We've now learned that this isn't true for all migrant groups, and it has been an extremely costly mistake to make. Demographic replacement can't work positively if the productivity of migrants is below of the original demographic, and actually makes the situation worse. Europe might have learned this too late, but at least now EU and most European countries are changing course.
You're wrong. The best-selling vehicle is the Flying Pigeon bicycle, the standard bicycle from Mao-era China with more than 500 million produced since 1950.
It's a stroke font / SHX font produced by the CAD software, but difficult to know which one. They aren't actual fonts, but just single-stroke vector shapes. Claude thinks it's from PTC Creo Parametric, but I couldn't find any clear examples to confirm or deny.
I have had occasional tinnitus, and once it lasted for a few months and then went away. Sometimes it appears suddenly, and I've taken vitamin B12 and magnesium and it goes away in a few hours. Vitamin D might also help according to some studies, but in my case I think it might make it worse. Not sure if placebo or not.
G1 is a small robot designed for agility, and can't do much real work. That's why it uses lower reduction actuators with low sustained torques, and it'll overheat easily in continuous work. Many of the larger robots (Optimus, Figure, BD Atlas) use higher reduction actuators with strain waves or planetary roller screws. They're designed for higher sustained torques, but are also less agile and less safe for humans to be around. They're also quite heavy (BD Atlas is 90kg), and still can't match human performance.
I think the only real barriers are ethical. I'm pretty sure we'll figure out to do a completely synthetic biological robots without any kind of biological brain in the next 10-20 years, and they don't even have to resemble animals or humans. This should alleviate some of the ethical issues.
Well, a giraffe could do jobs where you need to reach high, such as replacing a lightbulb. Sure, I'm half-joking.
Asimo used BLDC motors with strain-wave gearing, which is pretty much standard today on high-end humanoid robots. The only thing that has happened is that these are much cheaper today, and might be slightly more optimized.
I've kind of given up on humanoid robotics, because of how bad the actuators are. There has been no innovation in robotic actuators since Honda's Asimo. There's just no way that someone wants a 80kg wobbling tin can in their home or workplace.
My bet is that the final robotic revolution will use genetically modified human/animal bodies with replaced brains. You'll have to stretch your ethics a bit, but if you grow a bear genetically modified in a way that it has no consciousness or thought, it'll make a much better construction worker than any humanoid robot. You'll just need to wire it up with neuralink and then control it via LLM. Fast animals can be used to deliver packages, and giraffes for warehouses.
I don't think this is true at all. I've been experimenting with a physical sky / atmosphere modeling, and it really seems that the most physically accurate sky is the most beautiful. I think this applies more generally to all light and shadows, and all natural effects which people perceive as beautiful, and at the same time difficult / expensive to recreate on a computer.
I read tutorials, but the UI was also more intuitive / discoverable than Blender. It's been over 20 years since I last used it though, but I remember it being much easier to use than Blender today. I could model, texture and animate a full game character from scratch by just learning the basic UI.
I used to use 3ds Max and I find the Blender's UI really terrible after years of occasional use. It's very unintuitive and you'll have to learn everything from tutorials / reading Blender forums. It seems to have many annoying quirks, which make me angry every time I use it.
Isn't it assumed that the AI agent is allowed to read your files in the directory you launch the harness? Most agents read your code on the first prompt, including any secrets you have there, which you shouldn't have. Also the .env file is for local environment, and shouldn't contain any actual secrets. AI agents should be isolated from any actual secrets, because they can't be trusted to follow instructions.
If you adjust your expectations, I think it's be better to upload the code to their servers instead of sending it through context over and over again.
Addiction is exactly what laws should be fighting, be it social media, drugs, or something else. In a free market, people should be free to choose where they spend their time and money, but people aren't free if they're addicted. Addiction causes them to spend their time and money on things which they wouldn't consent to, if it weren't for addiction. For Instagram, the harm is the lost time, and whatever else they could have done with that time. Addictive stuff disrupts the whole market / society, not just the individual.
They only cut the funding where they couldn't show where the money is going, e.g. the money never helped anyone, but went somewhere else. Obviously whoever got the money is claiming that a lot of people are dying.
The Lancet's model is a forecasting model and it isn't accurate at all. No excess mortality has actually been recorded.
The article is about mortality related to ambient temperatures. People have always died from ambient temperatures, that's why we have clothes and homes.
Well, to me it reads as "climate change causes people to die", although the opposite is true and their own results show that. It's obvious because people die overwhelmingly from cold compared to heat.
It seems like they use obscure language (non-optimal, excess) on purpose to try to somehow connect global warming into the obvious fact that a lot of people die in cold temperatures if they don't have a warm shelter, and sometimes people die in hot temperatures if they don't drink enough. And the article is full of global warming fear mongering, although they found that temp-related mortality has decreased from 2000 to 2019.