1,901 karma · joined January 16, 2016
The site suggests it is "7 weeks into 2025" but as of today (Feb 25th, 2025) we are in week 9 (according to MS Outlook calendar at work)
EU citizens badly need AI systems that are open and privacy-respecting. Getting together this rather large coalition of experts with quite some money and (importantly) access to compute power is a nice first step.
Let them play around, train some models, fail-and-get-up-again, start over, write papers and hopefully get some useful output. Remember, for the involved PhD students it will also be a learning experience!
Yes, it's only the first step. But yeez, it's a press release indicating the start of a scientific collaboration! Let's hold back on the negativity for a couple of years until after they've had a chance.
I, for one, hope this will lead to success and wish the team the best.
1) your actual scientific sources are not by climate deniers, but instead point to scientific progress on very specific points of climatological research. You are quoting them out of context and unfairly representing their conclusions. Even reading the abstract of the papers makes this clear.
2) your non-scientific links are a mix of unsourced claims, strawman arguments and pop-sci works that have very little scientific value
3) yes, you can cite scientists but can you cite scientists with degrees, papers and credentials in relevant fields to the presented claims? Certainly John Clauser isn't one, see summary below.
4) science is not done by consensus, as much as any media outlet will try to convince you. It is done by hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing, reporting/publishing, correcting (each other) and learning/iterating. The 99% figure may be wrong (or right) but it is mainly irrelevant to correctness.
" The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science" "
Now, I don't speak or read Chinese and couldn't immediately find a way to change the setting back to English. Could probably find it on the internet but .. Oh well, I don't really use LinkedIn so it's just stayed that way now.
This culminated in a made-up addition to the timeline entitled "Matt announces acquisition of Bullenweg.com" complete with a "quote" from Matt (there is a footnote within it mentioning it is fake).
This seems to have been the last straw to the lawyers representing Matt to step in and threaten a libel suit (or similar). The result is Bullenweg.com folding (for now) since this could get real expensive real quick.
The above is my interpretation of the events - I have no further inside insights.
If Sable dedicates their patents to the public, what does it mean for CF to be granted a "royalty-free license to its entire patent portfolio"?
I don't think this is accurate. Are you saying that in digital computers each individual transistor switches faster than the clock rate of, say, 3 GHz? I think there is one clock signal that is distributed to all transistors and they turn on/off synchronously at this rate. The GHz number on the processor advertisement is the switching rate of all transistors, not some hypothetical 'system rate' which would somehow be much lower?? Please clarify or correct me if I am mistaken.
This THz comment relates to analog circuits, which is supposedly around a factor 10 higher with this new tech.
If you want to learn more, read about Fmax and Ft of transistors.
"The story made headlines in The New York Times [note: this is your NYT article]. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974."
Thanks for the long read. Worth it!
Anyway, I've had (still have) the same phone number for over 20 years in the EU and have never received a spam call/text. Zero. Nada.
To me, it is baffling how all Americans have put up with this annoyance for decades! Finally, it seems some concrete steps are being taken.
I really love it, here are some minor improvement points:
- when right-clicking, the intended functionality of selecting the appropriate rhythm works only half the time or so. The other half is the browser modal showing normal right-click action. Consider doing long-press to change rhythm?
- volume per channel feels off. Putting the slider halfway already results in nearly inaudible contribution from that sample. Consider changing the "slope" of the volume slider?
- the BPM slider is a bit on the small side. Consider making it wider for finer control?
- the window at default zoom level (100%, 1080p resolution) doesn't fill the screen. Works perfect on 125% setting. Consider filling the entire screen so that the button sizes etc. are maximized?
Amazing to play around with.
"A c.q. B" means something like "A or otherwise B" (example translated from Dutch wikipedia page)
First, it's not just big YouTubers moving towards the patron model. I see many smaller creators doing the same, and I'm some cases thriving.
Second, I don't agree that the patron model will become the dominant model. I think this line of thinking is more of a medieval model from which the word derives. In terms of the number of people paying by ads & PII or through patronage, the ads& PII crowd will win. (the dollar value per contribution might be lower).
Third, I don't have any reason to believe that creators will "look back and wonder" why they would like to attract a million viewers. I think it might be a very good way to advertise to their patr(e)on-age.
Finally, there is another revenue model of direct sponsorship / placed ads which you do not seem to consider. I think it is a major contributor to the economics of medium-large creators.
Maybe my gut feeling is a response to your notion of the "attention economy being doomed" because "there are too many people online". To me, it seems the opposite. The attention economy is thriving because there are so many people online.
(Interesting topic! Thanks for making me type all of this)