Yes. The entire world is like that. It makes it a much safer place. Also a lot richer.

Right. The US government has sold off it's majority ownership of GM, as well as its stake in Chrysler. The new thing is chips, which is why it's bought part of Intel and half a dozen other chip companies, has profit sharing agreements with Nvidia and AMD, and some weird export protection racket thing going with Nvidia. Oh, and owns chunks of a rare earth mining company or two.

Thanks, you've provided an excellent answer to the OP's question.

There are a bunch of inductive algorithms. x_n+1 = x_n + f(x_n) dt is an integral curve. Doing it discretely is a a piecewise approximation of that curve. The vast majority of neural nets we use today are piecewise linear function approximators.

Worse. It's like the HR lady who writes the telephone sanitization SOPs and has no background in microbiology, health or any relevant field. They're making it up as they go along.

to the point where the model reasons entirely or almost entirely in latent space

Early models did all their work in latent space. Then someone figured out that you could run them repeatedly so they could do things step-wise and called that "chain of thought." Then someone else (re)discovered that you could reuse some of your layers and get better results for more computation but the same amount of parameters and memory, which is what "recurrent depth" seems to be. That's just like adding more layers, which nobody cares about, but someone gave it a fancy name so now its the end of the world.

https://sebastianraschka.com/b...

It's called a carbon tax. Maybe you've heard of it? Maybe you've voted against it? Lots of people have.

I grew up in a rural community. The farmers all think global warming is a liberal conspiracy. But they're also happy to tell you how it just doesn't get cold in the winter like it used to, they're constantly worried because the spring melt isn't ever as much water as it was twenty years ago, and the weather has just been crazy unpredictable the last decade or so.

We aren't going to stop flying, we aren't going to setup a factories in every country to reduce global shipping, we're not going to stop eating meat and we're not going to all magically transition to an EV that's backed by 100% clean energy.

We will if it gets hot enough. Almost no one flew a hundred years ago because they didn't have enough money. If there are food shortages, water wars and mass migrations from coastal cities and the tropics most people will again be too poor to fly, meat will be a luxury and goods shipped around the world will be exotic luxuries, just like they were a century ago.

I said "route." It's pretty clear where you go if I answer that question. It's also irrelevant to the hypocrisy I was talking about.

But since you're so sincerely interested in what I think, here:

I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to be able to spend money to influence elections.

I also think it's a bad thing for countries to invade their neighbours, sponsor coups, rig voting and have official foreign propaganda organs.

Sure. There are lots of reasons you'd keep something like a nuke, or anything spinning up a big hunk of very expensive metal, running at a constant rate. It's also a pain in the ass to get the control room guys to put their doughnuts down. As opposed to something like solar where you just... do nothing.

It's interesting the fantasies some people have, especially about electricity and nuclear power in particular.

OMG IF YOU DON'T USE THE ELECTRICITY IT EXPLODES!!!

Nuclear plants can idle. They can do it pretty fast too, and they certainly don't "blow up" when they do. The problem can be how long it takes them to ramp up again afterward. That's not really THIS problem either though. Nuclear reactors produce heat, not electricity. You can take some of that heat and make electricity from it, but you can also not do that.

Negative electricity prices are the result of things like fixed price contracts, the need to pay workers, leases, etc., and accounting that treats operating at a loss for a short period as "negative."

Ah, you've decided to go the straw man route. Congratulations!

President Von Shitzenpants

That's one I haven't heard. Bravo.

I don't think we need just one. Variety is wonderful. Mango Mussolini, Cheeto Benito, Agent Orange, Adolf Twitler, TACO. Even better, you can use a bunch of them to avoid repeating.