You're the one making the claim that modern frontier models still make this mistake (they don't), so how about you go to a frontier model, reproduce what you're claiming happens, and click the "share" button and post the link here?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Your inability to reproduce the thing that you claim happens is duly noted.

You are speaking irrelevant nonsense. LLMs are trained in words

They are not. They are trained in tokens. Tokens do not align with word boundaries, and an arbitrary word can be tokenized in many different ways.

and they think in words

They do not. They don't even think in tokens. The process is: words are split to tokens, tokens point to an embedding position (latent space) while RoPE encodes a relative position, and all reasoning is done within latent space, which is not at all verbal (concepts are directions in latent space, and math is done on concepts, not words).

Also, a note: when spec'ing a generator, you need to know how much you're planning to use it vs. batteries. If it's only going to be used rarely, you prefer low mass, low volume, low cost, and low maintenance when unused (at the cost of low efficiency and higher maintenance in use), whereas if it's going to be used a lot, you prefer high efficiency and low maintenance cost in use, even if at the cost of higher mass, volume, cost, and maintenance when unused. In the former case, you'd prefer to allocate that extra mass, volume, and money into a larger battery pack.

That's why you don't use a tiny petrol generator? Diesel generator efficiencies are roughly:

Small backup generator (1-15kW): ~20-28%
Midsize backup generator (20-200kW): ~30-35%
Large industrial generator (200-2000kW): ~35-42%

Also, ironically this company's plan of the trailer providing a boost will actually make the tractor less efficient. ICE engines use "brake specific fuel consumption" (BSFC) graphs to plot their efficiencies across different RPMs and different torques. You can see an example for a small diesel engine here. Note that they require very high torque conditions and relatively high power conditions to be efficient. You can change the balance between torque and RPM within a given power band (blue) via gearing but gearing doesn't change what power band you're in. If you're in a low power band, you're fundamentally forced into inefficiency (note also that you're not going to be driving around at 1000 RPM just over a stall all the time).

Indeed, if you were forced into a low power band, you'd actually be better off with a series hybrid powertrain, as the engine can alternate between operating in an efficient powerband and shutting down. Of course, parallel hybrids are more efficient than series (albeit with added complexity and mass).

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work that way (even ignoring that a 400kWh battery is very small). Battery packs taper the closer you get to full, they're not a constant power all the way. Unless your battery pack can take 400kW at 80%, you're not charging that quickly.

Also, while 40 mins is fine in Europe (breaks: 45 minutes every 4,5 hours of driving... though using 70% of a 400kWh pack on a loaded class 8 truck going even at a slow 80kph will only take you 2 1/2h of driving in "average" conditions, so the truck's range is fundamentally undersized), the US is 30 minutes total break in 11 hours of driving, so ~6 hours on your first leg and ~5h on your second leg with 30 minutes to fill that 5h of driving. And US speed limits are usually faster for trucks than in the EU, so higher consumption. EU really needs 600kWh and >=600kW charging, while the US needs 800-1000kWh and >MW charging.

Note that in all of this we're assuming efficient-shaped trucks (Tesla Semi or the like), not your typical EU bricks, along with a well optimized powertrain and an efficient tyre config. If not, you need to increase those packs and charge powers further.

Sorry, on mobile now and it's difficult to look up. You can search for the number of arrests and the number of lethal shootings during an arrest by race. Black people have far more interactions with police per capita, but each interaction is less likely to result in death than for other races.

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).

What exactly? The tax return information is available from the IRS. Cross-reference it with Census district zoning.

So offices create value, not people in them? Do a mental experiment: replace offices with remote work. How much value remains?

No. Around 80-85% of people would prefer to live in single-family homes. People instead are forced by economics to live in dense areas that are designed to be hostile for humans (bike lanes instead of roads, forced public transit, no good grocery stores forcing people to eat junk, etc.)

Police are statistically less likely to harm Black people during an arrest.

This is a small prototype, not a full-scale mirror.

Also, ignoring that, pretending light brighter than the full moon is useless is... silly? For generating power, sure, but for illumination, it absolutely is not.

This is simply false. Most of the US wealth is generated in suburbs. Or perhaps you think that companies are people?

Urban cores steal from suburbia by taxing company offices that are located in urban cores. But if you look at PERSONAL tax returns, suburbia is clearly funding the lifestyle of urban cores. And as usual, welfare queens always think that they're actually the hardest-working and deserve all they get.

Yeah, let's instead force people into 15-minute neighborhoods. With barbed wire and fences, so they won't dare to go out.

Cheaper housing, better jobs, more space for kids, better entrepreneurship, better general outcomes. There's simply nothing that urban cores can offer in these areas.

Yes, classic American suburb. And it IS cheaper.

The houses themselves tend to be more expensive because they tend to be larger. But the _services_ do NOT significantly differ in cost!

The problem is that construction and maintenance in cities is FREAKING EXPEN$$$$IVE. For example, Greater Houston Area is mostly suburban and has similar population as NYC. Yet GHA spends 2.5 _times_ _less_ per capita. If you look at specific services, it's a wash. Police is slightly cheaper in suburbs, sewer is more expensive, water is similar, electricity is cheaper.

Nope. It's cheaper to ban all commercial construction larger than 2 stories and just shoot everyone who proposes densification.

Because of toxic urbanism. Large cities subsidize the large companies by offloading externalities (costs of living) on population.

No. Leftists are morons. And you're right about the location: we need to dis-aggregate cities to make other locations viable.

Another way to look at it: city cores became so toxically dense that they force people to live in misery, because it's their only option. In other words: the country is getting strangled by bike lanes.

Nationwide. There are almost 1.10 houses per family, we literally have empty houses decaying right now because nobody lives there.