Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wait... (Score -1) 38

And the really annoying thing about this is that when the AI bubble inevitably crashes, it's going to be difficult to repurpose all of these specialized AI processors into something useful..

This won't be like the 2018-2023 crypto bubble, where we end up with a ton of cheap used GPU's and power supplies available for resale. This stuff with mostly end up in the landfill and scavenged for their raw materials.

"Inevitably crashes"? And how exactly do you think is THAT going to happen? All those people using claude are all of a sudden going to abandon it? At worst some stock market bubbles will burst, but your fantasy of everyone of their users going "oh geee, I've been using claude for 6 months but I just read this random guy on slashdot saying it can't count 'r' in 'strawberry', and now I see the light and I'm dropping it THIS INSTANT" is not going to happen.

And even speaking of the stock market, I doubt you're actually putting your money where your mouth is and are shorting Anthropic, are you? No of course not, bet you have some excuse about "market staying irrational longer than you can stay solvent" or something.

Comment Re:You're oversimplifying very complex phenomena (Score -1) 123

Weight and fat stores is calories in a calories out. What literally else can it be? I know without a doubt now anyone who “can’t” lose weight knows what the energy imbalance part of their equation is, they just don’t want to give it up. Hers was pizza dips, what is yours???

Metabolism isn't deterministic. Your body has stores of fat, muscle, and tissue it can break down at will. 4 years ago, I started intermittent fasting. I carefully controlled my calories, worked from home, and ate the same food every day...just for time sake. I lost about .5 lb a week on average. I was working out nightly. I went from 240 to 195. Then it stopped...same calories in....same level of fitness and working out....now the weight started creeping up. Because I'm not a moron, I tried working out harder...cutting calories...that slowed the gain. Any mistakes led to a large gain. It's not deterministic. If your theory was correct, it should be simple to reduce calories in and increase calories out and still see fat loss. But...it wasn't. Many have experiences similar to mine.

Bullshit. You know how many trillions Big Pharma spent on trying to find the cure for "broken metabolism"? All those "broken metabolism" studies always went like this: they recruited all those "broken metabolism" ladies who claimed to be able to gain weight on a 1000 kcal diet. Then they put them in a metabolic ward on an *actual* 1000 kcal diet, as calculated by actual scientists. And gee, who would have guessed, invariably those "broken metabolism" ladies miraculously regain their ability to loose weight, at exactly the same rate as the control group.

Oh wait, turns out there's no such thing as a "broken metabolism", 1 molecule of glucose makes exact same amount of ATP for everyone, there's just ladies that suck at estimating their calorie intake. And basal metabolic rate is still most reliably computed from lean body mass. Oh, you're 30% body fat? And you think you're going to have high basal metabolic rate? LOL.

Maybe, if you're looking for someone other than yourself to blame for your problems (as that seems to be your thing) you should look to the people who told you that cardio is the way to get lean. No, the way to fix that is to build metabolically active tissue, i.e. muscle. I.e. lift weights. Do you even lift bro?

And who would have guessed, the antiobesity agents that actually work, the GLP-1s do do jack shit to your metabolism, they're just really powerful appetite suppressants, i.e. they shut your piehole for you. Gee, it's almost as if all those people saying "if you want to get thin, just shut your piehole and that's all" were right all along.

But yes, I guess YOU are the first human in history of science whoose body can break the law of conservation of energy and still gain fat while eating less than you burn. Either that, or you're full of shit. Geeee, I wonder which of these two options might be true...

Comment Re:Here it comes (Score -1) 71

Starlink is pretty low in orbit, so that may be a mitigating factor. Now, something higher up would be a problem, especially geosync sats.

Good to know it's not really a problem. I wonder why those stupid researchers think it might be a pretty big problem?

No, that's a stupid *you* who thinks it's a "pretty big problem". Neither in the article nor elsewhere are there quotes from any actual scientists who consider this to be anything beyond mild annoyance.

Comment Re:Terrible Situation (Score -1) 51

but the technology will improve

You say this with no evidence that LLMs can be any better than they are today.

LOL, what? The models are getting visibly better every iteration, at a speed which is frankly a bit terrifying even to observe, and you're claiming "no evidence"? I guess you still think they can't count "r" in "strawberry"? No, it's on YOU to provide evidence that the current trend is about to stop.

Comment Re:This is concerning (Score -1) 147

Please, explain to us how cooling in space is more efficient (without a medium like air or water surrounding you to put your heat into and get it away from your server).

Conservation of energy? Duh? The *only* source of energy you have is solar irradiation (no, chips do not magically make their own energy), and you dissipate it passively as radiation as well. The only "problem" is distributing your heat away from hotspots like chips so they don't fry, like running a coolant loop through the entire thing, but otherwise your space station has exactly the energy balance of a rock floating in space 1 AU away from the Sun. What's the average temp of the Moon? Oh, it's minus fifty C.

Comment Re:Cheaper Batteries == Game over (Score -1) 135

Solar/Wind + Cheaper Batteries + a bit of Nuclear = Game Over for coal and oil Even Trump can't stop this.

Ah yes, those "cheap and getting cheaper every minute!!!!11" batteries that leftist propaganda is chock full of, but which are conspicuously absent at any dealership selling home energy stores.

Comment Re:Let's be honest (Score -1) 79

Let me correct that slightly: All humans without severe mental dysfunctionalities have General Intelligence. It may not be a lot in most cases, but it is there.

