It’s pretty public knowledge by now. If you search “ExxonMobil climate prediction” I’m sure you can find a starting point. I recommend finding all the Exxon papers because they’re quite eye opening.

So what are we supposed to do, halt all space flights until we figure this out?

Without further research going into how much damage it’s doing there’s no way to say what our next steps should be. Maybe everything we’re doing is still within acceptable limits? Maybe we need tighter regulation on materials going into space. Maybe some materials need to be outright banned.

The only reasonable thing we can do is study it further. Expecting instant result based on one study that only outlines a potential risk is quite frankly just doomerist behavior.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending corporations here. I’m simply stating the fact that climate change denial wasn’t the case of waiting until it’s “fully confirmed”, it was pretty much confirmed back in the 70s. They even had predictions for the next century on how things will go bad if nothing is done and the last time I checked we were pretty on course with their predictions. When it came to the scientific consensus, it was pretty much “fully confirmed”. It was simply the public opinion where it wasn’t “fully confirmed” because corporations deliberately ran disinformation to make it seem like scientists didn’t know what they were talking about.

But this paper isn’t really confirming anything. The paper itself says that the model does not account for all the factors and to literally quote the paper:

As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study.

This paper is not presenting a final conclusion, it’s presenting concerns that need further studies. let’s wait for further studies and if there’s scientific consensus about it being an issue I’m all for bringing out the pitchforks. In the mean let’s keep calm and dread over the doom and gloom that is climate change.

We were in the “we don’t know if we’re causing it” phase for a long time because big oil knew about global warming and deliberately ran disinformation campaigns so they could keep profiteering. Had Exxon done the right thing in the 70s we wouldn’t have this looming crisis.

I guess that’s the downside of not having a miniature reactor in your phone.

Luckily user replaceable batteries are coming with an EU regulation some time within the next 5 years, but so far fairphone is the most repairable phone you can have. I don’t think you can replace mobo or chipset, but it does allow replacing quite a few things. For me the 3 most important ones are battery, charging port and screen, as those are the most likely for me to get worn out or broken. I haven’t bought it yet because my current phone is still somewhat chugging along, but my next phone will definitely be a fairphone.

Interesting about about 2k, to give a nice round number.

Voyagers is estimated to have insufficient power for communication by 2032, so from its launch we’ll get a rounded 60 year battery life. Fairphone doesn’t have plutonium batteries (though that would be pretty cool) but you can replace batteries. Let’s say you replace the battery every 2 years which means you need 30 batteries. At 40€ a piece the cost of batteries is 1200€(and you get one extra battery with the phone). Add in the cost of the phone with the delivery of phone + 30 batteries and it comes out to about 2k.

Yeah. I’d totally buy an $800 million phone.

Realistically you can buy something like a Fairphone that lets you replace most parts that wear out or get damaged, which definitely increases the overall longevity of your phone. Or that CAT phone that’s supposed to be super durable if you’re prone to breaking your phone. Or if smart phones aren’t your deal you can maybe find the old reliable Nokia 3210, that phone does not break and the battery can be replaced.

If you have phone longevity issues then stop buying phones that are not designed to be used for a long time.

The company I work at “supports” Linux in the sense that you’re allowed to use Linux but then you’re essentially on your own when it comes to solving problems. I asked why there’s no proper Linux support and the short answer was “it’s too much trouble”. The long answer was “don’t ask. I don’t want to get into it”.

So my guess is that setting up company wide policies and support for Linux is significantly more work than it is for Windows or Mac.

So that you can find that one porn video you watched six months ago that really got you off but you don’t remember how you found it.

Because of a lot of things. From graphics side RTX and DLSS left AMD catching up (even if RTX isn’t really that big of a deal now), then there was Nvidia cards being better at crypto mining and now it’s Nvidia cards being better at AI computation + Nvidia pivoting into AI hardware space…

If you want to boil it down to the undeniable, it’s that Nvidia is just better at marketing. Everyone knows what Nvidia is doing. What is AMD doing? Besides playing catch-up to Nvidia.

