tigerBL00D

Electric seems like a great idea for a truck in general. You need high torque and with electric drive you don't need to have an overpowered and inefficient engine to handle peak load. For long distance use better aerodynamics will be important in the long term and Ford isn't breaking any new ground here.

Why? Because that's what I bet most people come to HN for. I'd rather find out that my idea is impractical or plain stupid on a HN thread than in some other and expensive way.

Is python not sufficiently 2D? You could see it as characters in a grid.

What is the significance of number 61 imprinted on the engine? Anyone?

The logic works both ways. Given a recognition system you should be able to build/train another system to find and amplify errors in the former. The more robust the former is the more likely the latter adversarial system is to be of lower complexity (cheaper) giving it some advantage.

Not sure. From what I read they've successfully introduced a vulnerability in their first attempt. Would anyone have noticed if they didn't call more attention to their activities?

I don't necessarily see the "team of automated googlers" as a fundamental or damning problem with GPT-like approaches. First I think people may have a lot fewer truly original ideas then they are willing to admit. Original thought is sought after and celebrated in arts as a rare commodity. But unlike in arts, where there are almost not constraints, when it comes to science or engineering almost every incremental step is of form Y = Fn(X0,..,Xn) where X0..Xn are widely known and proven to be true. With sufficient logical reasoning and/or experimental data, after numerous peer reviews, we can accept Fn(...) to be a valid transform and Y becomes Xn+1, etc. Before internet or Google one had to go to a library and read books and magazines, or ask other people to find inputs from which new ideas could be synthesized. I think GPT-like stuff is a small step towards automating and speeding up this general synthesis process in the post-Google world.

But if we are looking to replace end-to-end intelligence at scale it's not just about synthesis. We need to also automate the peer review process so that it's bandwidth is matched to increased rate of synthesis. Most good researchers and engineers are able to self-critique their work (and the degree to which they can do that well is really what makes one good IMHO). And then we rely on our colleagues and peers to review our work and form a consensus on its quality. Currently GPT-like systems can easily overwhelm humans with such peer review requests. Even if a model is capable of writing the next great literary work, predicting exactly what happened on Jan 6, or formulating new laws of physics the sheer amount of crap it will produce alongside makes it very unlikely that anyone will notice.

Oh, interesting, I didn't realize. This is a faster timeline indeed compared to Sputnik V which was registered in May 2020, and I don't know the date for the Oxford/AstraZeneca one.

I don't know what you are talking about. Quoting from the first link above:

China and Russia have approved vaccines already, but without waiting for the immunizations to complete the final round of tests in people. Regulators in the United States and the European Union are expected to issue their decisions in the coming weeks.

If we are talking specifically about which vaccines were the first to get approved see here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8

Prices here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/2365...

I don't have any interest in promoting a specific vaccine. Just disdain for skewed reporting. FYI there are multiple adenovirus-based vaccines available (Oxford/AstraZeneca, Sputnik V).

P.S. Not sure why the downvotes without any comments. Did I write something factually inaccurate? But then again it's not surprising because vaccine conversation in some parts of the world (e.g. the US) is shaped predominantly by business interests and politics, not facts.

Unlike this relatively new approach adenovirus-based vaccines have been researched and used for over 50 years (350 studies) [1]. An Ebola vaccine has been developed using this same tech.

This is certainly important and impressive work, but the title is inaccurate stating these are the "the first" vaccines. These are definitely the most expensive ones and made for the first word countries with developed and reliable infrastructure able to meet storage requirements. So in some ways they are the first indeed.

1: https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/human-adenoviral-va...

I can't help thinking that reliance on a smaller number of these SuperCell towers will make the network less distributed and therefore more vulnerable. For example, attacking a smaller cell may not be worth the effort for a malicious actor because impact of outage is very limited. It sounds like with SuperCell you can take down one tower and the impact is similar to taking down hundreds of sites.

My intuition may be wrong here as I'm not an expert in cell networks, but the tradeoff seems quite analogous to ones faced in distributed computing, storage and other systems. I'm curious to see some more authoritative opinions on this.

It's only ironic of you buy into the narrative that Russia is somehow more evil or malicious than your average superpower.

Fusion is a work in progress and it is likely what will power our civilization in the future.

In the meantime there are new types of fission reactors being developed (small modular such as Nuscale, advanced fission deployed in China) and they aim the address shortcomings of older designs.

The problem with current generation of fission plants is that they were primarily designed to be integrated into military-industrial complex that produces fuel for nuclear weapons. You can have safer fission plants by focusing on power generation only.

P.S. Not sure what's up with downvotes, but whatever.

Yes, that's why I qualified my comment. My point is that opposition is more effective when directed at specific design issues. It's about the quality of technical discourse. Just like you wouldn't say you oppose the internet if you have an issue with Facebook etc.

> I'm an opponent of nuclear power

Perhaps I am being pedantic, but this strikes me as a strange position to announce. Nuclear power is a broad category of things which includes fission, decay and fusion, all of the above can be used to generate heat.

I'd appreciate it if that presentation UI allowed to go back a step.

> then your sprocket pack needs to be able to move backwards, so you can put tension on it

I am assuming that's what the poster meant by putting emphasis on his frame being a fixed gear one. Those normally have horizontal dropouts to put tension in the chain.

This reminds me of how I once needed to look at a bunch of screens at once, so I made an app for cardboard VR that put a sphere of virtual screens hanging in the air all around me. All I had to do was swivel in my chair. The resolution was a bit low, but it sort of worked nevertheless. That was a fun hack, but not nearly as fun as building this monster I bet.

Did anyone else think about "Planet of the Apes" after reading this?

These are good news. However, one of the biggest unsolved problems of the EV industry is utilization and recycling of degraded battery pack cells. You can't simply take an old EV to a junkyard due to fammable and polluting chemicals in battery cells. Extracting and disassembling different types of battery packs is not something that can be done on industrial scale right now (unlike manufacturing). Only on the order of something like 5% of batteries get recycled [1].

Today each manufacturer is focused on achieving highest production efficiency with no coordination which leads to many divergent designs none of which are easy to recycle.

Are there are some new developments on the horizon before the world goes all-in and creates a new environmental problem?

[1] https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...

Do you mind sharing your references?

This topic is quite upsetting. I wonder if there is a technological solution. Perhaps some sort of volunteer-run citizens surveillance network that uses sensor fusion to collect and monitor police actions leading up to and during confrontation in detail. Could that help make stronger cases against brutality?

That explains the stock's behavior. It doesn't explain the suspiciously fortunate timing of these transactions.

It's also possible that the idea is not competitive. The article is not quite clear. If it were the case, then it would be irresponsible to continue to finance what amounts to a rather exotic hobby.

"But isn’t that too long and painful (sorry for the pun) to type?" - where's the pun?

A pick-up truck, especially one with a four-door cab, is by design the swiss army knife of vehicles. If you are not constrained by something specific, then a pick-up is the rational choice.

It's like http://80legs.com which, by the way, was acquired.

Someone in the industry might just have a slightly better idea of what's really going on and that's largely what HN is about.