Agreed, with caveats. I don't think that's always the case - I think there are times when he's selling a story that even he himself isn't convinced of, if he feels it's for "the greater good" (which, in his head, is always "whatever his goals are at the time"). But usually, I agree that he smokes his own supply. His general formula for success has been:

* Find some sci-fi thing that nerds really want to happen, that's technically possible but difficult and has seen little progress
* Sell a big story about how you're going to pull it off
* End up getting tons and tons of applications from said nerds with the engineering background needed. Get your pick of the best, who you can work hard in long hours and they won't complain because they want to be there.
* Also end up getting lots of investment from nerdy investors who also want to make said story happen. Get them to approve whatever you want/need to by convincing them that you're the only one who can make the story happen.
* Let your engineers do totally new stuff that can fail but will be very advantageous if it succeeds, so you can iterate faster. Burn money to buy speed.
* Either succeed or not, but you actually have a shot because of all of the talent and money you attract
* On the ones that you fail at, either push it off further into the future, or roll the failure up into some bigger venture and let it slowly fade out in the background. Your ability to keep doing this requires maintaining the image that whatever story you pronounce, you'll succeed at it eventually.

It's the sci-fi equivalent of "fake it until you make it". But it legitimately can work.

It's not really comparable, though. Data centres are (comparatively) point sources of heat; they can't be "spread out" or laid out flat in 2d. Starlink satellites have a, flat surface with its heat spread across it. Also,Sstarlink antennas are their own radiators. They get very hot and correspondingly radiate quickly (waste heat from the thrusters is also quite high temp). Your chips by contrast are running at like 75-80C, and your cooling liquid thus has to be significantly below that to draw heat away quickly enough (on Earth, like 35-45C). You can use heat pumps to cool the coolant below the chip temperature while having a higher radiation temperature, but that increases the needs for everything (power, total heat dissipation, mass, propulsion, etc), esp. if you want a significant thermal "lift", where heat pumps become inefficient.

It's also not a question about whether things are "solved". Nothing butts up against basic physics here. This is an economics question, datacentres on Earth vs. datacentres in space. And you can't talk about the power advantages without also talking about the disadvantages like thermal management.

Think of how easy it would be for a nation like Russia, the China or the US to blackmail foreign entities that own space datacentres. They can be attacked with far greater plausible deniability, and they're not located in the rival nation's territorial jurisdiction. Massive amount of value all in one place on an eminently predictable orbit that's easy to toss a piece of quote-unquote "space debris" at.

The unspoken issue here is that getting rid of heat (on Earth, all those people complaining about water use of datacentres) is far harder in space. The panels at least radiate *their* heat away from their large rear surface area, but the datacentre itself has to have large amounts of fluid cycling out and back to roughly comparably large radiators.

It doesn't make space datacentres "undoable", by any stretch, but omitting mentioning it and talking only about the power advantages is really dishonest.

But to be clear to the GP, that doesn't mean "it's a 10% better model". For most queries that one does for any two models, most of the generations / fixes will be "good", and so it's just basically a coin flip as to which model to choose ("I like this one's documentation more", "This one's fix was more concise", "This model was more polite", etc). 10% is actually a pretty big difference and reflect the cases where one model was unambiguously better than the other.

The thing is that "ultra-processed food" is not a synonym for "junk food". It's a massive category that contains most things that people eat. Baby food is "ultraprocessed". A granola bar containing only four raw grains / nuts and whey powder is "ultraprocessed". Store wholegrain bread is "ultraprocessed". Vitamins are "ultraprocessed". But homemade cake isn't ultraprocessed. Homemade doughnuts are not ultraprocessed. Cream and coconut oil and lard aren't ultraprocessed. It's a dumb category. Yes, the average of the "ultraprocessed" category is worse than the average of the non-ultraprocessed category, but that's like saying that because the mean lifespan in Colorado is longer than the mean lifespan in New Mexico, then you should treat moving across the border like a death sentence and act like everyone in New Mexico will live shorter than everyone in Colorado - rather than looking at individual causitive factors.

