.

Here's the thing - the fuel credit deal the government offers means this will be implemented WHETHER OR NOT IT HELPS THE ENVIRONMENT. When you consider the cost of manufacturing expendables - batteries either will wear out faster, or require more robust batteries - either way it costs more in materials and energy to manufacture the batteries used in these cars. Same thing with the starters. They require millions of starters that are extra heavy duty to handle many more start cycles (IE more materials required to manufacture them) as well.

This is a very good use of electricity!

Very simple. AI needs power, and they want to win global supremacy in that space. Their communist government can and will do anything they want regardless of things like the environment, human rights, etc.

Sometimes we need to remember on a global scale this is what we compete against, whenever we hobble ourselves a bit too much thinking that the rest of the world will play along.

Interesting, because that's almost exactly the amount of solar panel area to generate that much power. If only the IR radiators could be on side of the solar panel not facing the sun...

I'm sick of seeing lame Kalshi ads all over my mobile apps.

I have no idea why this has been upvoted. You can bash a religion all you want, but you'd better be accurate and not making things up through misinterpretation, because then you just sound ignorant.

It says no such thing. Just that any wealth you accumulate on earth means nothing in heaven one way or another.

Nope. Helping the poor doesn't mean that everyone is expected to "give up your possessions" to the poor.

What he's saying is that when you're rich, you are distracted from God by the things that money provides. The wealth itself is no barrier whatsoever for entry to heaven, just that wealthy people (especially back then) focus on themselves and the worldly things that money provides, keeping them away from spiritual things. Pretty much true today as well for the ultra-rich, isn't it?

Again, just another parable and example, to illustrate how much control money and possessions have on people. The bible makes it beyond clear that no one has to be perfect to enter heaven, as that is impossible (Jesus was the only man having been perfect, because he was God and man in one, and people aren't expected or required to be perfect because they can't be). He's saying that a perfect person has no lust for money or possessions at all, as an example of one side of the spectrum, but then it also says we don't have to be perfect.

There are many cases like this in the bible. Paul states that he has not married or taken a woman for himself, as it would distract from his ultimate calling to spread the word of God, and that others that are also called to spread the word as he does (which involved travel and great danger and persecution) should probably not take a wife either. But that should not be interpreted that no men should be married or have families, which is something you can misinterpret like you did the other things above. Everything should be taken in its context of course.

You can dig all you want, but there are zero apologists or religious scholars (unless we're talking about some obscure cut) that would agree with your statements that " heaven demands that you give your wealth away in order to enter it."

I've been coding since the 1980s, full-time since the mid 90s. Anyone NOT using some degree of AI at this point is really a luddite in that regard.

Not using at least some AI is along the lines of saying that IDEs make bad programmers, or inline auto-complete makes for bad programmers, etc. There has to be some kind of underlying dogma to not be using it at all at this point.

And this comes from someone whose code was originally stored on cassette tapes, and was thrilled to death having two floppy drives on my Amiga (one for the compiler, linker, header files and linker libraries, and the other for my source code and build folder - man that was state of the art with multiple UI windows going with my code, shell, etc all at once!).

There is a proper way to use AI in most any context. I've used it across the spectrum, from just chatting with an LLM to get documentation, function reference and very small, concise bits of code, to fully integrated IDE vibe-style coding. There is a proper way to use it to enhance your efficiency and improve your code.

For me personally, it is primarily an assistant I have doing very specific things to save me time and mental fatigue. Especially generating HTML and CSS. Man do I hate that entire realm (and I was one of a small group of students who created the very first web page for ysu.edu).

Examples...
I have a microcontroller capturing data from my backyard weather station and uploading to my web server every 30 seconds. I wanted a webpage to display my weather data, including graphing, but didn't want to screw around for hours tweaking HTML, CSS and JS to make it look like I wanted. So I vibe coded it. Done.

I have an Android app implemented in Java that's a Kiosk style app that displays lots of information used on a Cable TV channel. Android was a bad platform for this to run on 24/7, so I wanted to totally re-implement it. I used AI to help me choose a UI framework (this software is not for distribution), so I went with Qt. Then I used AI extensively to rewrite the code. Now, I did not have it do any kind of actual porting from Android Java to Qt C++, but I used it for examples and to learn Qt faster. I estimate this at least reduced the time I spent on this project by 1/3. At least. I had it done within a week, which is pretty amazing really, given the size and complexity of this project, and I knew NOTHING about Qt at the start. With the Android box we had to have it reboot nightly to have any degree of stability. Now it's ran for hundreds of days non-stop with zero issues on a RPi 5. It was simply like having a Qt expert on hand to answer any specific question I had and give code examples to match what I was trying to achieve.

I could go on and on. It's just a matter of choosing the right way to use AI for the project. In my main gig, which has a repository several gigabytes of code, I use it like a focused laser beam or scalpel to make whatever I do more efficient (when needed). For other projects where I just need some one-off thing, I'll use AI more extensively to generate bulk code. Then I whip the result into shape and architect it to make more sense for maintainability and future expansion.

Whenever they invent this I hope they name it the Thermoelectric Generator. Although in actuality I think you're hoping for something magical that can overcome the second law of thermodynamics and do this with extreme efficiency.

This technology has been used in the US, even at very small hospitals, for years. Our local hospital uses iCAD, and recently "upgraded" from the older on-site processing to the cloud-based version.

It places virtual markers (not actually on the images, but in a separate data file that mammogram viewing software understands) that indicate places of concern (areas of extra density and the like).

Yep, according to the article:

I was basing my comment about local model support on this:
https://github.com/moltbot/moltbot/issues/2838

So it sounds like it is in the realm of possibility, but being neither documented nor straightforward sounds beyond the reach of most normal users.

Just to be clear here, Moltbot does not run AI inference locally. You connect it to your standard AI services (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc), which do the actual AI processing. What Moltbot does is connect those things to other things, like to Whatsapp.

In fact, even if you do have your own local inference engine running, like a llama model, Moltbot can't work with it currently. It ONLY works with the big AI services.

It really is just glue to connects things together, and is so lightweight it even runs on a Raspberry Pi with 2GB of ram. So I'm not sure what all the Mac Mini hubbub is about. The ability to run this on Amazon's Free Tier shows just how lightweight and little processing it does (it's just formatting and moving chat messages from one thing to another basically).

To earlier commenters saying that Peter Steinberger is missing the entire point of running locally when he recommends AWS - you aren't understanding what Moltbot is doing. If you're already committed to using online services for the fundamental AI inference itself, it doesn't matter that Moltbot is running in the cloud too.