Their War on Energy has to be about depopulation at this point. They've destroyed 20% of world oil, sulfur, helium, fertilizer, natgas, and now they're going after the building blocks of home solar installs that could help people cope.

At the same time the RFP for Draft Management Software closed today.

Even Alex Jones is calling for impeachment. They've gone totally off the deep end.

Power Inverter means:
A bi-directional power device or system that converts direct current electricity to alternating current electricity, or converts alternating current electricity to direct current electricity, to include microinverters, string inverters, central inverters, and hybrid (battery-based) inverters; and Contains components that enable remote communication, control, sensing, data-collection, or monitoring through Wi-Fi, cellular, Bluetooth, or other similar connections.

Everything useful has Bluetooth in it now. That's how you hook it up to Home Assistant. Somebody should tell the FCC that Bluetooth doesn't reach to China.

Imagine all the crime the Bell System was used to perpetrate!

So many Russians use Telegram, including front-line soldiers.

There's more to this story that we don't know.

>"and as much as 2.6 gigawatts of battery storage capacity"

Watts are not a singular unit for the storage of energy. There must be a time component. Why do so many articles seem to make this same ridiculous mistake. Are we talking about 2.6 gigawatt hours?

Seriously? That guy is putting meaning into words that he doesn't even know is there, making tons of references to turner diaries, despite saying this:

More than that, he's making a ton of leaps in logic that amount to what is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory. In fact, I'd say it IS a conspiracy theory. Chief among them being his commentary about an Elon post that just has the word "yes" in response to a picture of a guy holding a gun saying "traiters then invaders" which somehow relates to turner diaries. As for me personally, until I actually looked at the movie poster it came from, I would have had no idea where it actually came from. I think this is the most plausible explanation he has come up with in that entire article:

Unlike you, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. He's awkward. As somebody with ASD, this is something I can personally relate to, and I've literally had people (on here, no less) take something I said to mean something completely different than the actual intent. In my case, it's likely the difference between the way I speak in person, compared with my writing style, which tend to be very different in tone due to a lack of vocalization, which I tend to rely on a lot while speaking. When watching Elon's interview earlier, I can see how much of what he said would come out differently if it was written rather than spoken.

As for your second article, I basically stopped reading right around here:

That page they linked to explicitly says it's a projection. A projection isn't something that has already happened like they're stating matter-of-factly here, which is what they're making it out to be. Is Elon's claim inaccurate? I don't know for certain, but probably. But what they're doing here goes well beyond that. Even the onesie-twosie's they cite don't look conclusive to me either, rather that the possibility exists to the point where in my mind, it amounts to a probability. Just like you, they have no moral high ground. /thread

I mentally left this behind until I noticed the the Economist posted the entire interview, which I listened to, so now I can respond in more detail...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Where does this "meltdown" happen? At worst I've seen a case where he trips over his words, part of which is due to the modern lack of the word 'thou' in our vocabulary, and other parts look like my own ASD symptoms. The conversation heats up a little in parts, but no more than you'd see in a typical debate, and it's mutual between both speakers. Beyond that, he seems calm and collected throughout the whole thing. I like the part where she was complaining about how he owns Starlink, how that's too much for one person to have control over (Note: without him, nothing like that would even exist right now, for more reason than one, including the lawsuits he had to defend) so he asks "What would you have me do differently?"

I was somewhat taking your word for it, but you just reminded me of why I take your two-bit "hate Elon no matter what" fruity little club with less than a pinch of salt.

Not the first time I've heard anybody say that about another person. Shit, your friends always call me a "class traitor" even though I never signed up to be in your club to begin with. Just the mere fact that I won't sign up for it is why you guys do that.

So I'm trying to find out where this actually happened, and I'm not seeing it. From what I can tell, it originates here:

https://x.com/DougJBalloon/sta...

And guess what? That's a satire account. Congratulations, you've been had.

As for this:

In the Economist interview, I don't see what's racist about it. He was describing the schism between western culture and other cultures. He's not the only one who notices that. You probably took that to mean "it's racist because it's eurocentric, meaning non-westerners are brown!" in which case, how typical, but also...ah...no. We see the exact same thing with Russians, who I've been paying the most attention to recently. As Sarah Paine said "western culture is like battery acid on other cultures" and as an example she spoke about the large differences between westerners and middle-east cultures on women's rights. To many of them, we're "backwards" on that topic. He then was talking about how this is turning into a flashpoint in Britain, saying a civil war would happen if things continue as they are. I personally don't think it will reach that point, but at the same time, he's not wrong either. This HAS been an issue there. How big of one? I don't know, but I've heard this even from the BBC.

Nor do I want to take the side that "the west is right, others are wrong" as most westerners seem to do without even realizing it. Shit, in western sci-fi, especially Star Trek (which I'm a fan of, by the way) what are obviously westernized alien cultures are always the most "advanced" and morally in the right.

Earlier I said you were eating rsilvergun's shit. Well, I was wrong there, you are in fact full of it already, so that should have been past tense. So congratulations, you're already worse than whatever it is you think about Elon.

OpenAI is bleeding money. They need the hype and panic to keep the VC money flowing. The tech press is a willing and useful idiot in playing these games, breathlessly reporting how we could accidentally make Skynet any minute nowâ¦

That's a model specific problem, to a large degree.

