A: Because tech companies need to sell you shit! BUY! BUY! BUY!

For one, the clip-ons would have to have all the compute and battery sitting on the front of your face, which would be uncomfortable. You need the arms to hold some of the magic sand.

I guess you could make a weird clip-on with ballast in the back, but I can easily see why they wouldn't. It's also another thing that can go wrong (alignment with existing lenses).

Thank you for your service!

I know a student who brings them into tests.

"An argument about the world is interesting. An argument about a word is not." I can't find the origin of that quote.

How many pages of chess instruction do you think ChatGPT has been trained on? How many pages do you think it would take for it to play a decent game of chess?

I pulled out an Atari and did that.

The Atari won because it didn't make any mistakes in the summary.

Usually not into offshore accounts. You are completely wrong here.

When someone buys stock, the money goes to whoever sells the stock. And they use it to buy something else.

What percentage of loans made by banks are bad? Show you can think.

It's like the clock problem on steroids. Not all the required positions are in the training set of images. With the clock, you can easily just increase the number of images in your training set. With the chess problem, you can do that to some degree, but there are more positions than planets in the universe, so you won't have enough disk space.

Chess is a problem where you need to be able to tell the machine "these are the rules" and have it follow them. Humans can do that, the LLM can't.

They wouldn't pass an aptitude test, do 5 pushups, or contribute anything other than MORE GREED for their personal ego and "shareholder value."

That is not what the military is above.

This is yet more grift, tit for tat, and selling access to government and the military industrial complex.

Fuck Trump.

Yeah, 20%-60% "could be" ghosts. Sure, just like ghosts voting.

Any stat with a margin of error that high is just political puffery in preparation for killing off student aid.
We don't want educated people here. Defund science, burn books, imprison librarians.

All hail the King Orange.

Clearly someone wants a government handout to build more.

You don't need "new" cables or "bigger cables." Cables are limited by their ampacity, or "amp capacity" or current carrying. So you an up the votage, delivery more Watts (kilo, mega, giga, etc) without changing the cables.

In other words the original artile is a grift attempt and not written by anyone ... oh wait... Bloomberg... yeah, a grift for more money.

Pros: You can run more power through the same lines. You don't need new cables, new towers, or a lot of money.
Cons: You need new transformers (upconvert downconvert to/from higher voltage), and you can't burty the lines because of the resistance leading to heat factor.

This has NOTHING to do with "clean energy" anything. It's the same infrastructure in electricity delivery. The transformers get upgraded, but they'd have to be in any case. The power generation systems need to be upgraded to generate more power, but they'd have to be in any case.

This is an article to say "ClEAN ENERGY" and claim funds are needed for new delivery systems (cables, towers, substations).

No, it's not.

Ask anybody from an EE to an apprentice lineman. This is A/C power deliver 101.

It's really impossible to say if it's running on it or not until you open the box.

They're going to have a chip with 200 qbits. If they succeed, that's something. Not a lot, but it's something.

Gnome is fine but stay away from Wayland.