Wow. You are so cool. I mean, your ability to take an intelligently written argument, think about who could have made it, then insult them, all in such few words.
It is amazing.
All without countering a single thing said.
You should be a politician. Or a 9th grader
But at least the libs are suffering too is what they'll say.
I don't think it does, at least not currently.
AI currently doesn't generate whole big projects, just smaller snippets of code. You can't just go "Make me a non-GPL VLC" in VSCode. You can have AI write smaller things, like "Create a skeleton for a Wayland program", but in such usages it's not all that different from copying stuff from Stack Overflow and random snippets from Google.
I'd say in general anything where one would worry about licensing is too large for AI yet.
If we do get to the point where we can just have a LLM spit out a full video decoding library that actually works, then it's fair to say that we're living in the future and any concern about licensing is probably obsolete. If AI gets to that point it's probably now able to do projects of almost unlimited size and the world is being turned upside down.
You are wrong on several factors. First, the worst nuclear reactors we have built are FAR safer than coal power plants. Every single coal power plant has indirectly killed more people than the worst nuclear reactor.
By any reasonable standard, quick and dirty cheap nuclear reactors are safer than coal. Which is what this is designed to replace. There is no information about this reactor cutting corners. The US has not done that in 30 years. The Soviet Union did, but we are not them.
But more importantly, this is NOT a quick, dirty or cheap nuclear reactor. It is a slow, clean and expensive nuclear reactor that has taken more time, more approval and more money than any non-nuclear power plant (because they all do) and most nuclear reactors.
As for me, I don't know who you think I voted for or even understand your 28 credible ???? childen, etc.
If you are wondering, my next vote is going to be for Mamdani.
Average Nuclear reactors are 1 GW, so this is about 35% size of existing plants, with a heat bank to temporarily boost it up to 85% output when needed.
Most people consider Small Modular Reactors to be no larger than about 300 MW, so this is a bit to large to count as a modular one, especially considering the heat bank.
But it is a wonderful NEW design that has been properly tested by a man I think cares more about the environment than making money on nuclear power.
Sounds like a good idea to me, I hope it works out.
This was designed and sent for approval before Trump won the election. Bill Gates is known to be careful, at least outside of software.
It is NOT being rapidly built to meet short term AI Data Center demand, but instead being tested to replace the old coal power plants.
Does that mean it is definitely safe? No. Does it mean it won't be used to meet AI demand? Almost certainly it will be used for AI demand.
But you are misrepresenting the actual situation.
I have heard several claims that the only real jobs the AI can cut are Middle Management jobs. AI is supposedly really good 95% of the time for their work, and the 5% of time they get it wrong, good Upper Management can stop the problem before it gets too big.
Some people say it can also do it for upper management with the CEO acting as the break. But no one seriously thinks upper management is going to replace themselves.
This isn't just stating the reality, they are forced to frame their words in a way that favors government policy.
No, they aren't. They are required to provide the numbers that the government demands. They're free to precede it with a wall of text that explains why they don't feel that blaming them for people choosing to burn their gasoline, rather than, for example, using it as a beverage, produces CO2 emissions all they want to. That's their choice. What they don't have the right to do is not provide the data.
Maybe you did, but I thought the poster's name was Thomas Jefferson.
That changes as you get older, turning about 50% of men over 60, and every 5 years goes down by another 10%.
The real problem is not the % of men deemed unattractive, but how it is defined. (I am using rough percentages, here)
80% of female attractiveness is how much they try. Weight, hair, makeup, clothing, mannerisms etc. 20% is not controllable by the woman. Bone structure, etc. Plastic Surgery works pretty well for women. End result, the pretty women are those that want it bad enough and does the hard work (about an hour a day) to make themselves pretty. Yes, not all women can do this, but most can.
But male attractiveness is the other way around: 20% based on how hard you try and 80% not controllable by the men. Height, status, money are mostly determined by your parents. The wrong genetics and upbringing and you are average intelligence, short, OR do not like conflict (he has no confidence....). To be really attractive you need to be above average intelligence, above average height, and the right personality. Plastic surgery does little to make men more attractive to women.
This results: the pretty women are the ambitious ones while the handsome men were just lucky. As men get older, the nice attractive men get married and stay that way. By the time a man is 40, most of the attractive men are either not interested in settling down except with a bisexual supermodel that knows how to cook and is willing to share her girlfriend, or are total a-holes that no one can bare to spend time with.
Women (both attractive and not) date these attractive men and think all men are a-holes, all the while refusing to go out with the short OR poor OR low quality job. A short, poor janitor has no chance, no matter how wonderful a husband he would be.
There is a reason why taller men get married earlier, and taller women get married later.
1) There has been no study that the current rule does anything. They just made it up. For all we know, the current rule CAUSES more accidents than it prevents. This is not medically tested science, but just someone that said '4 paces', and then later clarified that to mean 3 meters/10 ft.
2) The current rule allows for the use of road flares as warning devices, that last... 30 minutes. When they go out, no additional warning devices are required. Yeah, this is not the safest or well thought or tested rule. Just some thing a random guy wrote.
3) The company already did a study and 'proved' that it is safer. . That is how they 'know' the lights are more visible than cones. That study was a simple one of try and see, rather than a good one, but so what.
4) The problem is not the 'warning devices', the government is fine with the lights on the car. Instead the issue is the multiple lines about placement, requiring them not to be a certain distance from the vehicle. Which again, the original rule used PACES as the measurement.
I am not saying a study should not be made. I am saying that a reasonable agency could have looked at the rule, said 'this is just some crap a guy made up with no science', and given a limited testing exemption of some kind for say 100 trucks.
More examples of vile shmucks trying to convince courts that they are allowed to break the law because of the first amendment. NO. Doing what the government orders you to do is not being forced to support an idea. It is obeying the law.
The first amendment does not mean you get to stop the government from requiring you to do things. It does not mean you can say whatever you want - you can still be sued for slander etc.
How to win an election:
Before the election propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.
How to be good at your job (as a politician or any other job):
At work, propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.
How to be a shmuck:
Look at politicians that are good at their job and complain that they are just trying to win an election.
Voting Gaining Things are what Democracy is all about.
That's how some humans use everything. I used to be shocked by stories where some fuckwit blindly followed Google Maps into rivers or airport runways (long before LLMs) but now I know if a dialog window asks "Should I kill you as painfully as possible?" it'll get a lot of Yes clicks.
If people aren't stupid, then can we at least admit they hate themselves?
Shorter weeks boost productivity. That simple, no caveats, all of the work less advocates say that, as an absolute. The less hours you work, the more productive you are. If that is true, a 0 hour workweek will have productivity of infinite.
The fewer hours you work, the more productive you are during the hours you spend. There's a tipping point where it doesn't break even, though, and there's a point where you have so few hours that bulls**t like catching up on all the emails that people send about things you don't really need to know starts to dominate the time spent and productivity falls off a cliff again.
There are three factors that define productivity:
Raw output in a given time period is proportional to energy level. Useful output is raw output minus the error rate, because erroneous output has to be redone and cancels out its benefit. And the time spent is then reduced by the time spent on toil.
So the equation looks something like f(t) = (t - T) * (e - E). That's why small reductions in bulls**t make a big difference, and the sweet spot for time spent ends up being hard bounded by when the error rate exceeds the useful output, at which point productivity goes negative.
Hope that helps.
Been Transferred Lately?
