Womble

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

If you are just talking transitor density I believe it still is, but even if not, my point was that it had exponential growth spanning over many decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

That said, exponentials don’t exist in the real world, we’re just seeing the middle of a sigmoid curve, which will soon yield diminishing returns.

Yes, but the tricky thing is we have no idea when the seemingly exponential growth will flip over into the plateuing phase. We could be there already or it could be another 30 years.

For comparison Moores law is almost certainly a sigmoid too, but weve been seeing exponential growth for 50 years now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.

The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.

The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%

Then get it from the sources that already exist.

The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say "Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it" and "we'll just use other sources to cover the gaps". Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.

None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago (17 children)

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Cool, 13 years seems better than I'd expect for paying it off that far north. I'd be interested to hear how it does over winter.

I suppose the other variable is equipment failure and degredation rates, do the installers give you any guaruntees about those?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Yes, thats the exactly place to go hard left, full on no compromises. In the Democratic primaries.

Not in the presidential election when you know one of exactly two people will win and your choice is which one of them you favour over the other.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Just for reference, roughly where are you with this setup? What looks good for say Arizona is going to look very different for the Netherlands (for example)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

One chat request to an LLM produces about as much CO2 as burning one droplet of gasoline (if it was from coal fired power, less if it comes from cleaner sources). It makes far less CO2 to talk to a chatbot for hours upon hours than a ten minute drive to see a therapist once a week.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Shit headline from the Guardian TBH, per the article body:

The judges said: “The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.”

and

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan (the group bringing the challange), said: “The judges declined to review the defendant’s genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.”

This is the court essentially saying its not our role to decide on geo-political affairs of the country, thats the governments job. In their own words:

The judges ruled that the “acutely sensitive and political issue” was “a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts”.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

Compared to

It’s easy when you’re an obscure band to bellow “kill your local MP” or bray “up Hamas, up Hezbollah”.

Yeah, pretty much. Very few people would argue against stopping killing Gazan civilians (even if they are not willing to back the measures that would result in that, like applying real presure to Israel), that makes it a fairly apolictial thing to say. Advocating killing MPs or supporting Iranian proxies is certainly a lot more contencious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for showing what a lovely person you are so clearly. Off to the blocklist you go.

 

I've recently been writing fiction and using an AI as a critic/editor to help me tighten things up (as I'm not a particularly skilled prose writer myself). Currently the two ways I've been trying are just writing text in a basic editor and then either saving files to add to a hosted LLM or copy pasting into a local one. Or using pycharm and AI integration plugins for it.

Neither is particularly satisfactory and I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good setup for this (preferably open source but not neccesary), integration with at least one of ollama or open-router would be needed.

Edit: Thanks for the recommendations everyone, lots of things for me to check out when I get the time!

 

A new progressivism, one that embraces construction over obstruction, must find new allegories to think about technology and the future

Black Mirror fails to consistently explore the duality of technology and our reactions to it. It is a critical deficit. The show mimics the folly of Icarus and Daedalus – the original tech bros – and the hubris of Jurassic Park’s Dr Hammond. Missing are the lessons of the Prometheus myth, which shows fire as a boon for humanity, not doom, though its democratization angered benevolent gods. Absent is the plot twist of Pandora’s box that made it philosophically useful: the box also contained hope and opportunity that new knowledge brings. While Black Mirror explores how humans react to technology, it too often does so in service of a dystopian narrative, ignoring Isaac Asimov’s observation: that humans are prone to irrationally fear or resist technology.

 

Countries including France are said to want to tie a new post-Brexit security deal to more beneficial access to British waters, potentially holding up military cooperation.

 

I think of AI as alternative intelligence. John McCarthy’s 1956 definition of artificial (distinct from natural) intelligence is old fashioned in a world where most things are either artificial or unnatural. Ultraprocessed food, flying, web-dating, fabrics, make your own list. Physicist and AI commentator, Max Tegmark, told the AI Action Summit in Paris, in February, that he prefers “autonomous intelligence”.

I prefer “alternative” because in all the fear and anger foaming around AI just now, its capacity to be “other” is what the human race needs. Our thinking is getting us nowhere fast, except towards extinction, via planetary collapse or global war.

Not a piece I think I completely agree with, but it's nice to hear from a creative writer who's thoughts on AI don't stop at indignation that they aren't receiving royalties from being included in a training set.

 

Once, anti-establishment youth disillusioned with mainstream politics headed left. Now increasing numbers are tilting right. Why?

Josh is 24 years old and works as a carer. It’s not easy work, but he prefers it to his old job in a supermarket: most of his clients are elderly and “just want someone there with them, because they’re lonely”. In his spare time Josh used to be into boxing. But lately he’s got into politics instead.

Like many of his gen Z contemporaries, he’s thoroughly disillusioned with the mainstream kind. “The two parties that have been in power for 100-plus years have done nothing. The economy’s a mess,” he scoffs. But if he sounds like the kind of anti-establishment young person who once rallied to the radical left, Josh’s frustration has taken him in another direction. An ardent leaver in his teens, who backed Boris Johnson in 2019, he now belongs to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

 

I considered leaving Twitter as soon as Elon Musk acquired it in 2022, just not wanting to be part of a community that could be bought, least of all by a man like him – the obnoxious “long hours at a high intensity” bullying of his staff began immediately. But I’ve had some of the most interesting conversations of my life on there, both randomly, ambling about, and solicited, for stories: “Anyone got catastrophically lonely during Covid?”; “Anyone hooked up with their secondary school boy/girlfriend?” We used to call it the place where you told the truth to strangers (Facebook was where you lied to your friends), and that wide-openness was reciprocal and gorgeous.

“Twitter has broken the mould,” Mulhall says. “It’s ostensibly a mainstream platform which now has bespoke moderation policies. Elon Musk is himself inculcated with radical right politics. So it’s behaving much more like a bespoke platform, created by the far right. This marks it out significantly from any other platform. And it’s extremely toxic, an order of magnitude worse, not least because, while it still has terms of service, they’re not necessarily implementing them.”

Global civil society, though, finds it incredibly difficult to reject the free speech argument out of hand, because the alternative is so dark: that a number of billionaires – not just Musk but also Thiel with Rumble, Parler’s original backer, Rebekah Mercer (daughter of Robert Mercer, funder of Breitbart), and, indirectly, billionaire sovereign actors such as Putin – are successfully changing society, destroying the trust we have in each other and in institutions. It’s much more comfortable to think they’re doing that by accident, because they just love “free speech”, than that they’re doing that on purpose. “Part of understanding the neo-reactionary and ‘dark enlightenment’ movements, is that these individuals don’t have any interest in the continuation of the status quo,”

 

Earlier this year, a Boeing aircraft's door plug fell out in flight – all because crucial bolts were missing. The incident shows why simple failures like this are often a sign of larger problems, says John Downer.

view more: next ›