10,536 karma · joined November 19, 2011
FYI, the account that you are replying to has promoted a range of conspiracy theories - 1) Pro Russia, 2) antisemitic (of course), and 3) Were Dinosaurs real? (yes, really!)
You'll have to show the dead flagged comments in order top see them, if you need to.
Could you perhaps say plainly whatever you are alluding to here? I'd like you to state your position clearly.
The first has been covered: "Once men turned their thinking over to machine ... that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." Men did the enslaving. It describes a techbro oligarch takeover, not an AI takeover. The machines do not have agency.
Hebert was really into the whole idea now expressed as "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." i.e. good times, people get lazy, then get weak, then get enslaved. (1)
And the second is that "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" is not the same thing as "Though shalt not make a machine mind". A drawing or statue of a person is "in the likeness" of that person. It's not a person. It doesn't have to actually be the thing in order to qualify as "likeness" of it.
People who scorn LLMs would agree that they produce something like the output of a human, in the sense that a parody, a caricature, a cartoon is a likeness. An uncanny valley mockery of the thing is "in the likeness" of a thing.
Ultimately, Herbert put this in his fiction because he didn't want to write about robots or machines, just humans and human potential (2). So he wrote it out with a few paragraphs of backstory in the novels' distant past. You can over-interpret it. Herbert wanted to sound deep, but he did not always succeed. And even when he succeeded in that, his views were not always the best.
1) https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
This is a circus stunt.
This is a circus stunt.
In general, an EV powertrain is far simpler than the equivalent Internal Combustion Engine vehicle. Like only 10% of the number of moving parts. Or fewer.
So it depends if you're comparing this vehicle against its ICE predecessor (far simpler!), or against other EVs now on the market for around 20K euros (not yet known).
Non-sequitur, unsupported conslusion.
Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.
> we haven't researched them enough.
I don't think you or I know much about the current state of Lion research. This statement is meaningless confabulation.
Yes. An LLM certainly doesn't know this. Most of the input data to the LLM will not be "good tests" as these are quite rare in practice. The median test in the input data is not good, so the output of a LLM generating more tests won't be either. Most human oversight won't even recognise this either.
> only change when you change that specific behaviour.
Correct, as Kent Beck observed: "Tests should be coupled to the behaviour of code and decoupled from the structure of code"
bad tests "need constant updates" because they reverse this.
Major outbreaks _were_ named like that, but as the other reply pointed out, the "Spanish Flu" did not actually originate in Spain at all.
It is for reasons like that, that WHO best practices now specifically say to not name diseases this way: https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-pra...
> Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations, people’s names, species of animal or food, cultural, population, industry or occupational references....
Sure, but also in the real world, fossil fuel infrastructure is always centralised. "decentralised diesel" might exist in the sense that you can run lots of generators all over, but that's energy consumption not energy supply.
Those generators have to be supplied with fuel or they're useless. That supply is always centralised. Fossil fuels cannot be decentralised in the same way as solar.
Completely correct, but then go one step further: Where does that truck fill up? At a depot where many other trucks do the same. That's an even more tempting target - centralised, stationary, flammable.
I do not think that there is an equivalent node in the solar alternative.
And where does that fuel depot get resupply from. etc. "decentralised" fossil fuel infrastructure isn't really a thing that exists.
Panels are small, numerous and widely dispersed, easy to install quickly and incrementally, and non-flammable.
Basically the opposite of (also stationary) centralised fossil fuel infrastructure.
It's clear which one is the more tempting target if you have a finite stockpile of drones.
If you are still in doubt about this, I urge you to read the article linked above. Or google the term. I assumed that it was something that "everybody knows" but apparently not.
The key word there is tried. "wandel durch handel" means "Change through trade" (1). That's what Germany tried, it was a part of their foreign policy.
Now we all know that it did not work with Putin's Russia, but that was not the claim made by Germanioum. It is not nonsense that they tried. Even if they tried and failed.
Sentences often make more sense when you read all of the words in them.
True, but also worthless - the USA fired or retired people who knew the plan (1), and didn't listen to the warnings. It's more "Everyone knows the plan until they punch themselves in the face"
1) https://fortune.com/2026/04/05/doge-fired-state-department-e...
I don't agree that the consequential points are just "more language". I said things that you did not.
I think this applies to both sides, and the issue is that the people in power are not affected by the crises that cause hardship to ordinary people. " Iran is..." does not distinguish between the two, they are different. Fanatical leadership can live by "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" .
The problem though is that people in the USA do have one lever to pull on their government, in the form of approaching midterm elections, that the people of Iran do not. And the leadership of Iran knows it. They may be fanatical and awful but they're not stupid - causing fuel shortages causes economic pain to ordinary people causes political pain to the USA. They have this weapon and are using it heavily.
Notwithstanding that, this assessment of blame is correct ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49907371 ), the missteps that put us in this mess with no clear way out all come from stupid leadership in the USA.
MG is a British car badge, now owned by SAIC China
Volvo and Polestar are owned by Geely
LEVC makes the new EV London black cabs, is also owned by Geely
XPeng and Omoda are present too.
> Dacia Spring is now the UK’s cheapest car at less than £12k
> The all-electric Dacia Spring now costs less than any other car on the market
https://www.whatcar.com/news/dacia-spring-is-now-the-uks-che...
The article has an honourable mention for the Leapmotor T03, another EV that is only slightly more expensive than the Dacia Spring.
> an electric vehicle fitted with a fuel-powered internal combustion engine, acting as a range extender that drives a generator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended-range_electric_vehicl...
Firstly a rate hike is as much a reaction to circumstances as it is a cause. It follows changes to the financial environment. As much as the current US Administration wanted a rate drop, circumstances dictated the opposite.
Secondly, it might not be isolated. These rates move by small increments, but there are usually several moves in succession, up to 8 times a year. Compare two or three small hikes to two or three small drops and the difference starts to add up. "A 0.25% rate hike" is small, but it indicates a change in direction. The article notes that it is "for the first time since 2023".
Here is the "Runtime async" section: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/performance-improvemen...
I'm not sure if this will surface as an "enabled by default" feature in .NET 11 - indeed there may not be a final decision on that yet. But it is an active area of work that will arrive sooner or later.
It's hard to accelerate at or beyond 1G for very long with current technology. Roughly speaking, the rocket runs out of fuel soon. Packing more fuel makes the rocket heavier, meaning diminishing returns when using the fuel. The mass required grows exponentially. See "The tyranny of the rocket equation"
> I'm talking about the very old, very slow AIs we call corporations, of course.
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-yo...
In some ways it is, yes. The engine design is not the same, it doesn't need gearbox, variable power output etc to charge battery. In some ways it can be more efficient.