llsf

So many profound lines. The beauty in the tragedy.

Not sure if this is biology only (turned 50) or COVID or intense (work in my case) life, but I also distinctly feel that I am clearly not the same for the past ~5 years.

My self-diagnostic is mild burn out with a stressful work trying to get our start up to service, mild depression due I think to working remotely in my apartment, barely going outside even on weekend (my only human interactions are through zoom).

I am trying to improve, but it feels that the energy spent during the past 5 years to dig that hole, is equal to energy to get out of that hole... and honestly at this point, I don't know if I can.

Quitting could be an option, but I have been working since I was 20yo without interruption, never had to really interview, just got hired or pulled from current job. And that feels scary to me now over 50yo to quit and maybe change career for something more social and less taxing.

I honestly do not know how long I can keep doing what I am currently doing. I need to keep myself in check to make sure that I do not go too far in that hole.

Same happened to me. Someone stole my ID (diplomas, driver license and biometrics) to escape history.

Everyone likes to throw the "1st amendment" in the conversation, when it suites them... but I agree given the recent retaliatory tendencies, it is difficult to criticize the current administration, and effectively leaving it in its own echo chamber.

I am wondering if that partially explains how Musk radicalized himself lately. While I like the idea of absolute free speech, it kinda falls when the powerful are retaliatory... and kinda loose with the rule of law.

While I get the idea of "the bureaucracy" having its own life sometimes getting in a way of change, and the President willing to get more done, faster. But the fact that the bureaucrats do not carring on sometimes is because they follow a due process.

Now with those young men taking the control of the $6T/yr, this is a tremendous power. Even unintentionally, a mistake could have dire consequences.

> To be sure, don't give your heart away to a company (I did that exactly once, never again) because a company will never love you back. But your co-workers will.

Yes, and that hurts that first time. Especially when you gave a lot (like some 70hrs weeks and then you immune system shuts down) or working during a funeral, in the back room...

I think Lambda Prolog, is the only language that physically hurt my brain... in a good way.

But damn, it felt like an extreme muscle stretching exercise. Painful when doing it, but you feel SO good after :)

You could try BlaBlaCar

https://www.blablacar.co.uk/search?fn=Paris%2C%20France&tn=8...

I also thought first about the 2CV in Le Corniaud (1965) :)

I had no idea that explosives were involved!

Funny that they had to freeze the ground to dig it, as it is one of the hottest line in Paris (at least 20 years ago).

The French minitel in mid-80s was successful also thanks to online porn. It was not using the internet (not TCP-IP network), but it was pushing the ASCII art to its limits :)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-24-mn-718-st...

and it made some people rich https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/europe/le-monde-t...

Yes, Pat could come back and take care of IFS, with this time a supporting CEO/board. With the China/Taiwan tensions, it might be a good move for the US to not let Intel slip further, and stir that ship in the right direction. Musk could justify the move to help his AI ventures (XAi, Tesla FSD, robot, etc.)

Not worrying about the worth of the company as much, but more to salvage the chip maker expertise that Intel still has (Intel has been in several rounds of layoffs, including 15,000 in 2024).

According to the article, splitting Intel would be good (short term) for the shareholders, bad long term, and bad for the country.

Intel is still a great asset, but it looks like it is losing its appeal as time passes. CEO of Intel is deemed to be a very challenging position. The board does not seem to know how to turn the ship around.

I could see Musk steering that ship. It is technically challenging (Musk seems to thrive in those environments), and it could even benefit the other Musk companies to some extent (XAi, Tesla and even maybe SpaceX).

Intel market cap is 94.713B (AMD is 233B, ARM Holdings is 144B... not mentioning NVIDIA), so about twice what Musk paid for Twitter. But if Musk sets his view on Intel, he would not have a hard time to finance the purchase. Actually, he could wait a bit more as the stock can fall even more (today, Intel stock is at the price of Dec. 1996).

This is armchair talking/joke, and it would be one more crazy thing on the 2024 bingo card, but from all the crazy things we have seen recently, Musk taking over Intel would look quite normal in comparison.

Is it time for Elon Musk to step in, or is it too early ?

Now with the CHIPs money coming in, it might be the right time...

"...2-5% of yearly GDP until 2050"

Estimate is COVID in 2020 cost 3.4% of GDP (source: https://www.statista.com/topics/6139/covid-19-impact-on-the-...)

We are talking about one new COVID (2020 style), every single year for 25 years. That is significant enough to not spontaneously do it.

Same Prolog, and particularly Lambda Prolog literally blew my mind. I could (physically) feel my brain, trying to think differently about the problem to solve. It was an experience. I need to retake that course (was 20 years ago...). I also wonder if/how AI could leverage lambda prolog to prove things.

This is concerning. As I am typing on a laptop with fingerprint reader, one could make that battery explode after successful identification. What a world...

I agree that huge benefits would come from electrification of residential and commercial (e.g. heat pump, induction stove, etc.), industrial (starting with the dozen of blast furnaces in US), and transportation (e.g. trains, trucks... more technologically difficult for ships and planes).

Electric "transformers" (aka machines) are more efficient in general than their fossil fuel counterparts (less heat).

Electrification (with matching electricity production) is a matter of national security. If/when fossil fuel would become either more scarce or more expensive (or both), all hell will break loose. There would be conflicts and chaos.

