close04

Honestly no idea. But after receiving multiple fire trainings and talking to trained firemen, I have to say that all else being equal (and gun to the head because I actually want neither) I'll take a diesel fire over a battery fire any day.

A lot of dangerous fumes come from the other material burning around the source. And at 1000C plenty of neighboring stuff decides to burn.

Diesel fires are put out much faster than battery fires especially when the battery is huge and fully charged. Battery fires are also much hotter, up to 1000 C (~1800 F), metal fires are no joke.

Diesel damages the asphalt more in different ways. It attacks the binder in the asphalt and softens it up (after all they are both byproducts of the same crude oil precursor and just want to recombine). This process takes even days so if the cleanup is fast there's minimal damage. Most of the fuel that doesn't burn runs to the side of the road anyway.

> I'll be interested to read the final safety reports

Are you still confident that the final reports will be free of interference and the agency investigating anything Tesla (Musk) related won't be gutted before it gets the chance to issue anything damaging?

> Headline makes it seem like ICE just did this in a vacuum.

The headline makes it look like they run "One of the Largest Anti-Left Surveillance Ops in US History". The only way the trigger matters is if the response to that trigger is justified. These justifications, once you consider them valid, just start a vicious cycle. Most of the people are being put under surveillance by this "massive anti US citizen campaign" with no reasonable suspicion, no judicial supervision, by an agency which should have no business doing any of this. Just another flavor of authoritarianism. Is it justified for them to escalate? If not then your argument is bunk. The title says what it really is and justifying the extremist actions of one side only betrays a bias.

This kind of automation takes the execution away from you, not the decision, and even that execution only concerns you. You wanted to shift into a higher gear, the car's computer does it for you. The result is what you wanted. A fully autonomous car that decides everything for you would be a better example.

If you let an AI grade an exam then a big part of what comes next is a decision that you didn't take or validate. You didn't remove yourself just from the execution, you removed yourself from the responsibility and cognitive effort to take the decision, and from the accountability for that decision.

If you can simplify and call every button press "just the computer doing things", then someone else can exaggerate and say a fully autonomous drone hunting humans is the same, business as usual, computers doing things.

The dollar had just over 30% inflation since the start of COVID. But not all prices increased equally, for anything with RAM or NAND they skyrocketed in the past year.

The prices will come down eventually, even if not all the way down.

But I'd be more concerned about computing staying open in general - not only as open source but at least open and accessible standards, interfaces, open to individual development, open to tinkering.

I see a concentrated push from almost all sides to lock down any platform, lock the hardware and build black box devices, lock the software under layers of attestation and certifications, all in the name of "security". I use the quotes because I don't believe security is the top concern, or even a concern at all, it's about taking the control away from users.

For now the open-computing world is still bustling and accessible but the intention to curtail this is there, with technical or legal measures.

> Just like Intel not shipping ECC for client SKUs when DDR5 design makes it really necessary

The ECC in DDR5 is on-die ECC and that's not "real" ECC, it's what DDR5 needs to not fail. Side-band ECC is the standard method, employing extra memory chips and 72bit memory. OEMs mix these in the marketing materials to fool the users into thinking they buy the better option.

That is one of the biggest gripes for almost anyone I ever met who deals with AI generated content. Nobody really cares that someone else's work was generated with AI as much as they care that it's slop and they need to put in extra effort to work around the author's laziness.

Lazy or incompetent colleagues always forced people around them to overcompensate and correct. AI increased their firepower and blast radius.

The ProMotion screens have variable refresh rate depending on the content displayed. 10Hz to 120Hz for iPhones and 24Hz to 120Hz for iPads. So in theory the power consumption should be even better than a regular screen for static content like reading text.

> people talking about 100s of tabs

This is a form of bookmarking in practice. I know people doing this and none could list what the tabs are without checking each one. In the physical world you have the equivalent of people having the desk full of stuff they never use but don't put away because they might use it later.

I get it. I meant it applies to everything. For the mobile phones I started the conversation with the crazy designs sometimes had nothing to do with the core functions. But it made them stand out and it was a learning opportunity for the manufacturer. I remember my partner's Nokia 7280, so original and impractical by any standard. At some point phones started being a proper tool to have in your pocket so the practical aspects took priority.

