cinntaile

I don't understand. What's special about being able to charge your phone? Can't you do that anywhere you have a power socket?

I think you would need something that tracks relevant per cable metrics over time to see if it is degrading. That one just says yes/no, but maybe yes/no starts to flicker around its end of life?

Your sibling comment is right. It stands for Levelized Cost Of Electricity.

You could try using arguments instead of an appeal to authority fallacy?

It's not as clear cut as you describe it here. In the other old thread you linked there was no real consensus if this should be considered a backdoor or not.

There is no such thing as the Renaissance Fund. Quanta receives funds from the Simons Foundation... I also don't know where you get it from that Renaissance Technologies is heavily invested in AI. Any sources to back up your claims because I suspect you made all that up?

Another commenter already mentioned that it's more likely a lack of compute and funding that forces their hand to focus on niche tasks.

Why does it say 0 for the US? You have Thanksgiving, Christmas, 4th of July and more? Are they unpaid days off?

That would be Sv, not SV.

I don't see how that's relevant, my original post made no safety claims.

I don't find it ideologically inconvenient, I just don't think it's a realistic take. There are situations for power generation where fossil fuels are the only viable alternatives hence why I mentioned them. Now if you had infinite resources and infinite money then that's probably not true, but we don't live in a world like that.

A bit of a weird tangent? You can tell them yourself. You are free to reuse my sentence if it helps.

It's unsafe so it's never a good fit? That kind of reasoning is just noise. Unsafe for what? Compared to what? What alternatives, given the constraints, exist?

I can access court decisions just fine and I'm not in the US, so no. It's not.

The chances are not very high that you are well-versed in how all the other countries in the world work. Whenever you think something is unique, it is quite likely that you will be wrong.

It's not going to reduce any time soon. Either way the reality is that sometimes fossil fuel power plants make sense, that's why they're still being built.

> Americans know because we can access our US court decisions, unlike any other country in the world.

This is not a uniquely US thing?

> It depends on what you are optimizing for and what is geographically, (geo)politically and economically possible.

I mentioned all of this in my message. What was unclear about it or did you perhaps not read past the first sentence?

I don't know what you mean with "no safe level of fossil fuel use". It doesn't mean anything without contextualizing that statement.

People arguing for one alternative over the other are usually politically motivated. I feel like you are doing the same. Sometimes nuclear is a good fit, sometimes renewables is a good fit, sometimes fossil fuels are a good fit. Most of the time a mix is the best fit. It depends on what you are optimizing for and what is geographically, (geo)politically and economically possible. All these systems are then built using assumptions, sometimes those assumptions no longer make sense after a certain period of time and sometimes you just temporarily or permanently have to adapt to the changes in the environment. This is an unusual but expected scenario for the nuclear plants along the Danube.

Did I miss something? When did Spacex get into the fab business?

I think the no action results speak for themselves. I'm not sure what there is to disagree about to be honest.

Nobody is pressing charges because nothing happened. It wasn't nefarious either.

I don't get what France has to do with this Huggingface and OpenAI are both US companies.

They paywalled it before LLMs.

Its market value is clearly not high enough or they wouldn't use it in disposable vapes.

Nowadays people would have guessed it was Model Context Protocol.

Yes I have asked you this many times, but you have not answered it even once.

Sure, pick one of their sources to support your claims. If they already did the job for you it should be very easy.

To reiterate your claims:

> Sweden has, more than any other country, faced an astounding and shocking rise of intense violence and organized crime, with shootings in the middle of cities and cafés, all linked to people that were openly accepted through its refugee programs.

1. Which link proves that Sweden has had a more shocking rise of intense violence and organized crime than all other countries in the world?

2. Which link proves that they are all linked to people that were openly accepted through its refugee programs?

Regarding 1. it would also be interesting to know which time period you are referring to, because that's pretty much a prerequisite for a claim like that.

You didn't link it because it was an interesting thesis, you linked it to back up your claims when I asked for a source. Which it didn't do. You still need to provide a source for your claims. You can also retract your claims of course, that's fine too.

You tell me, you claimed to know their plans. I don't know where you got that info from?

I checked the official source, which should be considered the authoritative source imo?

I just checked. They haven't published their political standpoints yet so it's too early to say. They claim they will soon, ahead of the elections.