It's not "processing" that makes food bad - it's individual things. Preserved meats are bad because of nitrates/nitrites (cooked in fat). Smoked meats are harmful because carcinogenic compounds produced by smoking. Product loaded with sugar or salt to preserve them or appeal more to consumers are harmful because of that sugar or salt. High carb foods are bad because they're high carb. Etc. It's individual causes that should be examined individually that determine whether a food is net harmful, not whether it's "ultraprocessed", and these causes remain harmful whether the food is "ultraprocessed" or not. Whey doesn't go from healthy to harmful just because you powder it. Whole wheat bread doesn't become less healthy than cake just because it's designed to last longer on a store shelf. Etc. We need to be focusing on specific causes and specific healthy eating behaviors (for example: eating more vegetables, more fibre, etc).

What I hate most about the "ultraprocessed" category is that it's a backdoor for woo to sneak into nutrition. By pretending that it's "processing in general" that's the problem, rather than specific causes, it inherently poses an alternative that anything "natural" is good (which it absolutely is not), and in turn pushes for things like organic food, fad diets, etc.

That's like claiming you can still do SQL injection on parameterized SQL queries if you just do "a bit more work".

And just to head you off: no, you can't "tag it yourself". Tags are denoted by special tokens. The tokenizer does not convert any supplied text into these tokens.

Are you literally incapable of looking over an ebay listing before you click "buy" to verify that it meets your specs? Are you literally incapable of looking over a form or report to verify that it's filled out correctly? How do you dress yourself?

In general, most online tasks are vastly faster to verify than to implement.

No, it does not simply make it "harder". The LLM only looks at the instruction-tagged section for instructions. It doesn't look at other tags for instructions.

Gasoline is the older word, and FYI, it originated in London. It was a product of John Cassell called "Cazeline". A Dublin shopkeeper named Samuel Boyd got into a trademark dispute with Cassel, so changed the spelling to "Gazeline" as a dodge. The word "Gasoline" appears as a listed product taxed in the US in the 1860s. By contrast, the word "Petrol" didn't come into play until the 1890s, as a product created by Carless, Capel & Leonard. They tried to trademark it, but the trademark failed and it became a generic. So yes, "gasoline" is a decades-older word than "petrol".

Also, for the record, if you want historical lingustic accuracy: All Rs are rhotic, never pronounced like "uh"; the a in words like "bath", "path", etc doesn't sound like the o in "cot"; the suffix "-tary" (secretary, military, etc) is two syllables, not "trie"; and while Received Pronunciation has better preservation of central "t"s (in American English they're more like a d), increasingly Brits drop them outright (E.g. water: American "wadder", UK commonly "wa'uh").

Fall IS the historic name. Autumn is loanword originating in French that started taking over in common parliance in the late 1700s in Britain (before it was mainly used in poetic speech - for example, Shakespeare preferred it to fall).. And while we're at it: it's trash, not rubbish; the past participle of got is gotten; mad means angry (read the King James Bible); it's guess, not suppose; it's candy, not sweets; it's diaper, not nappy; etc.

While there certainly are plenty of elements in which British English remains more conservative than American English**, it's well more common for American English to be more conservative. In general, it's usually London to blame; often deviations arose in London and then (due to its cultural domination) spread to the rest of the UK.

That said, when it comes to spelling, British English is usually more historically conservative than American English. Webster sought to make words be spelled more like they sound - for example, colour to color, theatre to theater, etc. Though ironically the US in some cases ended up restoring past spellings - the change of the "-ize" ending of American English actually predates the American-British split; it had been lost under French influence to "-ise", only to be restored in the US.

** - Interestingly, it was the American retention of rhoticity that led to some of the vowel shifts that British English kept as more original than the US. The classic case is Mary, Marry, and Merry - in American English, the vowels are pronounced the same, whereas in British English, Mary's is the same as in American English (like in "fair", "stair", etc), Marry is more like the a in "cat", and Merry is more like the e in "pet" or "step". But British English lost the rhoticity of the R instead of unifying the vowels to be easier with a rhotic R.

That's why I mill my own flour, smelt my own steel, saw my own timber and synthesize my own plastics.

Be sure to ask for blink tags and a bunch of "under construction" gifs and webring banners ;)

People enjoy clicking through dozens of ebay listings trying to see which product actually matches their particular set of specs? People enjoy filling out forms? People enjoy getting quotes from electricians and plumbers? People enjoy filing expense reports? What on Earth are you smoking?

Yeah, while there's a lot of excitement about Clawdbot, I've also seen a number of complaints about the... idiosyncratic decisions of the developer. I understand that there's fork projects underway.