It's the manufactured equivalent of carcinization.

> don't comment to complain about bad parenting if you haven't had kids or had 1 or 2 neuro typical, easy kids and a wife who did most of the parenting

So I'm allowed to complain, and then some :). Screens are horrible especially when they come attached to a device made to be addictive, like an Amazon tablet.

But kids don't raise themselves no matter how "easy" they are. Parents have to make unpopular decisions that the kids will benefit from and maybe even understand when they're older. Those decisions suck the life out of you because the kid "hates" you for it, and you have to fill the void with something else that takes more parental effort. Sometimes maybe it's impossible to avoid "the screen" because of some special family situation. But at "3+" these are exceptional situations, don't treat them like the baseline.

The consequences of addiction from such a young age to screens (or sugar, junk food and every other mistake parents make to make their own lives easier in the moment) are documented and lifelong. As a parent you won't escape them, you'll live them through your child's life. Might as well take the hit for them now, even if it costs you. It doesn't get easier anyway, a pre-teen with no phone surrounded by friends who have one is no joke.

> ended up in a bonfire along with my first edition Harry Potter book collection when my mum was doing a "clear out"

Do you mean a literal bonfire to burn them? A first edition Harry Potter book collection would be a nice gift to someone or a donation to the library. The last place books should end up is in a fire.

That was exactly the point. Early in the life of a new type of device (like a mobile phone, smart or dumb) there's a period of experimentation. Then everything converges towards an optimum.

Keep in mind that the phone's primary interface wasn't always a keypad, it used to be a dial or a lever. The speaker and microphone were distinct parts rather than a single "receiver". And they all slowly converged to a couple of very similar optimized designs.

Reminds me of how mobile phones used to have very varied, even whimsical designs and slowly we settled on the rectangular slab. There's probably a point where form and function converge and then everything hovers in that region.

> I know they monitor peoples chat logs.

> I'm not uninformed on this

Sure, that’s why in your previous comment you were making it sound ridiculous to believe OAI is “secretly monitoring everyone’s logs”. You dug that hole.

> What I'm saying is that its highly unlikely that in this case that Sébastien Bubeck from OpenAi decided to steal some critical idea from Buckmasters chat and feed it "Bell" the unreleased model that produced the solution.

Why "highly unlikely"? Because OpenAI like all other big tech would never (ab)use a mechanism they even already officially have in place to boost up their valuation? Because they never used people's data in the past? Because they aren't famous for ingesting all of the internet's data with or without permission?

You choose to give them the benefit of the doubt despite every bit of past evidence and experience. That's not an argument, that's wishful thinking that "this time it's definitely different".

I’ll start with this because it sets the tone for how uninformed your opinion is, thinking you're calling out some conspiracy theory:

> they actually secretely monitor everyones chat logs

Are you for real? They openly monitor everyone’s chat logs. If you had bothered to ask ChatGPT it would literally tell you that they do it. That’s how they know (and yet still fail to report, so the mechanism isn't there for reporting to authorities) that someone is planning a school shooting [0]. They monitor anything and anyone of interest.

Now if “having agents” was enough then we’d just ask for the cure for cancer or proof for every theorem and wait for a few days. Obviously they need guidance to not get stuck in a dead end or have to brute force everything. OAI’s mathematicians weren’t able to provide a good direction so the agents stalled until someone else found the key and only then OAI had their breakthrough.

[0] https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-incidents/1375-openai-allegedly-di...

You’re asking a loaded question based on things that were never said. Very lowbrow.

One thing is how uniformly a rule is applied. Another thing is whether a rule is "right" to begin with. I addressed the first because it’s far more straightforward and objective. You did some mental gymnastics to name-drop the second without even the effort to say something about it. Weak strawman.

Another thing I addressed is the lack of trustworthiness of these companies. They lied to you again and again but they wouldn’t lie to you now, would they? You left that out completely, so maybe you even agree.

