I have a small novel application and I try but LLM is really only good when I narrow the scope, and when I do I am fighting the optimism of the noobs who wrote the guard rails.
When the domain is fresh, the application tight but with conceptual errors (mine) and the test coverage about 70% and only mediocre, 25% LLM generated is about right but it takes a bit of guidance to stay inside the scope change limits I set MORE than clearly.
Sadly inevitable given the source data.
Great that you were able to find something unmisleading in there.
Sodium Ion batteries, less impact for mining (better materials), more cycles, lots of really cool results. The ability to spread solar and wind generation across the day makes a huge difference to the success of renewable generation.
The advertising though
Containers are 3.1MWh. $71 million buys about 150. RTE say 75%. This reads a lot more like 450MWh, 200MW for 2 hours with 110MWh lost to heat. Good for negative 1,800 houses (I used 5kW 50% of the day per house). The equation does not swing to positive generation until there are at least 400MW of PV at roughly another $90million to build.
For all that it's a great story, there is not much past the headline that is safe to read and draw conclusions from.
Golf ball
... by hiding the source code, hides both its dependency on open source and on other less reputable sources.
Both the most likely to be effective and the least likely to happen.
Perhaps I have less faith in people's ability to achieve long-term goals at the cost of a short-term inconvenience than I should.
For me, the point at which the documentary became unwatchable was at the filler, 40-year old TV doco footage of Jacques Cousteau. It's in a sub, it's undersea, but it felt lazy; I'd prefer to keep my memory of the iconic Jacques on TV a good one.
Could it be that a photon that carries no information is, in fact, nothing at all.
It's all arbitrary anyways so why the hell not.
Their business is to supply power to you. You are going to pay. You will pay for the power, the poles, and the really big number that will arrive as you pay to bail them out from an unreasonable business situation and unrealistic legislative requirements that lock-in and amplifies the problem - but not with the people who create it.
As you are busy blaming them, are you happy to pay twice over for power?
Are your legislators doing a good job for you?
Their salaries are no doubt still being paid because the impact of a loss of supply would bankrupt every business. Their culture is defined in no small part by the inflexibility of some of the technical limitations - so don't expect effective change while the actual issues are being denied.
Standard issue with electrical reticulation is that the general public are so uninformed as to be living in a land of comic book physics.
The industry is full of really responsible people invested in their business going well and delivering a service. The OP beautifully points out how a couple of inflexible limits: a requirement to provide power into dangerous places - uneconomically, liability through perverse legislation and the impact of climate change has come around to
While it may be fun to win over in some legal match its a zero sum game and hugely wasteful.
From http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Lifecycle emissions (gCO2eq/kWh)
Nuclear, 12
Coal, 820
Also worth considering the volume. Nuclear waste volume is much lower per tonne than for coal.
Too easy to define BS as being the exact equivalent to hype.
The code of conduct doesn't just land from Mars. It's the result of various people in the team agitating for change. The CoC might well be being promoted to give people who have a political agenda, not a coding agenda, the opportunity to gain more control.
Software rewards a high degree of discipline, a coherent technical approach. It's sometimes necessary to prune code contributions that are rubbish in spite of the fact that this might hurt someone's feelings of self-worth. When this happens its easier to blame another's bias than your own incompetence.
It would be interesting to know the level of code contribution, and its quality, from the promoters of the CoC.
Old, basic and obviously forgotten.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton
