At least we can keep those coal plants running our AI data centers.
I mean, we could, but when the total expenses for building and running a solar farm are less than just the ongoing cost of buying more coal for an existing coal plant, that's almost literally lighting money on fire.
You need to add a significant energy storage plant to solar farm before it is comparable. You know, data centers want to run even when it is dark.
I think Copilot does considerably more errors in the area of software development than trained humans. If Copilot would make less errors then why would developers need to review Copilot output? One could answer this question by: "To improve it even more." But if that would be the case then why just not use Copilot to do the review as well. Allegedly it does better than human. Since it is a review (different context) and due to sampling temperature the internal model "reasoning" would not be the same as during code writing. Still, if Copilot is better than humans then it should do better.
If the above argument is accepted then why would Copilot be better in the area of healthcare than in software development?
Smaller companies and private users may go with locally run models. They are worse (allegedly 8 months behind the comparatively big proprietary models) but may be enough. E.g. you can run Chinese Qwen3.6 27B at home on a old gaming VGA with 16GiB of VRAM at about 22 tokens/second and context up to around 66 000 tokens.
This option to run locally will limit the maximum amount AI companies can charge. The maximum price is also limited by the amount of value AI adds to the users. It is not clear yet how much it is.
1. The US can't defend Taiwan from China without attacking the Chinese mainland. Which leads to a collapse of the global economy and nuclear war.
Nonsense. USA can provide weapons to Taiwan which would help to defend it greatly. Especially if USA would do it now before the hypothetical Chinese takeover of Taiwan starts and before arm deliveries are exposed to Chinese attacks. If enough weapons are provided then the Chinese attack is not even likely to happen since it would fail against a strong defense.
Providing weapons to Taiwan does not even require USA to target anything Chinese
2. Taiwan will join China sooner or later because their future is with China, not the US. Xi is well aware of this, which is why he's in no hurry to invade.
Are you reasoning based on the unproven claim that "Taiwan's future is with China"? You need first to show that the claim has any merit. Xi is claiming this because it is good for his (especially domestic) politics. He is not attacking Taiwan because his knowledge of the future is given which allows him not to hurry. He is not attacking because he does not have enough landing ships yet. Bad Taiwan attack progress would also destroy his economy and domestic standing more than the domestic morale boost from the unification. If Xi would be ready to execute easy and swift Taiwan takeover now then he would just do it now.
Given how Trump is showing the world that "Might makes Right" we are basically showing China that it's okay to use military force to try and take what you want.
You cannot show China what it already knows. Do you think Chinese officials are so stupid that they did not know "might is right" before Trump?
Given that little meeting they just had, will Trump actually defend Taiwan if China decides they want it?
USA will defend Taiwan if it will be better for USA to defend Taiwan. There are a few good reasons for USA to help Taiwan:
1) To prevent Chinese submarines from having easy access to deep water of Pacific.
2) To protect Taiwanese semiconductor industry (on which also USA economy depends on).
3) To bleed Chinese war machine more (if it attacks Taiwan).
These positives will be compared to costs of potential USA help. If USA decides costs are lower than the benefits then USA will help. Follow youtube videos of William Spaniel if you are interested in more details.
Tesla's upcoming Cybercab "has been certified at 165 Wh/mi," reports Electrek — which makes it "the most efficient electric vehicle ever produced — by a wide margin."
Aptera needs only about 110 Wh/mi. It is more efficient than Cybercab by a wide margin
Though Aptera has only 3 wheels
The simple fact is, AI has gotten much better at solving unsolved math problems than humans are. It's simply another field that it's taking over, the same way it has been taking over programming.
I'm not sure how well it works in programming. It helps in brainstorming and for a developer working in an area in which he is not advanced. There is a claim it works very well in crypto implemented in Rust with full test coverage and after human developer provided all the main interfaces. It is plausible. Most crypto code is opensource and easy to test so AI can work very well essentially rewriting the code it was trained on into Rust.[1]
But on the other side there is that study that did show that developers working on a code base they know well are quicker without AI despite thinking they were quicker with the AI.[2] And if AI is helping that much then where is all the showelware (additional software which should be on the market since it is so easy to write software now with AI help).[3]
Also llm-stats.com show that the best coding score has Claude Mythos Preview. The value is 57. I'm not sure how to interpret it but if that means that 100-57 = 43% of the output has some bugs then it is pitiful and would explain the missing "showelware".
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments....
[2] https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-...
[3] https://mikelovesrobots.substa...
OK, I get it. It is really bad when the fuel starts boiling.
Anyway some shippers transport gasoline cars without a problem but refuse to transport electric vehicles because when they start burning then they are screwed. With gasoline cars they can seal off the deck, flood it with nitrogen and cool the walls from the outside. With electric vehicles, nitrogen will not help. If temperature from the first burning vehicle rises enough to start internal fire in batteries of other vehicles then it is likely the whole ship will burn and sink.
If it's not [incipient] then gasoline is insanely difficult to put out due to the amount of cooling you need to apply to everything to prevent re-ignition.
Isn't the goal to use foam? Cooling is not important. Preventing oxygen access is. I'm not a firefighter. I have only seen them to use foam on a burning gasoline car.
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.
