You're confusing the breaker sizing with the wire sizing. Code requires the breaker to be about 80% of the safe capacity of the wiring to maintain this safety margin. Breakers allow the rated capacity, continuously -- and even allow a little more for short periods.

Standard US outlets are 15A @ 120V. But, yeah, based on his numbers it looks like he was only getting a little over 8A. I charged my car on a US outlet for a few years and I got more like 5-6 miles (8-9.5 km) her hour of charging, which is pretty much what the math predicts for 15A @ 120V.

First a nit about units: You mean "you get about 1 kW".

"kW/hr" doesn't make sense as a unit because watts are an instantaneous measure; time is already divided out. "1 kWh/hour" technically makes sense but is kind of pointless because it's just "1kW * 1 hour / 1 hour". Also, a standard US outlet is 15A @ 120V = 1.8 kW, not 1 kW. There's a little loss so you get more like 1.7 kW into the battery.

I've also been driving EVs since 2011 (two Nissan Leafs, three Teslas), and I get more like 5-6 miles per hour, which is consistent with the math: 3 miles/kWh = 333 Wh/mile. 1.7 kW / 333 Wh/mile = 5.1 mi / hr. 4 miles/kWh = 250 Wh/mile. 1.7 kW / 250 Wh/mile = 6.8 mi/hr.

Maybe your mileage is worse than you think? Were you not getting 15A from your outlet? Your numbers fit if for some reason you were only getting about 8A out of your wall outlet, when you should have gotten nearly twice that much.

More like 50A @ 240V = 12 kW. My car will only take 48A, but my voltage is usually closer about 245 which the math says is 11.76 kW, and I normally get about 11.2 kW into the car.

Note that at 9 kW, 27 mi/hr = 333 Wh/mi, and 36 mi/hr = 250 Wh/mi, so your numbers line up there.

You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's really not what's going on here.

What's going on is exactly what they're saying. OpenAI didn't realize their AI hacked HuggingFace until HuggingFace told them. That sparked a broad investigation in both Anthropic and OpanAI, scouring their logs to see if there were other cases, and they're finding a lot of them, and doing the responsible thing by disclosing.

Both companies are really worried.

Having an out-of-control AI is an anti-selling point, not a selling point.

I am an American, have been for all of my 57 years. I'm actually a certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor, a certified range safety officer, and a concealed carry instructor. And while I wouldn't recommend it, it's not at all hard to get away with shooting outside of one of those situations.

Also, it was a joke.

Set up two companies in a state or country where there are no legal issues. One says "invest in us, if [event] happens by [date], we will pay off more than you invest because company #2 will turn all their assets over to us" and the other says "invest in us, if [event] does not happen by [date], we will pay off more than you invest because company #1 will turn all of their assets over to us." Set up both companies to liquidate and return assets to stakeholders on [date].

Then list the companies on an exchange accessible to US residents or if that's not possible, create a pair of holding companies or closed-end mutual funds that own 100% of company #1 and company #2 above and list them on an exchange accessible to US residents.

If this would be a legal way for New York residents to invest in the outcomes of events, it sounds like Kalshi is just doing the above but without all of the middlemen and inefficiencies that come with middlemen.

If this is not legal, I would ask "why not?"

I'm disappointed that no one is shooting them. That would be the American way!

Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.

Google refuses all of that. Basically all of the tech companies do.

on second thought, run for the hills!

No way Google would do that. The potential liability for making mistakes would be enough to make them run screaming all by itself, even assuming there's no risk if the information is accurate -- which is at least not clear and probably not true for many of the things you listed.

Google is leery of even having such information, and definitely isn't going to be giving it out to anyone who doesn't show up with a subpoena or a warrant.

Slippery slope fallacy. Given that this is strictly opt-in, for children only, under parental control, there's absolutely no reason to think that any of the rest of that is soon to follow.

I find it interesting that their intention is clearly based on concerns about IP ownership, unrelated to quality. They're not banning "AI slop", they're banning code with unclear ownership. They clearly want to avoid a situation where they take a code contribution which the AI model owner might claim to own, or which owners of the AI's training material might claim to own. If those claims were upheld, it would mean the contributor didn't own the copyright and therefore couldn't license it under the relevant open source license.

I think this will ultimately prove to be needless caution. I think courts will end up deciding that AI-generated code is no different than code generated by any other sort of code generation tool, and that the copyright is held by the person using and directing the tool. But it's definitely not impossible that things will go a different way.

I disagree with your conclusion. We don't need "more", we need "better"... and a key aspect of the "better" we need is that we need more focus on identifying and addressing regulatory capture.

Anti-trust law is largely a bust. You can't point to any case in American history, for example (I'm guessing you're not American, but I reach for the history I know; if you have good counterexamples from elsewhere I'd love to hear about them), where there was an abusive monopoly and the government stepped in and fixed it. What happened in every single case is that market forces were already taking down the monopoly by the time the government took action. I don't think anti-trust law is bad, per se, I think it defines some useful boundaries and probably warns a lot of companies away from abusive behavior just by defining clearly what is abusive. But I think the effect is ultimately just to decrease the amount of abusive behavior that happens before the market takes the monopoly down, which would happen even without the laws.

The real exception, the case where you get long-running, entrenched monopolies that the market doesn't eventually undermine, is when government regulation creates or maintains the monopoly. And the more regulation you have, the easier it is for industry to get that regulation tweaked in its favor. We need regular and intense scrutiny of possible cases of regulatory capture, and then we need to refine the regulatory regime to prevent capture -- the best way to do that in most cases is simply not to give regulators the type of power that businesses can exploit. Note that I said "type", as in "kind", not as in "degree". I'm not arguing for weak regulations, I'm arguing for regulations that primarily focus on shining a bright light on corporate operations, rather than regulations that control or restrict.

The primary role of regulation in business operations should be to ensure that companies operate with honest and full disclosure, of their financials, of their labor practices, of their product quality and characteristics, etc. Note that it's also important to ensure that the regulatory burden of information disclosure doesn't become another form of capture, preventing the entry of small players who don't have the necessary expertise to fill out all of the necessary forms.

Nationalization is its own can of worms, unrelated to regulation. It's generally a bad idea, though. In theory it seems like a good idea to eliminate the profit-taking that private enterprise necessarily engages in, but the savings that provides are basically always swamped by inefficiency created by the reduced need to be competitive.

Obviously, there are exceptions; industries with natural monopolies, where control-oriented regulation or even nationalization make sense. Most of these are near-universally government-run already, such as road networks and air traffic control. Utilities, however, aren't really natural monopolies, even though they're generally treated as such. The last-mile delivery of power, water, etc., are natural monopolies (we don't want five water companies digging up our streets to install their own pipes), but the industries as a whole aren't, and shouldn't be treated that way.

Above all, I think market regulation should focus on enhancing transparency (which is what prevents bad behavior) and removing barriers to competition. Markets are the most powerful mechanism we've found for reducing poverty and increasing wealth. Harness them, don't hobble them.