That sounds great. However, anything that causes anatomical brain chages that persist after a month, with a single dose, would be, by me, considered unacceptably risky. I'm not saying that it's by default considered bad, both you and the paper are talking about positive changes, and that's good. I'm saying, "risky," as in, I don't know what negative effects haven't been identified and I'd need a much more complete understanding before I'd be willing to try it.

Most of the positive effects are in reported well-being, but I really want to see more cognitive tests. The tests on cognitive flexibility is a great start, but we really need a barrage of tests here: mathematical ability? Short-term *and* long-term memory? Spatial thinking? Are there *any* cognitive functions that are negatively affected here? It's important to understand this with anything that has this type of long-lasting effect.

I dunno, I felt like the IIe was peak Apple 2.

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about load shifting, you're talking about base load and frequency maintenance. You're not wrong, but that's not what I was talking about.

The point of load shifting is that if I have a task I need to do today that consumes power, I can do it when the sun is shining or when it's not. If the power company lets me do it for free because the sun is shining and there is excess power, that helps them to keep the grid balanced during the day, which is good, and that's what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is that if you have a task that you were always going to do, and you would have done it at, say, 7pm, when renewables generation is low and load is high, and I incentivize you to do it at 4pm, when demand is high and renewables generation is higher, then you aren't going to do that task at 7pm, which means the total load on the grid at 7pm will be less. If I can shift enough of the load away from 7pm, then I don't have to turn on a coal plant in anticipation of base load need at 7pm. That can bring my cost per mwh down from £500/kwh to £40 per mwh. Load is high at that time, so that can save millions of pounds over the course of an hour.

It's really not nonsensical, actually. Base load can be incredibly expensive. If they can avoid firing up the most expensive plant, they make more money. It's really that simple. Even though it seems "free" to you, what's really going on is that you have become part of the supply side of the equation by using power when it's there, and then _not_ using it when an expensive plant would have to be turned on. This is really a case where everybody wins.

That's not the reason. Time slows down (from the perspective of a far away observer) as objects approach the event horizon. It doesn't matter if the black hole is small or big...it slows down by the same amount, the only question is where. The event horizon has a larger radius when it's big, and it has a smaller radius when it's small.

In both cases, from the perspective of a far away observer NOTHING ever crosses the event horizon, whether the black hole is small or big. It slows down as it approaches that point, and at the event horizon itself, time stops completely, so it will freeze there for eternity. You won't be able to see that, instead you see the light that it emits being redshifted as it has to climb the black hole's gravity well, eventually becoming too red-shifted to be detected, and it's effectively black.

In both cases, from the perspective of the object falling in, time is passing, and it crosses the event horizon without even knowing that it's there. Well, for a very large black hole, it doesn't notice anything, for a very small black hole, tidal effects cause spaghettification before crossing the event horizon, so it's going to notice something and have a bad time. But it won't be the event horizon, it's just the difference in the force of gravity across the length of the object.

So, the reason it slows down consumption is not related to the time dilation. Using your terms, "it's almost" as physicists spend their lives studying these things, and therefore if it seems obvious to the the layman reading a slashdot article, they've already considered it and either accepted, dismissed it, or tested it.

No, it's really inefficient. In order to be useful for power generation, the three square mile circle it illuminates would have to be completely full of solar panels in order to capture all the energy being reflected. And it it's as bright as the moon, that's about one half millionth as bright as the sun. So those solar panels, assuming no cloud cover, will be operating at one millionth the efficiency of daytime.

Meanwhile, battery technology, particularly for terrestrial power storage, keeps getting better and better. This has zero potential to offset CO2. Which is deeply sad for the science fiction geek in us all, but honestly, right now solar generation technology is starting to feel pretty science-fictiony, so maybe that's okay.

That is an accidental attitude. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply here.

The default assumption, by literally everyone, is that if it's in an ad, it's not a statement to be trusted. Ads are *by nature* untrustworthy, they are a biased view meant to get you to be interested in the product. It's up to the person with the wallet to then do actual research, and they are literally the only person to blame if they trust the ad. If the ads were telling you the limitation of the product, then the person to blame would be the marketing team that created the ad, they should be fired for incompentence.

If the government is depending on ads to evaluate the capabilities of the AI, that's where you should focus the outrage. If the ads were in any way saying that Claude isn't capable of doing anything including making you breakfast and turning you into a stud that all women want, then your outrage should be with the terrible marketing team that decided that their competition deserves market share.

Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

The other thing about saving is that if you can depend on UBI, and it's enough to live on, then that takes the pressure off of individuals saving for retirement. Right now the amount of money people have to save for retirement in the U.S. is actually a problem, because there's no safe place to put that much money. And so we wind up with things like private equity and various other forms of securitization a specific group of which led to the 2008 crisis.

All of these securities are just ways of storing value, but you can't actually store value—value is work. "Stored value" is an obligation that someone else will have to work to pay back: I use my wealth to pay you money to do the work that I need done.

So public support for people who need it is actually the same thing as living off savings, except that living off savings is individual, and public support is collective. So public support can take advantage of the law of averages, and private savings can't. Which massively increases the amount you have to save as an individual to be sure you'll be okay in retirement.

