Comment Re:Business Interests (Score 1) 159
Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.
Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.
If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.
We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.
There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks
I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.
"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.
Comment Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score 1) 201
I think there's some nuance needed there.
There's no nuance here. The only nuance is if you want to say one is worth than the other, but you don't need nuance for that (Trump is clearly worse).
When it comes to insider trading sort of things, both of them are shit, along with a whole lot of other politicians, and I say that as a San Francisco voter. If insider trading were the worse that Trump had ever done, I would have a much higher opinion of him.
Comment Re:Not an LLM (Score 1) 146
Saying "expert mathematicians are working the prompt" isn't a misrepresentation, it is how things are.
You are so hypersensitive to criticism against LLMs, that you see criticism where it is not. Why is that?
Comment Re:Business Interests (Score 5, Interesting) 159
I take native Hawaiian religious objections seriously. These are people who take a fatalistic "Pele will take what she wants, it's pointless to try to stop her" attitude toward lava flows running over their houses that seems utterly insane here in Iceland. We'll buy up every available water pump on the international market and walk on active-flowing lava fields to save a harbour for a couple thousand people. We'll keep running tourist sites right next to a volcano that erupts every couple months by building multi-story-high berms around it with giant bulldozers and cooling anything that tries to overtop to make the berms even higher. And it totally works . But Hawaiians will sit back and watch incredibly slow-flowing flows with easy diversion paths take out everything they hold dear. At best they'll point to some primitive failed attempts in like the 1940s as a reason to not try, but then when pressed, it often comes back to: "Pele will take what she wants to take."
Another example: geothermal drilling on the Big Island. Massive protests. Massive resistance, way beyond the token NIMBY resistance here. Meanwhile Hawaii continues to generate most of its electricity from oil, at great cost. Hawaii is the only other place (outside of Iceland) to have accidentally drilled into a magma chamber. In Hawaii they treated it as a major incident and immediately shut down the well. When we did it? Our reaction was, "WOW, we can produce REALLY hot steam from THIS well!", made it into a production well, and started planning to drill more.
I guess one major difference here is that in the early Icelandic cosmology, volcanoes weren't the product of a high-ranking creator goddess, but rather, Surtr, who was practically a demon and was fated to destroy the world. It's good to resist Surtr!
Comment Re:AI actors != automation + theft != improvement. (Score 1) 65
Except his complaint is not.
Yes, it literally was. The main public complaint of the weavers was that they spent their entire life learning their art, and then their bosses come in with a machine that they teach to replicate the patterns that they developed, churn out cheap "slop" versions of them, and fire them.
Comment Re:Perhaps (Score 1) 78
Comment Re:For us non-metric countries (Score 1) 78
August is the hot time in Seoul, when we wish a typhoon for the coolness.
Comment Re: Hold on to your papers... (Score 1) 146
And here we're talking about profits, despite their huge scaleup expenditure. Theirs and OpenAI's margins on serving inference are ~40%.
It's almost impossible for a company undergoing a massive scaleup rate to turn a profit, let alone growing 10X annualized for 3 1/2 years running, but Anthropic pulled it off.
Comment Re:Well gee wiz! (Score 1) 78
You are right about floor units, and I'd add that they don't work very well. I had one for a few years and only kept it because I was too stingy to upgrade but it was wretchedly weak.
Comment Re:Well gee wiz! (Score 1) 78
Comment Re:Not an LLM (Score 1) 146
This isn't a gotcha
Something is wrong with you if you thought that was a gotcha. Fix yourself.
Comment Re: Reddit for [Funny] Human Content (Score 1) 83
Comment Re: Hold on to your papers... (Score 1) 146
. for example a famous gene like TP53 (which causes cancer when fucked) has tens of thousands of publications made about it (though ironically there's likely still stuff it does that we don't know).
That's not really glamor, curing cancer is an important practical problem. It's a good thing that money and attention are directed towards that.
Comment Not an LLM (Score 5, Informative) 146
The work openAI is doing isn't just saying, "ChatGPT, solve this problem." They have combined their LLM (probably a custom LLM, with a math focus) with existing algorithms, and expert mathematicians working the prompt.
So this appears to be an incremental advance, but it's not that an LLM automatically understands math and can start proving things.