Yes. And not every wavelength gets absorbed by cloud cover.

1. You don't get speeds up to 2.5 Gps easily over several hundred miles without relay stations.
2. To intercept a laser signal, you have to be right in the beam. The same applies for jamming. Cloud cover is a problem for visible light, but not for infrared light.

Yes, I saw that. And when combined with the quote towards the end, explains why his position is so fucking insulting.

This basically means that if your part of the movie making process can be performed by this tech, now or in the future, then your job doesn't really matter. Which is a wild take considering that he felt like he could not release the video without the parts AI provided, and which would have been handed to a person to do before AI exists, or if he'd had the budget for it.

Fact is the job DOES matter. He just does not want to have to address the difficult question of what is lost by using AI to do creative work that would previously have gone to a human profession, or what it means that he is willing to make that substitution without any apparent concern for the folks that decision harms. He is yet-another rich-fuck who does not care about the human consequences of technology, so long as they do not impact him personally. Fuck him, and fuck anyone who agrees with him.

Heâ(TM)s saying that Visual effects designers are not important. Because heâ(TM)s replacing somebodies work with AI output.

if I were someone who worked in that field, making the kind of content he used AI to create, and then dismissed my work as unimportant, Iâ(TM)d be salty as fuck.

their work is important enough that the film could not be considered complete without it, but not important enough to have a person do it. There is a clear double standard being promulgated here, that amounts to victim bling. Essentially that if AI can do your job, then by definition, your job is not important. Easy for the guy deciding where and when to us AI to decide in a way that does not put his own contributions to the process at risk of being replaced by AI. Fuck this guy and anyone who accepts this BS justification.

There are not many U.S. style SUVs sold in the E.U. anyway. They don't fit on many parking lots or in parking garages.

That makes no sense at all. If the company is spending $2-3k, for something they charge only $200, then it is an introductory price. To get you hooked. They have to charge you $3-4k at some point of they want to make money. Their suppliers want to get paid, and their investors want to stop losing money eventually. By ask means take advantage while the deal is good, but donâ(TM)t be so naive as to expect the deal to be good forever.

I wonder what they will do when the cost of AI increases?

We all know that AI companies are selling their services at a loss. Often on a cost-of-compute- basis, but even more so when you factor in model training costs incurred with investor cash. And that is even before we account for how the shortages of relevant hardware and server space for running all of this are driving up the costs of memory, chips, etc. Or the fact that the energy crisis is only getting started, and will impact literally every part of the value chain for addressing the current and future demand.

Most of the sunk costs to date, have been funded with investor cash, but those investors are going to start wanting to get paid back with a strong multiple of their investments to date. That means, as companies reorganize around the use of AI - at the current prices - they are creating a potential nightmare of cost forecasting and control when the AI vendors all decide it is time to start generating that pay-back by sticking the screws to their customers. This is CLASSIC ENSHITIFICATION.

No one disputes that things may not work for you as they work for me. I don't have a car at all, and I am pretty sure that does not work for most other people. But in general, an EV might work for you because the reasons you cite might not really be valid, but based on misconceptions. And if someone who has experience with EVs tells you that you might not judge correctly, because you assume things about EVs you should not easily assume, you could try to listen instead of feeling attacked. It might be that in the end, you are really not a good fit for an EV (neither am I, hence no car at all), but it would probably not be for the reasons you think.

Thatâs actually not what they are saying, but what you like to understand. Instead, they point out that EVs behave differently than internal combustion engine cars, and criteria which are fine for the later donât match nicely with EVs. Instead of profiteering from the experience and knowledge of EV owners, you prefer to feel personally attacked. So be it.

Then the new BYD battery/charger infrastructure is the right thing for you, with recharge times of 7 minutes.

This is a case of spreading FUD by presenting true facts in a sensationalist light.

we have been breeding agricultural plants for higher carbon concentrations, at the expense of everything else in the plant, since the dawn of human domestication of plants. This. Is. Not. New. And as such, should not be scary or cause for alarm.

to the extent that global CO2 levels are adding to the normal trend of breeding pants for higher yields, itâ(TM)s is likely to be the least significant way in which global CO2 levels pose a risk to you. Sea level rise, heat stroke, water shortages, resource wars, ecological systems collapsing ⦠all far, FAR more dangerous than a few extra calories per ton of grain. Most western diets are biofortified with minerals and vitamins already, so the plants natural contribution to your diet is already negligible in many situations.

Let's make a list:

• Mercedes eActros
• Iveco S-eWay
• Volvo FH Aero Electric
• MAN eTGX

That are just some cab-over long-haul semi trucks I can think of from the top of my head. They are already running in truck fleets right now all over Europe. German YouTuber Elektrotrucker has a vlog running since July 2024 driving them on long haul services.

Until my parents built their own bathroom into the apartment, we were using a bathroom which still had a coal fired boiler. So yes, we had the old infrastructure. My aunt, who lived in an apartment across the street, even had the water closet outside the apartment with a separate entrance from the stairwell. So yes, the infrastructure, at the time 70 or 80 years old, was still in place. And heating was done by tiled stoves in each room - every morning, my father had to light each oven, and each evening, we had to carry the ashes down to the trash bins at the road.

Luckily, wind turbines don't need much service. The farmer moves his equipment across his field way more often. You can schedule the maintenance during the time when there is no crops on the field. You also don't need to build the wind turbine as much away as possible from the next path. Why not place it directly beneath the access road which is already there? And for maintenance, you only need a small service van. If you have to replace anything large, you use the helicopter. There are not many mobile cranes which are able to lift something into 500 ft height. The rent contract with the farmer contains wording about the rules for access. As someone who has serviced cell phone antennas somewhere in the nothingness, I call that a non-issue.

As someone who grew up in exactly those supposedly haunted houses, I call bullshit. The house I lived for my first 10 years was built in 1905, the next house in 1895, and my children grew up in a house built in 1822. My brother moved into a house from 1378 (sic!), and has since moved into a house from 1890. None of those houses ever felt haunted.