In the previous world wars there were various alliances between many countries, but eventually two sides emerged. If you see two clear sides engaging in active warfare against each other, you'll know that WW3 has started. At the moment, it's a bit more complicated than that. Seems to me that there are a bunch of disconnected conflicts going on, but the big picture of a proper world war hasn't really emerged yet.
In 2001 there was that 9/11 thing and it sounded like WW3 had just started. Turns out, it didn't. Well, lots of things did happen as a result of it, but WW3 wasn't one of them. Soon after that, USA was involved in a number of wars in the middle east and it felt like WW3 had just started. Again, it didn't. Some time around 2010s the tension between North Korea and South Korea was getting pretty intense, and a friend of mine started talking WW3... As usual, WW3 didn't start.
At the moment, the situation in Ukraine feels just like all the other major incidents, but we'll see how it works out. If you expose your mind to tabloid journalism, it begins to feel like the entire world is about to explode. History has a tendency of repeating itself, so I suggest reading about the things that lead to WW1 and WW2. Once, you've done that, you'll begin to pay attention to certain signs and start ignoring most of the nonsense tabloids keep writing about.
What if there’s an earthquake and you get stuck under a mountain of rubble? Could take months for you to get out of there. How about a skiing accident involving an avalanche? Could take even longer. When you are completely immortal, you suddenly start to view certain risks in a very different way.
As long as the government takes care of some basic things, people aren’t constantly reminded that they need to spend every waking minute to fuel the next demonstration, riot, revolution, uprising, resistance, civil war etc. Those governments that don’t do a good job, need to be constantly worried about these things.
When people are happy, they will just spend the extra day with friends and family, fishing, flying a kite, hiking in the woods or whatever. Alternatively, you can totally just play dayz with your friends, and shoot some zombies all day long.
Hmm... Let's take a look Yeah, that looks like a pretty cool channel. Oh wait, I've seen many of these videos already. Maybe I should subscribe. Hold on, I'm also subscribed already? Looks like I totally forgot this channel even existed!
Yeah, totally can recommend. Awesome electron microscopy, detailed explanations and all that.
Small bits of code can be made and maintained as a hobby or a passion project, but larger things begin to require money. Although a lot of FOSS is maintained by volunteers, money still has its role in the equation.
Writing headlines is a selection process. You write about all the useless but cool stuff while ignoring all the boring but important stuff.
Improving Li-ion by 1% doesn’t make headlines, but that sort of stuff has been going on in the background for a few decades already. That’s why current batteries are so useful and widespread.
Lab prototypes are sexy, even if they’re 50 years away from becoming commercially viable. Sure, these things can charge fast, or hold a huge capacity, but they also tend to die after 10 cycles. Fixing that is going to take a long time, just like it did for Li-ion batteries.
You may have wondered are these companies actually inclusive, or are they just faking it for PR points. Well now you know. Meta is doing whatever it takes to maximize profits.
The blockchain solves one problem: trust. Do we really have that problem in normal energy markets?
People who buy and sell energy would need to trust each other and the middle man in between them. If they have trust issues, using a blockchain could make sense. As far as I can tell, the current system doesn't suffer from a lack of trust, so what would the blockchain do in this case?
Edit: Turns out, it would be more accurate to say that it redistributes trust away from a central authority... well at least in most cases it does. There are still situations when even a blockchain has a central authority you need to trust. It's not guaranteed to solve all trust issues, but in the best case scenario it can solve some of them.
And if that works out, you could also use the same method to shape the political atmosphere on the platform. Who knows, you might also disarm the next arab spring before the first demonstrations even happens.
I’m pretty sure governments are very interested in seeing the results you get from using LLM bots like this.
It’s for driving engagement. Basically, meta wants to make sure their platforms look appealing to the companies that use them for advertising purposes. More eyeballs, more ads, more money.
It’s fine. Takes some time to get used to. Some people really love it, but I don’t think it’s that great.