Thorry84 @ Thorry84 @feddit.nl

Posts

14

Comments

1,273

Joined

2 yr. ago

The Kazon also had big logical fallacies, they are somehow very technologically advanced, but have weird gaps in their knowledge. They have space travel, but clean water is an issue? How is that even possible?

And Voyager, one of the fastest ships ever made flies at ultra high warp, but is somehow months inside their territory? And not like there is just a lot of them, no, they were interacting with the same people all the time. Later this is explained by Voyager needing to stop all the time getting supplies, which meant their speed dropped down to a crawl, but that's a different issue. But the Kazon are season 1 when Voyager has plenty of supplies. So the Kazon, a backwards people, can somehow move people faster than Voyager?

Legend has it he's still out there trying

Not really no.

Rumors are Merc would only join if the engines were adjusted to be closer to what they are used to doing. Now we know they had some tricks up their sleeve with the engines which made them dominate for such a long time.

But realistically, Merc was never going to approve this. Their costs would go up with zero benefit for them.

And Red Bull has the issue they only have the ability to maintain and assemble the Honda engines with their own factory, but can't develop entire new engines. So to have them have a whole new engine next year is a total no-go.

I bet it was the jacket that sealed the deal

Have you ever seen the amount of security at a modern data center like this? No way you are getting in there with any kinds of beans.

What are you talking about? It looks like shit, it plays like shit and the overall experience is shit. And it isn't even clear what the goal is? There are so many better ways to incorporate AI into game development, if one wanted to and I'm not sure we want to.

I have seen people argue this is what the technology can do today, imagine in a couple of years. However that seems very naive. The rate at which barriers are reached have no impact on how hard it is to break through those barriers. And as often in life, diminishing returns are a bitch.

Microsoft bet big on this AI thing, because they have been lost in what to do ever since they released things like the Windows Phone and Windows 8. They don't know how to innovate anymore, so they are going all in on AI. Shitting out new gimmicks at light speed to see which gain traction.

(Please note I'm talking about the consumer and small business side of Microsoft. Microsoft is a huge company with divisions that act almost like seperate companies within. Their Azure branch for example has been massively successful and does innovate just fine.)

This is blatant market manipulation, he and his cohort are laughing their asses off getting richer than ever

While this is funny and all, this isn't really true for a couple of reasons:

• We know a hell of a lot about the oceans, we've studied them for hundreds years. There has been extensive mapping of the seafloor. All of the areas close to land have been thoroughly studied. And where we've spotted interesting stuff, we've investigated for sure.
• We haven't thoroughly explored the moon. Sure we've had nice pictures for a long time. But we've only recently seen the rear side of the moon, as we more or less always see the same side from Earth. Not till recent orbiters we've had a high resolution map of the moon, comparable to maps we have of the oceans.
• Only a dozen or so people have ever been to the moon and the amount of research they did was very low. They also haven't brought back many samples. And the amount we can do from orbit and with rovers is very limited. At this point I would say we know more about Mars than we do about the moon, depending on how to count. The moon isn't that interesting, so we haven't done much with it. It's made of the same stuff as the Earth and without an atmosphere and biosphere, it's kinda dull.
• This is basically impossible to measure. What is knowledge? How is it quantified? We could say it's relative. But since there isn't a way to know how much total knowledge there is available to learn, I'd say that's not possible. What does it mean to "explore"? Do people need to go there? Because a hell of a lot of people have been to the seafloor than to the moon. Hell going to the seafloor is a basic tourist activity these days. I've been to the Maldives and did some crazy dives looking at life on the bottom of the sea.
• People might argue the Moon is basically all the same, so once you've seen one spot you've seen them all. I'd argue that's not true, we've only recently learned the moon's poles are very interesting and we know very little about that. And I'd counter that argument with the fact the same goes for the deep oceans. A whole lot of it is just barren wasteland, an under water desert. We haven't explored because there is nothing to see. We select interesting locations and study them thoroughly, instead of studying a lot of it a little bit and wasting huge amounts of time.
• Another argument often repeated is new species are discovered every day in the ocean. Whilst this is true, we are also destroying a lot of species, so the total number might actually go down instead of up. And a lot of species are variants of already known species. Only expert biologists can differentiate between the species and know what to look for. And I'd argue they don't change the big picture or understanding at all. Still interesting, but not an indication there is so much more to find out there.
• But what about something huge living down there? Like a Kraken or dinosaurs? Well no, we don't have to have studied every square inch to know about big life. Big life is messy, requires a lot of resources and is part of a food chain. You don't need to see the dinosaur if you can see their giant mountain of crap amidst broken trees. There might be some kind of large squid or something down there, but they will probably be extremely similar to other large squid we already know about. So a new species, but not changing the overall picture. If there were any big monsters down there, we would know about them by now.