The "AI assumed something stupid and destructive" problem went away when I started using better planning skills and models which were not anthropic's.

I've not had any of those "wild destructive hallucination reasoning" problems with GLM or Qwen models, even small versions, which I fought with regularly with opus.

Sure, you can do that. You can do that with buggy code that compiles, or python, too.

For AI, you can also have another agent and/or model review and fix it. You can ask it adversarial questions until you get it right. You can ask it to explain the architecture and design (or: you can plan it out ahead of time so that you know the design and then verify it).

It's no different than starting on an existing code base... just faster.

The premise of both of these is false. Not only is the commentary about spacex false, (again, this is based on absolutely nothing) but your posts didn't even talk about that. In case you've already forgotten:

You said it yourself.

Everything you're saying here is consistent with what I've heard from him in the past, dating at least as far back as 2018, and realistically much earlier. What "decline", specifically?

You know why that is? Because this is just a variation of exactly the same shit he has been repeating for years. All you've done here is contribute to disinformation about SpaceX, and for what? Just to satisfy your insecurities? Everything I've said is warranted.

Oh ... so eBay didn't harass them, some eBay employees did.

I had dropped in to mention that, about the misleading headline.

"a bunch of AI bots doing the work of a whole team, is just a pipe dream."

You're not doing things right, then. Or very well. It's pretty low intensity to author/implement 5 substantial features a day, test, fix the bugs, run QA, and do 10-20 odd commits. Give or take, given the complexity of the plans/features and how much they let the LLM fill in the blanks and how thorough they were in scoping the implementation. Maybe 100M-200M tokens, depending on your model/skill/skills/etc. More, if it's a language like python or typescript (noisy, lots of bugs).

That kind of thing used to take a team a day. A good dev might close 2-3 bugs a day if they already have a thorough RCA done by someone else (which, itself, usually takes a 4-8 hours, depending on the issue).

Wait... you mean there were actually people trying to use as many tokens as possible?

It's one thing to try to exhaust a usage quota (which has never been difficult) because it's a subsidized commodity. It's another thing entirely to just burn tokens.

How can a CEO say stupid shit like this? Oh right. CEO brain.

Only to foreign nationals. From your link:

trick a whole new batch of kids into massive piles of education load debt.

Consider: The internet is, and for YEARS has been, completely awash in so-called influencers. NONE of them got those positions by getting a degree. NO DEGREE EXISTED OR WAS REQUIRED. The dumbest people on Earth were capable of teaching themselves to be influencers. The primary "skill" in many cases seems to have been "willing to do something outrageous that was beneath what others were willing to do, no experience required".

When a college/university starts a degree program for something flashy and current, but which has existed for years with no degree programs or degrees at all, the purpose cannot possibly be that society has a need for people trained in this supposedly new thing. The Professors involved have nothing to profess. The people with all the experience are clearly NOT the ones in academia who plan to expound upon this subject, for a premium price. This is all about making money from a new generation of kids whose families insist they should go to college but who have no deep desire to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc and simply want to be the next Kardashian... it's another trick to get kids to sign-up to be the pipeline of cash where a kid gets a loan of government cash, hands it to a college, and then the kid is on the hood to repay it while the college laughs and the kid is left with a career as a barista or a lifeguard.

1. GrapheneOS is completely in the clear here - one can certainly have a data wipe feature in a device. Indeed there are entirely different scenarios from the current one where it would be of value, such as theft or kidnapping.

2. USING that feature, the way this individual did, is illegal. This is similar to a basic gun issue. It can be perfectly legal to own a gun and use it in certain ways, yet it remains illegal to use the gun to shoot an immigration/customs official. This is NOT something the current administration just made-up on the fly while going rogue; it's been in the law for a long time.

Young people, particularly in the geeky tech world, tend to have a rather poor history education these days and are often unaware that, historically, ALL governments world-wide have considered any form of encryption to be a tool of warfare and espionage. What some programmer sitting at his desk imagines to be some clever new method of protecting privacy may SEEM to him to be all about personal liberties, but historically, this field was on par with bombs and missiles. Governments world-wide are still very wary of this stuff, still wrestling with how common it has become and they still assert an absolute right to control it. Neither the US nor China is alone (or even somewhat isolated) in taking this view; most nations do even if they actually assert the control less visibly or less often. Nations have borders, and all nations assert an absolute, sovereign, power to control who and what crosses those borders, sometimes for national security reasons, sometimes for law enforcement reasons, and sometimes for taxation or commerce regulation. There are nations that do not tolerate encryption at all, and China's recent changes are a sort of hybrid - requiring the government gets a backdoor into all devices so that the tech is effectively useless there, but the typical user does not notice and over-time forgets that his encryption has no actual value because he never sees the government using that backdoor to read all his stuff silently in the background.

From the point of view of any government, what this defendant did was little different from a person who hears the cops knock on his door with a warrant and then rushes to the bathroom to flush drugs down the toilet, or the person who sees the police approach and begins burning or shredding documents (or tricks law enforcement into burning documents, etc). It's the destruction of evidence or potential evidence which the government has an asserted right to access, and doing it for the purpose of interfering in a lawful investigation. Yeah, I know, we can all play the game of saying "but it's NOT lawful, some lawyers can sue and challenge the law and someday it might get overturned..." but it's CURRENTLY the law.