I have no desire to add any renewable power generation devices to my home. It was never designed with that in mind, starting with the siting. It will never be optimal. However, I am more than ready to be a consumer of renewable energy, the economics are very compelling. Installing bi-directional batteries, however, will have a negligible impact on my home -- maybe take up some space on my garage wall, that's about it. But having backup power right at hand is a great incentive. And, distributing power storage makes for a far more robust system.

This is a very interesting idea. I'm for it.

If we had called it "Automated Inference" from the beginning, I don't think we'd be having this debate. The original "bad metaphor" we have been using is "intelligence".

That's too bad. I donated to this project, thought it might do some good, and was excited by the prospect of a clean slate design opportunity. The lessons here are:

1. You don't create new opportunities with information tech, you expand existing ones.
2. Computer skills are essentially manual skills. Doesn't make you smarter, just more efficient.
3. Information tech is overhyped. AI won't make us smarter, either.

"The industry relies on air-separation units, which use giant compressors to turn air into liquid and then distill it into its many components. These machines are responsible for much of the industry's electricity demand, and their use alone is responsible for 2% of carbon dioxide emissions in China and the US, the world's two largest polluters."

In July, the EPA proposed rescinding its rule that CO2 is a pollutant: https://www.epa.gov/regulation...

It is incorrect to label these countries as "polluters". Carbon Dioxide is not a poison, it is an essential compound that plays an enormously important role in maintaining life on this planet.

This was the first starship test flight that bored me the entire time. A spectacular achievement. It's not a lowering of the bar, just the opposite.

I think Bari Weiss is going to be great at CBS News. Getting her on board was a real coup. There's absolutely no reason corporate media couldn't report interesting and useful news. They have all the infrastructure to do a good job -- especially the production staff and facilities -- all they've been missing is a brain. Like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz.

The Free Press is just flat out fun to read. There's no double speak, anywhere. The writers know their craft and they treat their audience like adults. Their comment boards are always full of people complaining from all sides.

My son writes contract proposals, another area where people try to cut corners by generating responses from requirement documents. Sounds legit, you would think. He tells me it's a boat anchor, dramatically slowing down delivery. The problem is when it guesses -- and it guesses A LOT -- there's no telling what ridiculous BS it will pull out of its learning corpus. You can't rely on it being even predictable.

And OF COURSE this post is immediately modded Troll because slashdot refuses to do a damn thing about the "0.1%" of the jerks who have ruined the moderation system by downvoting content they disagree with.

And utterly without any sense of irony.

Bluesky is up -- no, Bluesky is down -- well, it's down since inception, but now it's "leveled off".

But who cares and why, though? Honestly. Do what you like. Engage with whom you like. Forget about whether something is "popular", that's never a good measurement. Death, for example, is "popular". 100% of people engage in it.

No worries about an invader killing your people, or a madman rounding up the sick and infirm in concentration camps to be disposed of. No, we'll just off ourselves and demand the government cover our expenses. In Canada one in every TWENTY deaths is medically "assisted". https://cbn.com/news/health/ca...

Ah yes, those philosophers who doubt their own existence (but hope you'll buy their books.)

I've just discovered Scottish common sense realism, an 18th century philosophy that was a reaction against some of the Enlightenment who had gone off the rails in this regard. It was very popular among the founders of the US (we get the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence from it.)

Thomas Reid's essay, "An Inquiry Into the Human Mind" has a great take-down of this approach:

Descartes found nothing established that could serve as a deep foundation; so he resolved not to believe in his own existence until he could give a good reason for it. He may have been the first person to make such a decision; but if he could have actually done what he resolved to do—if he could have become genuinely unsure that he existed—his case would have been deplorable, and there would have been no remedy for it from reason or philosophy. A man who disbelieves his own existence is surely as unfit to be reasoned with as a man who thinks he is made of glass. There may be physical disorders that can produce such absurdities, but they won’t ever be cured by reasoning.

Descartes wants us to think that he got out of this craziness through this logical argument: Cogito, ergo sum [= ‘I think, therefore I exist’]. But obviously he was in his right mind all the time, and never seriously doubted his own existence. That argument doesn’t prove his existence—it takes it for granted. ‘I am thinking’, he says, ‘therefore I am’; and isn’t it just as good reasoning to say, ‘I am sleeping, therefore I am’? or ‘I am doing nothing, therefore I am’? If a body moves it must exist, no doubt; but if it is at rest it must exist then too.