"And your etymology is a fantasy. "

You've confused c.f. with e.g..

Only if you want your delivery to be very expensive. The article kind of didn't bother to mention that only the ZQ-3's first stage is reusable, so it's more like a "Starship-esque Falcon 9", both in terms of reusability, size, payload, diameter, etc..

Seriously, what's the point of using AI to generate details that even bleeding edge hardware can't run at a decent framerate

I don't know what you're talking about. This is as far as I can tell about the process of creating game assets in the first place - not about generating them in realtime. It doesn't have any impact on performance.

I've used AI model generators (mainly image-to-model), and for game-type assets, they're usually good enough, though you still of course want a human to exert control over them. But it's way faster than from-scratch modeling. For say 3d printing, though, you really need to decompose the image into smaller components, process each individually, and merge, because otherwise too much fine detail gets lost into the texture instead of being part of the actual model. Regardless, they've been improving at a good pace. I haven't tried (as I've not had a need) but I think they now have model generators that even rig the models.

Dude you can literally just Google the phrase which pesticides are allowed for organic farming.

This document? I'm surprised to learn that gelatine is permitted in the production of organic wine, because I would have assumed that wine was vegan, but it's hard to guess which permitted insecticides you're worried about.

We mocked Dubya for his "war on tourism", but Trump's taking it literally.

They re-adapted to a predatory diet later. Their neornithian ancestors however were feeding on seeds and insects. In fact, eagles (as members of the Accipitriformes), owls (Strigiformes), hawks (also Accipitriformes) are more closely related to the likes of sparrows and parrots than to most other birds, and the falcons (Falconiformes) are the direct sister group to sparrows (Passeriformes) and parrots (Psittaciformes).

How many people are actually choosing Intel for AI chips over its competitors?

Compare that to Intel's continued lead in laptops and in mass-market desktops (e.g. the Dell and HP and Lenovo machines bought in bulk by businesses). Or for that matter, their Arc GPU business where the Battlemage cards are flying off the shelves last I heard.

I find building with LEGO to be a great way to avoid the temptation to doom-scroll on Twitter or watch endless YouTube videos or otherwise waste lots of time online.

It's the exact opposite. Poor are the ones most benefiting from things like cheaper food, cheap power, and easily available housing. All things brought in by cheap power enabling them.

Chances are, there won't be many if any poor left by the measuring stick of "global warming will be able to harm more than benefit". It's why you see increasing panic in the alarmist circles, as poor are increasingly comprehending what fate alarmists have in store for them and are rejecting their degrowth nonsense outright.

All those things decrease the need for energy. EVs use much less energy than ICEs. Heat pumps use much less energy than gas furnaces. Electric stoves use much less energy than gas stoves.

But that's unrelated either to the story or to my post. We were talking about the energy used by data centers to run AI models. My point is that the amount of energy used is unrelated to the needs of any specific real world application. It's driven by companies competing for business. No amount of computing power is enough. Each of them needs to have more than their competitors, no matter how much that is.

While this caveat is correct, it is incomplete, as most avian lineages died out too. Only some toothless lineages survived, and that's the important adaptation. Toothed birds had a diet similar to their theropod ancestors. Birds with toothless beaks diverged from that diet to a seeds and insects based one, and in the aftermath of the meteor impact, that was an important treat.

It's a flex. Same reason people buy $1000 bottles of iffy vodka for their friends in a night club.

I didn't write that, the person I was replying to did, and you didn't even get the quote right. But I'm done here.

The bulk of that cash isn't a subsidy (as those numbers point out), it's payment for services. I was talking about subsidies specifically, in reaction to this (surprisingly common) statement that lumps SpaceX's earnings and subsidies together, suggesting that they live mostly on handouts.

It's true that SpaceX would struggle without those federal contracts... so would many other companies. Lockheed Martin and RTX come to mind.

SpaceX received very few subsidies, they got a few tax credits and some money to develop stuff for the government. And all those lucrative federal contracts? The taxpayer is getting an absolute bargain with those.