quonn

The distribution has not changed. Nobody said that an individual data point is fixed and that all data points are equal.

The same argument could be made for any software.

I disagree, cars should be fully updated OTA. It's cheaper than a recall and easier for the consumer. New features increase the longevity of the car.

> Why are cars different?

Price.

Kotlin is much closer to Java than to TypeScript even in terms of flexibility.

No it wasn‘t.

> that gradient descent finds it easier to learn the actual physics, then it'll learn the physics.

I guess it really depends on what the meaning of gradient decent learning the physics is.

Maybe you define it to mean that the actually correct equations appear encoded in the computation of the net. But this would still be tacit knowledge. It would be kind of like a math software being aware of physics at best.

The web is merely a platform on which pretty much anything can be built, both complex and trivial.

The author prefers being an amateur to being a professional. Professionalism is often arbitrarily and highly standardised and somewhat boring. You find the same phenomenon in sports, for example. It's also a typical trajectory of any industry.

Which is fine, it's just not particularly related to the web.

> What happened in the meantime? A mess.

So just like any other system, starting with the UNIX system interface, the various shells, the autotools and everything else. Stuff is built on top of other stuff and it is impossible to fully predict the future and start out with a clean design that anticipates all future needs.

> Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities?

Because limited liability means exactly that the owners are shielded to a degree. That‘s my point. That‘s why corporations were created as a concept.

This concept is necessary because the company represents collective decisions and if each and every one of those would be individually accountable then less business would be done.

As someone else pointed out it‘s a union type. Instead of person you could call it „entity“ and rewrite all the laws. Happy now?

I hear this claim a lot but is it really true? Corporations in most countries are „legal persons“ in the sense that they can act like a person. This is what limited liability is all about. In fact the very name „incorporation“ comes from giving a sort of „body“ to an entity that otherwise doesn‘t have one in order to shield the owners from liability as it should be.

I do not think that a corporation is considered to be a person beyond that. It‘s merely a way to establish limited liability for shareholders which requires a mechanism for the corporation to sign contracts without an owner signing on it‘s behalf.

Regarding the number of researchers, of all of my friends who got a PhD only a single one did it because he liked research. For most it was a stepping stone for a totally unrelated career in industry and for some just the easiest option due to lack of an alternative.

Given that, is is surprising that progress does not scale proportionally? Maybe, maybe not. For sure my comment is not backed by anything but anecdotes.

The Buddha did not teach that only consciousness is real. He called such a view speculative, similar to a belief that only the material world is real. The buddhist teaching is, essentially, that the real is real and ever changing and that consciousness is merely a phenomenon of that which is reality.

> And Netscape sabotaged Java and Applets. And created JavaScript. And XUL.

So in that alternative universe we would likely have a non-responsive rectangle kind of UI that has to be loaded upfront. Despite all its shortcomings I much prefer the web, thank you very much.

> Presumably a very generalized model would be good at even doing the inverse: given some assembly, write code that will produce the given assembly.

ChatGPT does this, unreliably.

Perhaps you mean „man“ in German which means „one“. „Mann“ literally refers to a male person which doesn‘t really make sense here.

Both are pronounced identically.

So? You can't sign a contract to sell your liver either.

A broad license like that should not be obtainable by merely having the user click a checkbox.

> I do see that the EU has missed the boat on every new industry in the 21st century compared to the USA.

Perhaps. But for completely different reasons, certainly not regulation. And furthermore, while this _may_ hurt the EU in the long-run, they are still very good at the kind of industries that employ a large number of people across all skillsets.

> We will see in 100 years if regulation was the right move or not.

No need to wait, we can see this right now. The internet and app economy is completely enshittified. Only regulation can fix this, the market had 20 years and it only got worse.

All EU countries indeed have systems in place to limit undue advantages that any child can have (it's called a public education system and social security and later in life just "the law").

As for anti-trust issues, you clearly don't understand them.

Your opinion of what users supposedly want is irrelevant. What matters is that the law mandates these options and Apple refuses to comply.

And no - I prefer iOS, for various reasons (such as smooth integration with macOS, better UI), and wanting to download apps from the Apple app store is not the reason.

Your numbers are empirically wrong. If they were right my own LFP EV should have now lost 5%, but it hasn‘t.

One discharge cycle per day is utterly insane. Nobody does that. How many people drive 350 miles EVERY day for 30 years? 350 miles - that’s about one discharge cycle.

That‘s not how science has progressed in the past. It has not progressed by giant leaps of superior intelligence but incrementally and hardly a genius was more than 10 years ahead of his time.

Who do you imagine the 1% to be? Probably I‘m the 1% in my country. I have no extraordinary power whatsoever. Maybe you mean the 0,1% or the 0,01%.

> without any significant problems

Can't loose anything if you have nothing - or a giant landmass, natural resources and still only an economy the size of Italy.

> companies have a legal duty to be amoral in the quest for profit, right?

No, they don't.

> the idea that the law can change based on 21st century cultural values, not the text as it was written or intended by the legislature.

Right. If it wouldn‘t, then the law could in fact come to be opposed to what everyone believes even over an extended period of time as well as what can be believed under careful consideration or new evidence. It would then become an oppressive force.

Science needs experiments and those will not go faster because of AI. So why would fusion arrive any faster?

Nonsense.

I will only reply to your last paragraph:

- EVs need to hardly ever break, so no brake dust and certainly not more than for ICEs.

- Tires only wear faster if you accelerate like crazy.

- Batteries likely last 20 years and afterwards another 30 years as energy storage devices. And then they can be recycled with 95% of the materials being reused.

- And pollution is not the same as CO2 emissions which is what is being addressed.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8529939/

Sure, but only as long as "quite often" means "almost never".

> gets incinerated and provides heat over communal heating – ideally.

How is it ideal to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere even further?