They gainsay hearing aids but there's been good progress. However sometimes it's frustrating when they "intelligently" select the wrong sound. I don't believe AI can decide better, it can be even more spurious. Unless there's eye tracker?
And there's only so much bandwidth to the damaged ear possible no matter you do. Instead I want to try glasses with sound spectral analysis/visualization to pass additional auditory information to the brain. Even with feature extraction with AI, as long as it's low latency and consistent.
It is (maybe not directly but very insistently) advertised as taking many jobs soon.
And counting stuff you have in front of yourself is basic skill required everywhere. Counting letters in a word is just a representative task for counting boxes with goods, or money, or kids in a group, or rows on a list on some document, it comes up in all kinds of situations. Of course people insist that AI must do this right. The word bag perhaps can't do it but it can call some better tool, in this case literally one line of python. And that is actually the topic the article touches on.
People always insist that any tool must do things right. They as well insist that people do things right.
Tools are not perfect, people are not perfect.
Thinking that LLMs must do things right, that people find simple, is a common mistake, and it is common because we easily treat the machine as a person, while it only is acting like one.
> Thinking that LLMs must do things right, that people find simple, is a common mistake
Show me any publicly known visible figure that tries to rectify this. Everyone peddles hype, there's no more Babbage as in the "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" anecdote.
People and tools that don't do things right aren't useful. They get replaced. Making do with a shitty tool might make sense economically but not in any other way.
If you follow that reasoning, no person is useful and no tool is useful.
The little box I'm filling now is, compared to a lot of other interfaces, a shitty interface. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. Probably it is getting replaced, only with a slightly better inferface.
The karma system is quite simplistic and far from perfect. I'm sure there are ways to go around it. The moderators make mistakes.
That doesn't mean the karma and moderation are not useful. I hope you get my point but it's fine if we disagree as well.
I personally like the idea of spinning up large asteroids but the Dzhanibekov Effect will cause a lot of sloshing. If I understand it right, you have to spin them along the long axis, not like O’Neill cylinders. Two separate habitats at opposite ends of an air shaft. Clarke rings have to be careful about docking platforms. In fact they might need an inertially separate structure floating near them to handle loading and unloading of cargo, and then ferry materials back and forth across the “air gap” using very small vessels or robotic arms.
The thought of an entire space station being reliant on none of four bearings three times the size of a football stadium ever needing maintenance and never seizing up is terrifying.
You can’t just spin down a station like that for maintenance, can you?
I believe technically you’re correct, but practically it’s unworkable.
Noone says it's easy. But at least have inside a small rotating cylinders for 1-2 persons to sleep and exercise in. Should be doable with active stabilization so that it isn't sloshing and not endangering anything if it seizes.
I'm somewhat fond of the 'bolo' design - several habs cabled together and spun.
While the cables are now a new 'single point of failure', Tethers, Inc had (has, as it turns out they have not gone under as I suspected) some pretty compelling ideas of how to avoid that by using a mesh instead of a cable, so micro-meteoroids couldn't sever the cable with one extra-lucky hit.
That has issues with getting in and out. It's possible to solve everyhing, like have a zero-gravity "hub" in the middle, reachable from the habs by lift climbing the ropes. Or have pulleys reconfiguring whole habs as needed.
But again anything moving in space and with life support sounds like massive r&d effort.
Plenty of embedded stuff deployed today will be there in 15 years, even with proactive push. Which is not yet done, only planned in few years mind you. Buying devkits for most popular architectures could prove good investment, if you are serious.
Can confirm, worked on embedded stuff over a decade ago that's still being sold and will still be running in factories all over the world in 2038. And yes, it does have (not safety critical) y2k38 bugs. The project lead chose not to spend resources on fixing them since he will be retired by then
> Debian is confident it is now complete and tested enough that the move will be made after the release of Debian 13 "Trixie" – at least for most hardware.
So Trixie does not have 64-bit time for everything.
Granted, the article, subtitle and your link all point out that this is intentional and won't be fixed. But in the strictest sense that GP was likely going for Trixie does not have what the headline of this article announces
In practice we want forest soil not eroded away after clear cut logging, but also not depleted nutrients like phosphorus, nor prone to wildfires[note], nor trees damaged by acid rain etc. Definition of "sustainable" in the law alone is not sufficient to cover all this and never will be, some discretion and responsibility is required.
[note] depends on the biome, part of said discretion
That is purely psychological perception. Noone seriously calculated that nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude worse than coal per TWh. Neither safety, expense to manage nor other externalities.
No it isn't. All current nuclear waste models purely rely on geology and perfect engineering and assume that 100 to 300 years in the future those sites need zero staff, zero maintenance and zero monitoring.
Which is of course a "cool" assumption to make if you're profiting from this being the conclusion today. Critics of these models (like me) are sceptical of that overly opportunistic conclusion, especially since the timeframes involved are so long and the storage still needs to be maintained long after the profits stopped for one reason or another. I am not saying that this can't be done, I say the current models are insufficient and rely on future generations "dealing with it" somehow.
If you can convince me my worry is unfounded, I'd be happy to hear why I am worrying too much or why we can be certain that this works out as we wish it would.
So what if it's not perfect? Worst case of nuclear waste mishandling would still have milder repercussions compared to doubled, or tripled or worse CO2 levels we are subjecting future generations to. That will persist too long after profits from fossils stop.
Hard to discuss or persuade when you are comparing everything to some ideal, and one-sidedly moreover. Can we talk about real world alternatives. Hypothetically even doubling natural radioactivity background (and that would require total recklessness) would be better option if we could have avoided large part of CO2 output. Now nuclear is becoming moot as we have cheap renewables and batteries anyway.
>Noone seriously calculated that nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude worse than coal per TWh
Not sure what you mean here but I agree that nobody was able to predict what the cost of nuclear would actually end up being when they first started with it in the 50s.
EDF was bailed out for 50 bn despite having neglected maintenance so badly that half their plants were offline in 2022, and the first thing France did when they took over was to double the purchase price. If that's enough remains to be seen.
If you mean that you disagree that nuclear is an order of magnitude worse per TWh, then perhaps you don't know how much more energy we get from coal, or how much money, time and effort is spent on nuclear?
Just as an illustration, during the 40 years it was active, Fukushima generated as much electricity in total as the world gets from coal in one week.
>I don't understand what are you trying to say, coal plants always have proper maintenance and never caused price hikes, outages and fatal accidents?
No no - I'm saying nobody pays 8 billion per year 14 years after a coal plant accident, no matter what coal plant accident it was. But Japan pays that for Fukushima.
Because nobody (at least in the US and China) takes heavy metals in groundwater as a serious problem. If they did, that would cost much more than Fukushima. It eventually will.
And there's only so much bandwidth to the damaged ear possible no matter you do. Instead I want to try glasses with sound spectral analysis/visualization to pass additional auditory information to the brain. Even with feature extraction with AI, as long as it's low latency and consistent.
reply