Sparkyte

It doesn't have to be near the sun to have heat or be warmed by the Sun. It is still currently in the goldilocks zone, same with Venus. The difference is how well each planet traps heat. No atmosphere no heat for mars, highest peak surface temperature is 70 fehrenheit or 20 celsius. Not much but enough green house gas and you could raise it by 20 degrees or more. Other thing to consider is that you don't need to move Mars, you could create artificial magnetospheres.

We could probably terraform Mars if we crashed Europa into Mars.

Same question I've got, but I imagine USGS is only considering reachable surface, atmospheric water.

I figured it would be within 5% margin.

I find this pretty interesting, https://phys.org/news/2023-11-reveal-earth-surface-penetrate...

Not sure this is accurate as we've discovered that water can reside deeper in the Earth than previously imagined and in addition to that the density of water at the surface is different than at the bottom of the ocean. I suppose they are also accounting for the salt being removed too. But my argument is probably in the margin of error so what do I know?

https://www.technology.org/how-and-why/what-would-happen-if-....

So I feel like the USGS is exagerated.

I believe part of this is how good our technology has gotten with detection of cancer. Cancer is a part of everyone as we have roughly 37 trillion cells in our body. Which puts it at a failure rate lower than the computers we maintain on a daily basis. Most of the time our bodies take care of cancer cells when they are in small amounts, sometimes they grow wild and our bodies can't keep up and that is when it gets serious.

Current investor strategy is immediate gains no long term investment because that is deemed risky. Because they want to buy in and bail when they've doubled their investment.

But for every business the chase seems to fail in finding worth. I can already tell you from where I am working we are struggling because eventually data is too old to be good or too incomplete. We need at least 3-4 years of collecting and storing the information to make full use of AI.

Right it is wasteful. The reason some businesses are so successful is that they look at the common denominators rather than trying to perpetuate worth. Fewer variants and don't wall off features. AMD did this for the longest period getting back on it feet, but I am seeing a failure of them continuing down this path. They need to stop making variants and focus on 3 or 4 sets of consumer processors.

AI doesn't exist with the right amount of collected data, we're going to hit a wall very soon where we just get bad AI data constantly because we are throwing data to the wall and hoping it sticks. Businesses should not be investing in AI right yet maybe 2-3 more years.

The businesses that should are the startups and businesses who are helping define the model, like ChatGPT and Microsoft, but the adoption is still too early. If I was McDonald's or Wendy's and I wanted to use AI to help promote sales to customers I would need to be able to grab demographic data which may not be appropriate PII data.

All of the lawsuits happening right now for data collected without permission of the data provider is going to all change the landscape.

Intel has always been an echo chamber of fiscal earnings and cutting corners to appease investors. For the longest time they stagnated on Mac hardware improvements because it would cost money, they would not have lost Mac as a business customer if they continued to innovate.

Simple, attach non-functional pedals.

No.

There are massive ISP trunks that have accidentally been destroyed knocking out internet for hundreds of people.

In other news today calculator solves math problem.

Try googling this it is kind of interesting. Link between bone density and skin elasticity. You will find that the denser the bones the healthier the skin. We may find people who are 70 looking like they are 50.

The real path forward is recognizing what AI is good at and what it is bad at. Focus on making what it is good at even better and faster. Open AI will definitely give us that option but it isn't a miracle worker.

My impression is that AI if done correctly will be the new way to build APIs with large data sets and information. It can't write code unless you want to dump billions of dollars into a solution with millions of dollars of operational costs. As it stands it loses context too quickly to do advance human tasks. BUT this is where it is great at assembling data and information. You know what is great at assembling data and information? APIs.

Think of it this way if we can make it faster and it trains on a datalake for a company it could be used to return information faster than a nested micro-service architecture that is just a spiderweb of dependencies.

Because AI loses context simple API requests could actually be more efficient.

It's a running joke the internet has about Nintendo. They will run with ideas and sue you later.

Whats the difference of this and enqueue work into a queue then waiting for a job to pick it up at a scheduled time? Not saying build a Kafka cluster to serve this but most cloud providers have queuing tools.

Can't wait for breaking a hip at 80 to be a thing of the past. Bone health is also a contributor in life expectancy and health of a person altogether. I read a study if you can assure your bones are healthy you can assure your health longterm.

Don't give Nintendo any more ideas. :P

Exactly my thoughts! Remember the good old days when World of Warcraft used peer distribution of their installations?

So I am kind of opposed to piracy but the novel idea of a peer based CDN has its merit. Imagine an encrypted framework where Netflix operates in a peer to peer communication. It would drastically reduce the overhead a streaming service would require to send content to users. If people are all watching the similar content or opt-in to supporting the network chunks of data could stored across many customer peers to complete the mesh. This would allow high quality content with a reduced amount of latency for delivery. It is why piracy took of during the DSL/Cable era. Networks were not fast and streaming could not work that efficiently so a p2p network alievated the stress allowing viewers/listeners to grab media and be quick about it.

Innovation in the turn of the century was amazing.

Today it seems all innovations follow in step with whatever the current trend is as opposed to being a trendsetter of its own design.

Anyone else getting exhausted about hearing LLMs and AI already?

Both of you forget that for the longest time Intel consumer chips excluded virtualization and other features until Ryzen 1st generation had it available. Like AVX-512 for example. 1st generation was a huge win in functionality for consumers even if it didn't hit the same performance of Intel. AVX-512 wasn't support on first gen, but there were other features I forget now but it was also a reason I had stuck to AMD.

I actually like both companies. Intel isn't bad, right now isn't great for them though.

We are better for Intel and AMD to coexist. But my gamble is on AMD because I've always liked the compatibility of the hardware with variety of technology. You can easily get server grade interfacing on consumer grade parts. For the longest time that wasn't true for Intel. When AMD pulls an Intel I'll be full Intel. There are huge wins for Intel getting new fabs built in the states, because it means a lot for security and development.

I've been using AMD since 2004. My first AMD processor was the Athlon 64 3000+, I was a kid I wasn't really allowed anything too expensive. We had dominately used Intel upt that point but when 64bit CPUs hit it was a revolutionary thing.

The roughest era of AMD CPUs was the FX era. While it was comprable to its mid-range competition it was alos a sure fast way to burn down your house with its power draw.

Ryzen was a huge step forward in CPU design and architecture.

I see this era as Intel's FX era, if they have the right leadership in place they can turn the boat around and innovate.

That is why an open standard should be made so it isn't locked to a particular piece of hardware and then allow modular support for different hardware to interface with supported drivers.

Always better to invest and just let the market over time take care of it, the make quick cash never works.

Oh I see what you mean! I think I'll keep with either centos or redhat due to the ability to receive updates on vulnerabilities then. FedRamp stuff does require CVEs to be handled in a timely fashion.

I'm comfortable with using alpine, is this another one of the many container solutions for tiny containers?