That’s a matter of perspective. I took the other persons comments as “Don’t take away my chatGPT, change the regulations if you must but don’t take it away”, which is essentially the same as “get rid of regulation”.

Realistically I also don’t see this killing LLMs since the infringement is on giving accurate information about people. I’m assuming they have enough control over their model to make it say “I can’t give information about people” and everything is fine. But if they can’t (or most likely won’t because it would cost too much money) then the product should get torn down. I don’t think we should give free pass to companies for playing stupid games, even if they make a useful product.

Agree to disagree. Regulations exist for a purpose and companies need to follow regulations. If a company/product can’t existing without breaking regulations it shouldn’t exist in the first place. When you take a stance that a company/product needs to exist and a regulation prevents it and you go changing the regulation you’re effectively getting rid of the regulation. Now, there may be exceptions, but this here is not one of those exceptions.

You do know the R in GDPR literally stands for Regulation? There’s already a regulation that chatGPT should follow but deliberately doesn’t. Your idea isn’t to regulate, it’s to get rid of regulation so that you could keep using your tool.

Can’t help you with Trichotillomania but hitting the gym tends to help with weight and confidence. I don’t know your situation but I was bordering on obesity and I was suggested 10min warmup + stronglifts 5x5 + 10min cool down as a routine. I did it for almost a year and it definitely had a impact on my weight and confidence.

If you’re not sure where to start have a session with a personal trainer with the purpose of setting up your own routine and then just stick with it. It feels really hard at first but after you start seeing results it’ll get easier.

It doesn’t need to verify reality, it needs to be internally consistent and it’s not.

For example I was setting up logging pipeline and one of the filters didn’t work. There was seemingly nothing wrong with configuration itself and after some more tests with dummy data I was able to get it working, but it still didn’t work with the actual input data. So I have the working dummy example and the actual configuration to chatGPT and asked why the actual configuration doesn’t work. After some prompts going over what I had already tried it ended up giving me the exact same configuration I had presented as the problem. Humans wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) make that error because it would be internally inconsistent, the problem statement can’t be the solution.

But the AI doesn’t have internal consistency because it doesn’t really think. It’s not making sure what it’s saying is logical based on the information it knows, it’s not trying to make assumptions to solve a problem, it can’t even deduce that something true is actuality true. All it can do is predict what we would perceive as the answer.

I think you’re giving a glorified encyclopedia too much credit. The difference between us and “AI” is that we can approach knowledge from a problem solving position. We do approximate the laws of physics, but we don’t blindly take our beliefs and run with it. We put we come up with a theory that then gets rigorously criticized, then come up with ways to test that theory, then be critical of the test results and eventually we come to consensus that based on our understandings that thing is true. We’ve built entire frameworks to reduce our “hallucinations”. The reason we even know we have blind spots is because we’re so critical of our own “hallucinations” that we end up deliberately looking for our blind spots.

But the “AI” doesn’t do that. It can’t do that. The “AI” can’t solve problems, it can’t be critical of itself or what information its giving out. All our current “AI” can do is word vomit itself into a reasonable answer. Sometimes the word vomit is factually correct, sometimes it’s just nonsense.

You are right that theoretically hallucinations cannot be solved, but in practicality we ourselves have come up with solutions to minimize it. We could probably do something similar with “AI” but not when the AI is just a LLM that fumbles into sentences.

But that’s cool because the company name is a elementary school level word play, exactly the kind Musk likes. Also the company is about digging holes and everyone in kindergarten knows how cool digging is.

You can never forget that we’re dealing with a person whose emotional aptitude is the equivalent of a child.

Depends on what you mean by “recover”. It might recover in the sense that the entire company won’t go bankrupt and will find a sustainable way to continue existing, but it will never recover to the current stock worth. Tesla has been grossly overvalued as whatever huge potential it had has been squandered. The stock will drop regardless of what Tesla does and it’s highly unlikely it will ever reach such worth ever again.

You’ve inadvertently pointed out how Tesla deliberately skirts the law. Teslas are way more capable than what level 2 describes, but they choose to stay as level 2 so they wouldn’t have to take responsibility for their public testing