Rhaedas

98SE, XP, and 7 each were relatively solid for their time. They all had issues, but were far better at being an OS than what we have now or are trying to be sold to constantly upgrade to.

Fire temple I guess. Ruined one, for a mix of center and bottom right.

I wanted to jump into using Peertube, but unfortunately Youtube grew enormous because it was the only thing at the time. Pulling people from it to other platforms with less viewers and usually no compensation is tough. (although YT compensation as of late is a joke as well)

Trolley problems usually have some conflict that makes the decision hard.

There’s a few videos on YT about him, particularly about his newest show and reintroduction to an unaware younger audience who isn’t familiar with his tricks. I’d suggest potholer54’s critique of the episodes, not only for breaking it down on why Hancock is woo crazy, but also reading the comments where lots of times you get defenders trying their own attempts of logic spin. It’s funny and sad at the same time.

I hope Keanu isn’t a sucker about this stuff. I believes some of Hancock’s ideas too once, but to be fair I was like 11. I can only hope he was playing along and every time Hancock mentions a new fact Keanu goes “whoa…”

Thorium was being tested for viability alongside uranium, and got scrapped not because it wasn’t a feasible design, but because it couldn’t produce weapon grade material as a byproduct. Some countries are finally exploring thorium again, hopefully with some success.

Look up NASA’s versions of RTGs. Just because Russia did everything wrong doesn’t make a technology bad, just mishandled.

Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. “Renewable” and “green” are marketing terms, as is “net zero” and “recycling”. I’m not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.

Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.

I’m not comparing them, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.

The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that’s capitalism.

Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too…except it comes from fossil fuels.

The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don’t know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can’t be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we’re not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.

All of this can be improved of course. I’m just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.

Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn’t pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.

I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.

Keep in mind that at the core of an LLM is it being a probability autocompletion mechanism using the vast training data is was fed. A fine tuned coding LLM would have data more in line to suit an output of coding solutions. So when you ask for generation of code for very specific purposes, it’s much more likely to find a mesh of matches that will work well most of the time. Be more generic in your request, and you could get all sorts of things, some that even look good at first glance but have flaws that will break them. The LLM doesn’t understand the code it gives you, nor can it reason if it will function.

Think of an analogy where you Googled a coding question and took the first twenty hits, and merged all the results together to give an answer. An LLM does a better job that this, but the idea is similar. If the data it was trained on was flawed from the beginning, such as what some of the hits you might find on Reddit or Stack Overflow, how can it possibly give you perfect results every time? The analogy is also why a much narrow query for coding may work more often - if you Google a niche question you will find more accurate, or at least more relevant results than if you just try a general search and past together anything that looks close.

Basically, if you can help the LLM hone in its probabilities on the better data from the start, you’re more likely to get what may be good code.

Then there’s the waste product to consider.

No, not from nuclear. That’s an issue to be dealt with certainly, but I’m talking about the waste from the production and disposal of solar panels that is ongoing because they don’t last forever.

Quite the opposite, starting in the 1970s. We’d have a lot more nuclear power and less red tape had the petroleum industry and politics not put a scare into the public about the nuclear boogeyman. Your comment above about nuclear bombs is precisely the angle they took, using the tension with Russia as a prop for inaccurate science claims.

tries to hack into it

“Oh no, someone is trying to hack into me too!”

I think more people know about Arch from it being mentioned than who actually use it. Actually I think more people know about Arch from the meme of an Arch user mentioning it than who have mentioned using it.

The Arctic exhibit.

The instructions were clear. Take him up, cut the line, come back for a refill.

It depends on your personality and life. If you have kids or others to care for, or a social life, or anything else tied to the day-night cycle, then yeah, it sucks. No traffic on the road is huge, I don’t see how people deal with even just moving rush hour day after day. cue opening scene of Office Space Nope, I’m good with this.

Free speech stops when it infringes someone else’s rights. That’s why threatening violence isn’t covered. This should be obvious.

I also note that while the tweet was self-deleted, it’s still out there now thanks to this tweet, and this post, and even my reply, much like telling a jury to disregard something that was objected to. They probably knew it too, the old post and delete method of getting people worked up and denying responsibility.

Bills don’t often get passed on the first try. If anything you should be critical that this is only the second time, it ought to be a constant attempt to change a system that seemingly everyone not making a profit from is against. I’ll also say that the only way anything like this will get passed is through the left, the right does not want everyone to get a vote. So it will likely fail again somewhere unless the ratio of left-right shifts. As is true of any bills that favor the public good.

Bills are often started by one or a few people to get voted on by others. It will be resisted, but not by the side that would do well with a ranked choice with other left-sided third parties.