You're the one making the claim that modern frontier models still make this mistake (they don't), so how about you go to a frontier model, reproduce what you're claiming happens, and click the "share" button and post the link here?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Your inability to reproduce the thing that you claim happens is duly noted.

You are speaking irrelevant nonsense. LLMs are trained in words

They are not. They are trained in tokens. Tokens do not align with word boundaries, and an arbitrary word can be tokenized in many different ways.

and they think in words

They do not. They don't even think in tokens. The process is: words are split to tokens, tokens point to an embedding position (latent space) while RoPE encodes a relative position, and all reasoning is done within latent space, which is not at all verbal (concepts are directions in latent space, and math is done on concepts, not words).

Also, a note: when spec'ing a generator, you need to know how much you're planning to use it vs. batteries. If it's only going to be used rarely, you prefer low mass, low volume, low cost, and low maintenance when unused (at the cost of low efficiency and higher maintenance in use), whereas if it's going to be used a lot, you prefer high efficiency and low maintenance cost in use, even if at the cost of higher mass, volume, cost, and maintenance when unused. In the former case, you'd prefer to allocate that extra mass, volume, and money into a larger battery pack.

That's why you don't use a tiny petrol generator? Diesel generator efficiencies are roughly:

Small backup generator (1-15kW): ~20-28%
Midsize backup generator (20-200kW): ~30-35%
Large industrial generator (200-2000kW): ~35-42%

Also, ironically this company's plan of the trailer providing a boost will actually make the tractor less efficient. ICE engines use "brake specific fuel consumption" (BSFC) graphs to plot their efficiencies across different RPMs and different torques. You can see an example for a small diesel engine here. Note that they require very high torque conditions and relatively high power conditions to be efficient. You can change the balance between torque and RPM within a given power band (blue) via gearing but gearing doesn't change what power band you're in. If you're in a low power band, you're fundamentally forced into inefficiency (note also that you're not going to be driving around at 1000 RPM just over a stall all the time).

Indeed, if you were forced into a low power band, you'd actually be better off with a series hybrid powertrain, as the engine can alternate between operating in an efficient powerband and shutting down. Of course, parallel hybrids are more efficient than series (albeit with added complexity and mass).

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work that way (even ignoring that a 400kWh battery is very small). Battery packs taper the closer you get to full, they're not a constant power all the way. Unless your battery pack can take 400kW at 80%, you're not charging that quickly.

Also, while 40 mins is fine in Europe (breaks: 45 minutes every 4,5 hours of driving... though using 70% of a 400kWh pack on a loaded class 8 truck going even at a slow 80kph will only take you 2 1/2h of driving in "average" conditions, so the truck's range is fundamentally undersized), the US is 30 minutes total break in 11 hours of driving, so ~6 hours on your first leg and ~5h on your second leg with 30 minutes to fill that 5h of driving. And US speed limits are usually faster for trucks than in the EU, so higher consumption. EU really needs 600kWh and >=600kW charging, while the US needs 800-1000kWh and >MW charging.

Note that in all of this we're assuming efficient-shaped trucks (Tesla Semi or the like), not your typical EU bricks, along with a well optimized powertrain and an efficient tyre config. If not, you need to increase those packs and charge powers further.

Only funny comment on the story?

But the beloved thing I was thinking about when I saw this story was a little whiteboard I used for scheduling most of my work. I actually inherited it from my predecessor, who I still meet for lunch from time to time... (The next joke requires Unicode, so Slashdot has spared you the attempt.)

Different abandoned IBM site, but I have walked past a few times since then and it looks pretty much unchanged. I didn't try to go in, but from the outside the buildings seem just as they were back then. Difference is that the parking lots are full of unused construction equipment. The site is just being used for storage of inventory by a company that makes the equipment.

Shhh... You aren't supposed to talk about the Cuban invasion. The invasion schedule depends on maximizing impact on the "election" in November. And this time the trick is going to work for sure! ALL those Cuban immigrants now living in America will be so surprised to find themselves drafted into the invasion force. Two birds with one stone time!

Seriously, it's not like Cuba was ever real threat. Not even the level of economic threat that Venezuela once posed with the oil. But it would be funny if Rubio volunteers to be the Generalissimo leading the invasion and then Presidento of the Cuban Republic of Bananas.

Wrong on both counts, though I concur that the selection of stories could be better. MUCH better. Why don't you become a Slashdot editor?

It's pretty sad that so many nerds idolize these fools as role models. Maybe just young wannabe nerds, but they still gobble up this kind of news and gossip.

Even sadder that their petty squabbles and twisted personalities matter so much. This is how the money works these years. But I think the funniest part is that their patron saint Adam Smith is to completely misunderstood. He was mostly talking about how the invisible hand had managed to keep things working up to that time, but at the same time he was removing the cloak of invisibility. I would argue that he therefore deserve a lot, perhaps even the lion's share, of the blame for what has happened to the economies of the world since then.

Just doing some "research" on "crucified on a cross of shareholder value", but I should have asked more about who. As in all of us.

Returning to my modified Subject, I confess I was exaggerating for clickbait effect. I don't think most of the people on Slashdot are that awful and the great insult artists of yore are long gone, too. But there was a time when I thought some Slashdot discussions could be part of actual solutions in the actual world, which has become a funny thought of its own on a website that is simultaneously seriously deficient in funny.

(Yesterday's trip to the library netted an anti-AI book, an anti-monopoly book, and one humor book from a long-dead humorist. Current priority book is neuroscience and still digesting Careless People about the awful people of Facebook.)

P1?!? Is that you?

more racist.

FTFY, even though I think AC was being intentional.

Closest I could find to the nub of the problem. Whether this is going to work would depend on very accurate weather AND climate modeling and I don't think we are anywhere close at this time. Due to butterfly effects, the prediction problem is probably unsolvable, so I think that means we would need a control system with extra capability that is constantly compensating for prior interventions. It reminds me of the fly-by-wire problem for aircraft with negative dynamic stability. Not even theoretically possible for a human to fly the thing if the computer burps.

I still don't know what AC was mumbling about, but the few posts on this story say all that needs to be said about the relevance of the EFF now.

Not worth much, but I do have a couple of takes on the topic. Main one in my Subject, but that's part of a general problem of broken economic models. The big donor may mean well, but the model only works until the donor starts calling bad shots, which is what always happens. But now I think even the "aligned business model" solution angle fails on the dimensional collapse problem, and we humans are NOT going to stop collapsing the dimensions. We're intrinsically simpleminded and will insist on more simplicity than reality involves.

Time for a "discussion" on building "trust" with Claude?

Yeah, same joke but AIs don't call for original humor. Still, I sadly thought the story had more potential for funny.

The military implications are obvious. Think Ukraine. If you suspect the enemy is trying to infiltrate on a dark night along several kilometers of frontline, you light up the scene while launching a bunch of low-cost FPV drones, and those infiltrators are about to have a bad day.

You *can* spot infiltrators in the dark with IR cameras, but it requires much more expensive drones and isn't usually as effective, hence the preference for night operations. Plus, there's IR camouflage, with varying degrees of success. But it usually makes you stand out like a sore thumb under illumination (you're basically wearing a tent).