I'll pretend you don't mean "sustained" to allow me to type something. Does this qualify?
Put a bowl of water down at room temperature, wait for one molecule to "evaporate", and I think you did it? Unfortunately they are now no longer at the same temperature.
Temperature is an average. You can still take advantage of the fact that there will be much lower and higher temperatures present. Also, what about Peltier effect? Same temperature when it starts.
Yes. If you try to design any device to capture all the molecules like that and extract their energy, you'll find that just as often your device dislodges a water molecule the other way, back into the pool and losing energy. Thus although You aren't the first to invent the Brownian ratchet.
The device shown in the OP appears to allow for a sustained thermally-driven energy transfer one way or the other depending on the bit value ou are sending.
I was slightly accelerationist until I got into an "argument" with Gemini! The aggressive gaslighting and "lies" that it tries to use genuinely makes me worry about the future with AI.
Sure, nobody knows the exact future. But you still plan for what's probably going to happen. I don't know if social security is going to be around when I retire, and all the experts are saying it's probably not going to be. So, I'm planning a retirement without. Similarly, all the experts are saying AI (<- that word is not "LLM") is probably going to improve. I personally think it's irrational to ignore experts.
I think that a person (me) who has worked directly with frontier AI for over a year now for many hours a day may have gained some expertise in what this technology is capable of and thus what is dangerous about it, but I wouldn't speculate too hard on what superintelligent AI would or could do because we have not yet seen such a thing nor is there even an established criteria as to what that would look like or how it would be valued and in what capacity (hint: humans are still the final evaluators of what is valuable)
The simple fact that I have to write every control scheme in the book to keep the thing on the goal path (and not lapsing into laziness or dishonesty) is itself possibly a safety feature, if you look at it that way
As someone that tried systemd init early on, without bias (I have no emotional attachment to how things start on my computer), it was incredibly clear that they would win.
This is where I landed when a recent(ish) change broke symlinking for rules files. I didn’t like how hacky it was a first, but now I’m glad I did it. The same hook drives specific rules the non-Claudes get per repo.
Haven't all the major browsers had sync for ages? I've been using Firefox's built-in sync for so long I don't even remember what it was like without it.
Considering that Firefox by itself doesn't block anything without extensions, that seemingly less than 10% of users use extensions and that tgere5are already quite a few snappier browsers that block ads by default...
Ooh, I think you're right. Even better if it can bypass more annoyances, cookie popups, captchas and (if legal) paywalls. Maybe it should have Libredirect built in. It could be a user agent, instead of a site owner agent.
They have their own problems. They may be "open source", but they don't accept contributions. I'm skeptical it will ever become more than a hobby project.
Is not accepting contributions the only/biggest issue you have with the project? I'm honestly becoming more and more okay with the "cathedral" style of open source. Depending on the project, catering to "the community" can lead a loss of focus, lack of a cohesive "vision" or scope, and just generally trying to be everything to everyone without the resources to maintain a giant beast.
With something like a browser (engine), I'm totally okay with someone saying "I'm an expert and I'm trying something with my own vision/priorities. I don't want input from random people that I have to spend time evaluating."
It seems to me like the more intellectually honest characterization of things like hiring quotas and admissions quotas is "discrimination in the interest of the good" or "compensatory discrimination" rather than "this isn't discrimination". It's not a little-known practice and it doesn't negatively affect only white men (it also negatively affects East Asian men, for instance).
If you think those hiring practices are justified against a backdrop of ongoing white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., say that. If you think they're only a small adjustment in the big picture in a world where tacit norms of credibility, transgenerational wealth, and interpersonal connections still overwhelmingly favor white men, say that. But when someone says "hiring practices actively try to tell people apart by race and ethnicity in a way that disfavors my odds" and you reply amounts "nuh-uh, and you can't say that!", you frankly weaken the left, because you aren't addressing the real contention and you look to outsiders like you are denying an obvious fact.
Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?
These tweets all seem extremely reasonable and resonates with my experience.
White males don't have a monopoly on discrimination but it certainly exists.
When I worked at a fortune 50 company part of my annual bonus was dependent on how many minorities I hired. When I was job shopping I was told directly by recruiters that white males should not apply, but if I know any minorities to send them their way
If these things don't count as discrimination, I don't know what would
Where is the data that shows there are a disproportionate number of white men among the unemployed population? Without that data, this kind of rhetoric can only be seen as a pretext for actual discrimination.
Also, you think jumping to support someone who got backlash for claiming that only a third of the London population (aka white people) are "native" to the city and the rest should be driven out of their homes is "extremely reasonable"? It boggles my mind that people are lining up to say how normal this is. It's anything but.
No disproportionate number of men are required for discrimination to be going on. Its not a competition.
Discrimination can occur at the individual level. If I fire someone the color of their skin, but the numbers balance out somewhere, I still committed an act of discrimination.
Also,I dont care about their back story. I suspect you and I have very different understanding of truth if you think them having said something offensive means everything else they say is false.
That sounds exhausting. I'll judge the truth of a given statement by its contents.
None of that makes any sense whatsoever. In your hypothetical scenario where "the numbers balance out," that's by definition indiscriminate termination. You can't discriminate without it showing up in the numbers because that's how math works.
It's also offensive that you accuse me of fallaciously bringing up an unrelated story. You said the "tweets all seem extremely reasonable," including the one where Kling viciously defended DHH's call for ethnic cleansing in London. There is no "backstory" here.
The tweet clearly mentions that Kling "stands with @dhh" citing backlash against his "racist and transphobic views." You called that "extremely reasonable" and you should own it.
