Communist government decides that people see too much online. Cracks down on speech online.

Youth organize on remaining online forums, and successfully purge the communists from government. Hold a vote who gets to replace communists on discord.

As you correctly guessed, I prefer people engage their thinking when they read most posts. I find that ideal.

Putting the fact that your sole point of opposition is basically "I hate that people get paid for doing something of value for one who's paying them", which is a communist talking point and nothing more. It has nothing to do with driving laws.

What exactly do you think a role of a fairly expensive HMD would be in Amazon's logistical operations when used on the operators?

The current progress line in military piloting is Dashboard > Heads Up Display > Helmet Mounted Display.

On the road cars are already at HUD stage. There are plenty of cars that project a HUD in driver's field of vision ahead of the driver. This would be a natural extension of that, mounted directly to the head of the driver.

I see zero reasons why this would be banned when HUDs are allowed everywhere, unless it does some illegal distraction on the road. Which is unlikely.

>As for words vs concepts. You still don't seem to have grasped the square cube law.

This is why I don't like debating people who are word thinkers. They conclude that "there's some very basic thing that you don't understand, because words".

The fact that I specifically invoke the concept that REQUIRES it as baseline to be a viable concept never enters your mind. Because you don't think with concepts.

I'm just going to add that you also don't seem to appreciate the temperatures involved with remote heating with the "let's just heat pump from sand to remote heating". Your refrigerant is going to be some super rare golden grade stuff to handle those temperatures, if it even exists in commercial world today at all.

As for the rest, we seem to just keep talking past each other. You seem to think with words, i.e. "but this is not a heat exchanger, so you're wrong", whereas I talk with concepts "everything is a heat exchanger because it exchanges heat, here are the criteria that make making this work well difficult".

I don't think you understand what is being said, and end up arguing against wind mills as a result. This is what leads to these hilarious statements like "it's a heat bunker" (obviously, but the more surface, the more heat is exchanged, the more thermal difference, the more heat is exchanged) and "just heat pump it bro".

It's also hilarious that you think cooling municipal buildings is of higher importance that heating them in Finland, and that you can heat pump things efficiently with this.

Hint: it's really cold here in winters by your standards if you're worried about cooling buildings more than heating them. Non-human survivable level of cold during cold snaps if you don't heat your residence to a significant degree (unless you want to wear multiple layers of clothing all the time, and use proper thermal sleeping bags - doable but extremely unpleasant and efficiency reducing as most male Finns will attest, since we have to learn how to do that in the military). We don't use cheap and easy heat pumps for main heating circuit either for the same reason. Those become inferior to just simple heat resisting elements during cold snaps, because outside heat exchanger just freezes in our cold snap temperatures (and freezes over even outside of them) and you need to constantly resistively heat it to make it work at all. This is why if you heat pump buildings as a main heating source here, you do geothermal heat pumps. And if you're doing that, you might as well take the building partially or even fully off remote heating, because upfront investment in geothermal pumps with our kind of rocky ground is incredibly expensive. So it makes little sense unless you're in urban center where there's just not enough surface to drill into to generate enough heat, or it runs over one of our massive under city tunnel networks to even connect the building to central heating if you choose geothermal heat pumping as a primary heat source. Just avoid all the expensive connection costs entirely and go full geothermal if you can. Many do so especially on the southern coast where temperatures aren't as gnarly as inland and the north when living in more rural areas.

All heat exchangers are fundamentally surface increase mechanisms. Because heat is transferred as a function of surface and thermal conductivity. You can see this in everything from tiny laptop CPU coolers to things we use to transfer heat in gigawatt grade power plants primary circuits. This is why exposed surface is one of the factors in the formula that determines R-value.

As for volume, it is true that as volume increases, surface per volume ratio decreases. The issue remains in the thermal differential. Remote heating needs to be quite hot, and on a cold day, you're going to need a lot of insulation to not just lose a lot of temperature right away. Problem is that vacuum isolation is not really possible at this size without hilarious costs. So they're probably just shoving a lot of insulated layers in that building.

This is another key variable in the R-value.

Overall, considering that typical cold snaps typically last at least a couple of days, and usually more like 3-4, I very much doubt this battery will be enough to replace peaking in those times. But this is a rural municipality, so most likely people have additional heating on top of remote heating for residential, while a lot of larger municipal buildings can probably just be set to be fairly cold inside during cold snaps to compensate.

It depends on specifics of the system, and expected loads, but yes, this is a common setup. Essentially when you don't need too much heating, you can just focus on keeping turbine in the optimal mode and dump whatever is left after steam has left low pressure stage of the turbine into the final heat exchanger before you cycle it back the boiler to be heated back up.