So this is one of those things that might feel true, but in reality it really isn't.

Please note whilst the jist of this diagram is correct, it's not drawn properly. The sun is so far away and much larger than the Earth. This means sunlight is about as parallel as it can be once it gets to Earth. So the lines aren't going through the atmosphere at different angles. The angle is the same, but since the Earth is a sphere it will travel through more atmosphere before hitting the ground.

It's not just the cloud cover and going through more atmosphere, it's also the amount of energy per square meter hitting the ground. But a large part of it is most solar panels aren't tracking and even if they are it's usually in the horizontal and not in the vertical.

It's impractical to mount solar panels at such an extreme angle, but it also won't help very much since the sun is so close to the horizon shadows will be terrible. Imagine two rows of panels, once you set up the first one almost vertical, the second row won't get any sun. And that's if there is even a clear view to the horizon, in most places that's not true. It's also very hard to mount panels at such an extreme angle because the wind will catch it more easily. Mounting flush to the roof is usually preferred, or at a fixed angle with struts for flat roofs.

Because the panels don't track, higher latitudes are less efficient, as the sun varies more in angle during the year. From just peaking out over the horizon in winter, to high in the sky in summer.

Wow is that THE Raymond Chen that answered? His blog is legendary: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/

I remember when I bought an 40MB hard drive back in the day. (Yes, megabyte, not gigabyte) And I labeled it "WOWSOBIG", because it was huge for me. When I bought a 32" flat screen when those first released I thought that was big. Now even the TV in the bedroom is a 48" and that just the small secondary TV. One of my neighbors across the street has a TV as big as his wall, I can watch his TV from my window.

Funny how perspectives change over time.

Yeah it's the difference between playing an old game today and remembering what it was like to play in the past. Not the same thing at all.

Plus a big part of old games these days is decompiling it, so you can recompile to run with higher framerates, higher resolution and without emulation. It's also possible to add nice QoL features and entire new game modes.

Just look at what Ship of Harkinian has done with OOT. It looks great, it feels like OOT still, but has the nice quick buttons. And if you want to experience the game like it's brand new, there is the randomizer. And similar projects exist for other old games.

And there's also people going through the code, figuring out glitches. And how certain mechanics worked, nobody understood very well back in the day. Discover Easter eggs that were never found.

That's game preseveration, not some AI fever dream if you squint a bit it kinda sorta looks like the old game.

A lot of the AI stuff I've seen from Microsoft also sucks hard and they know it. But they operate under the assumption these LLM systems will get better and better. Like this game thing they admit it sucks now, but imagine what it could be one day. However the reality seems to show more and more the point of rapidly diminishing returns has been reached. Throwing more data and processing at the thing isn't going to make it a lot better.

They are also so busy inventing new AI features nobody wants. Putting new flashy buttons everywhere and doing awful tech demos. They completely forgot to make actual useful features. For example a thing that happens a lot when working with less computer capable people, is people sending screenshots of Excel data. How awesome would it be if instead of helping write a new signature, the AI would go: "Wow what an asshole, sending a screenshot like that. Here is the original data so you can copy paste.". Or when trying to send an email without the attachment that really should have an attachment, it warns you. It already does this, but I think it just triggers on certain keywords like attach. This would be an excellent use case for an LLM, where it doesn't even matter much if it's wrong some of the time.

For me personally "AI" in the form of LLM can fuck all the way off. It certainly has it's uses, but this all in use it everywhere for everything has made me hate it. And the misleading marketing making people think it's basically AGI is wrong on so many levels.

You know you are in for a good time when you get to the chapter called "Sexual connotations".

I'm not an expert on the field, so I've read the paper, but am not qualified to draw conclusions from it. But as I read it, the focus is more on the role of ritual and religion in the making of the iron. And the transfer of knowledge through this process and hypothesize the addition of the burning of bone is actually beneficial.

However they do not approach this from a material technology standpoint. So I would love for someone with knowledge on this point to chime in. It's very interesting if the people back in the day knew how to make low carbon iron and the little bit of carbon they did add came from the burning of the bones. But as I see it the burning of the bones is more a ritual kind of thing and getting all of the carbon out of the iron is the harder thing to do, not putting the carbon in.

Is this actually true? Because all the YouTube videos I've seen of people trying to make iron in primitive ways have the issue of too much carbon in the iron. This causes the iron to be very brittle and hard to work. The trick about making good steel is to get just the right amount of carbon.

Well we knew the price didn't include the tarrifs when we saw Europe get absolutely crazy high prices. Higher than the US and a lot higher if we take into account the dollar tanking right now.

They are just setting this man up for failure. And at his home race as well. Terrible.

Nice