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.

Wouldn't it be weird if we sent an astronaut to mars, and we discovered the whole planet was a low polygon sphere with poor quality textures.

"Uh oh, god hasn't set up the LOD settings propery."

It is a nice thought but nothing more than that. Not even enough for a bad cup of coffee each.

A balloon is not static, it moves with the atmospheric system it is in. Ergo, it tells you how that system evolves. A drone cannot do this.

A drone can stay put, relative to the ground, telling you how a location's atmosphere evolves. A balloon cannot do this.

These are solving completely different types of problem.

You could, of course, construct a hybrid, as balloons are traditionally single-shot. If a balloon carries the measurement gear and a drone capable of carrying that same gear PLUS a deflated balloon, then you can have something that operates as a balloon until it reaches some pre-set location, whereupon the balloon's gas is released and the drone flies the ensemble to a collection point.

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.

You really think a market where you can perform an infinite amount of research before making a prediction is more gambling than buying a package that has a completely random chance of containing something of value??

Yeah that is quite different from sites where the majority of betting is on sporting, which no amount of research will turn it from a bet into an investment. Like, if its not primarily that sort of thing, then sure.

Btw I'm refering to Kalshi which has sports betting as 80% of its "volume". Polymarket is around 40%

I'm sure someone will create a "prediction market" where what you say is true, however this lawsuit isn't about these , its about Kalshi which is primarily (based on useage) a sports betting site, and Polymarket where sports betting is around half its useage.

"We know that people uniquely trust Google Earth" Anyone who trusts ANYTHING Gurgle puts out is foolish. Everything Gurgle does is for profit.

It obviously gives us guarantees in terms of what the source will do and what the compiled code should need.

These do not provide memory safety, so memory bugs would not be solved by these. They will find unexpected behavioural issues, though.

The precondition and postcondition statements are not cunningly-disguised assert statements because they're not asserted at runtime. They're enforced at static check and/or compile time.

The policy hints mean that if the kernel is doing something you're not expecting, you find this when testing the code. Equally, though, it means that users cannot cause the software to venture into realms unknown through many of the usual attack vectors because those will require permissions that aren't there.

I assume there was some form of contract. Generally speaking, any time you send somebody unsolicited copyrighted material, you can expect it to get summarily thrown in the trash, so whomever you sent it to can't fall for the old "you stole my idea" bugaboo.

VFX studios are already doing this for their production pipelines. The processing happens in a data center; all the artists see is essentially a terminal window. Nobody can "walk off" with anything.

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

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