China is planning for long term, and putting resources in to it.

Unfortunately, the US democracy is not suitable for long term planning (while politicians can have very long terms, they are always busy planning for their re-election, not planning long term for the country). Who would have the fortitude to plan for a 10, 20, 50 years time horizon ?

US should plan for electrification (production + grid) and give a strong signal to the industry so the industry can plan ahead (e.g. GE,etc. can prepare production from gas stove to electric stoves, car manufacturers and dealers to electric vehicles, logistic companies to be ready to use electric trucks and trains, etc.), and no flip-flopping signals like we get now. The industry needs to feel confident that their investments would hold decades from now.

All this would takes years, and cost a lot. And the benefits would only be visible decades from now (no incentive for politicians). But at the time, any nation still dependent on fossil fuel, would be crushed.

Correct, we can innovate and make the "transformer" (i.e. machines) more efficient (i.e. use less energy for same output). But the thing is, if energy was cheaper and more available we would just produce more.

The reason why now we most enjoy some time off (weekend, vacation, retirement) is thank to the machines that can produce more with less humans. Now humans mostly drive the machines.

I guess the ultimate extreme evolution would be machine driving machines, so humans could be out of the loop, except for the initial input goal. And machine would extract/mine/recycle, transform, transport, deliver everything we ever need. It would be one big machine (with lots of energy) extracting (and hopefully recycling) earth elements to satisfy humans.

Energy is the fuel for machines. And machines build more and faster than humans. To increase productivity, we need more machines, and so more energy.

If energy was 10 times cheaper than currently and still available (no shortage) then we would automate more tasks and increase the global productivity. We could mine more, build more, to train/run more LLMs.

GDP is tied to energy price and availability. It is likely the main reason why US enjoyed a growing economy thanks to its free oil reserves (and the reason why Texas alone is the 8th economy in the world). Now one could argue that after pumping oil for a century now, it might not be as cheap or plentiful to extract in the future, and we better be prepared for it.

It is all about energy. No energy, and we will reduce to human/manual or animal (bring back the horses!) labor. Productivity will decrease significantly.

One issue I have with the paper, is that it equates energy and electricity. My favorite chart about US energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/U...

shows that in 2022, electricity was just 13.3 Quads of the 76.07 Quads of the energy consumed in US by residential, commercial, industrial and transportation. So unless US "electrify" the whole economy having more electricity would only help a small part of the economy.

Perfect explanation. I did not thought about future events and changing TZ rules (which happen obviously depending on the country/government). Thanks!

Is this article arguing that a timestamp should include space ? I get that timestamp can be display differently depending on the space (i.e. TZ and locale).

But does it mean that we need to add the space component to a timestamp ? Feels like 2 distinct things. Sure, when I record an event, I might not only want to record "when" it happened, and "where". But the "where" does not change or impact the "when", and vice-versa. Those feel 2 distinct properties to me, and I might want to store them separately.

Maybe I am missing something.

No AI expert here, but my first thought was that it could be an attack vector to screw lots of AI projects.

This reminds me an old James Bond movie, with Sean Connery, where he picks one of his hair, licks his sticky fingers to seal his hotel room door. It later tells him that someone entered his room.

Some might stretch a long way to get a phone in prison.

Hopefully in the near future (https://nfc-forum.org/news/2024-07-nfc-forum-defines-next-ge...) you would just need to tap you phone once, and get your ID passed to the scanner, along all the tickets for that venue & time.

No more opening app, and showing different tickets and IDs.

That would clear that argument.

Yes, some events are different, like the Super Bowl for instance, where everyone is screened, and a simple concert, where you just need a ticket that scans.

Not sure how they do it for Olympics and World Cup, they probably compensate with more gates/scanners than a typical venue. I am not advocating either way, which is either keep a ticket anonymous, or tie a ticket to an ID. I guess Ticketmaster would love to tie tickets to ID, so they would know the customers better.

If/when https://nfc-forum.org/news/2024-07-nfc-forum-defines-next-ge... gets implemented by Apple/Google then we could one phone tap, get the ID, the ticket and verify that they match.

But I have no idea when Apple or Google would implement those ?

The issue is most likely about throughput. You want to let fans enter the venue as quick as possible. Most venues have lots of gates, but still the latency at each gate has to be a handful of seconds per ticket. Having to validate both ticket and ID would easily double or triple that time.

Really cool! Could be useful to know where to plant trees.

I was not boasting. But I was echoing the sentiment that we (US) can produce more oil if we want to (as we currently do), as it was an argument against fossil fuel being a limited resource.

The fact that US (Texas in particular) is producing more now, does not mean that the resource is unlimited. Like mentioned before we produce more, but it is more difficult and expensive to produce oil (and not count the ecological impact of fracking).

The only thing that we produce more than ever, means that we are accelerating as we are seeing the wall coming. We are addict to fossil fuel and it is a hell of drug. It is free, we just have to drill. It is energy dense. But like a drug, the more we use it and the less easy it is to use something else.

We need to withdraw, and wean off. The more we wait and the faster the withdrawal would have to be. US needs to build new (extend the old) nuclear reactors, modernize the grid as electricity will power the country more and more, from transportation, heating/cooling, industry, etc.