And this motivates wealth inequality, which makes things worse and worse for the people who are creating the value you as a person with a decent amount of retirement savings need done. We've already had people saying "no more taxes" because they don't want to work to pay for other peoples' retirements. This is the same thing, and at some point it either turns into runaway inflation, which means your savings loses its value, or else it turns into regime change, which means who knows what? Right now, it means that a bunch of elected people are just raking in money through fraud, which isn't likely to end well for the rest of us.

It's weird how people think of socialism as being somehow expensive in comparison.

The military is right. As in, the military is saying Anthropic's tools are the best there are, and they don't want to change. Pete Hegseth is wrong, and he's throwing a hissy fit that, as usual, goes against what the people who now have to follow his orders, but are way more qualified than he is, actually want to do.

Incorrect. It's important that the decision be the *best decision*. Speed is a factor, but it's not the most important one. I can give you a system that gives you decisions faster than any AI, just have it choose randomly instead of actually analyzing any data, and it will be very fast!

What Anthropic is concerned about is that they are not confident their AI system can make decisions like what to shoot at with a low enough error rate to justify doing so. Anthropic is understandably concerned about the blowback to *them* when they become the scapegoat for all our drones engaging in friendly fire and killing a bunch of Americans, because Hegseth decided to trust a system that if you ask it, "the carwash is only 100m from my house, should I drive or walk there to wash my car" will say that you should walk there, because it's so close. You really want *that* system making the decision on who to kill?

I'm a pragmatist. I *know* eventually humans will be out of the loop in such decisions. We're very, very, VERY far from that. We know it, the military knows it, ALL the AI vendors, out of which Anthropic currently has the best product, know this. Pete Hegseth is apparently too incompetent to know this.

The second part of the equation, AI is actually pretty good at. It's a great tool for sifting through massive data, so it's great in helping to spy against Americans. No patriot should want that, however. Anthropic is ok with it being used to spy on other countries, but understandably does not want that use to spy on our own citizens. If you're against that, fuck you, you have no right to call yourself an American, you don't have the very basic values that this country stands for.

Let me guess. You think you have an IQ over 130, but you've never been professionally tested. You took some online test.

That's backed up by the actual paper cited in the response to you by another commenter, that actually compares vaccinations with scores on a cognitive test and has the exact opposite conclusion to your...if we're generous, anecdotal data, but much more likely to be just made up bullshit.

Do you know the difference between power and energy? Necessarily, even if it spends the same amount of energy, if it gets done in less time, it will use more power. That's how power is defined, it's the derivative of energy. So, that metric is already useless.

Now, if you also understand that getting things done faster has a value additional to getting the same thing done in more time, then now you've justified spending more energy as well.

The track for handling global warming needs to be less humans, not less energy usage. More energy usage means greater quality of life, so we should encourage more *per capita* energy usage, while decreasing overall energy usage. Luckily, greater quality of life and available contraceptives also cause humans to have less children, so if we stop trying to encourage population growth, that problem will take care of itself. Renewables and more efficient devices is great as a way to slow down climate change so we can get to a much more sustainable human population, but it will never be the solution to the problem. An current population growth rates (not taking into account the change in the rate itself), if we cut energy usage by half, wait 30 years, and population will be doubled, and we're right back to where we started. Or even if somehow population stopped growing today, the developing world's standard of living catches up to the developed world's and again...we're right back to where we started.

And were ICE agents masked? Were they taking in American citizens and ignoring their documentation when provided? Were they arresting people when they showed up for their court-ordered date as part of their process to regularize their immigration status? Was the US shipping people without due process to prisons in El-Salvador?

The problem isn't that ICE exists, or that enforcement against undocument immigrants is a thing. the problem is what they have been allowed to become. And don't get me wrong, ICE wasn't without its problems back then, and shipping some people out of the country without due process *was* happening under Biden's administration, and even under Obama's administration. It should not have been allowed. They weren't being sent to prisons, though.

The democrats don't have to be perfect. In order to avoid the "both sides" argument, it's enough to show the MAGA republicans are fascists and therefore significantly worse. There's no denying this.

Well, and not only that, but the article itself clearly says that it was the tariffs that killed the company, not Lena Khan. So the headline looks a bit like it's just clickbait nonsense, and Lena Khan had nothing to do with this. Sure, if Amazon had acquired them, maybe they would have operated at an apparent loss in order to collect all that hot hot private home use data, but that would not have been a win.

The worry that iRobot would be acquired by Amazon was reason enough for me to disable my device—I hadn't actually heard that the merger was canceled, because I moved shortly after that and we sold the Robot so we wouldn't have to move with it. :/

Contrary to the scaremongering we hear, the world is not full of terrorists. They exist, don't get me wrong, but the reason we're so afraid of them is that our fear of them is incredibly useful for people who want to control us.

And also, the ones who do exist aren't engineers. So a shooting, or a stabbing, that's pretty easy to figure out how to do. Derailing a train? That's physics. Physics is much harder than pointing a gun and pulling the trigger.