Define "General Intelligence". As in an operational definition, i.e, a something like Turing test, that allows you to differentiate between AI and human. Oh, by the way, "human" also includes 5 year olds, ans your test must classify them as having "General Intelligence". Well?

The really bizarre thing is that most humans (around 80%) chose to not use that General Intelligence, because the results can be scary and result in uncertainties. Instead they typically chose to go along with what others tell them with no fact-checking. This effect is worse (!) on important topics and less bad on unimportant ones. But even on unimportant topics, only about 30% of all people can be convinced by rational arguments.

And that is why stupidity is actually a choice for most people and IMO they bear full responsibility for that choice as soon as they are adults.

Ah, nevermind, I see that your vision of "General Intelligence" is "follows the same politics as I do". Forget I asked anything.

Comment Re:Digital dimwitts trying to do digital law. (Score -1) 168

Been there, done that. EU citizen here. Duh.

It's always hilarious and/or super-annoying when people who don't have the faintest idea on how computers or digital networks work attempt to make laws to regulate these. We have this problem in the EU and in Germany quite a bit. Accidental throught-crime laws, laws that factually prohibit reading or consuming media you own, that collide with fundamental constitutional rights etc. without the lawmakers even noticing.

Accidental, lol. Believe me, there's nothing "accidental" about this, they only act that way when called out.

Comment Re:If... (Score -1) 21

In the end, anything medical, no matter how life-saving it is, is entirely dependent on how much money it makes its manufacturer (look at Lorenzo's oil).

I suppose you do whatever it is you do, purely for betterment of humanity and expect no wages paid in return? No? So why should the pharma industry be any different? And before you spew some variant of "but but but those profits are unreasonably high!", no they are not, just look at performance of pharma companies on the stock market. Pretty average returns, in line with other industries.

Comment Re:The Beautiful Big Battery Boom (Score -1) 47

Funny how YOU do not know how a nuke works. Yes, you can follow the load. If you have a good prediction and only relatively small deviations from that. You cannot follow the load without those predictions or when they are to far off. What you then end up is needing to dump power in emergency mode. One reason France often gets negative payments for their power: They need to get rid of the power or they would have to do really bad things to their nukes. Look it up.

LOL, how nicely brainwashed you are. In actual, you know, real reality, having to "sell" off their energy at negative prices is something that happens much more frequently to renewables-rich places like Germany or (suprisingly) Texas. Guess what, this "demand" is fairly easy to predict, despite your scaremongering, humans tend to follow predictable patterns in their behaviour, while weather does whatever the fuck it wants.

Comment Re: That should irk (Score -1) 168

I'm not saying it was right, but that green paper system was working pretty well for the USA until the global orange catastrophe. Heck, USA didn't even have to print paper, just change numbers on computers. There could have been a better strategy for addressing the long-term considerations. (Illegal) tariffs are far from that good strategy. Trade deficits went up last year.

Believe me, you're better off being awaken from the "we can just base our economy off printing green paper" dream by Trump today, than by Chinese in 15 years. And guess what, adjusting to reality sucks, compared to dreaming the dream for a bit more.

Comment Re:That should irk (Score -1) 168

The Orange One apparently has no idea about economics, otherwise he would not rally so much against the extraordinary ability of the U.S., to sell green printed paper in exchange for really valuable products like steel, oil, cars and electronics, while the U.S. can even set the price of the green printed paper arbitrarily.

Yes, what a brilliant idea, to enter the troubled times ahead with economy that can only produce green printed paper, and let our geopolitical opponents monopolise the production of *actually* valuable products like steel, oil, cars and electronics.

Oh, right I know, were it not for evil Trump the Chinese would have just kept trading them for green paper indefinitely, because, ummm, because they're good guys, enjoy doing slave labour for us, besides green paper is magic, and no matter how much we print everyone will be just *desperate* for more!

Comment Re:Interesting, but impractical (Score -1) 67

I grew up in a house that was more than 300 years old. There are plenty of churches in Europe that have crypts which were sealed 1,000 years ago and are still in fine shape. There are large scale human constructions such as the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids and the Great Wall of China that are over 2,000 years old. Construction to last 300 years is not that hard.

Probably more importantly, 300 years is short enough that people might actually remember why they are not supposed to go "in there". I suspect that one of the biggest challenges with burying waste for 10,000 years would people thinking that it looks "interesting" after 1,000 years and digging it back up.

After 300 years said waste is comparable in radioactivity to natural uranium ore. All those gazillion years numbers come from greenies who demand to have it stored until it is completely inert, which is of course a completely unreasonable standard, rather than 100 years it'd take to wait until it's safe enough to be just mixed into concrete, buried and forgotten about.

Comment Re:Am I missing something here? (Score -1, Troll) 55

What's to stop the powers that be over in those European countries from just adding freedom.gov to the blacklist and calling it a day? This would be as silly as me trying to launch a VPN service that lets you bypass Florida's porn age verification requirements, from inside Florida. I realize it's not a 1:1 analogy, I'm just saying that you can't successfully fight something you disagree with when you're clearly at a disadvantaged position to mount your attack.

"It's over Anakin, I have the high ground!"

One, so far the EU did their censorship by threatening legal action against people hosting content if they don't remove it, and they don't actually have the technical means to filter network traffic at such a scale, and it will take non-trivial amount of money and effort to implement this, not to mention wrangling with nation-states to force it.

Two, the official launch of The Great Firewall of Europe might open some eyes to how Orwellian the EU has become.

Slashdot Top Deals

Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult. -- R.S. Barton

Working...