But if it's cold outside and you need to get much more heating than electricity, you will want to have some kind of a partial bypass (or other way to reduce amount of energy in steam captured in all stages of turbine it passes through). Since this is a "peaking battery", it's likely intended for those cold snap moments, when it's one of those cold, windless nights when heat just escapes upwards. So it's cold, there's no wind, electricity costs are going insane as there's way too much wind and solar in the grid which are sitting at zero production and every heating and electricity peaker is going as hard as their heat exchangers allow.

It's also when small local heating only stations have to fire up to compensate.

Technically this sort of battery would make some sense on those nights on small scale. I'm just confused at their efficiency numbers, because keeping this much of a surface at temperature sufficiently high to be able to effectively extract 1MW out of it into the heating circuit (needs high enough temperature differential between circuit taking heat out of the sand and sand itself) is going to be losing at least some heat just to the fact that no isolation is perfect. Even if you vacuum isolate it, it'll still radiate. And considering how the surface of the battery looks, I don't think this is vacuum separated from outer surface other than for contact with heat exchanger. So you should have quite a bit of leakage over time.

My suspicion is that their stated efficiency numbers are for "heat it up and extract asap at optimal start and finish energy states". I.e. they don't count losses over time, and they only count the most optimal extraction envelope.

I made an analogy to source that is commonly understood to be a medium from which to learn from, which is well established in case law, to demonstrate that "learning from" is not protected in copyright law at all.

Do you understand that "analogy" by definition is something that is NOT what is being discussed?

So I read the actual source, rather than all the silly editorials.

https://www.loviisanlampo.fi/b...

Then I followed up on some of the links in it leading to relevant companies.

It's basically a sponsored grade local thing that seems to be done mostly for PR/environmental credits/environmental promises reasons for participants. 1MW hypothetical output, 100MWh potential storage. Thermal only, intended for remote heating. Blog breaks down project sponsors as follows:

Municipal government has their own net zero project, so they chipped in. Most of their main buildings are remote heated, so they also have investment in this working.
Region has a world's largest (according to them) manufacturing company for heat storing fireplaces (og. Finnish: varaava takka), and company that makes them has a lot of stone sand waste from making said fireplaces. They're providing the stone sand used plus some funding, and this gets them some "circular economy" certifications which makes their loans and credit lines cheaper in some cases.
Heating company basically says that this will let them stop using some of their thermal peaking stations, so they're projecting total removal of oil based peaker and significant reduction in wood chip burning peaker. They're also owned by an environmental investment focused fund and that one is chipping in for the costs.
Finally they're getting government subsidy from government's business fund.

I also suspect this is about the fact that 2/5 Finnish nukes sit in the same municipality that this central heating company operates out of, which leads to complexities of running heat peakers because of how electric grid has to be set up. Many if not most of the heat peakers are dual use, and provide heat as a secondary function of electricity production (i.e.you just add an additional circuit in a typical power plant, where some of the steam is directed into a separate heat exchanger to heat remote heating circuit contents of which are then pumped across remote heating network).

Overall, an interesting idea but seems like something that can be only really done on a very small level, and in very specific locations where they can easily source sand from that specific type of rock that is really good at reserving heat as some waste of a specific production line. Scaling is a very big question mark both in availability of this kind of sand, and in just how little heat you can actually get out of it (1MW maximum out of 100MWh capacity isn't great, and they're claiming very high efficiency (85-90% for smaller units) which seems rather high for what this is. I suspect they're only giving us efficiency of only some part of the system, rather than the whole thing.

By midjourney? Then why is this claim absent from the suit?

Reminder: "other people did this illegal thing, that means other completely unrelated people also should be found guilty" is an argument that has a good chance of getting a conviction.

For one arguing it, for contempt of court.

Same as anyone else learning from materials that are publicly available.

I'm saying that current best evidence indicates that LLM learning process is very similar to human process in everything. We have problems with same material. We have difficulties solving similar problems. It's why we hallucinate in a similar way.

The main difference is that we're embodied, and they have near infinite and near perfect memory. That means our process allows us to be better at culling information of negative, zero and low value for each stage of learning process, while theirs allows them to learn from much larger body of material.

But we fundamentally learn and infer the same way. We're just different in optimizations within that way. Notably this is why everyone and their grandmother are trying to put AI into a robotic body that has sensors similar to what humans have. Embodiment + learning will likely result in human-like culling, meaning AI will become mostly superior to humans in reasoning over time. Though training time will likely matter, as we're trying to catch up with both evolution and rearing (reminder: humans don't fully actualize in terms of their reasoning until they're around 25, and that's just not the time frame that is currently seen as acceptable to raise an AI).

And the real concern that almost no one dares to say, is that it's not that AI's have exceeded us. It's that AI has largely revealed just how much less capable human reasoning is than most people believe.

Of course they do.

Incidentally, what is Greece known for in regard to taxation?