Next time if you want the courtesy of a reply, extend the courtesy of not bringing just low-effort strawman and loaded questions.

The coincidence is that they took the correct path out of “every possible one” exactly after one of their users took it.

Monkeys on typewriters excuse only works for huge companies who can afford to buy opinions.

The "coincidence" defense never works for random individuals so I won't buy it when it comes companies worth billions which will lie, cheat, and deceive to make even more billions. They've been caught lying and stealing again and again. After so many years of this I think any trust put in them is either blissful ignorance or willful misdirection.

The top speed of ~800km/h or ~500mph (at ~22km or 72k ft altitude) seems almost laughable today. And yet it was almost untouchable at the time.

Today it's probably for hire for major events like a big match.

Israel can probably pwn any normal mobile phone because they invested a lot in this area, and has no reason to be afraid to do it. They are always shielded from consequences.

> I don’t see any benefits

The real benefit is "one to rule them all". It's so much more useful to have one single network that everybody uses even if the service doesn't have all the bells and whistles, than it is to have to use a patchwork of 1000 different networks even if they're stuffed with fancy features.

> No Valve system is console like.

That entire paragraph makes it obvious that I'm talking about hardware. From the first sentence that spells it out, to talking about upgrading RAM. On the software front, the "open" PC ecosystem is heading in a bad direction for consumers too. So what if I can install from any store if they all rent me the same game at the same price? The difference between Valve and Epic is that one has a loyal following of promoters but in the end I don't own the game, I'm only renting it. And we're always one step away from rentseeking and or losing access even to those rentals.

> open but easy to use devices, like Steam hardware & co widely available

The problem was never the hardware. Consoles and PCs were both a compromise, a trade between convenience, flexibility, price. The easy to use devices from Steam are more console than PC and that's fine. Nobody has a problem with this as long as games run. If the game runs well I don't care about the CPU, RAM, OS, or that I can't upgrade them. I don't spend money on RAM for the sake of plugging things in, I spend it because the system needs it. The Steam Machine is a step towards "consolification" from a PC perspective. The Deck is a true console. So saying "finally consoles are gone" should be more "consoles are dead, long live consoles".

The big problem that only recently got prominence is ownership of the games. Take away the brand loyalty and you'll see that Steam isn't really doing much here. But I care about being able to buy and sell my games, or play them for as long as a compatible system is available. In this regard the Steam store is not much different from console stores. It offers some quality of life features but the core is still missing. It's not my game anymore and this comes with a lot of implications that aren't mitigated by running Linux or having RAM slots.

That's a sad and funny story, DOGE is the gift that keeps on giving in that regard (hail Musk, I guess). They are a very special group, the embodiment of carelessness and callousness, led by someone who picked them in his image. But I'm not sure what it tells us about the greater world where regardless of intention and execution the statistics are not on your side when someone is motivated to attack or destroy your things.

The actual content goes through the trouble of telling you in every paragraph that your understanding of "truth" is wrong.

Unless all you have at hand (or at head) is a 2 parameter small language model, you have no excuse to go no further than the URL.

You're saying is that when things are bad, it doesn't matter if someone makes them much worse. I think you're doing it for the sake of argument, and you'll find 1000 caveats why it only applies to what you want it to apply, because there's no possible way you'd go with in in real life. "Sir, you were bleeding anyway so it doesn't matter that we took your kidney".

It matters to the people who don't hand over their phone to a stranger. When someone hands of devices to a random stranger it's an exception and it goes against popular wisdom. When Meta does something hostile towards its users they do it for billions and the practice is normalized.

> anyone surprised?

A lot of people actually, even techies. I commented something similar on a different tech website (Ars Technica) highlighting the trustworthiness of the company behind the tool, and that by now people should not be surprised the face eating leopard eats faces. I was met with a lot of implicit defense of Meta and redirecting the attention to "whatabout" Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. (much like sibling reply here makes it an "every tech company" problem). The general agreement in that forum was that the company is not the problem, it's just what AI tooling does.

So either the internet is full of shills, or people are genuinely surprised because they chose ignorance for decades. Or maybe both can be true.