Then we have different definitions. Discrimination is a matter of bias and motive. Statistics are irrelevant.
For some definitions of systemic discrimination, you may look for an effect, but even that doesn't rule out two way discrimination.
If a black person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, and a white person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, there is still a hell of a lot of discriminatory behavior happening.
If you personally hold that events themselves cannot be discriminatory, even if they are motivated by racial bias or malice, you will continually run into disagreement with others.
The overwhelming majority of people and legal systems recognize that events can be discriminatory. If you fire someone and provide their skin color as the reason, you will lose that discrimination lawsuit in every state in the US, no matter your statistical fetish.
Statistical fetish? That's one hell of a way to turn your lack of proof into an ad hominem attack.
If people are being fired for being white and male, then the number of unemployed white men increases compared to other demographics. It's that simple.
Well, it is time to realise that GPL and similar variants, are better
in the long term. I like MIT too, but GPL worked so much better for the
linux kernel. Google and others abuse the ecosystem of open source
contributors here.
The GPL is the only reason they even get that. More enforcement would certainly be good, but it's not like the GPL is worthless without a legal team backing you up.
There has been a long discussion about this a while ago on HN when these delays came up. The relevant blurb:
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Many people argued that 'customarily used for software interchange' is worded-as is to always be relevant to the times when the license is applied and that providing access to a Git repository is customary nowadays. In fact:
- The upstream Linux tree is distributed through Git.
- The relevant Pixel kernel sources used to be distributed through Git.
IANAL, so I am not sure how this part of the license will hold up in court, but the spirit is clear. Providing a Google Drive link is not customarily used for software interchange.
Also, I think it is fairly clear that the procedure is put in place to make everyone's life difficult, given that the relevant source used to be distributed through Git.
> pro-systemd camp doesn't find or make opportunities to rally
I'm not aware of this sort of parading in open source software. Do you have a past example? I see it as competent people using things that they want to use, with the "better" being preferred, for whatever reasons (including momentum). "Advocating" for an init system seems like something that should be entirely and completely by merit, with maintainability, debugability, and fragility probably being the top metrics for most systems, speed being important for anything with a human sitting in front of it.
Having everyone have to discover the pro/con's of every system themselves, in the dark, with no social media / blogging around it, seems like a very strange position to me.
Technology should be highly social. Especially open source! It in unique-for-technology ways gives us something real to be social over. We can share and unfold and unpack.
This isn't entirely what you are talking about but Architectures of Open Source is still one of the best "what is this" explorations of the tech world out there. I think good advocacy has a lot of these elements (if not so total) in it. In ways that can show the bigger pictures, which AOSA at it's best does! https://aosabook.org/en/
You're arguing a point I never made. Experience can be shared without the intent to manipulate/persuade towards a common cause, which is the definition of "rally". A blog post/social media about experience of use is NOT a rally, and a rally is NOT required, and in fact makes a post suspect, because that's means the person is probably hiding negative aspects, with their intent to promote, rather than just showing reality.
You're taking a slant on the rally, to turn a possible downside into something greviously fatal. That's not intrinsic in what I was talking about. We can have clear identifying gathering points, touchstones, blog posts, etc that call the cause without having to hide and conceal. This argument you are making is extremely uncharitable, and assumes bad motives from the start.
This is just a descent into more fervor, saying nothing. Let's skip the stupid lawyerly word picking of zero value contestation. Please.
I think the macro subject stands. In neither the old world where everyone was doing their own thing nor the new one where >50% use systemd to run a significant amount of their systems: in neither case was or is there a strong practice of sharing and doing the work of exchange (certainly not without counterexample, yada yada, and I've already provided some in other threads, namely AOSA, but I stand by my assertion here). We can ignore which path is better, and simply say: both paths should do more to create broad discussion, ideally that is constructive, that covers what is working, the big picture outlook, and the negative sides of the world they're living in.
I think of that as rallying not to zealotry, but as rallying to understanding, trying to draw people in, so we can see and perceive what are in fact stable, alluring points of the world. So that we can let people know what an option might be. I think the Din and Darkness is winning against those who want to gather and protect the light. The anti forces are everywhere and persistent, the doers are quiet and busy. Civilization would be healthier with more deliberate work to share the light, to show and exchange specifics (as most systemd touching blog posts do) but also broader pictures, wider stances.
I don't see how this could work, right now, since every failing I've had was just generic stupidity of the AI, which is brilliant one minute, and a complete idiot the next.
I think correction actions still require the ability to execute them, which (in all the cases I've had) would require more capable models.
I've seen a few articles about Norsepower (mentioned in the top article) validating the shipboard measurement equipment meant to confirm how much is actively being saved by their sails. I haven't seen any hard numbers on what the actual savings are, but they've had at least one ship (Chinook Oldendorff) with sails since at least 2024. So hopefully the public will get some concrete numbers on how much is saved.
Given the increasing number of companies that are mentioned as upcoming partners for actual installations, it might be that they've finally been able to convince shippers that wind power is viable for cost savings.
Is that 10% best case or average case? Also, what's the capex on the the sails, and what's the additional opex (training, maintenance)? Not trying to pooh-pooh the idea, but as said, I've seen articles like this regularly for decades, and it hasn't become the norm, so I'd figure there's a reason for that.
Put a bowl of water down at room temperature, wait for one molecule to "evaporate", and I think you did it? Unfortunately they are now no longer at the same temperature.
Temperature is an average. You can still take advantage of the fact that there will be much lower and higher temperatures present. Also, what about Peltier effect? Same temperature when it starts.
reply