Irony, since Scarlet had dubbed over the original voice actor Samantha Morton because in post Spike Jonze realized the voice needed something “different”. So in the movie they needed to turn the dial up a bit, while in reality they started at 11 and had to dial it back.
I did comment that enforcement seemed to be part of the problem here, yes. Do the laws need to be more strict? I doubt that will fix any enforcement, since that’s the failure.
Guns are regulated. How much regulation, who gets allowed, what types of guns, and if the regulations are being enforced, those are the real questions. This warrant and shooting is a result of a law that wasn’t enforced well, as they had already broken the law once and yet someone sold/gave them guns again.
Languages change over time. As long as the intent is clear, don’t get hung up on what is and isn’t “correct”. “You’re welcome” probably was seen as extreme at some point itself.
From the point of just moving the charge, yes, it’s called antimatter. Antielectrons are positive, antiprotons are negative. From the mass point of view though it would be a different kind of physics altogether since electrons have virtually no mass compared to the other two particles, and protons don’t exist as a particle-wave duality, so neither protons or electrons would act the same by just switching them out in a Bohr atom model arrangement. Maybe someone with more in depth knowledge can give additional or better reasons.
I have a laptop that’s suffered from that for a while now, so it’s not just one update but a trend. Tried a number of things from clearing space to even a manual download on a USB to force it. It always reverts back to churning away trying to complete the update, restarting, and then reversing it. The irony is the laptop works fine until it comes time for it to check again, then repeat ad nauseam.
True of many things we take for granted now. It would be a different world entirely. Another non-computer example would be the 3-point seat belt that Volvo left as an open patent, saving countless lives over the past decades.
Or a different “feel” when turned on vs. off (more resistance or something). They spent effort printing all that text to show where the switch was when a universal 0/1 would have made it clear.
I can’t think of any example of a button or switch that by itself can be clear if it is engaged or not. A button could be assumed to be on if in, but that isn’t always the case, like for example with emergency stops.
The sell of the paper is a new fuel storage medium. The positive part is that creating a fuel from existing carbon sources means (hopefully) less petroleum pumped out of the ground to contribute more carbon. The negative is that it leans more to that than the permanent sequestering, and I can’t seem to pick out a net energy use anywhere, but basic physics tells us it will take more energy to do the process in entirety, even if most of it results in large scale storage. I doubt that happens because removal of carbon vs. putting into a new form to be used is like burying money. Which leads to something I’ve noticed pop up only in the past month or so…a new term added. “Carbon capture, utililization, and storage”. CCS has already been very heavily into the production of carbon products to support their efforts, after all they have to make a profit, right? The only real storage done is a product to inject into the ground to help retrieve more oil. Again, they aren’t going to just bury the money, that’s foolhardy for a business.
Sorry for more negativity in the thread. Just calling a spade a spade. Those who don’t like the feeling that gives can just ignore it and focus on the new science that will save us.
A third question is, can it scale up to what’s needed to begin to make a dent in the problem. The answer will unfortunately always be no, not even close. That’s how much we’ve put in the air and oceans, the numbers are huge.
It’s complicated. The breakdown of methane in the atmosphere depends on hydroxyl radicals that are created at a regular rate. If you have more and more methane released, and/or you have other chemicals that also react with those radicals, the overall average half life will increase. Both those things are happening, so the old half life really isn’t as accurate as it used to be. Guess which number the IPCC still uses for its models though.
They didn’t create the first MP3 player, but they created the first massively commercially successful one.
Going back to what others have mentioned about Apple, the iPod’s success was a big part because of the intuitive interface. If it’s easy to learn and use, it will become popular.
(not so n)ice
Climate changes…abruptly.
A safe bet that if it’s outside the U.S., it’s Celsius. I don’t think anyone would be alarmed about 60F even on the heat bulb chart.
It’s not AGI that’s terrifying, but how people are so willing to let anything take over their control. LLMs are “just” predictive text generation with a lot of extras to make things come out really convincing sometimes, and yet so many individuals and companies basically handed over the keys without even second guessing its answers.
These past few years have shown how if (and it’s a big if) AGI/ASI comes along, we are so screwed, because we can’t even handle dumber tools well. LLMs in the hands of willing idiots can be a disaster itself, and it’s possible we’re already there.
More methane release overwhelms the natural breakdown agents in the atmosphere (hydroxyl radicals) so an increase bumps up the decay half life average and overall greenhouse gas effectiveness. We know there’s more methane leaks now due to both manmade sources as well as natural feedback loops from warming. Yet the IPCC still uses the older half life numbers for methane even now.
It’s talking about the annual global average, probably surface air since that’s mentioned later in the article. You’re right that it should be much more specific about what’s meant in the first sentence, not near the end.
It’s not about tasting good, it’s about sending a message. - Joker
I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.
To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:
Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!
So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.